HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: kalki33!system@lakes.trenton.sc.us
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Probability of Evolution
Date: Sat, 14 Nov 92 14:31:59 EST
Reply-To: kalki33!system@lakes.trenton.sc.us
Organization: Kalki's Infoline BBS, Aiken, SC, USA

MANDTBACKA@finabo.abo.fi (Mats Andtbacka Ktf92) writes:

> In <Dso3TB12w165w@kalki33> kalki33!system@lakes.trenton.sc.us writes:

> >>   Please be real.  To model even the simplest organic reactions mathematic
> >> is intractable.  (I assume p107 of the book you referred to earlier)
> > 
> > Well then the proposal of molecular evolution that life arose from
> > reactions between simple organic molecules cannot be demonstrated, can
> > it?
> 
>       That's not quite what he said... It might be quite some task to
> *model it mathematically*, I think you'll agree.

He said "intractable".

> > And if it cannot be demonstrated, then all claims that it actually
> > occurred are premature, aren't they? And if one believes it occurred,
> > then one does so on faith alone, right?
> 
>       This is possible - that everything we do, we do on some form of
> faith or other, I mean. If so, what is faith? I still think molecular
> evolution is *much more probable* than anything else put forth, though.

It is the attempt to quantify this "probable" that leads to our
conclusion.

> >>>> In actual fact, the probability of evolution of higher life forms is
> >>>> bounded below by 0 and bounded above by 1.  Any more definite statement
> >>>> is an exercise in intellectual fraud.
> 
>       That depends on how you calculate the probability of molecular
> evolution. This is YOUR assumption, and I guess it's as good as mine -
> now, exactly why should I switch assumption, if yours is no better?

That statement about bounds was not ours, by the way.

>       Rest of your posting - a *lot* - deleted, as it went a bit over my
> head, I'm afraid. This point I'd wish to make: Living blobs of organic
> (and some inorganic) would have a definite evolutionary advantage over
> dead blobs of organic and inorganic matter, when in an environment more
> or less hostile to the continued existence of such blobs. Thus, life
> could (and probably would) evolve.

There is that "probably" again!

Sincerely,
Kalki Dasa


       -------------------------------------------------------
      |  Don't forget to chant:   Hare Krishna Hare Krishna   |
      |                           Krishna Krishna Hare Hare   |
      |                           Hare Rama Hare Rama         |
      |                           Rama Rama Hare Hare         |
      |                                                       |
      |   Kalki's Infoline BBS Aiken, South Carolina, USA     |
      |        (kalki33!kalki@lakes.trenton.sc.us)            |
       -------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: tlode@nyx.cs.du.edu (trygve lode)
Subject: Re: "Bales is lying" thread
Organization: Nyx, Public Access Unix @ U. of Denver Math/CS dept.
Date: Sun, 22 Nov 92 01:22:09 GMT

In article <7694@tekig7.PEN.TEK.COM> bobb@tekig1.PEN.TEK.COM (Robert W Bales) writes:
> 
>RB> "The interlocking nature of the feather is strong evidence
>RB> that it did NOT evolve. Quoting again from _Vertabrates. . . ._
>RB> 
>RB>     "The typical feather has the two rows of barbs of slightly
>RB>     unequal length, the one which is anterior on the body being
>RB>     the shorter. Each barb has anterior and posterior barbules,
>RB>     the former with hooks or hamuli and the latter with ridges,
>RB>     so that the flat surface or vane of the feather is firmly
>RB>     locked together on exactly the principle of the zipper."
>RB>     (page 434)
> 
>RB> Here we have another case of of *two* different, independent
>RB> things, both of which must be present to accoplish the function.
>RB> Evolutionary processes, assuming they occur, explain how *one*
>RB> thing (at a time) can develop via a mutation and then be selected
>RB> for, but as I pointred out above, they do not explain the
>RB> development of simultaneous features.

Now, speaking as someone who isn't much of a biologist (can't be--I don't
even have mud on my boots), I'm having trouble understanding why this 
should be evidence for design/against evolution.  Let's suppose we have
some early feathered creature--perhaps it has evolved feathers for warmth
or some other purpose that may or may not involve flight--whose feathers
do not interlock.  Now, just as adding barbs to spines makes them better
at conserving heat, adding small barbules to the barbs would be likely
to be even better for this purpose (that is, they would increase the
insulating effect of feathers).  If all the barbules became curly or
perhaps hooklike, the heat-trapping effect would be incrementally
improved again.  

