HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: news@fedfil.UUCP (news)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Velikovsky, Einstein, and Cohen
Date: 11 Dec 92 21:45:17 GMT
Organization: HTE

In article <1590@tdat.teradata.COM>, swf@tools3.teradata.com (Stan Friesen) writes:
^|> Again, McGowan and others give out the weight for an ultrasaur as 360,000 lbs,
^
^What others?

Articles I've seen in newspaper and magazine accounts which, due to space
limitations, I cannot always keep...  The Avon Field Guide to Dinosaurs.

^|> and McGowan clearly explains how that figure is derived, i.e. by building
^|> clay models of an elephant and a saur to scale, noting the water volume which
^|> each displaces, and then multiplying the known weight for the elephant by the
^|> ratio.  That is infallable.

^Infallible, hardly!  In fact it is generally considered relatively *crude*.

McGowan gives an idea of just how crude it is, i.e. real and predicted weights
for an elephant were around 5.5 and 6.5 tons.  At that rate, the 180 ton figure
might be brought down to something over 140 tons.  He still wouldn't begin
to make it in our world.
^
^In particular its accuracy is limited to the accuracy of the model.
^And just how accurate do you think a model based on *one* *leg* is going to
^be?  (At the time McGowan wrote his book, only one leg from the ultrasaur
^has been exhumed, so that was all that was available for analysis).

I remember reading that collar bones, ribs, and other bones were uncovered
in the late 70's.  McGowan's book is dated 1991.  What exactly are you
talking about?
^
^Try reading some actual journal articles on dinosaur weight estimates, and you
^will see that they are generally considered to have about a 30% (or higher)
^confidence bound.  This is *very* crude, little more than order of magnitude.

30% Off from 180 tones is still 120 tons and more.  He still can't make it.
Bill Kazmaier at that size would be able to lift less than half his weight
off the ground, and Kaz is the most powerful creature his size or larger, lb.
for lb. imaginable.  What are you talking about?
^
^McGowan's work was relatively early as well...

The book is CR 1991.


^, and there have been several
^significant advances in *technique* since then

Archimedes' technique could not be improved upon, assuming you have a good
idea as to the general shape and size of the creature involved, which we do.



-- 
Ted Holden
HTE
From: Dr.Pepper@f241.n103.z1.fidonet.org
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: TEST
X-Sender: newtout 0.02 Nov 17 1992
Date: 15 Dec 92  17:16:00

 > From: kalki33!system@lakes.trenton.sc.us
 > Message-ID: <s74gVB1w165w@kalki33>

 > This is a test message to see if our posts are getting through.

They are getting through just fine. You may now post all those proofs you
promised, and answer all the questions that were asked.


+--------------------------+--------------------------------------+
| 10                    2  | Garden Grove Institute of Technology |
|        DR PEPPER         | Community Outreach Center            |
|                       4  |                                      |
+--------------------------+ Snail Addr: Unit #1, 7872 Trask      |
| But Jane was wrong.      |             Westminster, Ca  92683   |
| Because when the Swedish | Modem:      714-894-7039             |
| Jockstrap Team arrived,  | Fidonet:    1:103/241                |
| things got a whole lot   | Candynet:   42:1001/1                |
| better.                  | Internet:   Dr.Pepper@f241.n103.z1   |
|                          |              .fidonet.org            |
+--------------------------+--------------------------------------+

---
Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: jbm@hal.trl.OZ.AU (Jacques Guy)
Subject: Re: Matters of Gravity
Organization: Telecom Research Labs, Melbourne, Australia
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1992 23:44:56 GMT

scratchy.caltech.edu!justinf (Justin Fang) writes:


>	I agree the parrot syrinx did not evolve to mimic human speech.  
>It evolved to make the complex calls of parrots.
	    ^^

	    No no no! The point I was making was: nothing evolves TO...
Am I really the only one to fume at this "to"? "To" implies a purpose.
I know that the literature is ridden with this use of "to". It gives
a completely false notion of the mechanism of evolution. Sugar glider
did not evolve their skin flaps *in order to* glide. Only, they used
their randomly evolved skin flaps to glide. So, to reword your bit
about the syrinx: the parrots' syrinx enabled them to make complex
calls to parrots. Fine. But "evolved to"? Over my undead body!
From: swf@tools3teradata.com (Stan Friesen)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Probability of Evolution
Date: 12 Dec 92 01:51:20 GMT
Distribution: world
Organization: NCR Teradata Database Business Unit

