HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: asiivo@cs.joensuu.fi (Antti Siivonen)
Subject: Re: thanks for the refs, Antti
Organization: University of Joensuu
Date: Wed, 7 Oct 1992 14:26:27 GMT

colby@bu-bio.bu.edu (Chris Colby) writes:
>Can I recall times I have seen the wedge shift in flight? Can I 
>trust some of my graduate student buddies who are birders (and
>have very long life lists) when they say they have seen the same
>thing? (BTW, how am I going to assess mortality risk of the lead
>bird from a photo?)

	My list includes 222 species (Quite OK for a Siberian).

	But, to the subject: It's easier than you may think:

	1. First we must recognize the age & sex + some other things from the 
	leading birds. It's rather complicated from a (bad) photo especially
	when both sexes look similar with most birds that migrate in the wedge.
	Also you can recognize a bird and observe, where it is in the wedge 
	(when it has colour rings or is otherwise detected). This is easier.

	2. We must contact the countries that are in the migrating route. In 
	the case of cranes this could be Russia, Finland, Estonia, Latvia, 
	Lithuania, Poland, Bohemia, Slovakia, Rumania, Ukraine and Hungary
	(perhaps also Austria). Do they have any winter observations of those
	(marked) cranes ? Do they survive winter ?

			---------------------

	It's difficult but it's possible AND it is done nowadays increasingly.
	I have myself contacted Estonian ornithologists from Tarttu and they
	have those winter observations from their country. 

	(Cranes can't usually survive Estonian winter) 
-- 

		Andreas - Siperian Sirri   Siberian Stint

	No ITU, love, evolution.           Tuusniemi ! Siis imein suut !
From: kmagnacca@eagle.wesleyan.edu
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: pi=3 (was Re: Abuse By t.o Regulars)
Date: 15 Oct 92 20:33:59 GMT
 <1992Oct12.061257.11171@trl.oz.au> <18939.2add562f@levels.unisa.edu.au>
Organization: Wesleyan University

In article <18939.2add562f@levels.unisa.edu.au>, 9051467f@levels.unisa.edu.au (Wild Child) writes:
> 
> I'll bite:
>
>  [calculations deleted]
> 
> I don't know what to make of this result...    anybody spot an error?

   A blatant one.  Nothing except a perfectly calm ocean is 
going to conform perfectly to the curvature of the earth.
You could make a circle on almost any kind of surface going
at whatever angle and get very strange numbers for the
apparent pi.  A temple in particular would be built on a 
flat surface, which would negate any curvature calculation.

Karl
Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: ingles@engin.umich.edu (Ray Ingles)
Subject: Re: Applauses to Ted
Date: Thu, 08 Oct 92 16:40:21 EDT
Organization: University of Michigan Engineering, Ann Arbor

In article <544-0T_@engin.umich.edu> ingles@engin.umich.edu (I) write:
>In article <1992Oct8.101718.13261@nic.funet.fi> Teemu Makinen writes:
>
>[deletions]
>
>>   OK, Ted, you are primarily concerned about the question how those good ole
>>saurs managed with their enormous body mass. A simple calculation gives the

 [deletions]

>>   Why not, for example, say that the Earth has been bigger and less dense by
>>that time? That would give the gravity difference you are looking for. It's
>>only to say, that the gravitational force has pulled the Earth into a smaller
>>planet than it was before. It would also give to you some anomalous mountain
>>formations as the surface area shrinks.
>
> Um... actually, that won't work. For a sphere (which Earth is, at least
>close enough for these purposes) the g outside the sphere depends only
>on the mass of the sphere, whether or not the sphere is hollow. In fact,
>Newton invented calculus to calculate this very result, I'm told...
> Of course, we shouldn't let such things stand in Ted's way. They haven't
>before...

 I hereby retract the above. As has since ben pointed out to me via email,
(and doubtless by a bunch of posts that I haven't yet read) it's distance
from the center of gravity that is the important thing, and making the
Earth less dense with the same mass (E.g. a hollow Earth or whatever)
would indeed reduce g on the surface of the Earth. I stuck my net.foot in
my net.mouth, and I apologize.

>>Teemu Makinen  ---- teemu.makinen@fmi.fi

Sincerely,

Ray Ingles                  || The above opinions are probably
                            || not those of the University of
ingles@engin.umich.edu      || Michigan. Yet.
Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: Teemu Makinen
Subject: Re: Uneven felt gravity
Organization: Finnish Academic and Research Network Project - FUNET
Date: Fri, 9 Oct 92 07:21:04 GMT

In article <64@fedfil.UUCP> news@fedfil.UUCP (news) writes:
>As far as I know, I am the first and only person who has tried to
>quantify the extent of the problem which large animals would face in our
>present gravitational system.
>
>-- 
>Ted Holden
>HTE
>

THERE IT IS! As a Finn I finally understand Ted's stubborn behaviour. Got peace
in my soul. Wouldn't it be nice, oh yeah, but life ain't that easy.
I'm not going to access Ted's postings any more.

