HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: maguire@sun.soe.clarkson.edu (Bill Maguire)
Subject: Re: AWESOME computer program (Populus)
Organization: Clarkson University, Potsdam NY
	<1992Nov9.184833.16734@city.cs>
	<MAGUIRE.92Nov10155811@signal.clarkson.edu>
	<1992Nov11.125743.1085@city.cs>
Date: Wed, 11 Nov 1992 18:01:06 GMT


>This is more like it, the sort of random mutation I am talking
>about. Lets say the chess program is 1M (approx 1 million bytes or
>8 million bits). You randomly change a few bits. Your claim is
>that you may by chance change a variable such as `number of
>moves ahead' or `a coefficient of some sort'. Do you really
>think that the program will play better chess? I am talking
>about a _well designed_ chess program which has _already_
>been finely tuned. In evospeak you might say an organism that
>has become well adapted to its environment.

You're changing the rules of the game Lionel.  If the release schedule
of that games is anything like some of the releases I've seen the game
is probably not a finely tuned as you think it is.  

The environments have also changed.  I'm running that chess program on
a much faster machine than I used to.

Your words were:

>>>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.

>Your claim is
>that you may by chance change a variable such as `number of
>moves ahead' or `a coefficient of some sort'.
>Do you really think that the program will play better chess?

By increasing the lookahead you do get a better game of chess.  Thats
the way A* works Lionel.  The game will play slower, but better.
Thats what you asked for, better.

If their release cycle was hectic my bet is that that heuristic is not
as optimized as it could be.  But even if we forget about the
heuristic just increasing that byte that controls the lookahead will
make a better game of chess.


>>I think its time for you to eat your flat cap.
>Haha. Thou speakest too soon.
Start eating.

-Bill

P.S.
>>Here's something you could do with this game.  Take a set of these
>>games, each with different random weights.  Have a little tournament
>>then throw out the games that did the worst.  Duplicate the remaining
>>games and modify the weights in the duplicates by a small random
>>amount.  Repeat until you get bored.  Think that final set of games is
>>any better than the first batch Lionel?

>A number of people have pointed out this sort of use 
>of `randomness' in the design of a program. But please note that  
>the program has been specially designed in this way. The use of
>randomness here is very specific and very tightly controlled. It
>is being used as part of the _design_ process.

I know this is hard for you, but imagine that evolution is actually
the fact that it is.  Now think about the design of living organisms.
Think about those that would survive and be able to adapt to new
environments.  Wouldn't those organisms be most like that program
above, rather than the kind of programs you're trying to attach DNA
code to?
Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: keck@athena.cs.uga.edu (Paul Keck)
Subject: Re: Probability of Evolution
Organization: University of Georgia, Athens
Date: Fri, 6 Nov 1992 20:16:35 GMT

>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.
>[deletions]
>>  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.
>>
>>Sincerely,
>>Kalki Dasa

Most of the "proofs" of this sort that I have seen run under the perhaps
unwitting assumption that there is only one "test tube" where everything
is happening.  The probability may be 10e-150000 that life will form in
one test tube (not that I believe that, or course), but when you have
10e150000 test tubes spread over the Earth's surface in those shallow
seas and deep sea vents, the probability becomes more like a sure thing. 

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.

It should be interesting to see what kind of evidence KD will post.
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Probability of Evolution
From: skroger@zeus.calpoly.edu (Seth L. Kroger)
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 1992 00:54:57 GMT
Organization: California Polytechnic State University, San Luis Obispo

kalki33!system@lakes.trenton.sc.us writes:
>keck@athena.cs.uga.edu (Paul Keck) writes:
>A "primordial soup" one kilometer thick covering the entire surface of
>the earth with an average of one protein molecule per 10,000 cubic
>angstroms. (See "What is Matter and What is Life" by Dr. T.D. Singh and
>Dr. Richard L. Thompson, Bhaktivedanta Institute monograph #1, 1977)

There's a very major error right there.  It presumes that the mechanism of
abiogenesis is known to be be of a porticular type.  Not only is the
mechanism not really known, virtually none of the theories in the running
use protiens (or, I assume, amino acids) as a starting point or as the
primary goal.  Wrong premise ==> Bogus conclusion.

>> 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?

Then he does make that capital mistake as well, I take it.