In article <Bz0J4n.FCD@access.digex.com>, huston@access.digex.com (Herb Huston) writes:
|> If you'd opened _Ever Since Darwin_, _The Panda's Thumbs_, _Hen's Teeth
|> And Horse's Toes_, _The Flamingo's Smile_, and _Bully For Brontosaurus_,
|> you'd have seen that they're collections of short essays, most of which
|> were first published in a monthly column called "This View Of Life" in
|> _Natural History_ magazine.  They're written for the intelligent layperson,
|> and each one can be read in a few minutes (but savor them; don't gulp them).

Indeed.  Scientifically speaking they are what could be called light reading.
They are all easy to read, understandable, and insightful.

The real value in Gould's essays is the way they subtly teach the scientific
method along with the other topics.

-- 
sarima@teradata.com			(formerly tdatirv!sarima)
  or
Stanley.Friesen@ElSegundoCA.ncr.com
Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: adpeters@sunflower.bio.indiana.edu (Andy Peters)
Subject: Re: Compleat?
Summary: Is there an alt.spelling.archaic?  Maybe talk.pedantic?
Organization: Program in Evolution, Ecology, and Behavior, Indiana University
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1992 23:37:07 GMT

Well, I guess I'm partially responsible for this whole thing.  Here
are my comments, then let's drop the whole thing.

In article <1992Dec13.194200.6450@news.nd.edu> scharle@lukasiewicz.cc.nd.edu (scharle) writes:
>    May I say a few words about the response to the "compleat"
>question.  To me, there is something excessive about the response.

[deletions]

>It seems to be a quite minor faux pas for
>someone not to realize that this spelling is acceptable.  Perhaps,
>indeed, "lurkers" may see some of the posts as an example of 
>intellectual bullying of (let's face it) a not very astute proponent 
>of creationism, and on an irrelevant issue.  

While I agree that, in general, extended discussions revelling in the
minor, um, mistakes of others can be construed as pointless bullying
(which is, in fact, why I didn't join in the "compleat" flame-fest),
there are extenuating circumstances in this case.  One of Ray's most,
um, distinguishing characteristics has been his obnoxious placement of
[sic]'s after every spelling error he can find in posts to which he
responds.  One of his first responses to me consisted largely of a
flame for having used the word "gender" incorrectly (he was wrong
about that, too).  While the extent of the flames in response to his
"compleat" misstep was probably too great, we can hope that it cures
Ray of his pedantic ways.

I certainly didn't use the word specifically in the hopes that Ray
would respond to it like he did.  I was hoping, in fact, that he might
respond to some of the actual _arguments_ I made in the posts
themselves.  Oh, well.  What should I expect from someone who:

>is a person of such power that he could say:
>    A science is somehow the worse off if it uses inference.
>    Evolutionary science says that women were around before men.
>    A logistic curve shows basically exponential growth.
>    Scientists don't like to accept creation because it's not
>scientific.
>    Science has a serious flaw because it is a self-correcting
>method.
>    The morphologies of monkeys and men are strikingly different.

And what was thatt about trees not evolving

>Tom Scharle                |cm65n6@irishmvs(Bitnet)


-- 
* Andy Peters                     * I borrowed Dad's jack.  I'll *
* Program in Evolution,           *   return it and his rivet    * (<-Don't
*      Ecology, and Behavior      *        gun tomorrow          *     ask)
* Indiana University, Bloomington *            -Bob              *
Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: jdnicoll@prism.ccs.uwo.ca (James Davis Nicoll)
Subject: Re: On God and Science
Organization: University of Western Ontario, London
Date: Thu, 17 Dec 1992 22:54:34 GMT

>: > 	Why  is the  contribution to this thread so lacking  in  commentary
>: > from intelligent replicating  patterns  not possible  under  the present
>: > set  of  physical laws?

	Also, why is the universe's inappropriateness for  the  nigh-infinite
array of  currently impossible  events and  phenomina  not considered as
worthy of a 'principal' (akin to the anthropic)   as events which  did
occur? 
 