Now, suppose our putative curly-barbuled, feathered creature starts 
taking to the air--at which point interlocking barbs become more of an
advantage--perhaps some of the curly barbules would become more hooklike
(which, by itself confers an advantage in this regard) and, this change
being incorporated into the phenotype, other barbules would evolve better
for the hooks to hold onto and we have our current feather design.

It would seem that something so easilly explained by incremental evolutionary
steps provides very weak evidence (if any) for design--indeed, far weaker
evidence than the evidence that the bones used in the middle ear, or the
correspondence of bones in the feet and legs of quadupeds and bipeds 
provides for evolution.

Trygve   
Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: kck+@cs.cmu.edu (Karl Kluge)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Random chess moves
Date: 19 Nov 92 00:15:18 GMT
Organization: School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon

> Subject: Random Chess Moves
> From: David.Rice@ofa123.fidonet.org
> Date: 17 Nov 92  09:05:32
> 
> Who1: ksand@apple.com (Kent Sandvik )
> ID: ksand-121192183050@wintermute.apple.com
> Who2: lionel@cs.city.ac.uk (Lionel Tun)
> And: maguire@sun.soe.clarkson.edu (Bill Maguire)
>  
> BM> Here's something you could do with this game.  Take a set
> BM> of these games, each with different random weights.  Have
> BM> a little tournament then throw out the games that did the
> BM> worst.  Duplicate the remaining games and modify the weights
> BM> in the duplicates by a small random amount.  Repeat until you
> BM> get bored.  Think that final set of games is any better than
> BM> the first batch Lionel?
>  
> LT> A number of people have pointed out this sort of use 
> LT> of `randomness' in the design of a program. But please note that  
> LT> the program has been specially designed in this way. The use of
> LT> randomness here is very specific and very tightly controlled. It
> LT> is being used as part of the _design_ process.

What Lionel is forgeting here is that natural selection acts on competing
_representations_ early on in the process -- i.e., those genetic codings
which are "fragile" in the face of forces causing variation (mutation,
crossover, inversion, etc.) will get selected against (and selected against
very strongly).

By the way, the probability argument seems to have dragged on far too long.
We've been down this road before. It's not even a probability argument,
really, it's the same old info theory/thermo objection that Creationists
keep flogging. First, there is a formal equivalence between thermo and
Shannon info theory (albeit, I've never understood it in detail). Second, we
seem to all be able to agree that in discussing the feasibility of evolution
from some initial state you have to code that initial state as well as the
rules by which it evolves. Eh, bien.  This just takes us back to the old
question of whether the local decrease in disorder represented by the
biomass on Earth is explicable given the much larger increase in disorder
created by the emission of energy from the Sun.
From: kalki33!system@lakes.trenton.sc.us
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: What is consciousness?
Date: Sat, 14 Nov 92 04:14:30 EST
Reply-To: kalki33!system@lakes.trenton.sc.us
Organization: Kalki's Infoline BBS, Aiken, SC, USA

keithd@well.sf.ca.us (Keith Doyle) writes:

> Plants eat, sleep, die, are born, etc., therefore *poof* have
> conciousness?  Methinks your "sober" analysis is somewhat short of
> sobriety.

Yes, but then, what would you know about sobriety?

Sincerely,
Kalki "with scientists like these, who needs the ICR" Dasa


       -------------------------------------------------------
      |  Don't forget to chant:   Hare Krishna Hare Krishna   |
      |                           Krishna Krishna Hare Hare   |
      |                           Hare Rama Hare Rama         |
      |                           Rama Rama Hare Hare         |
      |                                                       |
      |   Kalki's Infoline BBS Aiken, South Carolina, USA     |
      |        (kalki33!kalki@lakes.trenton.sc.us)            |
       -------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: robd@cherry09.cray.com (Robert Derrick)
Subject: Re: Laying a trap
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL6]
Date: 19 Nov 92 18:20:15 CST

Lionel Tun (lionel@cs.city.ac.uk) wrote:

	[stuff all deleted]

Come on Lionel, spring your trap already!

We tire of 'playing possum' in it.

Give us the coup de'grace.  Slay us.

That is, providing that the responses so far, expecially that 
parsimonious but devasting riposte from Wollogong, haven't already
shown you that your cleverness was premature and overconfident.

