HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: duffy@aslss02.asl.dl.nec.com (Joseph Duffy)
Subject: Re: Random Chess Moves
Organization: NEC America, Inc Irving TX
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 1992 15:33:54 GMT

In article <n0ea4t@ofa123.fidonet.org> David.Rice@ofa123.fidonet.org writes:
>Who: amorgan@Xenon.Stanford.EDU (Crunchy Frog)
>ID: 1992Nov13.224645.12836@csd-newshost.stanford.edu
> 
>[mid-sized cut]
> 
>DR> "There -ARE- computer programs that introduce randomization of
>DR> its internal code, to produce better code. I've read of a chess
>DR> program that does this! There are also defence department wargame
>DR> computers that randomize, then retain the successes and discard
>DR> the failures, so that "better and better" routines are selected
>DR> for.
> 
>[some deletions]
> 
>My twin brother works in telecommunications (poor bastard!). He
>told me about the programs California TelCo use to find the best
>route from point "A" to point "B" ("best" being the least number
>of physical connections, or distance, or cable medium). Now, one
>would think they'd do it logically (SMILE!), but some of their
>programs use trial and error, within programmed constraints.
                               ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
                               ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> 
>Once a path is determined, the program remembers to use that path
>in other searches, yet it also -strives to improve- that path in
>background time slices.
> 
>As it stands now, telecommunications is a sprawling monster that
>covers almost all land masses, and most are connected in some way
>to each other. Throw in communication relays that are in orbit,
>radio and microwave stations. . . . telecommunications EVOLVED
>and looks designed (hee! Sheeeeit!), but it has just as many
>kludges as living organisms. No one really understands Ma Bell.
> 
>[some deletions]
> 
>And my point? Er, ah, no point. Computers are great at compressing
>hundreds of millions of years of evolution via natural selection
>into the span of one's lunch break during work. Can you imagine
>how much better life forms would have been designed if God had
>had a computer?! (GRIN)
> 

The trouble with this analogy is that it overlooks the external influence
of an intelligent source. If programs and computers are making improvements
using trial and error coupled with randomness ... well you said it yourself
above, these are within *programmed* constraints, so the outcome is
intelligently bounded.



Just my humble opinion,
Joe
From: kalki33!system@lakes.trenton.sc.us
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Flood (of gibberish)
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 92 05:33:44 EST
Reply-To: kalki33!system@lakes.trenton.sc.us
Organization: Kalki's Infoline BBS, Aiken, SC, USA

stassen@alc.com (Chris Stassen) writes:

> Yet another new-user floods the group without first bothering to read
> the FAQs.  If we can get one more before Christmas, I think 1992 will
> be a record year for such occurrences (for as long as I've been keeping
> track, anyway).
> 
> Below are the top twenty posters, by bytes posted to talk.origins, for
> postings received at this site over the past seven days:
> 
> ====		======  	=====		===========================
> Rank    	Bytes		Posts		Poster/address
> ====		======  	=====		===========================
>   1		202186		 70		kalki33!system
>   2		 90433		 31		Warren_Vonroeschlaub
>   3		 72335		 13		Chris_Colby

Do myself and the two runners-up get to make a speech or something?

I hereby donate my medal to the United Fund for the Treatment and Cure
of Darwin's Syndrome.

Sincerely,
Kalki "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)            |
       -------------------------------------------------------
From: cust_ts@klaava.Helsinki.FI (Tero Sand)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Let's cut the crap, Ted
Date: 17 Nov 92 09:51:42 GMT
Organization: University of Helsinki

In article <113@fedfil.UUCP> news@fedfil.UUCP (news) writes:
>In article <1992Nov15.081014.21876@klaava.Helsinki.FI>, cust_ts@klaava.Helsinki.FI (Tero Sand) writes:
>
>> There are zillions of flaws in your/Velikovsky's/whoever's 'theory', but
>> let's concentrate on two.
> 
>> 1. How did Earth stay in one piece inside the Roche limit?
>> 2. How did life survive Earth's journey to its present orbit?
>
>There's a really simple answer to both questions, and it's the same answer:
>
>I haven't got the slightest idea.
>
>
>> Just answer these two questions.
>> 	Tero Sand
>
>What we DO know is that the felt effect of gravity was heavily attenuated
>in antediluvian times, as I have heavily documented on t.o, that this is 
>consistent with the notion of a former solar system of roughly the nature
>which I have described, that Velikovsky, Talbott, Cardona, and others have
>heavily documented the descriptions of this former system which exist in
>antique literature and on pyramid walls etc.  Aside from Talbott's Saturn
>Myth, there are numerous papers of Cardona's from Aeon and Kronos.
>

Actually, I haven't seen *any* proof that the gravity was attenuated at
some time, and also that there has ever been any flood. However, what
I'm getting at with roche et al is that your/whoever's scenario is
*impossible*. If you can't make it even *improbable*, your theory is
dead.

