HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: stuart@minster.york.ac.uk
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Probability of Evolution
Date: 11 Nov 92 09:42:06 GMT
Organization: Department of Computer Science, University of York, England

kalki33!system@lakes.trenton.sc.us wrote:
: rh@smds.com (Richard Harter) writes:
: > 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.
: 
: Where did you get this "actual fact"?

The probability of ANY EVENT occuring is bounded by 0 and 1 - by
definition. If it can never occur (infinite number of trials) then it has
probability 0 and if it will allways occur, probability 1. No probability
of any event can lie outside this range.

Thus the probability of evolution of "higher" life forms lies somewhere
between 0 and 1 inclusive.

(BTW: Since this is probability (mathematics) one can quite happily, and
quite correctly, talk about FACTS).

Stuart
(stuart@minster.york.ac.uk)
From: cust_ts@klaava.Helsinki.FI (Tero Sand)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: CWACKers and Complexity (bits of information definition)
Date: 8 Nov 92 16:21:55 GMT
Organization: University of Helsinki

In article <7F9VTB1w165w@kalki33> kalki33!system@lakes.trenton.sc.us writes:
>tlode@nyx.cs.du.edu (trygve lode) writes:
>
>> In article <1d91uoINN9e4@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu> bz754@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (De
>> >
>> >        I am in need of some explanation of the definition of bits of
>> >information as discussed in Dr. Robert Gange's book 'Origins and Destiny.'
>> >I hope some of you have read this (any CWACKers?)
>
>............. etc.....
>
>> >        Gange states that investigation into protein molecules has come up
>> >with the mathematical result showing that 1500 bits is roughly the informati
>> >existing in a large protein molecule (very similiar to the machine replicati
>
>> >Question #1:  Where does this figure come for a large protein molecule?
>
>A typical protein molecule in an E. coli cell contains about 300 amino
>acid subunits. Each subunit may be any one of twenty different amino
>acids. The number of possible protein molecules of this size is
>therefore 20e300. each protein may be uniquely specified by a string of
>300 Log 20 = 1297 bits (log to base 2).

You *can't* be so stupid as to use this as an argument, can you?
*Nobody* says proteins appeared spontaneously.

Once again, fellow creationists, before attacking a theory familiarize
yourself with it.
-- 
-Tero Sand, 2k
  EMail: cust_ts@cc.helsinki.fi     Snail mail: Auroran Sairaala os. 6-1
  (if that doesn't work, try                    Nordenskioldinkatu 20
   custts@cc.helsinki.fi)                       00250 Helsinki 25, Finland
From: cust_ts@klaava.Helsinki.FI (Tero Sand)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Holden, heat, temperature, and the 2nd law
Date: 5 Nov 92 09:10:38 GMT
Organization: University of Helsinki

In article <102@fedfil.UUCP> news@fedfil.UUCP (news) writes:
>There are two possible interpretations of the above.  What i THINK you mean
>is that I have said that the sunlight is the only source of heat;  at least
>the sentence could be interpreted that way.  Basically, that is a Sagan belief,
>part of the Sagan belief system, not mine.  I would never make such a statement.
>
>The heat at the surface of Venus is indigenous, left over from the planets
>very recent formation;  it hasn't had time to cool, especially given the
>dense CO2 layers which act as good insulation.  Not good enough to make
>something like SGH work, mind you, but good.

Oh come on. Nobody is saying the heat is left over from the time the
planet was formed.

This is _elementary_.
-- 
-Tero Sand
  EMail: cust_ts@cc.helsinki.fi     Snail mail: Auroran Sairaala os. 6-1
  (if that doesn't work, try                    Nordenskioldinkatu 20
   custts@cc.helsinki.fi)                       00250 Helsinki 25, Finland
From: kalki33!system@lakes.trenton.sc.us
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Probability of Evolution
Date: 11 Nov 92 21:50:04 GMT
Reply-To: kalki33!system@lakes.trenton.sc.us
Organization: Kalki's Infoline BBS, Aiken, SC, USA

kv07@IASTATE.EDU (Warren Vonroeschlaub) writes:

> In article <JTPyTB3w165w@kalki33>, kalki33!system@lakes.trenton.sc.us writes:
> > In any case, if you really want it, you can call the Bhaktivedanta
> > Institute in San Diego (619-272-8145). They will rush it to you if you
> > ask them to.
> 
>   How much does it cost?

Somewhere around 10 or 12 dollars I think.