No response?   Apology accepted.
--

rob derrick				robd@cherry.cray.com
From: kalki33!system@lakes.trenton.sc.us
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Probability of Evolution
Date: 14 Nov 92 21:26:18 GMT
Reply-To: kalki33!system@lakes.trenton.sc.us
Organization: Kalki's Infoline BBS, Aiken, SC, USA

schumach@convex.com (Richard A. Schumacher) writes:

> Do you get a commission for referrals? Are you paid by the Bhaktivedanta
> Institute to sell their brand of creationism on the Net?


We get, as our payment, the pleasure of seeing self-proclaimed "rational
thinkers" turn into the slavering, boot-licking, do-anything-to-be-right
cowards they really are. While they snidely boast that they are far
above our level of intelligence, and that they are not going to bother
reading any book that conflicts with their delusion that they evolved
from chickens, they nevertheless post at least 50 times a day their
denials that they are going to pay any attention to us!

Ahhhh, it feels sooooo good! Keep it coming, you impotent rascals!

Come on home to Papa, little demons!

Sincerely,
Kalki "see you on the battlefield" Dasa


       -------------------------------------------------------
      |  Don't forget to chant:   Hare Krishna Hare Krishna   |
      |                           Krishna Krishna Hare Hare   |
      |                           Hare Rama Hare Rama         |
      |                           Rama Rama Hare Hare         |
      |                                                       |
      |   Kalki's Infoline BBS Aiken, South Carolina, USA     |
      |        (kalki33!kalki@lakes.trenton.sc.us)            |
       -------------------------------------------------------
From: cust_ts@klaava.Helsinki.FI (Tero Sand)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Let's cut the crap, Ted (an apology)
Date: 20 Nov 92 09:18:07 GMT
Organization: University of Helsinki

In article <1992Nov19.195827.1@eagle.wesleyan.edu> kmagnacca@eagle.wesleyan.edu writes:
>In article <116@fedfil.UUCP>, news@fedfil.UUCP (news) writes:
>> In article <1992Nov17.095142.11840@klaava.Helsinki.FI>, cust_ts@klaava.Helsinki.FI (Tero Sand) writes:
>> ^Actually, I haven't seen *any* proof that the gravity was attenuated at
>> ^some time, and also that there has ever been any flood. 
>> 
>> Always glad to accomodate newcomers to t.o.  I'll repost the stuff shortly.
>
>   Now you've done it...

I apologize. :-)

Anyway, Ted completely ignored the main argument of my post, which was
that irrespective of whether gravity was weaker or not, *his* scenario
is *impossible*.
-- 
	EMail: cust_ts@cc.helsinki.fi   or   custts@cc.helsinki.fi
   "I feel most ministers who claim they've heard God's voice are eating
too much pizza before they go to bed at night, and it's really an 
intestinal disorder, not a revelation." - Reverend Jerry Falwell
Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: ingles@engin.umich.edu (Ray Ingles)
Subject: Re: Probability of Evolution
Date: Mon, 16 Nov 92 17:05:18 EST
Organization: University of Michigan Engineering, Ann Arbor

In article <uqV9TB9w165w@kalki33> kalki33!system@lakes.trenton.sc.us writes:
>The fact that our argument raises so much uproar
>indicates to us that there is a great desire to believe that the
>"probable" argument is true, despite the serious objection we have
>raised. This is an unscientific attitude.

 Kalki, you've never *posted* your argument. At best, you've given a pointer
to a place where we can shell out $10.00 for a copy. I am a dirt-poor
grad student who is having trouble getting enough money for food. I can't
afford to buy my brother a birthday present.
 Do you have special student deal or something?
 Any word on getting permision to serialize this proof?
 Any chance you might paraphrase it? Post a table of contents? Quote key
paragraphs? Do something more than say, "We really think this is unlikely,
and you should too, but we won't tell you why?"
 Is the author on the net? Can we get his email address and ask him about it
personally?

>Kalki "the evolution of sarcasm as a scientific method" Dasa

Sincerely,

Ray "When the heck do we see the proof?" Ingles
                            || The above opinions are probably
                            || not those of the University of
ingles@engin.umich.edu      || Michigan. Yet.
Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: sbradley@scic.intel.com (Seth Bradley)
Subject: Re: Questions for Ted H.
Organization: Intel Corporation
Date: Fri, 20 Nov 1992 19:53:06 GMT

In article <By12rp.67@encore.com> bseymour@encore.com (Burch Seymour) writes:
>1) You seem to have a personaly vindetta against Carl Sagan. Why?
>   Your posts are almost hateful of the man. Why is that? 