	Tero Sand
-- 
	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
From: kalki33!system@lakes.trenton.sc.us
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Probability of Evolution
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 92 04:56:09 EST
Reply-To: kalki33!system@lakes.trenton.sc.us
Organization: Kalki's Infoline BBS, Aiken, SC, USA

cust_ts@klaava.Helsinki.FI (Tero Sand) writes:

> >Good. Test the inference. Create a set of initial conditions (sole
> >criterion--no living organisms of any kind present), allow the
> >conditions to vary in whatever way you like, and see if you observe life
> >coming into existence from non-life. Look for, say, an E. coli, or even
> >a T4 phage. That shouldn't be too difficult.
> 
> You must be deaf, or dumb, or both (now, what meaning of dumb I am
> using? Hmmmmm...). *Nobody* who thinks abiogenesis happened is saying
> random molecules bumped into each other and, lo and behold, a cell
> appeared.

time t0 ==> no life
time t1 ==> ??????  (You tell us, is this life or not? Yes or no?)
time t2 ==> life

Talk about deafness!

> *Furthermore*, evolution is not abiogenesis. Let's return to that topic
> for a while, shall we? Do you or don't you agree that people, among
> other things, evolved from the first replicating <whatever>, however
> they were formed?

No. Let's get this established first. Abiogenesis says that life "came"
from non-living matter, right? Yes or no?

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)            |
       -------------------------------------------------------
From: kalki33!system@lakes.trenton.sc.us
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: What is consciousness?
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 92 05:25:06 EST
Reply-To: kalki33!system@lakes.trenton.sc.us
Organization: Kalki's Infoline BBS, Aiken, SC, USA

kv07@IASTATE.EDU (Warren Vonroeschlaub) writes:

> In article <B2B5TB4w165w@kalki33>, kalki33!system@lakes.trenton.sc.us writes:
> > And I suppose you think "Night of the Living Dead" was really a
> > documentary. right?
> 
>   Uh oh.  Kalki just entered stage two of the Creationist on t.o.  After fali
> to wow everybody into instant submission, he resorts to insult.  Stage three,
> where reality finally sets in and he starts throwing patches onto his claims,
> close at hand.  Lets hope he doesn't go all the way to stage 5: Tunism.

Yes, we have some expert examples to follow here among you so-called
"scientists".

Sincerely,
Kalki "In your face" 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: keith@cco.caltech.edu (Keith Allan Schneider)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Bad design and vestigial organs
Date: 22 Nov 1992 20:45:48 GMT
Organization: California Institute of Technology, Pasadena
NNTP-Posting-Host: punisher.caltech.edu

weemba@sagi.wistar.upenn.edu (Matthew P Wiener) writes:

>Our mouths are also poorly designed regarding eating.  I don't know of
>any other animal that is capable of choking on its food.  Of course, we
>gained speech in this trade-off.

One time, my dog was eating really fast, and then he started coughing
something awful.  I think he was choking...

keith
From: weemba@sagi.wistar.upenn.edu (Matthew P Wiener)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Bad design and vestigial organs
Date: 22 Nov 92 19:19:27 GMT
Reply-To: weemba@sagi.wistar.upenn.edu (Matthew P Wiener)
Organization: The Wistar Institute of Anatomy and Biology
In-reply-to: huston@access.digex.com (Herb Huston)

In article <By4oI3.Hv1@access.digex.com>, huston@access (Herb Huston) writes:
>>	Wisdom teeth. Our jaws are a bit small for these late-erupting
>>teeth; some people have them, while others do not.

>And when they try to erupt, they're prone to impaction.

Which, before antibiotics and surgery, could be a killer.

Our mouths are also poorly designed regarding eating.  I don't know of
any other animal that is capable of choking on its food.  Of course, we
gained speech in this trade-off.
-- 
-Matthew P Wiener (weemba@sagi.wistar.upenn.edu)
From: german@vxcrna.cern.ch (German Fernandez Sanchez)
Subject: Re: Questions for Ted H.
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    
Organization: European Organization for Nuclear Research, CERN
Date: Mon, 23 Nov 1992 08:24:00 GMT

