HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: stoesser@i31s21.ira.uka.de (Achim Stoesser)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Noah's ark incompatible...with Noah's ark?
Date: 24 Jul 1992 12:07:56 GMT
Organization: University of Karlsruhe, FRG
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: i31s21.ira.uka.de

In article <henley.920723114404@wilbur.eng.auburn.edu>, henley@eng.auburn.edu (James Paul Henley) writes:
...
|>     God told Noah to board the ark, and take with him his family and seven
|>     [pairs]* of each clean (edible) animal and bird.
|> 
|> * according to the _NIV_ notes, there are two possible translations:
|>   "seven of each" or "seven pairs of each"
...
|> Uh.....I wonder what would happen to cows if there were only two, and
|> Noah and his family ate one after the flood?

Noah _did_ burn one [pair]* of all clean animals as a sacrifice for God
(according to the Bible, that is). Really smart to collect them, feed them for
several month and then to burn them.

 							        Achim
_____________________________________________________________________

I'm an anarchist, atheist, pacifist, and vegetarian.  This does _not_
mean that I'd bomb kings, worship Satan, let soldiers bleed to death,
or eat fish.


Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: adpeters@sunflower.bio.indiana.edu (Andy Peters)
Subject: Re: Some answers for Chuck (on evolution and marriage)
Organization: Program in Evolution, Ecology, and Behavior, Indiana University
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 1992 17:58:48 GMT

In article <Brsv1y.CFn@news.cso.uiuc.edu> mrjg8679@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Michael R James) writes:
>adpeters@sunflower.bio.indiana.edu (Andy Peters) writes:
>
>>In article <BrsMCD.8rp@news.cso.uiuc.edu> maier@romulus (Chuck Maier) writes:
>
>>>On the other hand , if A&E are just a figleaf of our illustration, and
>>>humans originated from herds of apemen, then it is the natural order of
>>>things to be polygamous and copulate with anything in heat.
>
>[explanations for monogamy in evo deleted]
>
>>I don't know what the currently-accepted explanation is for human
>>monogamy, but I would suspect it is some combination of 1 and 2
>
>I hate to muddy the waters here, but I don't think
>humans are strictly monogamous.  Actually I've heard that
>polygamous cultures greatly outnumber the monogamous ones.
>
>That's not to say one way is more "natural" than the other, although
>it does point in that  direction.
>
>What is important to keep in mind is that humans are born practically
>a blank slate.  Most other animals are born with a host of _instinctual_
>behavior patterns, but humans acquire most of their behaviors
>through *learning*.  This also ties in with the thread karl pfaff had
>advanced.  It is (almost) meaningless to try to look to nature for
>any "natural" behavior for man.  If such a pattern of behaviors were
>to exist, it would be best to search across cultures for similiarities.

A good point.  I'm not sure how true it is (though it sounds
reasonable); Grier & Burk say, "Humans are a basically monogamous
species ..." (p. 369), but I'v e heard the same thing about more
polygamous than monogamous cultures.  However, either way, Chuck's
claim that evolution implies that polygamy would be "the natural
order of things" is hogwash.

>>* Andy Peters                     * "Evolution . . . does not support     *

> Michael James       mrjg8679@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu 

-- 
* Andy Peters                     * "Evolution . . . does not support     *
* Program in Evolution,           * atheism, Marxism, or fascism any more *
*      Ecology, and Behavior      * than mathematics is a plank of the    *
* Indiana University, Bloomington * Republican Party" -Dr. Mark Wilson    *
Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: henley@eng.auburn.edu (James Paul Henley)
Subject: Re: blah, blah, blah (was: Re: Blah Blah)
Organization: Auburn University Engineering
Date: Fri, 31 Jul 1992 16:56:08 GMT

In article <1992Jul31.084540.28560@st-andrews.ac.uk> mrl@st-andrews.ac.uk (  Michael Ladomery) writes:
>In article <henley.920730111300@wilbur.eng.auburn.edu> henley@eng.auburn.edu (James Paul Henley) writes:
>>
>>Either they do, or they don't.  If they do, then those laws should be able
>>to predict things in biological processes, including Natural Selection
>>and Evolution.  If they don't, well...
>
>If they don't, well what?

If they don't then something is *terribly* wrong.  If the biologists claim
that evolutionary processes don't have to follow those laws, then this is
going to change the whole nature of the evolution vs creation debate.  It
appears that a few - so far Chris and Seth - are claiming that they don't.
If this is the consensus of the biologists on t.o, then I'm wasting my time
here.  Those are the laws of science that govern every natural process that
I know of.