Teemu Makinen   ---   teemu.makinen@fmi.fi
Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: kv07@IASTATE.EDU (Warren Vonroeschlaub)
Subject: Re: Applauses to Ted
Reply-To: kv07@IASTATE.EDU (Warren Vonroeschlaub)
Organization: Ministry of Silly Walks
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 1992 14:10:49 GMT

In article <1564@esl.ESL.COM>, markwc@barney.esl.com (Mark Christiansen)
writes:
> In article <1992Oct13.163458@IASTATE.EDU>
> kv07@IASTATE.EDU (Warren Vonroeschlaub) writes:
> >
> >In article <1558@esl.ESL.COM>
> >markwc@barney.esl.com (Mark Christiansen) writes:
> >> 
> >> Why does a less dense Earth have to be so ridiculous?  Couldn't
> >> the Earth have originally been formed as a less packed, larger
> >> body that has since gradually become more packed or dense from
> >> the forces of gravity?  In so doing, the forces of gravity at
> >> the surface would increase with time.  In fact, wasn't the Earth
> >> formed by gravitational collecting of "loose" matter?  If so,
> >> then the Earth had extremely low density at one time!
> >
> > Uh, can't happen.  If we assume the above then there is no
> >catastrophe.  How can we be known as catastrophists without a
> >catastrophe?
> 
> Why do you require a catastrophe?  Dinasaurs took many years evolve
> and could easily take many years to become extinct with a gradual
> increase in Earth density (causing the larger beasts to be less fit to
> continue).  This density increase (radius decrease) just needs to be
> faster than the dinasaurs can evolve to smaller creatures.

  Is this -5 for failing to detect sarcasm?

 |  __L__   *******************************
-|-  ___    * Warren Kurt vonRoeschlaub   *
 |  | o |   * kv07@iastate.edu            *
 |/ `---'   * Iowa State University       *
/|   ___    * Math Department             *
 |  |___|   * 400 Carver Hall             *
 |  |___|   * Ames, IA  50011             *
 J  _____   *******************************
From: swf@teradata.com (Stanley Friesen)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Water Sorting
Date: 7 Oct 92 20:01:07 GMT
Reply-To: swf@tdat.teradata.com (Stanley Friesen)
Organization: NCR Teradata Database Business Unit

In article <0+4-QK+@engin.umich.edu> ingles@engin.umich.edu (Ray Ingles) writes:
| Oh, come on, Lionel, really. This is kinda boorish. I mean, here there
|have been any number of posts in the past week or two on why hydrological
|sorting is a Bad Idea, for reasons like...
| 
| 1) Known hydrodynamic principles ...
| 
| 2) Known geological principles ...
|
| 3) We find actual footprints in layers that, according to the flood
|"model," should have been miles under water,
|
 4) The fact that fossils are not sorted by size to the degree required by
 the flood model.  Microfossils are found nearly *uniformly* throughout the
 major portion of the geologic column, and the size distribution of larger
 fossils is *not* uniformly varying over the geologic column - the largest
 forms are found in the upper-mid range (dinosaurs) with distinctly smaller
 forms both above and below.  (And this saw-toothed pattern becomes even
 *more* pronounced when you look at the geologic column in increasing detail).
-- 
sarima@teradata.com			(formerly tdatirv!sarima)
  or
Stanley.Friesen@ElSegundoCA.ncr.com
From: kingsley@hpwrce.mayfield.hp.com (Kingsley Morse)
Date: Wed, 7 Oct 1992 19:47:18 GMT
Subject: Please Help
Organization: HP Western Response Center
Newsgroups: talk.origins

              Please answer these 9 questions and return.