In article <118@fedfil.UUCP>, news@fedfil.UUCP (news) writes...
> 
>Why not just shoot myself through the head.  Why be stupid and refuse to
>deal with reality when God or something or other has taken the trouble
>to make you bright enough TO deal with reality.  That's kind of like
>abdicating responsibility.  That many of the posters to t.o have no
>such responsibility is not my problem.
> 
I really doubt of your brightness to deal with reality, Ted; you aren't
even able to deal with question marks, you know? This strange symbol (?)
on the right-down of your keyboard.
    ,      ,      ,
German Fernandez Sanchez
GERMAN@CERNVM.CERN.CH
From: kalki33!system@lakes.trenton.sc.us
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Probability of Evolution
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 92 15:50:30 EST
Reply-To: kalki33!system@lakes.trenton.sc.us
Organization: Kalki's Infoline BBS, Aiken, SC, USA

libwca@emory.edu (Bill Anderson) writes:

> : Can anyone provide an English translation of the words "Kalki Dasa"?

> "Kalki" is one of the avatars of Vishnu; I believe the one who's
> supposed to come chastise the vicious at the end of the world.
> "Dasa" may mean "barbarian" or "slave", but I'm not real sure- been
> a long time since I studied the Vedas.

That's for sure. ::)

Sincerely,
Kalki "a dream to some...a nightmare to others" 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: sdoe@nmsu.edu (Stephen Doe)
Subject: Re: A SOLUTION!!! ... to the Collective Action Problem re Kalki's Book
Keywords: diminishing unit cost
Organization: New Mexico State University
Distribution: world, public
Date: Fri, 20 Nov 1992 21:25:47 GMT

In article <1992Nov17.211829.22200@athena.mit.edu> lking@athena.mit.edu (Loren King) writes:
>
>How about ten of us offer $1 ... we all mail it to one
>person (volunteer, hopefully), and that person buys the
>book which Kalki is screaming at us to read, and then
>summarizes it for the rest of us?
>
>I'm willing to chip in a buck or two, but I don't think I'm
>a good choice for a reviewer ... in fact, I say we
>let Kalki choose which of us HE wants the book reviewed
>by, just to make it fair.
>
>How 'bout it?
>
 
1)  First I would like Kalki to post a brief synopsis of the book.  He
has actually promised to post portions of the book here, if he can get
the author's permission to do so.  Provided that these sections don't
have as many holes as Swiss cheese, we can then go on to order the
book.  

2)  The reviewer should have some knowledge of current trends in
abiogenesis and/or information theory.  We should pick someone that
both he and we can agree on.  Otherwise one side of the debate can
accuse the other of being unfair.

I would not be a suitable reviewer, as my area of study is astronomy.
I would, however, be willing to make a small (~$1) contribution to the
fund. 

SD
From: kalki33!system@lakes.trenton.sc.us
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: What is consciousness?
Date: Sun, 22 Nov 92 03:55:16 EST
Reply-To: kalki33!system@lakes.trenton.sc.us
Organization: Kalki's Infoline BBS, Aiken, SC, USA

livesey@solntze.wpd.sgi.com (Jon Livesey) writes:

> Could you please outline the procedure you employ to distinguish
> between a poster who is "too confused to understand anything"
> and one who does understand, but is not yet convinced?

Many of the posts here do not seem to be addressed TO individuals,
but rather to the general readership ABOUT the posts of other
individuals. For some time I have been attempting to respond personally
to every post whose subject was one of my other posts. This has become
impossible. My solution is to answer only posts which appear to be
directed TO me personally, and which contain some form of sober and
sincere inquisitiveness.

I regard as "confused" a reader who has misunderstood the simple
definitions which I have stated over and over again, and, proceeding on
that misunderstanding, tries to dismantle a proposition I never
advanced. For instance, I have many times defined "life" as a
nonmaterial phenomenon, yet there are still people arguing with me about
viruses, as if the physical mechanism of the virus is "life".

> Could you please outline the procedure you use to decided which
> replies are 'useless"?    A reply might be useless to you, and
> yet illuminate points for other t.o readers.

Since I am no longer going to try to answer every single reference to my
posts, the number of replies that are useless to me will decrease.
Others may certainly do as they wish.

> Could you please outline the procedure you use to decide what is
> rubbish?   For example, I pointed out that one of your claims - 
> consciousnesses can contact one another directly and that this 
> can be tested - leads to a recursive problem.  Namely: if A claims
> to contact another consciousness B directly, then I can only check 
> this directly by contacting A's consciousness directly.

Let me see if I have your idea straight. There are two souls, A and B,
right? Are you one of them or are you a third soul, C? In that case, you
can simultaneously contact both A and B.Maybe you could outline the
problem in more detail. Better yet, e-mail it to me.

> Maybe I missed it, but I don't think you ever replied.   Was this
> because what I said was "rubbish", or because of something else?

No. I probably just didn't see your original post.

