HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: mls@cbnewsm.cb.att.com (mike.siemon)
Subject: Re: Linguistics and evolution
Organization: AT&T
Date: Tue, 1 Sep 1992 05:12:31 GMT
Summary: ah, the usual insightful drivel from T*d

In article <2889@fedfil.UUCP>, news@fedfil.UUCP (news) writes:

> standard theory cannot begin to explain the total unrelatedness between
> Indo-European (Japhetic) and Semetic languages, despite there being no real
> racial differences between the two groups, and the obvious implication

Ted demonstrates nearly the same magisterial command of linguistics and
history that his posts on physics and biology exhibit.

There is, of course, no such linguistic grouping as "Japhetic."  And in
fact there is a quite decent theory, though it has not persuaded the
majority of historical linguists, about the relations between Hamito-
Semitic and Indo-European language groups -- the Nostratic theory.
This is more than a beginning of an explanation, and there are certainly
no *obstacles* to explaining relationships, we merely have the problem
of scanty data to work with.  Semitic languages are very much closer to
Indo-European languages (in verb morphology and the usages of tense and
other syntactic phenomena, for example) than to any of the Amerindian
languages.

Ted's dragging in of race is utterly specious, as that has nothing to
do with language in any case.  Race is an incoherent notion anyway,
except insofar as it explicates the social stratifications of a culture
that uses that or other us-vs-them categories.

> that the divide between the two groups cannot be more than a few thousand
> years back in time.

bullpuckey about race to the side, it is not possible to make serious
statements about linguistic chronology in the absence of datable usages.
Our evidence for Hamitic and Semitic languages goes back roughly 5000
years; for Indo-European about a thousand years less.  The groups are
recognizably distinct from the earliest records.  Glottochronology is
a very weak reed, but it may be taken to suggest at least a thousand
years or more of divergence before our first records (and well before
there *was* a Babel or any of its towers :-)  Hammurapi was a parvenu.
Now if we replace the "tower of Babel" with the "moderately impressive
ziggurat of Uruk" maybe ...  but of course there is massive evidence
AGAINST the spread of all languages from any one center.  That, in
itself, argues for language as quite an old cultural possession of our
species.
-- 
Michael L. Siemon		The Son of Man has come eating and drinking;
				and you say "Behold, a glutton and a drunkard,
mls@usl.com			a friend of tax collectors and sinners."  And
standard disclaimer		yet, Wisdom is justified by all her children.
Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: asiivo@cs.joensuu.fi (Antti Siivonen)
Subject: Re: macroevolution
Organization: University of Joensuu
Date: Thu, 3 Sep 1992 12:31:14 GMT

kv07@IASTATE.EDU (Warren Vonroeschlaub) writes:
>  Antti, if you look at this carefully you will se it proves exactly the
>opposite of what you're trying to prove.  You wan't to find a single species
>with different structure, not three different species with a similar structure. 
>You ahve actually confirmed Chris' point.

	That is the problem: The same data, different results. 

>  Hard to ask them when we are givenb partial names.  Can you at least narropw
>it down to a country so there are only a few thousand phone books to search
>through?

	They are in the BBS system. 
-- 

		Andreas - Siperian Sirri   Siberian Stint

	No ITU, love, evolution.           Tuusniemi ! Siis imein suut !
Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: kai@kai.nada.kth.se (Kai-Mikael J-Aro)
Subject: Re: Holden Numbering
Originator: kai@kai.nada.kth.se
Organization: Royal Institute of Technology, Stockholm, Sweden
	<2882@fedfil.UUCP> <1992Aug29.154509@IASTATE.EDU>
Date: Mon, 31 Aug 1992 08:42:28 GMT


Do giraffes lie down to sleep?  
-- 
Kai-Mikael J-Aro	email:  kai@nada.kth.se	    "Don't win, don't lose."
IPLab	 		voice:  +46 8 790 91 05		-- Yoshigasaki-sensei
NADA, KTH		fax:    +46 8 790 09 30
S-100 44  Stockholm	telex:  812 6154 7052 SICS
SWEDEN			teletex:2401-812 6154 7052=SICS
Xref: sparky talk.origins:10556 sci.skeptic:15643
From: vnelson@ccu.umanitoba.ca (Gerald Vernon Nelson)
Subject: Re: Evol & God : CANNOT Co-exist!
Organization: University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, Canada
Date: Fri, 28 Aug 1992 00:40:02 GMT

In <1992Aug27.125924.21174@linus.mitre.org> m23364@mwunix (James Meritt) writes:

>In article <1992Aug27.050110.21622@ccu.umanitoba.ca> vnelson@ccu.umanitoba.ca (Gerald Vernon Nelson) writes:
>}All life on this planet can only have a single point of origin.