1.) Do you think equal rights for men and women is generally a good idea?
Yes                  [ ]
Sometimes            [ ]
No                   [ ]
Haven't heard enough [ ]
Other                [ ]

2.) Are you pro choice?
Yes                  [ ]
Sometimes            [ ]
No                   [ ]
Haven't heard enough [ ]
Other                [ ]

3.) Are you in favor of adoption?
Yes                  [ ]
Sometimes            [ ]
No                   [ ]
Haven't heard enough [ ]
Other                [ ]

4.) Do you think men should be allowed to legally terminate their parental
rights and responsibilities before fetal viability?
Yes                  [ ]
Sometimes            [ ]
No                   [ ]
Haven't heard enough [ ]
Other                [ ]

5.) What sex are you?
Male               [ ]
Female             [ ]

6.) How old are you?
Under 18           [ ]
19 to 65           [ ]
Over 65            [ ]

7.) What religion are you?
Protestant         [ ]
Catholic           [ ]
Jewish             [ ]
Other              [ ]

8.) What political party are you affiliated with?
Democratic         [ ]
Republican         [ ]
Other              [ ]

9.) How many years of education have you completed?
Grade School       [ ]
High School        [ ]
College            [ ]
More               [ ]
From: amorgan@csd-d-5.Stanford.EDU (Crunchy Frog)
Subject: Re: Applauses to Ted
Originator: amorgan@csd-d-5.Stanford.EDU
Organization: /usr/lib/news/organizatoin
Date: Thu, 8 Oct 1992 16:23:11 GMT

In article <1992Oct8.101718.13261@nic.funet.fi> Teemu Makinen writes:

New ideas for the Ted mill deleted.

>   Why not, for example, say that the Earth has been bigger and less dense by
>that time? That would give the gravity difference you are looking for. It's
>only to say, that the gravitational force has pulled the Earth into a smaller
>planet than it was before. It would also give to you some anomalous mountain
>formations as the surface area shrinks.

Or better yet Ted, why not try the Mesklin approach (Earth spins like a
whirling Velikovsky reducing the gravity at the equator (and turning
the Earth into a sort of discus shape (don't you love nested parens?)))?

>Teemu Makinen  ---- teemu.makinen@fmi.fi

I think Ted needs the funky orbit so that he can get Saturn into the
Earth's sky.  I have no idea why (okay, I know *his* reasons, but they
don't make sense).

C Frog
Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: ksand@apple.com (Kent Sandvik)
Subject: Re: Object-oriented creation
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1992 01:28:43 GMT
Organization: Apple
Followup-To: talk.origins

In article <Bvw30B.3yo@well.sf.ca.us>, keithd@well.sf.ca.us (Keith Doyle)
wrote:
> OOP provides the ability for multiple inheritance, while relatedness
> of organisms shows that any inheritance (whether by "design" or otherwise)
> only occurs in a hierarchical fashion.  It would be like telling the
> programmer, "you can't write any NEW routines, you can only derive new
> routines with slight modifications of preexisting routines."

Well, Smalltalk is a good example of a successful OOP paradigm that
lacks the support of multiple inheritance. Actually this is the original
classical school of thinking concerning inheritance (delegation), and 
the new school supporting mixin multiple inheriance belongs to the 
C++/CLOS side.

Anyway, I just must state that I'm not a believer in Object Oriented
creationism. It's ludicrous to map creation design on the current
flavor-of-the-month concerning software design. In the seventies
the creator used structured programming, in the early eighties
CASE tools, today object oriented programming, and five years from
now neural networks and reflective programming paradigms. Sigh. I hope
a possible creator is a little bit more smart than following the crowd
of software consultants.

Cheers,
Kent
It is one of the superstitions of the human mind to have imagined that
virginity could be a virtue.  -- Voltaire
-------------------
Kent Sandvik (UUCP: ....!apple!ksand; INTERNET: ksand@apple.com)
DISCLAIMER: Private activities on the Net.
Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: lionel@cs.city.ac.uk (Lionel Tun)
Subject: Re: Plant Death before the Fall (Gall Bladders Anyone?)
Organization: City University, London
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 92 14:33:36 GMT

In article <1243@tdat.teradata.COM> swf@tdat.teradata.com (Stanley Friesen) writes:
>In article <Bvw345.41E@well.sf.ca.us> keithd@well.sf.ca.us (Keith Doyle) writes:
>|
>|I presume now that we have determined that felines
>|Also, aren't there some species whose young are born inside
>|the body of one of the parents, and who eat their way out
>|or something like that, implying that they too, may have
>|had to go through a bit of evolution after the Fall to get
>|to such a state.
>
>Yep, there are several such.  Also species of *parasite* that are specialized
>to take over a host's body as they grow from egg to pupa.  [This one is
>*really* gross - even to a trained biologist].

This sort of thing `nature red in tooth and claw', did not
happen before the Fall. I agree - its really ugly how life
has been corrupted by Sin.