							James Nicoll
From: bruce@uxb.liv.ac.uk (Bruce Stephens)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Holden, Nietzsche, and evolution
Date: 18 Dec 92 11:50:34 GMT
Organization: Centre for Mathematical Software Research, Univ. Liverpool, UK

>>>>> On 15 Dec 92 01:35:59 GMT, throopw@sheol.UUCP (Wayne Throop) said:

> Further still, Axelrod's work with evolutionary models and simulations
> of Prisoner-Dilemma style situations, showing that cooperative
> strategies are not only stable, but are MORE stable than competitive
> strategies in some specific ways is very widely quoted.  There are
> popular accounts of this work, for example in Hofstader's
> _Metamagical_Themas_, or in Dawkins'  _The_Selfish_Gene_.

Just like to point out that Axelrod's own book "The Evolution of
Cooperation" is itself a wonderfully readable book.
--
Bruce              CMSR, University of Liverpool
Use PGP 2.1; make private email private!  
Key fingerprint =  E0 2E 17 55 56 C6 14 D2  03 E4 18 D7 A4 5B 86 20
From: userDHAL@mts.ucs.UAlberta.CA (David Halliwell)
Subject: Re: Men Evolved from Women
Organization: University Of Alberta, Edmonton Canada
Date: Fri, 18 Dec 1992 21:59:14 GMT

kv07@IASTATE.EDU (Warren Vonroeschlaub) writes:

>In article <o58uVB4w165w@kalki33>, kalki33!system@lakes.trenton.sc.us writes:
>> 
>> No. The most comprehensive explanation wins, not the simplest.

>  No.  The simplest comprehensive explanation wins.  Any explanation that is not
>comprehensive looses automatically.  If there is no comprehensive explanation,
>go find one, don't pick the "most comprehensive".

    The main point to make here is that Warren has correctly used *both*
"simplest" and "comprehensive" as adjectives for "explanation". The use
of the word "simple" in describing an explanation is the number of
assumptions, linkages, etc. that are required to provide the explanation,
not the number of things *explained by* the explanation. We want to
MAXimize the power of explanation while MINimizing the number of assumptions
and leaps of logic that are needed. "Simple" and "comprehensive" are
not two opposing points on the same measurement scale. They are as
alike as apples and oranges.

   Of course, Kalki's idea of "explanation" is about as comprehensive
as "...because!", so I can understand his confusion.


Dave Halliwell
                        Don't forget to chant... Liar! Liar! Pants on Fire!
From: kv07@IASTATE.EDU (Warren Vonroeschlaub)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Alife project complete
Date: 13 Dec 92 19:14:28 GMT
Reply-To: kv07@IASTATE.EDU (Warren Vonroeschlaub)
Organization: Ministry of Silly Walks


  Well, I have finished my alife project for class.  I mentioned some of the
early stages here a while back.

  The final stage used 100 predators and 100 prey.  Predator/prey interaction
was tracked as each developed strategies for hunting or avoiding the other.  The
creatures were able to evolve from randomness to structured patterns in about
5000 cycles (one hour on my system).  The creatures themselves were altered only
by random mutation.

  If anyone is interested in the latest code, I will be here for the rest of the
week.  The code is streamlined, several improvments have been made, and now it
is actually commented!

  That's right, I commented some code.  Don't tell anybody.

 |  __L__
-|-  ___  Warren Kurt vonRoeschlaub
 |  | o | kv07@iastate.edu
 |/ `---' Iowa State University
/|   ___  Math Department
 |  |___| 400 Carver Hall
 |  |___| Ames, IA  50011
 J  _____
From: salem@pangea.Stanford.EDU (Bruce Salem)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Response to Michael Simon, part 1
Date: 18 Dec 1992 04:59:24 GMT
Organization: Stanford Univ. Earth Sciences
NNTP-Posting-Host: pangea.stanford.edu

	I don't know if we can trust Bales to perserve context. I
see quite a bit that is fishy in his use of the following quote.

	This may not be intentional but be due to Bob's manifest
ignorence of geology.

	I would like to admonish Bob to keep references with his
articles.