>Why?
 What caused the origin of the very first cell?
 Did God make the first cell?  Yes or No?  It is a binary question.
 
 You cannot answer, god did, but it did it by itself too.

 God and evolution are contradicting theories.

Vern Nelson
From: swf@teradata.com (Stanley Friesen)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Genesis - fact or fiction
Date: 27 Aug 92 15:34:28 GMT
Reply-To: swf@tdat.teradata.com (Stanley Friesen)
Organization: NCR Teradata Database Business Unit

In article <mv-n3f-.alc@netcom.com> stassen@alc.com writes:
|
|Stephen Buckley writes:
|> until 2 days ago, i was quite uninformed about the scientific evidence
|> that blew evolution to pieces.  but 2 days ago i found the following book.
|> in the book _In The Beginning_ [...]
|
|This book may be news to Mr. Buckley, but it is "old hat" to the t.o
|crowd.  When I first joined net.origins in 1984, someone was posting
|arguments from an earlier revision of the same work there.  For quite
|some time, it was even in the "book recommendations" list.

Ah yes, *that* book!  I remember it well.  (I was with Pacesetter Systems,
Inc. at the time).  It was a great source of amusement waiting for the next
installment so I could rip it to little itty bitty shreds.

It was a big joke.  There was nothing in it of any substance.
-- 
sarima@teradata.com			(formerly tdatirv!sarima)
  or
Stanley.Friesen@ElSegundoCA.ncr.com
Organization: Physics, Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Date: Fri, 28 Aug 1992 20:52:52 -0400 
From: "Arun K. Gupta" <ag3l+@andrew.cmu.edu>
Subject: White skin: how did it ...


>From: keithd@well.sf.ca.us (Keith Doyle)
>Subject: Re: White skin -- how did it develop
>Date: Fri, 28 Aug 1992 05:01:14 GMT
>
>
>
>"Arun K. Gupta" <ag3l+@andrew.cmu.edu> writes:
>>So misuse of religion for the purpose of the Inquisition doesn't disprove
>>or prove anything about the existence of God, or the historicity of the
>>Resurrection, for example, but it does say a great deal about the validity
>>of that religion's system of morality. Probably the most accurate statement
>>would be that religious morality is not all-encompassing,as it claims to be,
>>because it is powerless to prevent its own misuse. Something more is always
>>needed (this is true of Christianity, Islam, and Hinduism and probably of
>>all religions).
>
>Good point.  I'd be curious as to what kind of "something more's" you
>might be thinking about (if any).  I figure one of them is "reason", but
>it is not a panacea either.
>
>Keith
Reason is part of the answer, I think. The problem is that man is neither
omniscient nor infallible -- so mistakes will always be made. The only hope
that I have is that people will be doubting and skeptical and never think
that they have the answer to what is right and wrong because it is given in
a book; so that even though mistakes will be made, the door to correction
will be also be open.  I wish Jesus (or Muhammad or Krishna) had clearly
said -- there is much more to life than I've told you.

Perhaps the standard disclaimer should be put on the Scriptures:
The views expressed herein are those of the author alone and may or may not
reflect the views of the management. Use at your own risk. :-)
You will find that you are rarely in an argument with a religious person
who accepts this last bit.

(You can see that I consider it unlikely that the religions will vanish.)

-arun gupta
ag3L@andrew.cmu.edu
From: throopw@sheol.UUCP (Wayne Throop)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Holden and superhumongoreallybigosaur weights (or: more Ted errors)
Summary: Ted gets the length of diplodocus carnegiei wrong
Date: 27 Aug 92 22:34:16 GMT

> From: news@fedfil.UUCP (news) (Ted Holden)
> For the benefit of Mssrs. Throop & Friesen, the concensus of opinion
> for the tracks found in Morocco and listed as breviparopus is that the
> creature was 160' long.

It is, of course, well to remember that this length is a WAG based on
stride length.  Further, I think the "consensus of opinion" Ted is
talking about is an article in Popular Science.  After all, even with a
quite complete skeleton to go from, estimates of seismosaur's length
range from 128 to 154 ft.  The 160 ft for breviparopus is pretty
certainly just the high end of a range of guesses.