>
>Please state your conclusion.

How can I state my conclusion when I am not even allowed to define
the terms that I will be using?  It is not a simple argument.  It requires
an understanding of the laws of science that are being applied.  My first
step is to try and educate people about those laws.  

>
>BTW, when you say "either they do or they don't" (assuming determinism),
>could you add the possibility that they do, but because the processes are
>so complex, no calculation is practically feasible?

You have a good point.  I presume that a rigorous microscopic thermodynamic
analysis of many biological processes is extremely complex. 

I don't expect biologists to be able to make the rigorous calculations
necessary in biological processes, but I think that they need a basic
understanding of what exactly the laws of thermodynamics actually mean.

James P. Henley Jr.
Chemical Engineering Dept.
Auburn University
From: David.Rice@ofa123.fidonet.org
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: The Holden Phenomena
X-Sender: newtout 0.01 Jul 13 1992
Date: 27 Jul 92  18:29:28

Tag: Ted Holden (From: news@fedfil.UUCP (news))
 
TH> "Central asians have been breeding eagles for size and
TH> strength for at least 2000 years. They can't get them
TH> beyond 25 lbs or so, as I've noted (for the minority of
TH> t.o readers whose attention span goes beyond 22 lines or
TH> so), and at that size they lose the ability to take off
TH> from flat ground."
 
Oh, Ted, Ted, Ted, Ted. . . .
 
What the heck makes you believe that UNnatural selection must
result in monsterous sized creatures within the tiny time span
of only 2,000 years?!?!?! HAS ANY EVOLUTIONARY SCIENTIST MADE
THAT CLAIM? I very, very much doubt it.
 
2,000 years is a very tiny nick in the block of time that
animals have been evolving. Given 400,000,000 years like all
other creatures had in ages past, there is every likelyhood
that UNnatural selection for size will ONCE AGAIN result in
a massive flying creature. In fact, I would heavily BET on it!
Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: swf@teradata.com (Stanley Friesen)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Some answers for Chuck (on evolution and marriage)
Date: 23 Jul 92 20:28:47 GMT
Reply-To: swf@tdat.teradata.com (Stanley Friesen)
Organization: NCR Teradata Database Business Unit

In article <1992Jul22.170457@IASTATE.EDU> kv07@IASTATE.EDU (Warren Vonroeschlaub) writes:
|
|  If you study those cultures you will probably find that they are ones where
|"polygamy is acceptable".  Actual polygamy would probably be restricted to a
|small social elite in almost all cases.

This is certainly true in the examples I know of. For instance in 8th century
Muslim culture mostly the nobility had harems, the common man was
restricted to one wife, by and large.

|  In this case it still fits in with explanation #1, as the very wealthy can
|usually afford to support more females.

Or, more precisely, support the *offspring* of more females.
And again supported by the example I know of.

|>  Most other animals are born with a host of _instinctual_
|> behavior patterns, but humans acquire most of their behaviors
|> through *learning*.
|
|  Is fingernail-biting learned?  What about nose picking, or ear picking.  If
|anything these are discouraged, but they still happen.  There is also the
|rooting reflex in infants, and the sucking reflex.  The list goes on.

It also depends somewhat on the meaning of 'instinctual', humans have many
*predispositions* that can be modified by learning, but almost never
completely eliminated.  For instance, sex; we may have greatly differing
sexual responses, but we all have them.  I would tend to include this sort
of thing as instinct.  (Since I suspect that less is hard-wired in most
mammals than we generally believe).

-- 
sarima@teradata.com			(formerly tdatirv!sarima)
  or
Stanley.Friesen@ElSegundoCA.ncr.com
Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: kv07@IASTATE.EDU (Warren Vonroeschlaub)
Subject: Re: Thermodynamics FAQ
Reply-To: kv07@IASTATE.EDU (Warren Vonroeschlaub)
Organization: Ministry of Silly Walks
Date: Fri, 24 Jul 1992 20:36:05 GMT

In article <schinder.711942290@leprss.gsfc.nasa.gov>,
schinder@leprss.gsfc.nasa.gov (Paul J. Schinder) writes:
> In <henley.920723165933@wilbur.eng.auburn.edu> henley@eng.auburn.edu (James
Paul Henley) writes:
> >This definition does not include energy that exists apart from matter.  For
> >example, radiation in space.  Pure energy, apart from matter, is not
> >measureable.  This is somewhat like the uncertainty principle.  In order to
> 
> Foolish mysticism, completely unlike "the uncertainty principle".
> Energy is definitely measurable.  (*Define* the term "pure energy").