--
Lionel Tun   (lionel@cs.city.ac.uk)
Vision Group, City University, London, EC1V 0HB. 071-477 8000 x 3889
From: 9051467f@levels.unisa.edu.au (Wild Child)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: pi=3 (was Re: Abuse By t.o Regulars)
Date: 15 Oct 92 01:59:50 GMT
Organization: University of South Australia

In article <1992Oct12.061257.11171@trl.oz.au>, jbm@hal.trl.OZ.AU
(Jacques Guy) writes:
> gascan@dcst16.dc (Bill Gascoyne) writes:

> You've just answered your question: "the ratio of circumference to diameter
> of a *Euclidean* circle". The original poster (I tried to retrieve the
> message, but it was expired) had written that pi<3.1416 in a NON-Euclidean
> space (he'd used the surface of the earth, I think). I was certain he must
> have had his tongue in his cheek and was just trying to see if he could
> start a wonderful red herring, up the garden path etc. So I put my tongue
> in the same place, too. But perhaps he was being serious. You get all
> kinds here. Perhaps he did believe that, because that Biblical vessel
> was on the earth, and the earth is spherical, the ratio of its circumference
> to its diameter could be 3? 

I'll bite:
r=radius of earth = roughly 40,000,000 / 3.14159265 metres
					 ^^ I have this in my head. Shows
					    how sick I am...
z=temple circumference = about 30m
y=temple diameter = about 10m

m=real diameter through surface
X=angle between earth centre and lines to opposite sides of temple
p'=apparent pi, z/m

               m
               ______
               \    /
               r\X /r
                 \/

simple triangle rule: m^2=r^2+r^2 -2rrcosX
                      m=r*sqrt(2-2cosX)    [9.991 metres]
therefore, p'=30/m, which comes to 3.0025. Given the accuracy
of the data used, I'd say that this is indeed 3.
It doesn't go to 3.14 until the radius drops to 9.543 metres...

I don't know what to make of this result...    anybody spot an error?


Ominous...
-- 
John J McVey, Whyalla, Uni S. Australia    9051467f@levels.unisa.edu.au
Electronic Engineering student & Terror Tekkie!
	+-----------------------------------------------------+
     ---|  Obligatory disclaimer: UniSA hates my opinions...  |---
	+-----------------------------------------------------+
From: m23364@mwunix (James Meritt)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: FAQ or info on creationism
Date: 14 Oct 92 16:38:33 GMT
Organization: MITRE Corporation, McLean VA

In article <1992Oct13.101238.17285@bio.vu.nl> admiraal@bio.vu.nl (Alexander Admiraal) writes:
}hello, I am a biology student doing a project on creationism vs.the 
}theory of evolution. I understand that this group has some sort
}of information file which is sent to creationists who post to this
}group. I would very much like to receive this file 

If it has information on the theory of creationism (rigidely formulated)
and evidence FOR creationism, I would like to see it, too.

I've looked and asked for years.  :-(
Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: kv07@IASTATE.EDU (Warren Vonroeschlaub)
Subject: Re: Microevolution and Macroevolution
Reply-To: kv07@IASTATE.EDU (Warren Vonroeschlaub)
Organization: Ministry of Silly Walks
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1992 16:07:52 GMT

In article <1bd9n8INNprv@fido.asd.sgi.com>, livesey@solntze.wpd.sgi.com (Jon
Livesey) writes:
> But what is "dynamic range"?   Surely Mr Aan now has to
> show us evidence that such a thing as Dynamic Range really
> exists, or even better, tell us how it works.

  What I think he is trying to say (please correct me if I'm wrong) is that any
given creature can only vary a small amount due to mutation.  This is certainly
true in most cases.  I believe I read in Sci Amer (okay, so I'm not a biologist)
that human (and I suppose most animal) cells "suicide" if their chromosome don't
match closely enough.  This is supposed to be the same mechanism that prevents
species from interbreeding (in the article they talked about how it also gave
the boon of limited cancer prevention).

  So if we allow error bars in our mutations, but limit them, we get the species
having offspring like this:

        {--|--}  <-parent with mutation limiting error bars
         . . .   <-children
       .       . <-impossible children (too mutated) 

  What Mr. Aan seems to forget is that mutation can slip into speciation by
cumulative changes within the range (the ranging is, after all, dynamic: the
error bars move along with the original creature).  So the evolution of a new
species may look like:

     {--|--}
      {--|--}
        {--|--}
         {--|--}
           {--|--}
             {--|--}

  Not that each generation falls within the acceptable mutation distance of its
predecessors, but the final creature does not even overlap the error bars of the
ancestor: they have become different species even with limitations on each step
of mutation.