But that's not Ted's major problem today:

> Let's assume the worst possible case (from my perspective), that the
> creature was a diplodocus, i.e. of all the various kinds of sauropods,
> the very lightest.  Assume also the normal figures which you see for
> diplodocus, i.e.  around 70', 18 tons. [...]
> [.. resulting in an estimated mass of ..] 429,895 lbs

Ha, "normal figures which you see" indeed.  Guiness gives 87.5 feet.
I've never seen a source (including Ted's own source, Desmond) as low as
80 feet, let alone 70.  Here's what Desmond has to say about Diplodocus'
length:

    J.B. Hatcher, the Museum Director, attempted a paper restoration
    of Diplodocus in 1901 based on the latest Wyoming finds [...]
    The resulting creature was thought to be a little under 65 feet
    long, but that, as it turned out, was a gross underestimate.  [...]
    The tail did not possess thirty-seven vertebrae: Holland now had
    /seventy-three/, and articulating facets on the last of these
    suggested that the tail's tip had not yet been reached.  The
    restoration of Diplodocus carnegiei in the Carnegie Museum was
    over eighty-seven feet long.  [...] by far the largest land
    animal [..then..] known.

The 18 tons is from McGowan.  So, going with the more correct
length, we get

            18 * (160^3/87.5^3) ~= 110 tons = 220,000 lbs

Guiness gives a low-ball weight for breviparopus of 55 tons, or half of
this, but goes on to say that the "largest sauropods", of which
breviparopus is definitely one, are between 55 tons and 110 tons. 

In other words, there just isn't any room for Ted's hypothesis of
"reduced felt effect of gravity" to operate here.  Specifically, even
if we decide that the 55 to 110 difference is a weight/mass distinction
as Ted wishes, rather than the ends of a range as I suppose,  with a
55 ton weight and 110 ton mass, the Holden Number is *still* above 30,
so Ted's own theory can't explain this case.

Sorry about that.

> Assume for a moment that the creature was a brachiosaur, as Guiness claims
> more or less in their article. [...] The number you get is 835,907 lbs.
> Either way, you lose.

No, either way, Ted's just got the diplodocus' length wrong this time.
--
Wayne Throop  ...!mcnc!dg-rtp!sheol!throopw
Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: Tim.ONeill@english.utas.edu.au (Tim O'Neill)
Subject: Re: Noah's Ark
Organization: University of Tasmania (Australia)
Distribution: world,local
Date: Wed, 2 Sep 1992 02:23:00 GMT

In article <1SEP199213020752@skyblu.ccit.arizona.edu>, lippard@skyblu.ccit.arizona.edu (James J. Lippard) writes:
> 
> Some time ago I posted a request for information on Ron Wyatt and David
> Fasold's claim to have found Noah's Ark in Turkey.  I didn't get much in
> the way of response, but now their claims have been pretty well debunked
> by--surprise!--the Institute for Creation Research.  John D. Morris,
> in the September 1992 issue of _Impact_, titled "The Search for Noah's
> Ark: Status 1992," points out that the only person with scientific
> credentials associated with this group, geophysicist John Baumgardner,
> contends that he has *disproved* the claim that what was found is Noah's
> Ark, based on core drilling.

Apparently this Ark discovery is the same one being trumpeted around Australia
by 'Dr' Allen S Roberts, an Australian 'archaeologist' (well, school teacher
actually, but he says that's OK because a goat herder discovered the Dead Sea
Scrolls). The last I heard, Fasold had completely abandoned his claims about
the Ark and creationism. Apparently,Roberts used some of Fasold's 'research' 
in a booklet entitled 'If this is not Noah's Ark, then what is it?' Unfortunately 
he did so withour attribution, and now Fasold is taking him to court. Add to 
this that Roberts is also under attack from the Creation Science Foundation Inc
(since he is a member of a rival splinter-group) and that the media here has
swung in behind the various scientists who are publicly caning Roberts' arse,
and I think that this particular chapter in the search for Noah's Ark will be
closing very soon.

Tim O'Neill
Tasmanian Devil
Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: lippard@skyblu.ccit.arizona.edu (James J. Lippard)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Linguistics and evolution
Date: 1 Sep 92 19:27:00 GMT
 <2889@fedfil.UUCP> <1992Sep1.051231.12284@cbnewsm.cb.att.com> <87565@netnews.upenn.edu>
Distribution: world,local
Organization: University of Arizona
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41