Natural selection never pressures organisms into mutating, though there are
a few exceptions with microorganisms.  Usually, some of the organisms have
the "required" mutation before hand, and survive through the hostile
environment.  Organisms hardly ever mutate on the spot.

And those unfortunate organisms that don't have the mutation?  The perish,
decompose back to their constituent chemicals, and get recycled by the
surviving organisms.  That's what natural selection is about.

>After all, you can read the book if you want to.

We can`t readily get our hands on the book to see what it says.  I have
done a search of our school's library catalog and have found nothing at all
by this guy, let alone this book you're talking about.

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

Who is this "we" you keep mentioning in your posts?  I assume that your not
just posting this on your own?

>Kalki Dasa


|======================================================================|
| Seth Kroger                       "If God made us in His image we    |
| skroger@pan.calpoly.edu               have certianly returned the    |
| Cal Poly, San Luis Obispo             compliment."  -Voltaire        |
Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: isaak@aurora.com (Mark Isaak)
Subject: Re: What is consciousness?
Reply-To: isaak@aurora.com (Mark Isaak)
Organization: The Aurora Group
Date: Mon, 9 Nov 92 17:02:43 GMT

In article <BxFort.3rs@usenet.ucs.indiana.edu> adpeters@sunflower.bio.indiana.edu (Andy Peters) writes:
>In article <1992Nov9.014549.6456@aurora.com> isaak@aurora.com (Mark Isaak) writes:
>>Seriously, death isn't such a great mystery as you make it out to be.  Heart
>>and lung function rely on a complicated arrangement of neutrons in the brain
                                                         ^^^^^^^^
>I assume you mean neurons?

Ack!  Yes, I mean neurons.  Although in my case, the neurons don't seem
to be functioning, so I don't know what word would be appropriate for me.

-- 
Mark Isaak           "Every generation thinks it has the answers, and every
isaak@aurora.com      generation is humbled by nature." - Philip Lubin
From: rh@smds.com (Richard Harter)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Probability of Evolution
Date: 13 Nov 92 09:35:32 GMT
Reply-To: rh@ishmael.UUCP (Richard Harter)
Organization: Software Maintenance & Development Systems, Inc.

In article <2NH4TB13w165w@kalki33> kalki33!system@lakes.trenton.sc.us writes:
]kv07@IASTATE.EDU (Warren Vonroeschlaub) writes:

]>   Hold on.  We don't need to know what the actual event was, as long as we
]> consider the probabilities of all possible mechanisms for abiogenesis.  If pn
]> the probability of abiogenisis under mechanism n, then the probability of
]> abiogenesis was 1-product(1-pn) (where product(x) is to multiply x out for ea
]> n).

]>   So as long as the author considered ALL possible mechanisms for abiogenesis
]> this isn't a problem.

]>   He did do that, Kalki, didn't he?

]I notice that you are in the math department. You understand then that a
]proof is something that follows logically from given premises. That is a
]proof. There is no requirement that a proof is something that follows
]from all possible premises. In fact, since all premises are negatable
](at least in standard excluded-middle logic), if all possible premises
]were given there could be no proof, since premises would be assumed
]along with their negations. Is it not so?

You've missed the point.  If you assert not X, and X is equivalent to
A and B and C and D..., then to establish the falsity of X you need to

-- 
Richard Harter: SMDS Inc.  Net address: rh@smds.com Phone: 508-369-7398 
US Mail: SMDS Inc., PO Box 555, Concord MA 01742.    Fax: 508-369-8272
In the fields of Hell where the grass grows high
Are the graves of dreams allowed to die.
Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: watson@sce.carleton.ca (Stephen Watson)
Subject: Re: Holden and the greenhouse effect
Organization: Home for Indigent Bit-Bashers
Date: Fri, 6 Nov 1992 15:34:44 GMT

In article <720842980@sheol.UUCP> throopw@sheol.UUCP (Wayne Throop) writes:

[Deleted: Body of Wayne's excellent exposition of simple thermo, that
even I, a EE with ONE undergrad course in the subject, could
understand.  Why can't we have more of this kind of simple, clear
refutation on this group BEFORE we get to the "take your post and do
anatomically-painful things with it you lying sack of pond scum" part
of the debate?]