In article <8004@tekig7.PEN.TEK.COM> bobb@tekig1.PEN.TEK.COM (Robert W Bales) writes:
>Another reference I gave, though not in the posting to which Michael is
>responding is [2]:
>
>    "One serious consequence of the mantle isochron model is that
>    crystallization ages determined on basic igneous rocks by the
>    Rb-Sr whole rock technique can be greater than the true age by
>    many hundreds of millions of years.  This problem of inheirited
>    age is more serious for younger rocks , and there are well-
>    documented instances of conflicts between stratigraphic age and
>    Rb-Sr age in the literature." (page 1093)

	Any idiot knows that mafic magmas are notorious for fractional
crystallization. Rocks that are presumed mantle near derivatives such
as dunite and pyroxenite appear to be fractional derivatives of similar
melts. Situations where melts are confined in lacoliths and form
layered intrusives whose compositions are basic show such differentiation.
This is basic petrology. It is not surprizing that whole rock dates from
rocks like these could be discordant as the mineral species that form
during fractional crystallation of melt might well bias isotope distribution.
A fractionally differentiated melt is hardly in situ. The quote is simply
a caution about all of this, differentialted rocks don't give concordant
dates, not the theory of the method for rocks with the constituants in
situ.

	This is related to the long standing error you made about that
Hawaiian basalt with the dunite zenoliths, you know, the one that was
seen to form in historical times, and yet gave ages in millions of years.
It was clearly dischordant because it included older materials which
the melt stoped into the extruding lava. Of course a whole rock date
for that sample would be dischordant. The dunite could have been laid
down in a magma chamber that has been receiving magma for many hundreds
of thousands of years, as any one of the Hawaiian volcanos would be, from
fractional crystallation of melt. The Hawaiian rocks are in fact the case
study for fractional differentiation of melts. The parent compositions
are known to be oceanic basalt, olivine basalt, and yet the stratigraphy
of the volcanos shows that the melts have differentiated from basic to
intermediate all the way to the most silicious rhyolites.

	You see, if you knew only a little geology, what you prarded
around as a negative can't come back to bite you, and it has, for it
reinforces the mistake that you make about dating methods that they
are realted to external and indepandant facts with which you haven't
bothered to acquaint yourself.

Bruce Salem
From: wigdahl@dragon.unl.edu (Matt Wigdahl)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: On God and Science
Date: 17 Dec 1992 15:26:09 GMT
Organization: Univ. of Nebraska
NNTP-Posting-Host: dragon.unl.edu

In article <1992Dec17.140135.28343@city.cs> lionel@cs.city.ac.uk (Lionel Tun) writes:
>
>Hahahahaha!

Can someone tell me where to find the forTun program?  I don't think I
can make it through break without a daily dose of this type of reasoned
eloquence.

Matt Wigdahl
wigdahl@dragon.unl.edu
From: salem@pangea.Stanford.EDU (Bruce Salem)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Response to Bill Jefferys, part 5
Date: 18 Dec 1992 03:39:34 GMT
Organization: Stanford Univ. Earth Sciences
NNTP-Posting-Host: pangea.stanford.edu

	There are, in fact, precambrian anorthosites in the San Gabriel
Mountians faulted in among much younger rocks.

Bruce Salem
From: userDHAL@mts.ucs.UAlberta.CA (David Halliwell)
Subject: Re: Uniformity: miniscule cause and monstrous effect
Organization: University Of Alberta, Edmonton Canada
Date: Fri, 18 Dec 1992 22:12:05 GMT

news@fedfil.UUCP (news) writes:
>In article <724484088@sheol.UUCP>, throopw@sheol.UUCP (Wayne Throop) writes:
>Wayne Throop provides viewers with more than sufficient evidence for regarding
>him as an idiot.  There is the little matter of supposing a sauropod dinosaur
>the same size as Bill Kazmaier to be magically capable of lifting more than
>Kazmaier, the most powerful creature ever created by modern science at his
>size of 340 lbs.

>In one of Throop's recent massive disgorgings across t.o, we see:

>^Further, Ted (and Ginenthal) make much of how much heat energy is
>^consumed by raising the atmosphere, while ignoreing how much heat is
>^released when it falls back.  

>T.o regulars have taken me to task for using the colloqueal "heat rises", 
>rather than saying that heated air rises.  But "heat falls back"?