In article <87565@netnews.upenn.edu>, weemba@sagi.wistar.upenn.edu (Matthew P Wiener) writes...
>In article <1992Sep1.051231.12284@cbnewsm.cb.att.com>, mls@cbnewsm (mike.siemon) writes:
>>Ted's dragging in of race is utterly specious, as that has nothing to
>>do with language in any case.  Race is an incoherent notion anyway,
>>except insofar as it explicates the social stratifications of a culture
>>that uses that or other us-vs-them categories.
> 
>Amazing.  The stopped clock had one iota of correctness in his posting,
>and you berate him for this, not for his ridiculous misapplication.
> 
>Race is not incoherent.  It is not well-defined, it is frequently abused,
>but it is no more incoherent than language itself.  And beyond these same
>generic properties, there *are* strong connections between language and
>race.  That was one of my points about how the facts of human evolution
>are becoming a necessary part of modern linguistics.  See the references:
>------------------------------------------------------------------------
>Cavalli-Sforza, Piazza, Menozzi, Mountain "Reconstruction of Human Evolu-
>tion: Bringing Together Genetic, Archaelogical and Linguistic Data" PNAS
>85 (1988), 6002-6.
> 
>Barbujani and Sokal "Zones of Sharp Genetic Change in Europe are also
>Linguistic Boundaries" PNAS 87 (1990), 1816-9.
> 
>Excoffier, Pellegrini, Sanchez-Mazas, Simon, Langanay "Genetics and
>History of Sub-Saharan Africa" YEARBOOK PHYS. ANTHRO. 30 (1987) 151-94.
> 
>O'Grady, Goddard, Bateman, Dimichele, Funk, Kress, Mooi, Cannell "Genes
>and Tongues" SCIENCE 243 (1989), p1651.

And for a more popular account:

Stephen Jay Gould, "Grimm's Greatest Tale," _Natural History_, Feb. 1989,
   pp. 20-28.

Jim Lippard              Lippard@CCIT.ARIZONA.EDU
Dept. of Philosophy      Lippard@ARIZVMS.BITNET
University of Arizona
Tucson, AZ 85721
Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: robd@cherry09 (Robert Derrick)
Subject: Re: Logic and God and Drew...
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL5
Date: 26 Aug 92 18:43:29 CDT

brinkman@si151a.llnl.gov wrote:
: 
 [ the argument that devastatingly shows that Drew Lawson's 'Evolution
   excludes God and therefore implies atheism" argument is fallacious
   deleted ]

Brilliant, Matt, absolutely brilliant.  While I merely spar with Mr.
Lawson, getting a shot here and there, you KO him with one punch.

I am suitably humbled.

: ** Why do Creationists repeatedly fail to see that their is no relevant
:    distinction between natural processes such as Earth's orbitting the
:    Sun and those that drive evolution?  Or more succinctly, why the false
:    distinction between origins-related science on one hand and all other
:    science on the other?

The Religious accept science only when forced to by inescapable evidence,
and then only when much time has passed.  That is, Science can experience
a paradigm shift in a relatively short period of time, say 25 years, but
the Religious can take hundreds of years.  Heliocentrism is hundreds
of years old.  Creation ala'Genesis will easily drag on for another
hundred years at least.  If they can induce governments to ordain it,
it could well take a thousand years.  Consider Spain's vast 
contributions to the body of scientific knowledge.  Consider also
Spain's oppressive government of the Middle Ages and Renaisance,
driven by religious dogma.

Oh, they will also accept it if you can plug it in, or shoot it,
or spray it, or drive it...  If someone could just make evolution
practical in the home...

rob derrick
From: ray@ariel.its.unimelb.EDU.AU (Douglas Ray)
Newsgroups: aus.netstatus
Subject: BOM off the air
Date: 28 Aug 92 05:28:14 GMT
Distribution: aus
Organization: University of Melbourne

Bureau of Meteorology (melb) is off.   we're investigating
						- douglas ray
						- andy jarvis
						networks & comms

-- 
"Now, the real world is not like that;  otherwise, advertisements would
not be needed to tell you that it is."	(Radio 3AR, Science Show)
Newsgroups: aus.netstatus
From: rossc@extro.ucc.su.OZ.AU (Ross Cartlidge)
Subject: University of Western Sydnet off the Air
Organization: Sydney University Computing Service, Sydney, NSW, Australia
Distribution: aus
Date: Fri, 14 Aug 1992 02:31:22 GMT

Some one put a backhoe through the main link to
UWS. They will be down for most of Friday.

rossc
-- 
________________________________________________________________________
Ross Rodney Cartlidge			    |   rossc@ucc.su.oz.au
Information Services, H08		    |   Phone:     +61 2 6923491
University of Sydney, NSW 2006, Australia   |   FAX:       +61 2 6606557
From: ray@ariel.its.unimelb.EDU.AU (Douglas Ray)
Newsgroups: aus.netstatus
Subject: Downtime: ACU: Thurs 27 Aug
Summary: short outage in evening
Date: 25 Aug 92 07:48:52 GMT
Followup-To: aus.aarnet
Distribution: aus
Organization: University of Melbourne


There will be about 10 minutes downtime on the microlink from
the Australian Catholic University to the University of Melbourne
this Thursday, 27-8-92.