  The interesting thing is that there is no way to solve this problem.  No
matter how much error detection or correction there is, the cumulative changes
can still build up to a new species.

 |  __L__   *******************************
-|-  ___    * Warren Kurt vonRoeschlaub   *
 |  | o |   * kv07@iastate.edu            *
 |/ `---'   * Iowa State University       *
/|   ___    * Math Department             *
 |  |___|   * 400 Carver Hall             *
 |  |___|   * Ames, IA  50011             *
 J  _____   *******************************
Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: isaak@aurora.com (Mark Isaak)
Subject: Re: Plant Death before the Fall (Dead Rodents Anyone?)
Reply-To: isaak@aurora.com (Mark Isaak)
Organization: The Aurora Group
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 92 19:10:44 GMT

In article <1992Oct13.112302@IASTATE.EDU> kv07@IASTATE.EDU (Warren Vonroeschlaub) writes:
>A housecat has no idea what to do with the dead animal once it is dead.

Of course it does.  It knows to drop it on your doorstep, or, if you
let it inside, on your bed.  Aren't kitty cats sweet?  :-)
-- 
Mark Isaak           "Every generation thinks it has the answers, and every
isaak@aurora.com      generation is humbled by nature." - Philip Lubin
Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: isaak@aurora.com (Mark Isaak)
Subject: Re: t.o., the home game
Summary: Some additional rules.
Reply-To: isaak@aurora.com (Mark Isaak)
Organization: The Aurora Group
Date: Thu, 8 Oct 92 23:36:39 GMT

In article <97924@bu.edu> colby@bu-bio.bu.edu (Chris Colby) writes:
>Below is my proposal for making debating on t.o. a competitive event.
>
>SCORING POINTS

[much deleted]

+5 for each time you get a Creationist to talk about Creationism.

+500 and entry into the t.o. Hall of Fame if you ever prompt one
to give a theory of Creationism.

>PENALTIES

-2 for posting something which has no relevance to the Subject line.

-- 
Mark Isaak           "Every generation thinks it has the answers, and every
isaak@aurora.com      generation is humbled by nature." - Philip Lubin
Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: keithd@well.sf.ca.us (Keith Doyle)
Subject: Hair and Feathers
Organization: Whole Earth 'Lectronic Link
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 1992 03:45:26 GMT



The other night on late night cable TV, they were showing some old
Ripley's films as filler.  On one of the films, there was an example of
a small family of chickens that had been bred for hair instead of
feathers.  A short motion picture segment of several of these chickens
were shown, including a closeup or two.  While I would hardly regard
"Ripleys" as a scientific source, and there were no details given that
could be investigated further, but it does seem to be another indication
of the idea that hair and feathers are a genetic "toggle" as I have
once seen references to elsewhere (but have been unable to locate again).
It would seem that someone in the poultry industry might have run across
such anomalies as well.  I do remember from one reference that it was
explained that the difference between a hair and feather was a simple
inversion at some low structural level (something about the follicle
went in in one case and out in the other).

I've asked this one before, but the Ripley's reminded me so I'm noting
it again, if anyone encounters a specific reference of some of the
details of the differences in hair and feathers, or evidence that it may
be a simple genetic step, please post the information to talk.origins
and/or mail it to me.

Keith
well!keithd
From: livesey@solntze.wpd.sgi.com (Jon Livesey)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Why is it bad science?
Date: 11 Oct 92 00:26:49 GMT
Organization: sgi
NNTP-Posting-Host: solntze.wpd.sgi.com

In article <Bvw1tz.3BK@well.sf.ca.us>, keithd@well.sf.ca.us (Keith Doyle) writes:
|> 
|> livesey@solntze.esd.sgi.com (Jon Livesey) writes:
|> >Another example is the "could have" speculation.   God "could have"
|> >created the light from distant stars in flight.   God "could have"
|> >create the fossil record in place.    Nice speculation, but nothing,
|> >so far, to do with Science.   What's worse is that when you say to
|> >Creationists "Fine, now explore the implications of this nice
|> >speculation" they fall silent, until they dredge it up again.
|> 
|> No, "could have" is not what is wrong with light from distant
|> stars in flight, what is wrong with that idea is it is not
|> falsifiable.

That's exactly the point I am making.   Anyone can come up with a
notion like "God could have done this and that" but there's simply
no way we can test it precisely *because* these are speculations
involving the idea that God has falsified the available evidence.

The reason it's not science is that science has to deal with the 
evidence that *is*.  Science can't indulge in speculation about
how the evidence "could have been" falsified by external magical
agents.

What did you think I was saying?

jon.
Newsgroups: talk.origins