>It's very clear that the thermodynamic egg is on Ted's face, not Sagan's.

Where, no doubt, it's being well-poached by his hot air (unless of
course Ted's surface is warmer due to internal heat, in which case
it's being fried :-)

>Wayne Throop  ...!mcnc!dg-rtp!sheol!throopw


-- 
==Steve Watson: watson@sce.carleton.ca===Carleton University, Ottawa, Ontario==
| The above is the output of a 7th-order Markovian analysis of all posts on   |
| this group for the past month.  Not only is it not Carleton's opinion, it's |
| not even *my* opinion: it's really just a mish-mash of all YOUR opinions!   |
From: colby@bu-bio.bu.edu (Chris Colby)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: FAQ files posted again
Date: 12 Nov 92 16:59:59 GMT
Organization: animal -- coelomate -- deuterostome

I'm going to post my "What is evolution"? file following this in two
parts; one titled "microevolution" and another titled "macroevolution".
No serious changes have been made to the file since it was last posted.
I have omitted a cladogram that contained an error (I'll put it back in
later) and I have reformatted the post to clear up some rather ragged
paragraphs.

As always, comments and criticisms are welcome. I notice Bales has
returned and claimed that there is evidence for creation. (Since I
have been repeatedly asking him for some (in conjunction with his
ever vaporous theory), I score BIG in the t.o. home game.) It would
certainly be a pleasing trun of events if we could finally see an
actual theory of creationism and the evidence to support it so we
can compare it to evolutionary theory.

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: kalki33!system@lakes.trenton.sc.us
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Probability of Evolution
Date: Sun, 08 Nov 92 07:38:09 EST
Reply-To: kalki33!system@lakes.trenton.sc.us
Organization: Kalki's Infoline BBS, Aiken, SC, USA

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)

> 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"?

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: lking@athena.mit.edu (Loren King)
Subject: Re: What is consciousness?
Organization: Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Date: Fri, 13 Nov 1992 19:29:21 GMT

In article <0mo3TB9w165w@kalki33>, kalki33!system@lakes.trenton.sc.us writes:

|> onar@hsr.no (Onar Aam) writes:
|> 
|> > >> I see. Are trees conscious? Is a virus conscious?
|> > >
|> > >Yes, trees and viruses are living beings, are they not?


STOP!  PROBLEM!! (See below)

|> > 
|> > Viruses alive????? Are you sure you aren't too much into New Age, Gaja ...
|> > stuff?
|> 
|> Yes, i'm sure.

Okay ...

A bit of a mix-up here, I think, i.e. `life as capacity to self-replicate' has 
been conflated with `life as sentience, self-awareness.'  I agree that viruses
are alive in a specific sense (the first), but this isn't, in my mind, a 
*sufficient* condition for sentience and self-awareness.

(It may well, however, be a *necessary* condition, although AI people might then 
ask me to clearly define `self-replicating systems.')



|> 
|> 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)            |
|>        -------------------------------------------------------




Loren King
MIT
From: weemba@sagi.wistar.upenn.edu (Matthew P Wiener)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: placement of Burgess problematica (was Re: Deducing Evolution)
Date: 10 Nov 92 14:11:26 GMT
Reply-To: weemba@sagi.wistar.upenn.edu (Matthew P Wiener)
Organization: The Wistar Institute of Anatomy and Biology
In-reply-to: rowe@lepomis.psych.upenn.edu (Mickey Rowe)

In article <96859@netnews.upenn.edu>, rowe@lepomis (Mickey Rowe) writes:
>>	When turned upside-down, _Hallucigenia_ was found to have a
>>suspicious resemblance to an onychophoran, [...]

>>	I recall a proposed identification of _Opabinia_ somewhere,
>>and also of _Anomalocaris_. Does anyone have anything more?

>Gee, I guess nobody looked into the latest Scientific American like I
>suggested... I'm crushed :-)

Uh, no, it just doesn't address the issue.  In fact, they get their
two hallucigeniids wrong.  It has seven pairs of legs, not eight.  This
mistake was made in the NATURE paper, Ramskold takes the blame for not
catching it, and thanks the German edition of SCIENTIFIC AMERICAN for
pointing it out to him in regards to an article they did.

I think we're going to see a long history of sixteen-leggers in the
text books and elsewhere.