The outage is for Telecom's diagnostics and maintenance of a bmux. 

						- douglas ray
						doug@unimelb.edu.au
						networks & comms
-- 
"Now, the real world is not like that;  otherwise, advertisements would
not be needed to tell you that it is."	(Radio 3AR, Science Show)
Newsgroups: aus.netstatus
From: mit900@ainslie.anu.edu.au (Mark I Turner)
Subject: ACT affiliate hub downtime 
Reply-To: mit900@vovo.aarnet.edu.au
Organization: AARNet
Date: Mon, 24 Aug 92 04:00:04 GMT


-- 
This is a repeat posting.  The first one was lost (at least from my
point of view)...

The affiliate member gateway (act2.gw.au) will be down between 8:00 AM
and 9:00 AM tomorrow (Tuesday 25/8), to enable hardware testing.  This
will only affect local affiliate member connectivity: NOT megalink
traffic between Sydney and Melbourne.

Some areas of the Australian National University will also be unreachable
for the same period. 

Mark Turner
Network and Technical Services
Australian National University

Newsgroups: aus.ai
From: awenn@matilda.vut.edu.au (Andrew Wenn)
Subject: AI in business - seeking opinions.
Organization: Victoria University of Technology
Distribution: aus
Date: Fri, 4 Sep 1992 01:14:25 GMT

Dear AI people,

If you were planning a subject that specifically looked at the way AI
techniques could be applied in commercially oriented environments, what type of
things would you include?

The target audience is undergraduate business students with a reasonable IT
background, but no experience in AI. There are quite a number of things that
could be included but I would welcome opinions from the net.

Please mail your suggestions to the address below and I will summarise them
and post them here.

Thanking you in anticipation.



---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Andrew Wenn          Victoria University of Technology
                     Footscray Campus.
                     awenn@matilda.vut.edu.au

                     phone 03 688 4342
                     fax   03 688 4804
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

 
Newsgroups: aus.ai,melb.seminars
From: dnk@yarra-glen.aaii.oz.au (David Kinny)
Subject: AAII Seminar 2nd Sep - Reasoning about Events and Processes
Summary: Next in a series of seminars on Logic for AI
Organization: Australian Artificial Intelligence Institute
Distribution: aus
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 1992 04:57:42 GMT


            ***********      AAII Seminar/Discussion      *********

Title:		Reasoning about Events and Processes

Speaker:	Mike Georgeff
                
Affiliation:	Australian Artificial Intelligence Institute

Date:		Wednesday, 2nd September, 1992

Time:		5.00 pm

Location:	AAII	1 Grattan Street
		Carlton   3053

Parking:	No off-street parking is available at AAII, however the
		Exhibition Building's carpark in Rathdowne St. and the
		ClockTower carpark in Drummond St. are both nearby.

Abstract:    

  We will describe a theory of events and processes that can be used for
  reasoning about arbitrarily complex dynamic domains involving multiple
  agents.  The approach is based on a model of events that explicitly
  represents the domain of influence of each event.  By scoping an
  event's domain of influence, most of the problems that have plagued
  the more conventional state-transition models of events can be
  avoided.  The effect of performing events, either in isolation or
  concurrently with other events, can be described.  We will discuss how
  this formalism avoids the frame problem yet allows the ramifications
  of any given event occurrence to be modelled without the introduction
  of non-monotonic mechanisms.

Enquiries:	Anand Rao (663 7922) anand@aaii.oz.au

Newsgroups: aus.ai
From: msmankut@faui8f.informatik.uni-erlangen.de (Matthias Mankut)
Subject: LOOKING FOR: Andrew Taylor
Organization: Regionales Rechenzentrum Erlangen
Date: Tue, 25 Aug 1992 10:09:08 GMT

Hello!
Recently I got same very intresting information about Andrew Taylor`s
PhD Thesis (University of Sydney) "High Performance Prolog Implementations".
I would like to contact him. Does anybody know his e-mail address?

Matthias

---
Matthias Mankut, Memelstr. 5, W-8503 Altdorf, Germany
phone: +49 9187 2780 (home), +49 9131 699-117 (office)
fax: +49 9187 6471 (home)
email: msmankut@immd8.informatik.uni-erlangen.de
Newsgroups: aus.ai,comp.ai,comp.ai.neural-nets