The standard theory on talk.origins is that Carl Sagan ran over Ted's
dog many years ago, and poor Ted has never gotten over the shock....
:-)
THe actual reason is that Sagan has debunked Velikovsky (most scientists
just ignore his work completely) and Ted can't handle any criticism of his
chosen god.
-- 
Seth J. Bradley, Senior System Administrator, Intel SCIC
Internet: sbradley@scic.intel.com   UUCP: uunet!scic.intel.com!sbradley
----------------------------------------
"A system admin's life is a sorry one.  The only advantage he has over
Emergency Room doctors is that malpractice suits are rare.  On the other
hand, ER doctors never have to deal with patients installing new versions
of their own innards!"  -Michael O'Brien
From: jgacker@neptune.gsfc.nasa.gov (James G. Acker)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: More for Kalki to consider
Date: 17 Nov 92 22:16:13 GMT
Organization: Computer Science, Indiana University
Content-Type: text
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4beta PL16]
Content-Length: 2226



To Kalki:

     I have been simmering awhile, reading your posts.  It
just so happens that the leading proponent of my favorite
abiogeneis scenario, the deep sea hot-spring theory,
(Corliss) works on the same site that I do.  I am sure he
would not take too kindly toward your apparent attitude that
abiogenesis theories do not have a firm basis in scientific
understanding.
     Nor do I.
     Furthermore, I have been waiting for an excuse to talk
it over with him.  Now I've got one -- you.  Two excuses,
actually, because I found out he was here due to an article
in _Discover_ in the "10 Great Unanswered Questions of
Science" issue.  So I'm going to consult with him and make
sure I understand the details of his hypothesis, which I
will then explain to you.  You are then invited to take up
the probability issue with me, and if you can demonstrate
major flaws in his theory, I'm sure he'll be very grateful.

     But first, to make sure you're up to the task, please
define and state the significance to the abiogenesis
investigation of the following five terms:

     1.  Catalysis
     2.  Gibbs free energy
     3.  Chelation
     4.  Endothermic reaction
     5.  Polarity

If you do not understand the significance, I will be glad to
explain the definition of each term and why they are
important to abiogenesis theories, particularly the deep sea
hot-spring hypothesis.

     Also, do you admit/understand/know that organic
compounds such as long-chain hydrocarbons (lipids), amino
acids, carboxylic acids, and thioesters can be formed simply
and abiotically by electrical discharge in a reducing
atmosphere (for example), or through condensation reactions
in a suitable media?  If you do not admit that these basic
chemical constituents could be formed under conditions
characteristic of the primordial Earth, I'm willing to
explain that, too, but I hope to be able to start with more
advanced concepts.

     Are you willing to discuss this topic?  Or are you just
going to throw an insulting one-line response at me?


     Jim "ready when you are, Kalki" Acker
     jgacker@neptune.gsfc.nasa.gov

P.S.  Due to computer network difficulties, my responses
will not always be prompt.  But they will be good.
From: weemba@sagi.wistar.upenn.edu (Matthew P Wiener)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Probability of Evolution
Date: 15 Nov 92 16:18:44 GMT
Reply-To: weemba@sagi.wistar.upenn.edu (Matthew P Wiener)
Organization: The Wistar Institute of Anatomy and Biology
In-reply-to: kalki33!system@lakes.trenton.sc.us

In article <XLe5TB10w165w@kalki33>, kalki33!system@lakes writes:
>In order for systems of low information content to evolve into
>systems of high information content, there must be a source of
>high information content somewhere in order to "guide" the natural
>selection process.

This is false: broken symmetry.  Consider snowflakes.
-- 
-Matthew P Wiener (weemba@sagi.wistar.upenn.edu)
From: kalki33!system@lakes.trenton.sc.us
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Definition/Information
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 92 08:25:41 EST
Reply-To: kalki33!system@lakes.trenton.sc.us
Organization: Kalki's Infoline BBS, Aiken, SC, USA


Some definitions of information theoretic terms...for future reference.

NOTATION

Numbers and letters within square brackets represent
subscripts. For example, p[k] means p with the subscript k.

"SUM" means the usual sigma notation for a summation.