  "Pure Energy" is a term I hear on Star Trek alot, but not suprisingly nowhere
else.  The physics I learned said energy is a property of matter, not a separate
entity.  "Pure Energy" cannot exist any more than "Pure Mass" or "Pure Size".

> High energy experimentalists spend their lives measuring it.  There's
> no real distinction between matter and energy; one can be converted
> into the other.

  And the resulting energy must be applied to something (usually motion, aka
heat).

> >Two different forms of the Laws of Thermo are used for open and for closed
> >systems.   One consideration in an open system is the fact that energy
> >can be transferred across the system boundaries due to intrinsic energy
> >of the mass that is transferred.
> 
> Energy can be transfered in other ways than mass flow.

  I don't know if that is completely correct.  I know photons have mass, and I
think neutrinos do too (do they?).  The only non-mass transfer ways of moving
energy would be through rotation, and gravity.  If the gravitron exists it will
probably end up having mass too (or would it have negative mass?), and there are
no gears on the Earth.

***********************************************************************
* Warren Kurt   *  "In our country we have those three unspeakably    *
* vonRoeschlaub *   precious things: freedom of speech, freedom of    *
* kv07@iastate  *   conscience, and the prudence never to practice    *
*               *   either." - Mark Twain                             *
***********************************************************************
Xref: sparky talk.origins:8562 sci.astro:8242
From: sichase@csa2.lbl.gov (SCOTT I CHASE)
Newsgroups: talk.origins,sci.astro
Subject: Re: Age of the galaxy (was: stars & carbon)
Date: 22 Jul 92 21:54:38 GMT
Organization: Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory - Berkeley, CA, USA
Distribution: na
Reply-To: sichase@csa2.lbl.gov
NNTP-Posting-Host: 128.3.254.197
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.3-4   

In article <92204.124953DOCTORJ@SLACVM.SLAC.STANFORD.EDU>, DOCTORJ@SLACVM.SLAC.STANFORD.EDU (Jon J Thaler) writes...
> 
>This brings to my mind the question, how old is our galaxy?  I suppose that
>it is older than the Sun, but how much older?  I realize that I ought to be
>looking in an astronomy text, but posting is so much easier, as well as more
>fun.  Are all galaxies remnants of the primordial density fluctuations, or
>are there second and third generation ones?

The Universe is 7-15 billion years old, depending on who you ask.  The larger
value used to be in vogue until a series of measurements in the last few
years started pushing the age down, leaving us in the uncomfortable position
of having galaxies who's ages seemed to be larger than the age of the
universe! 

Recent HST measurements of Cepheid variables in a distant galaxy (can't
remember which) turn the tables once again in favor of the upper end of the
scale.  

It's a tricky business because you must use a series of standard rulers
at various length scales, with errors compounding at every stage, to 
get the distance to the furthest objects, from which the age can be
determined. 

It's pretty clear that we know the answer within roughly a factor of two,
and that a great deal of argument will develop over that last factor
of two uncertainty.

If there are any experts out there - my question is how precise will 
the current generation of measurements allow us to get and what does the
ultimate limit of resolution depend upon?

-Scott

--------------------
Scott I. Chase			"The question seems to be of such a character
SICHASE@CSA2.LBL.GOV		that if I should come to life after my death
				and some mathematician were to tell me that it
				had been definitely settled, I think I would
				immediately drop dead again."      - Vandiver
Xref: sparky talk.origins:8618 sci.astro:8277
From: swf@teradata.com (Stanley Friesen)
Newsgroups: talk.origins,sci.astro
Subject: Re: Elements for Life was Re: stars & carbon
Date: 23 Jul 92 20:47:59 GMT
Reply-To: swf@tdat.teradata.com (Stanley Friesen)
Organization: NCR Teradata Database Business Unit