Kalki


       -------------------------------------------------------
      |  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: kv07@IASTATE.EDU (Warren Vonroeschlaub)
Subject: Re: What is consciousness?
Reply-To: kv07@IASTATE.EDU (Warren Vonroeschlaub)
Organization: Ministry of Silly Walks
Date: Sat, 7 Nov 1992 19:13:22 GMT

In article <1L7TTB1w165w@kalki33>, kalki33!system@lakes.trenton.sc.us writes:
[standard content free blather deleted]
> Sincerely,
> Kalki Dasa

  Considering the time stamp on this message, is it safe to say you are not
going to post, or give reference to, the proof that the probability of evolution
into "higher" life forms is 10e15000?

  how suprising.

 |  __L__
-|-  ___  Warren Kurt vonRoeschlaub
 |  | o | kv07@iastate.edu
 |/ `---' Iowa State University
/|   ___  Math Department
 |  |___| 400 Carver Hall
 |  |___| Ames, IA  50011
 J  _____
Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: varney@cbnewsd.cb.att.com (Al Varney)
Subject: Re: Probability of Evolution
Organization: AT&T
Distribution: na
Date: Fri, 13 Nov 1992 06:42:29 GMT

In article <Dso3TB12w165w@kalki33> kalki33!system@lakes.trenton.sc.us writes:
>
>Depending on how we estimate these probabilities (and this is the source
>of the controversy), we can come up with an idea of how likely, or
>unlikely, it is that natural selection is truly "blind", as is claimed
>by most of the leading proponents of molecular evolution. If we find
>that the probability of the evolution of living organisms is extremely
>tiny, so tiny that even given a time period far longer than the
>estimated age of the earth there is still only a miniscule chance of
>an organism appearing, then we are within reason (or within standard
>statistical confidence limits) to propose that something else has guided
>the progress of this evolution, something with purpose and intent, a
>not-so-blind watchmaker. ....

   Have you also calculated the probability of the watchmaker being
formed without a designer, without guidance?  If not, does that mean
someone/something designed the watchmaker?  And would that designer
be even more complex than the watchmaker?  What is the probability
of your EXACT God coming into existence without a designer?

   Or are these areas we're not allowed to ponder/investigate?

Al Varney
Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: adpeters@sunflower.bio.indiana.edu (Andy Peters)
Subject: Re: Probability of Evolution
Organization: Program in Evolution, Ecology, and Behavior, Indiana University
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 1992 02:27:42 GMT

In article <cR6wTB13w165w@kalki33> kalki33!system@lakes.trenton.sc.us writes:
>keck@athena.cs.uga.edu (Paul Keck) writes:

>> Not having read Thompson's paper/book, I don't know if he also makes the 
>> mistake that I have also seen before- that a human must spring full-formed
>> from the primordial soup.  Once any sort of self-replicating or even non-
>> degrading pre-life-form arises, the process begins to accelerate past the
>> totally random.  The process doesn't start from scratch at each step, i.e.
>> if the bacterium fails its "dice roll" to add this or that base pair to 
>> its DNA, it doesn't go back to its component chemicals.
>
>But if the bacterium is being pressured by "natural selection" (i.e. a
>hostile environment) to mutate and reproduce or perish, then if it
>doesn't get just the right burst of cosmic rays at the right time, it
>will perish and decompose back into its component chemicals. Is it not
>so?

No, it is not so.  Populations carry genetic diversity with them at all
times (really, they do, it's been measured), and magical "cosmic rays"
are not necessary for mutation.  Once you have the genetic diversity,
you have the potential for evolution.

>Since the doctrine of evolution does not state that a human being
>springs "full-formed from the primordial soup", no valid critique of
>evolution can proceed as if this is what evolution claims.

A good principle to follow.  Unfortunately, as evidenced by your poor
characterization of evolution above, you do not follow it.

>> It should be interesting to see what kind of evidence KD will post.
>After all, you can read the book if you want to.

Wrong.  As just about everyone has pointed out already, it is not
generally available.

>We will begin by posing (and eventually answering) the question: what is
>the information content of the known laws of physics?

Please, please, please, Kalki, if you don't make any other changes,
stop referring to yourself in the plural.  Please?