DEFINITIONS

Let S be a system of events E[1],...,E[n] such that

1)  P(E[k]) = p[k]  (the probability associated with event E[k])

2)  0<=p[k]<=1

     n
3)  SUM p[k] = 1
    k=1

The self-information of the event E[k] is defined as

 I(E[k]) = -log p[k]                            (1.1)


The entropy of S is defined as

          n
H(S) = - SUM (p[k] log p[k])                    (1.2)
         k=1


Sincerely,
Kalki Dasa



       -------------------------------------------------------
      |  Don't forget to chant:   Hare Krishna Hare Krishna   |
      |                           Krishna Krishna Hare Hare   |
      |                           Hare Rama Hare Rama         |
      |                           Rama Rama Hare Hare         |
      |                                                       |
      |   Kalki's Infoline BBS Aiken, South Carolina, USA     |
      |        (kalki33!kalki@lakes.trenton.sc.us)            |
       -------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: simon@dcs.warwick.ac.uk (Simon Clippingdale)
Subject: Re: "Bales is lying" thread
Organization: Department of Computer Science, Warwick University, England
Date: Mon, 23 Nov 1992 21:31:38 GMT

In article <7694@tekig7.PEN.TEK.COM> bobb@tekig1.PEN.TEK.COM (Robert W Bales) writes:
>
> [...]
>
> But the issue is NOT the probability of the feather's being the way it is,
> but rather the probability that that state was caused by evolution.

Yowza! You do indeed understand the difference between prior and posterior
statistics, and its relevance to the Creation/evolution debate.

Sadly, however, this only makes your misleading use of such statistics in
article <6110@tekig7.PEN.TEK.COM>, pointed out in a followup by me, look
intentionally dishonest rather than the fruits of mere confusion.

I *yet* *again* extend my offer to repost said followup (article <1992Jul16.
174939.21002@dcs.warwick.ac.uk>) so that you may defend what, given your
quote above, I am hereby changing into an in-yer-face charge of intentional
dishonesty, in keeping with the thread title.

> [...]
>
> It seems that, contrary to what is often said in this group, it's not the
> creationists who are not interested in discussing the evidence (at least
> in some cases.)      ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

I claim that your quote above, in conjunction with your earlier article,
is clear evidence of the dishonesty of which I accuse you, and invite you
once more to discuss the evidence.

>   Bob Bales
>   Tektronix, Inc.

Cheers

Simon
-- 
Simon Clippingdale                simon@dcs.warwick.ac.uk
Department of Computer Science    Tel (+44) 203 523296
University of Warwick             FAX (+44) 203 525714
Coventry CV4 7AL, U.K.
Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: sdoe@nmsu.edu (Stephen Doe)
Subject: Re: Would you believe anyway ???
Organization: New Mexico State University
Distribution: world, public
Date: Fri, 20 Nov 1992 05:04:41 GMT

In article <D0kDuB1w165w@kalki33> kalki33!system@lakes.trenton.sc.us writes:
>esot@troi.cc.rochester.edu (Eric Sotnak) writes:
>

>> Besides, like many others, I've gone through the sincere questing and come
>> up empty.
>
>It is not possible that your quest was both sincere and unsuccessful.
>
>Sincerely,
>Kalki Dasa
 
I can't speak for Eric, but my own search was both sincere and
unsuccessful.  I am offended by your facile remark above.  

SD
From: kalki33!system@lakes.trenton.sc.us
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Probability of Evolution
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 92 05:20:36 EST
Reply-To: kalki33!system@lakes.trenton.sc.us
Organization: Kalki's Infoline BBS, Aiken, SC, USA

libwca@emory.edu (Bill Anderson) writes:

> : Sincerely,
> : Kalki "with scientists like these, who needs the ICR" Dasa
> : 
> 
> Kalki, um... I don't know if you've noticed this, but... well, 
> your middle name keeps changing.  Might want to have that looked
> at.

Yes, we pondered how best to respond to those who think this newsgroup
is talk.evolution instead of talk.origins and came up with the above
slogan. Other slogans appear from time to time to suit other types of
individuals.

Sincerely,
Kalki "Louis Pasteur knew the secret" Dasa


       -------------------------------------------------------
      |  Don't forget to chant:   Hare Krishna Hare Krishna   |
      |                           Krishna Krishna Hare Hare   |
      |                           Hare Rama Hare Rama         |
      |                           Rama Rama Hare Hare         |
      |                                                       |
      |   Kalki's Infoline BBS Aiken, South Carolina, USA     |
      |        (kalki33!kalki@lakes.trenton.sc.us)            |
       -------------------------------------------------------