In article <Brtut7.2F1@news.cso.uiuc.edu> nash@aries.scs.uiuc.edu (David Nash) writes:
|In article <salem.711858513@pangea.Stanford.EDU> salem@pangea.Stanford.EDU (Bruce Salem) writes:
|>The discussion about heavy element ("Metals" >He) production
|>and dispersion into the intersteller medium reminds me that
|>life, as we know it, consists primarily of the commonist
|>elements in the universe, not the rarest. If life were
|>so special, then why would it not rely on Gold, or some
|>other rare element, not Carbon, Hydrogen, Oxygen, Nitrogen,
|>and other common elements lighter than Iron? I think that
|>the reason is clear, life is not special, it evolved from
|>the properties of substances here in abundance.
|
|I dunno.  I agree about the properties being important, but it seems a bit
|odd to say that life "isn't special," seeing as how it took over a billion
|years for it to even get started on Earth,

Not true.  In the oldest rocks for which such things can be checked there
is already evidence of life.  This puts the upper limit back to well less
than a billion years, and perhaps far less.

|and almost another three billion 
|just to get to trilobites.

This says nothing about how 'normal' life is, just how conservative it is
until it invents sex.

| (Something tells me that once life gets entrenched,
|it stays with a vengeance, but that _getting it to start_ is a very difficult
|process and may be more difficult than many people suspect.)

I suspect the opposite, since it seems to have gotten started at the first
opportunity here on Earth.  But a sample of one is rather too small to tell
anything from.

|>What properties would allow other elements to form the
|>basis for life under different circumstances. The Sci
|>Fi writers like to chide us for our "Carbon Bias", but
|
|What properties, hmmm?  Most properties people usually associate with "life"
|are truly exemplified by carbon. Carbon is the ONLY element that you can use
|to make molecules as complicated as DNA and proteins.  Carbon has three
|redeeming features:  a) it readily forms strong bonds to other carbon atoms, 
|b) a wide range of other atoms (e.g., H, O, N, Cl, S) bond readily to it,  
|and c)it generally forms four bonds to other atoms, whereas many common atoms 
|-- H, N, O, for instance -- usually form only one to three. ...

You forgot e) is able to form double bonds.

That is the main thing that distinguishes it from silicon.  (Silicon is
the next element down in the same column of the periodic table, so it has
many of the same chemical properties as carbon, particularly b) and c)).
-- 
sarima@teradata.com			(formerly tdatirv!sarima)
  or
Stanley.Friesen@ElSegundoCA.ncr.com
From: colby@bu-bio.bu.edu (Chris Colby)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: what's the point, James?
Date: 30 Jul 92 03:01:07 GMT
Organization: animal -- coelomate -- deuterostome

In article <henley.920729114334@wilbur.eng.auburn.edu> henley@eng.auburn.edu (James Paul Henley) writes:
>In article <92162@bu.edu> colby@bu-bio.bu.edu (Chris Colby) writes:
>>In article <henley.920728104731@wilbur.eng.auburn.edu> henley@eng.auburn.edu (James Paul Henley) writes:
>>>In article <n05fat@ofa123.fidonet.org> David.Rice@ofa123.fidonet.org writes:

>>	Um, what is the point here?

>In thermodynamics,

	[yada, yada, yada]

	I'll ask again -- what's the point here? Perhaps some of us
would be more inclined to follow your little excursion into thermo
if we had a rough cut of your thesis. I sure as hell don't want to
read reams of crap by you only so you can come to the conclusion
that evolution is okey-dokey as far as thermo is concerned. I know
that. So tell us James, what's the point here? It isn't going to be 
a mutant offspring of the following sentence is it?

>If there is no driving force, then no changes can occur at the macroscopic
>level.  That's called equilibrium.

Please tell me you aren't typing all this junk so you can pull the
old definition sleight of hand and confuse allele frequency
equilibrium (i.e. no evolution) with the kind of equilibrium you
mention above.

Chris Colby 	---	 email: colby@bu-bio.bu.edu	---
"'My boy,' he said, 'you are descended from a long line of determined,
resourceful, microscopic tadpoles--champions every one.'"
 	--Kurt Vonnegut from "Galapagos"
From: jjh00@outs.ccc.amdahl.com (Joel J. Hanes)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Quote
Summary: Sexual selection strong in species with intelligent females ;-)
Keywords: vive le differance!
Date: 27 Jul 92 15:25:47 GMT
Reply-To: jjh00@OUTS.ccc.amdahl.com (Joel J. Hanes)
Organization: Amdahl Corporation, Sunnyvale CA


 lindsay+@cs.cmu.edu (Donald Lindsay) quotes
>  Michael Bishop quoting
>    Richard Leakey and Roger Lewin
>
>  'As a biological response
> to female sexuality, human males have evolved a penis that is larger
> than any other primate, including the gorilla whose body bulk is
> almost three times that of a man's.'"

