From: news@fedfil.UUCP (news)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Friesen on elastics and sauropod necks
Date: 15 Oct 92 03:09:12 GMT
Organization: HTE

In article <2633@devnull.mpd.tandem.com>, bruceb@mpd.tandem.com (Bruce Burden) writes:

*>3.  Visually, Kaz and Anderson are stockier than the saurs.  Leverage would
*>favor them.

*	But Ted, I though you have always scoffed at this "leverage" thing.
*    Usually you throw out posts indicating that muscle tissue has the same
*    capacity to exert force whether it is from an elephant or a mouse, and
*    leverage doesn't enter into the picture. In addition, you postulate that
*    the large amounts of muscle tissue actually interferes with itself, and
*    reduces its capacity to exert force. I guess this doesn't apply to humans?
*
*	(Obviously leverage doesn't alter the capacity muscle tissue has
*    to do work, but it does alter the force that can be applied).
*
*	Are you now conceding the fact that leverage does play a part in
*    how much work a muscle can perform?

Visually, it doesn't appear as if leverage differences would favor anything
by much between a sauropod, an elephant, and Kaz.  Whatever differences there
might be due to leverages involved in joint connections would favor Kaz over the
less stocky sauropod.  Again, it's hugely interesting that you get the same
number (weight / 2/3 power of weight) more or less for a max squat effort by
a top human power lifter, as for a really big elephant (16000 lbs or so).  This
says several things:  minimally, that the elephant has simply evolved into the
boundary size level for living creatures on earth today, perceived gravity
being what it is;  further, that leverage differences play only a minor role
in discerning the heavyweight power lifter from the large elephant...  scaling
is the big difference.

*>5.  We've had a number of the t.o regulars claiming that a squat thrust
*>is somehow a very inefficient way to come up with weight, i.e. that animals
*>have some magical way of coming up/standing up with is far  more efficient.
*>They ought to take their insight to the American Olympic weightlifting
*>team.  Those guys have been looking for more efficient ways to get weight
*>up for decades, and haven't found one.

*	How a particular weight lifting event is performed and the most
*    efficient way to lift said weight doesn't necessarily correspond. This
*    is a good example of obfusification by Ted.

Bullshit.  If you know a more efficient way to lift weights than any of our
olympic athletes know, and they all use the squat thrust, then you should
have lots of olympic medals lying around.  I don't hear you making that claim.

*>Unfortunately, I don't at present have any really good way of putting all
*>this into a neat or tidy equation.  Sometimes the most difficult thing
*>there is is convincing somebody of something like 2 + 2 = 4, which you'd 
*>never really thought about "proving".
*>
*>I'm still working on it.

*	Maybe if it didn't need so much rationalization, name calling 


If you want me to repost Mr. D'Ippolito's t.o crew sampler once a week,
just say the word.  I do not ever start these t.o name calling contests;
I have merely made a point of replying in kind to these people.


*>In our age, central asians have been trying to breed eagles (berkuts) for
*>size and strength for 2000 years, and cannot get them beyond 25 lbs, at
*>which point they begin to experience sever problems taking off.  You've seen
*>my long post on prehistoric flying creatures;  I'll repost it shortly.

*	Of course, this doesn't really mean anything. Ted refuses to
*    take genetics into account. (Ted, a quick test: Both parents are
*    6' tall. Their children will most likely be: a) the same size;
*    b) taller; c) shorter; than the parents?) The point is, maybe some-
*    thing other than gravity is at work here?

Then the sauropods should never have evolved at all, should they?  Remember,
evolutionists are claiming that the sauropods evolved from single-celled
creatures, only a few microns tall.

Changes in size come easier than any other form of evolution.  Both 
great danes and chihauhuas have been bred from the same wolves within the
last few thousand years.

Try watching films of albatross takeoffs and landings.  It's real easy to
see why nothing gets any bigger than 35 lbs or so and flies any more.




-- 
Ted Holden
HTE

Xref: sparky talk.origins:13031 alt.atheism:19099