>Sincerely,
<ahem>
>Kalki Dasa
-- 
* Andy Peters                     * "Slugs are small and portable    *From
* Program in Evolution,           * Just stuff 'em up your nose      *"Slugs,"
*      Ecology, and Behavior      * They'll fit beneath your armpits *by David
* Indiana University, Bloomington * Or right between your toes"      *Greenberg
From: weemba@sagi.wistar.upenn.edu (Matthew P Wiener)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Bales is a liar: evidence - one case
Date: 11 Nov 92 00:46:48 GMT
Reply-To: weemba@sagi.wistar.upenn.edu (Matthew P Wiener)
Organization: The Wistar Institute of Anatomy and Biology
In-reply-to: bobb@tekig1.PEN.TEK.COM (Robert W Bales)

In article <7539@tekig7.PEN.TEK.COM>, bobb@tekig1 (Robert W Bales) writes:
>>OK.  You are a liar.  Examples have been provided.

>The only thing which could prove me a liar is an example of something
>which I said which was knowinly untrue.

Do you still claim that your interest in having creationism taught
in schools is based solely on scientific motives, and has nothing
to do with your religious beliefs?  That is quite simply a lie.
-- 
-Matthew P Wiener (weemba@sagi.wistar.upenn.edu)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: sbradley@scic.intel.com (Seth Bradley)
Subject: Re: AWESOME computer program (Populus)
Organization: Intel Corporation
Date: Mon, 9 Nov 1992 19:48:11 GMT

In article <1992Nov9.184833.16734@city.cs> lionel@cs.city.ac.uk (Lionel Tun) writes:
>OK, I issue a challenge. Take your favourite chess program on
>your favourite computer. Randomly change any number of bits or
>bytes in the program's executable file. If you manage to find
>a random change which makes the program better at chess, I will
>accept it as evidence that significant AND beneficial random
>mutations are possible. Oh, and I'll eat my flat cap.

The Deep Thought chess hardware/software which is the current world
champion in chess programs, and which is currently playing at International
Master level, uses randomness and learning techniques as part of its
strategy.  This is analogous to mutation and natural selection.
Care for some salt and pepper with your cap, Lionel?


-- 
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
Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: isaak@aurora.com (Mark Isaak)
Subject: Sexual Selection  (was: microevolution (the rest))
Summary: Does it imply dimorphism?
Reply-To: isaak@aurora.com (Mark Isaak)
Organization: The Aurora Group
Date: Fri, 13 Nov 92 17:45:36 GMT

In article <101715@bu.edu> colby@bu-bio.bu.edu (Chris Colby) writes:
>In many species, especially polygynous species where 
>only a few males monopolize all the females, sexual selection has caused 
>pronounced sexual dimorphism.

Does sexual selection always imply dimorphism?

I'm inspired to ask this by a diopsid fly.  These flies have their
eyes on stalks.  Sometimes the stalks are so long that their heads
are wider than their body is long.  (They're really cool looking.)
I was told that the long stalks are the result of sexual selection,
but the little information about them which I've found gives no
suggestion of sexual dimorphism.

Are the diopsid's eye stalks really a result of sexual selection?
Are there any other examples of sexual selection without sexual
dimorphism?
-- 
Mark Isaak           "Every generation thinks it has the answers, and every
isaak@aurora.com      generation is humbled by nature." - Philip Lubin
From: kv07@IASTATE.EDU (Warren Vonroeschlaub)
Subject: Re: CWACKers and Complexity (bits of information definition)
Reply-To: kv07@IASTATE.EDU (Warren Vonroeschlaub)
Organization: Ministry of Silly Walks
Date: Sun, 8 Nov 1992 23:47:31 GMT

In article <7F9VTB1w165w@kalki33>, kalki33!system@lakes.trenton.sc.us writes:
> If we confine the discussion to actually existing books, eliminating the
> nonsense ones and the ones which were never printed, then it is possible
> to compress the descriptions with suitable coding (i.e. Huffman). But
> this introduces an algorithm whose information content must also be
> taken into account. In addition, we would have to supply all the text of
> all the existing books to the coding process!

  Uh, not quite.  Are you saying that my hard disk with Stacker (which
compresses the data) takes up just as much space as the uncompressed data?

  Your error seems to be in assuming that the compression algorithm encodes the
data being compressed in a table of some sort.  This is not the case.  Consider
LZW compression where the encoding/decoding tables are built dynamically during
compression/decompression.

  Also (and I am not 100% sure of this, so any experts correct me if I have this
confused with another aspect of information theory) the actual data isn't what
is supposed to be used anyway.  The information content is supposed to be based
on the size of the smallest universal Turing machine that can generate the data.
Taking advantage of proprietary compression schemes is assumed, not excluded.