I've seen speculation in physical anthropology, including
some stabs at the energetics, that argue that sexual
selection by the female has been an important determinant
in the evolution of penis size and shape in
many terrestrial mammals -- that there's simply too much
variety, and the penii ar simply too large, to have evolved
solely by functional selection.  (Conversations I've
overheard among groups of women out on the town lend
a certain anecdotal strength to this arguement.)

Taking it a bit farther, it seems to me that many secondary
sexual preferences may be selection forces.  It makes a
neat explanation, for example, for why human body hair is
so fine and colorless in many populations, particularly
amony women; why women tend to lack brow ridges,
why their breasts are often much larger than functionally
neccessary, or even convenient; and why the jaw and lower
face of both sexes have tended to diminish in size over the last
half million years or so.

Such preferences, and the reproductive isolation that they
gave to early pre-human populations, may have been important
determinants in human speciation.


That is to say, we tend to create our descendents in the
image of our fantasies.

---
Joel Hanes
Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: kv07@IASTATE.EDU (Warren Vonroeschlaub)
Subject: Re: Thermodynamics FAQ
Reply-To: kv07@IASTATE.EDU (Warren Vonroeschlaub)
Organization: Ministry of Silly Walks
Date: Fri, 24 Jul 1992 20:44:49 GMT

In article <schinder.711999959@leprss.gsfc.nasa.gov>,
schinder@leprss.gsfc.nasa.gov (Paul J. Schinder) writes:
> >Are you are trying to say that the earth is not a closed system because some
> >sunlight gets converted into matter, thus increasing the mass of the earth?
> 
> No, that's not significant.

  Ah, but sunlight does have an effect on mass (considerably more than the mass
of photons).  The sunlight turns into heat, and heat means motion, and
relativity warns us that things moving have more mass.  So as the Earth is
warmed by the sun it becomes more massive.  :-)

  BTW, isn't Einstein equation E**2=(m*p)**4+(m*c**2)**2?  When calculating
energy you have to take momentum into account too.

***********************************************************************
* Warren Kurt   *  "In our country we have those three unspeakably    *
* vonRoeschlaub *   precious things: freedom of speech, freedom of    *
* kv07@iastate  *   conscience, and the prudence never to practice    *
*               *   either." - Mark Twain                             *
***********************************************************************
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Elephants CAN'T gallop, damn it!!!
From: sbishop@desire.wright.edu
Date: 24 Jul 92 06:39:42 EST
Organization: Wright State University 

In article <2832@fedfil.UUCP>, news@fedfil.UUCP (news) writes:
> In article <1992Jul21.183247.3020@desire.wright.edu>, sbishop@desire.wright.edu writes:
>  
>> Ted, you have been told on numerous occasions that elephants can't gallop due
>> to their conformation.  
> 
> Face it, Sue...  you and your cohorts aren't really bright enough to be telling
> me ANYTHING.
> 
> Your "You have been told" refrain isn't adding anything to the conversation.
> 
> Elephants don't gallop because they're too fricking heavy.
> 

No, stupid.
Rhinos can gallop, they are nearly as heavy as elephants.
Elephants can't gallop due to conformation.  Sheesh, how many times do we
have to explain this to you?  An animal has to have knees in front and hocks
in back to gallop.  Elephants have four knees, therefore can't gallop.  If
you can come up with an animal that has four knees and *can* gallop then
we stand corrected.

> 
>> In case you don't know what that word means, it 
>> means the way they are built.  Ostriches and kangaroos can't gallop either.
> 
> Ostriches and kangaroos are essentially bipeds.  
> 
>> And Mammoths were not larger than elephants, you've been told that repeatedly
>> also.
> 
> Maybe best that you should repeatedly tell the authors of Guiness.  Page 111
> of their 1991 edition mentions fragmentary remains indicating a shoulder
> height of 14.5'.  I believe that's just a bit bigger even than jumbo.  Not
> a whole lot bigger, mind you, but big enough that a mammoth should not be 
> able to gallop.
> 
> That was the whole point.  I have at least one picture of a big mammoth,
> galloping.
> 
> Russians probably see more pictures of mammoths while coming up through
> school (the Russians, not the mammoths), than we do, and I've asked a number of them about this.  Several have claimed to have seen pictures of mammoths
> galloping.
> 
> Again, this cannot happen in our world at present.
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> Ted Holden
> HTE
> 
Newsgroups: talk.origins