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)            |
       -------------------------------------------------------
From: esot@troi.cc.rochester.edu (Eric Sotnak)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Would you believe anyway ???
Date: 18 Nov 92 00:11:31 GMT
Organization: University of Rochester (Rochester, NY)

In article <D0kDuB1w165w@kalki33> kalki33!system@lakes.trenton.sc.us 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.


  Gee, thanks.  I sure THOUGHT I was sincere, but I guess good old God knew
better.  Since I can't think of anyway to MAKE myself anymore sincere than I
thought I was before, I guess God will just have to send to to hell, since
he obviously isn't willing (or able) to provide me with sufficient evidence
to convince me of his existence.

--
********************************************************************
Eric Sotnak                   |  One life.
esot@troi.cc.rochester.edu    |  One chance.
From: weemba@sagi.wistar.upenn.edu (Matthew P Wiener)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: It's the Kooky Klepto Knidae Kalki Show!
Date: 16 Nov 92 17:10:43 GMT
Reply-To: weemba@sagi.wistar.upenn.edu (Matthew P Wiener)
Organization: The Wistar Institute of Anatomy and Biology

Oh wow.  I just got through the rapid devolution of Kalki to the
forTun level of one-liner quips.  He's stealing Lionel's barbs!
-- 
-Matthew P Wiener (weemba@sagi.wistar.upenn.edu)
From: colby@bu-bio.bu.edu (Chris Colby)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: game theory, new avian/dino link and more
Keywords: Survival, environment, games
Date: 15 Nov 92 16:29:40 GMT
Organization: animal -- coelomate -- deuterostome

In article <1992Nov11.220916.4256@athena.mit.edu> lking@athena.mit.edu (Loren King) writes:

>Well, the subject line sort of says it all.  Robert Axelrod, William
>Hamilton and John Maynard Smith have done what you've suggested,
>although with a different game (i.e. the prisoner's dilemma).
                                          ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

A recent issue of Nature (Oct 29) had a simple model of the prisoners
dilemna with spatial stucture. A N*N (it varied) grid had a single
player per square with a fixed strategy (cooperate or defect). Each square
played each of the surrounding squares and the player with the highest
score inherited the square. For some sets of parameters, both strategies
remained on the board. Chaotic spatial patterns and kaliedoscopic
oscillations could be seen under different starting conditions. 

There was also a paper documenting a new fossil link between birds
and theropod dinosaurs. Wait, did I say link -- silly *&%^$^&%$
me, I meant to say "evidence that two more links are needed"! 8-)

There was also a paper with supporting evidence for the location
of the K/T impact site (at Chicxulub, Mexico).

Another cool paper dealt with strategies of behaviors in wasp
societies and there was another one about mucking about with homeotic
genes and getting stuff to grow in the wrong place in mice.

And as if that weren't enough, fans of the old/new earth debate can
check out a paper about deglaciation of Antarctica 3MYA and there
is a also letter by Forest Mims III (remember him from the SciAm 
brouhahah?)

>Loren King

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: colby@bu-bio.bu.edu (Chris Colby)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Probability of Evolution
Date: 17 Nov 92 02:03:57 GMT
Organization: animal -- coelomate -- deuterostome

In article <4q58TB10w165w@kalki33> kalki33!system@lakes.trenton.sc.us writes:
>smullins@cidmac.ecn.purdue.edu (Scott H Mullins) writes:

>Right, evidence. Then show us a species changing into another species.

If you read my FAQ (0$ US) there are four examples. If you pick up
Futuyma (given in the refs) he mentions another. If you look in
one of the recent issues of nature, there was a paper about a
recent speciation in polychaete worms. Is six examples enough?

>Kalki "so the computer built itself, right" Dasa

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"

Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: onar@hsr.no (Onar Aam)
Subject: Ted Holden vs. Natural Selection
Organization: Rogaland University Centre
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1992 13:24:30 GMT

>Natural selection is what is known (outside
>the realm of evolution studies) as a tautology:  the fittest survive, and
>those who survive do so because they are most "fit" (the survivers are the
>fit).
>
I think that you have shown quite clearly that no written word is ever going to
affect you. I have not been long enough on this newsgroup to observe all the
eager fighting between you and some dedicated biologists, but from their
frustration one can easily conclude that you have no trust in science. For you (
quite ironically) seeing is believing. As long as you cannot observe evolution in
action (via natural selection) you choose to discard the whole thing. Well, then
I challenge you (and Kalki, and Lionel, etc.): have you ever seen any computer
simulation of evolution? If not then do that right away. Go ahead, look at
"Tierra" (my personal favourite). If you after this *still* find natural 
selection to be improbable, impossible or immutable, *then* no discussion is
needed. 




Onar.