  Thus 300 ones has less information that 300 random digits.

 |  __L__
-|-  ___  Warren Kurt vonRoeschlaub
 |  | o | kv07@iastate.edu
 |/ `---' Iowa State University
/|   ___  Math Department
 |  |___| 400 Carver Hall
 |  |___| Ames, IA  50011
 J  _____
From: lippard@violet.ccit.arizona.edu (James J. Lippard)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: John Clayton
Date: 9 Nov 92 20:47:00 GMT
Distribution: world,local
Organization: University of Arizona
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41

The local chapter of Ambassadors for Christ is sponsoring a series of talks
this week by a guy named John Clayton.  The talks will be on the existence
of God and evidence against evolution.  Clayton is allegedly a former
evangelizing atheist turned born-again Christian who teaches science at
the high school leve.  He's apparently not a young-earth creationist
and believes in the Big Bang.  I've also heard from one person that he
advocates a vapor canopy theory of the Flood.  Has anybody heard of this
guy?

(On another subject:  The Dawkins lecture on "Viruses of the Mind" was
also his keynote address to the 1992 CSICOP conference.  I hope to be
posting a summary of the presentations at that conference in sci.skeptic
and the BITNET SKEPTIC list sometime in the next week or two.)

Jim Lippard              Lippard@CCIT.ARIZONA.EDU
Dept. of Philosophy      Lippard@ARIZVMS.BITNET
University of Arizona
Tucson, AZ 85721
Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: danwell@IASTATE.EDU (Daniel A Ashlock)
Subject: Re: Probability of Evolution
Reply-To: danwell@IASTATE.EDU (Daniel A Ashlock)
Organization: Iowa State University
Date: Mon, 9 Nov 1992 17:38:47 GMT

In article <am8wTB14w165w@kalki33>, kalki33!system@lakes.trenton.sc.us writes:
> rh@smds.com (Richard Harter) writes:
> 
>> What is the source of error in these proofs?  The most common is to
>> enumerate states and assume that all states have equal probability,
>> i.e. all configurations of matter have equal and independent probability.
>> This little trick allows one to multiply as many probabilities as desired
>> to get the desired degree of small probability.
> 
> "A typical initial condition for a model of the origin of life will
> consist of an ensemble of possible initial states, such as one of the
> thermodynamic ensembles of statistical mechanics or some simple
> combination of these....Such an ensemble can be specified by a simple
> equation or a brief set of equations." (Page 107)

   Bullshit.  This means you need to have a particular model of abiogenisis in
mind and there isn't one yet.  Again the "straitforward" proof can't be right
because it rests on wildly unknown facts, e.g. the mechanism of abiogenisis. 
The above paragraph is essentially "I will make a cool sounding but nonsensical
initial assumption, the better to grind my axe."  You _should_ be aware of this
if you're going to claim such "proofs".
 
>> 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.
> 
> Where did you get this "actual fact"?

   From _knowing_ that the parameters needed to make a "proof" of the sort
you give worth spit are as yet undiscovered.  Until we find out how life can
arise and get a handle on the spped and complexity of evolution ALL PROBABILITY
ESTIMATES FINER THAN 0<p<=1 are a priori bullshit.

Dan
Danwell@IASTATE.EDU


Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: kv07@IASTATE.EDU (Warren Vonroeschlaub)
Subject: Re: Probability of Evolution
Reply-To: kv07@IASTATE.EDU (Warren Vonroeschlaub)
Organization: Ministry of Silly Walks
Distribution: world, public
Date: Thu, 12 Nov 1992 17:43:24 GMT

In article <1992Nov12.003951.17551@nmsu.edu>, sdoe@nmsu.edu (Stephen Doe)
writes:
> In article <JTPyTB3w165w@kalki33> kalki33!system@lakes.trenton.sc.us writes:
> >In any case, if you really want it, you can call the Bhaktivedanta
> >Institute in San Diego (619-272-8145). They will rush it to you if you
> >ask them to.
>  
> I'd rather not fork out a lot of cash for it if it does turn out to be
> bogus.  As a graduate student, I'm living hand to mouth.  Is it too
> much to ask for you to post a brief synopsis of its major arguments,
> so that we may make a more informed judgment?  If these arguments have
> merit, it will boost interest in the book considerably.  I know your
> posts have generated a considerable amount of e-mail you feel
> obligated to respond to you, and that this request results in more
> work for you.  But I would rather not order this book without first
> getting an idea of what its contents are like.  