>See what I mean?  Sad, isn't it?

   Yes, it is sad, Ted. I don't see any connection between your
statement of "heat falls back" and Throop's statement "heat released
when it falls back". The "it" is surely "the atmosphere" (is english
your first language?), and if it requires energy to move the atmosphere
upward (which would be transformed from "heat") then you get that energy
back when you move the atmosphere back down (which could be transformed
back into heat).

   Now, who is it that looks like an idiot, Ted?


Dave Halliwell
Department of Geography
University of Alberta
Edmonton, Alberta
Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: robd@cherry09.cray.com (Robert Derrick)
Subject: Re: Evilutionary Biology
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL6]
Date: 11 Dec 92 11:29:03 CST

Tom Scharle (scharle@lukasiewicz.cc.nd.edu) wrote:
: Ray Cote writes:
:    ...
: |> BTW, you know how everyone was saying how stupid Dan Quayle was for misspelling
: |> potato.  Well Andy misspelled "complete" 4 times.  What does that make him?
: |> --Ray Cote 
:   
:     It is always a good idea when correcting something, to make 
: explicit reference to what one is correcting.  In this case, I was
: wondering where Andy misspelled "complete", and I think I
: know now what you are talking about.  You weren't referring
: to the titles "The Compleat Cotera ...", were you?

Did he really?  I was wondering where this alleged misspelling had 
occurred.  A short trip to the American Heritage yields

	COMPLEAT : of or characterized by a highly developed or
		wide-ranging skill or proficiency [ var. of COMPLETE ]

:                           ...  I should hope that when
: making reference to Dan Quayle's blunder of "correcting" a
: correct spelling, that you didn't fall into the same blunder
: by "correcting" the spelling "Compleat" in this special use.

Looks like that is just what he did.  Ho, ho!

If I am not mistaken, that would mean that Andy was using that
well-known literary technique -- satire.

So, we still don't know what that makes Andy (a Satirist?), but we
do know what it makes Ray Cote -- Dan Quayle's peer and equal!

Poor Ray; the sound of yet another joke hurtles over your head.
       As T.O.'s resident schlimazel, you are the model of complaisance.

This reminds me of the old "mote and beam" story.  Now where did I
hear that from?
--

rob derrick				robd@cherry.cray.com
Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: ksand@apple.com (Kent Sandvik )
Subject: Re: A Response to the Flood FAQ
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1992 03:00:15 GMT
Organization: (Evil Eye Creature from Mars, Inc.)
Followup-To: talk.origins

In article <1992Dec15.191142.2201@aurora.com>, isaak@aurora.com (Mark
Isaak) wrote:
> >   How could a one-year flood deposit the following: "In Yellowstone Park
> > 	there is a stratigraphic section of 2000 feet exposed which shows 18
> > 	successive petrified forests.  Each forest grew to maturity before
> > 	it was wiped out with a lava flow." [J. Laurence Kulp, quoted in
> > 	Strahler, _Science and Earth History_, pp 221-224.]
> 
> This is an easy one. These are not 18 separate petrified forests, but the
> repeated, rapid, cataclysmic deposits of trees from elsewhere. The "trees"
> found are in fact tree stumps, without extensive roots or branches. It is
> well-known that tree stumps that are ripped up in floods often are deposited
> roots-down. (For example, this month;s Science magazine shows such an effect
> from a huge flood in Washington. Gish and company have also found the same
> sort of event at Mt. St. Helens.)
> 
> Thus, what looks like "forest killed by volcano, tens of thousands of years
> until new forest, which is killed by volcano, ..." could have actually been
> entirely been deposited in rapid succession from a forest at another
> location. In fact, I think they presented (at their seminar) information
> that one of their group had gotten a Master's Thesis out of looking into the
> different forest's tree rings and finding that the many layers were from the
> same forest (tree rings corresponded).

In other words, I'm sure we are dealing with a very intelligent
flood that is sentient and knows how to reorder tree deposits in 
a chronological order.


Kent
-------------------
Kent Sandvik (UUCP: ....!apple!ksand; INTERNET: ksand@apple.com)
DISCLAIMER: Private activities on the Net.
Newsgroups: talk.origins