  Good point.  I also highly reccommend that Kalki at least publish the table of
contents.  This would not be any violation of copyright (and if it is, I doubt
it would upset the author as it could only increase sales).

 |  __L__
-|-  ___  Warren Kurt vonRoeschlaub
 |  | o | kv07@iastate.edu
 |/ `---' Iowa State University
/|   ___  Math Department
 |  |___| 400 Carver Hall
 |  |___| Ames, IA  50011
 J  _____
From: ksand@apple.com (Kent Sandvik )
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: noah's ark
Date: 6 Nov 92 02:36:23 GMT
Followup-To: talk.origins
Distribution: usa
Organization: Apple

In article <1992Nov3.145412.22832@nsisrv.gsfc.nasa.gov>,
jgacker@news.gsfc.nasa.gov (James G. Acker) wrote:
> : |> 	The big bang happened.  The universe was created when that happened.
> : |> 	God did this, so I am a creationist.
>         ^^^^^^^^^^^^
> 	As many people here will no doubt tell you, this is an unsupported
> assertion.  It is far more proper to state "Based on my Christian faith 
> alone, I can believe that God brought the Universe into being through the
> mechanism of the "Big Bang"."  But in the sense of scientific proof for
> God being responsible for the Big Bang, there is none (and as I have 
> stated several times, if there were, we would then be in the position of
> being able to prove God scientifically, eliminating the need for faith,
> and henceforth the main point of God's plan -- faith in the salvation 
> offered to us by Jesus Christ.)  Be very careful with bold & bald unsupported 
> assertions.

Just another observation, if we allow such assertions as facts, we might
as well state that God created this environment for me the second I was
born, and everything was in place, including historical records and
evidence. Speak about Philip K. Dick paranoia.

The issue of creation done by God is something we could never verify,
unless this superbeing would actually provide us with evidence. This
is the reason I don' like using Big Bang as a form of 'firm evidence'
concerning creation.

Kent

	"The problem with computers is you *play* with them."
					-- Richard Feynman
-------------------
Kent Sandvik (UUCP: ....!apple!ksand; INTERNET: ksand@apple.com)
DISCLAIMER: Private activities on the Net.
Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: kv07@IASTATE.EDU (Warren Vonroeschlaub)
Subject: Re: Probability of Evolution
Reply-To: kv07@IASTATE.EDU (Warren Vonroeschlaub)
Organization: Ministry of Silly Walks
Date: Sun, 8 Nov 1992 23:36:10 GMT

In article <w33uTB1w165w@kalki33>, kalki33!system@lakes.trenton.sc.us writes:
>watson@sce.carleton.ca (Stephen Watson) writes:
>> In article <PJHRTB1w165w@kalki33> kalki33!system@lakes.trenton.sc.us writes:
>> >  The probability of evolution of higher life forms by known physical
>> >processes during a 4.5 billion year period is bounded by an UPPER limit
>> >of 10e-150000.
>> [big snip]
>> >  These statements are from Mechanistic and Nonmechanistic Science, by
>> >Dr. Richard Thompson. His arguments are based on information theory
>> >and molecular biology. The proof is straightforward.
>>                         ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>> So post it.
>
>Read the book.

  We have a rather large engineering department here, and a rather complete
library, especially in the science fields.  I did a computer search on the
author Richard Thompson.  There were 21 entries.  2 were live performances by a
folk singer (albums), 3 were journals, 5 were on goal oriented problem solving
and related fields, 4 were on child hospitalization, 6 were on neurobiology and
electrochemistry, and 1 was on psychology.

  I then did a search on title Mechanistic which also found 21 entries.  Only 3
were "Mechanistic and" and not one was the title given above by any streatch of
the imagination.

  I have no access to the book you refer to.  Please provide a LOC or ISBN
number (for an interlibrary search), or at least a publisher.  Better yet, post
some excerpts.  If the proof is as streightforward as you say you will convert
100 or so of the most vociferous opponents to creationism.  Certainly this is
worth the trouble.

 |  __L__
-|-  ___  Warren Kurt vonRoeschlaub
 |  | o | kv07@iastate.edu
 |/ `---' Iowa State University
/|   ___  Math Department
 |  |___| 400 Carver Hall
 |  |___| Ames, IA  50011
 J  _____