For what it's worth, the stilt-walking wasn't so completely ridiculuous.
It seems there's a species of sea cucumber that does somewhat the same
thing when it migrates.

And as far as the contents of the SCIENTIFIC AMERICAN article, I just
recently finished reading McMenamin and McMenamin THE EMERGENCE OF
ANIMALS, and it gives a very clear and plausible scenario for the
Cambrian explosion.

>Apparently a close comparison of wiwaxia and a modern polychaete worm
>called a sea mouse indicates that wiwaxia should be placed in the
>annelidae.

Where did this paper appear?  I saw the mention in SCIENCE, but our copy
hadn't arrived yet, and now I can't find it. 
-- 
-Matthew P Wiener (weemba@sagi.wistar.upenn.edu)
From: rowe@pender.ee.upenn.edu (Mickey Rowe)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: What makes a creationist?
Date: 10 Nov 92 01:00:55 GMT
Organization: University of Pennsylvania

In article <1992Oct28.150323.27899@hsr.no> onar@hsr.no (Onar Aam) writes:

>It is a controversial matter, but the conclusion after 50 years of research on
>differences in the sexes is that there IS a remarkable difference. Both in brain
>structure and in abilities. On average there was no difference in intelligence,
>but in males the intelligence was more "spread out" than in females.

Just out of curiosity, were the intelligence tests written by males or
females?  Do you really think that psychometry is all that much better
at describing aspects of our world than astrology?  Are you perhaps a
woman secretly gravitating to this stuff?

> Females have
>a larger information flow in their brains which makes them better equipped for
>linguistics. Males are better at specializing. Females view things more
>"holistically". Males focus more on details. ( Plus some more obvious anatomical
>differences.)

I'll presume that you actually have read something about the topic,
and that the above is a garbled version of the finding that the mean
size of the female corpus callosum is slightly larger than the males'.
I hope that you don't soon stumble across the finding that it's larger
in schizophrenics as well and try to draw the conclusion that women
are basically schizophrenic men...

>Onar.

Mickey Rowe     (rowe@pender.ee.upenn.edu)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: sdoe@nmsu.edu (Stephen Doe)
Subject: Re: What is consciousness?
Organization: New Mexico State University
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 1992 04:25:21 GMT

In article <4eXwTB1w165w@kalki33> kalki33!system@lakes.trenton.sc.us writes:
>cust_ts@klaava.Helsinki.FI (Tero Sand) writes:
>
>> In article <1L7TTB1w165w@kalki33> kalki33!system@lakes.trenton.sc.us writes:
>
>> >To us, however, the most striking feature of life is the fact that it is
>> >conscious. We observe consciousness in living beings. Although there may
>> >be little or no physical difference between a living body and a body
>> >which has recently died, we intuitively know that there is a difference:
>> >in a living body there is consciousness, or a soul, and in a dead body
>> >there is not.
>> 
>> I see. Are trees conscious? Is a virus conscious?
>
>Yes, trees and viruses are living beings, are they not?

So life = consciousness ?  Guess that makes the word "consciousness"
redundant then. . . 

Clinically death is defined as the cessation of brain activity and
heartbeat.  No need to postulate the departure of a soul, which
strikes me as a conveniently non-disprovable hypothesis anyway.  You
have yet to convince me that, in a scientific theory, postulating the
existence of "supernatural" entities is at all necessary.

SD
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Probability of Evolution
From: kmagnacca@eagle.wesleyan.edu
Date: 13 Nov 92 04:52:41 EST
Organization: Wesleyan University

In article <Pog4TB7w165w@kalki33>, kalki33!system@lakes.trenton.sc.us writes:
> kmagnacca@eagle.wesleyan.edu writes:
> 
>> > answer them all. If you can obtain the book Mechanistic and
>> > Nonmechanistic Science, that would be the best way to understand the
>> > argument. (Yes, we are plugging this book. But that's ok, it is a good
> 
>>    Sorry, I can't, it's not in our library (hmmm, I wonder why that
>> could be...must be the evilutionist(tm) conspiracy!) and I haven't 
>> got time to go searching through bookstores to find it.  I'm dying 
>> to hear your summary of the proof though.
> 
> Then read it in the other posts. And if you really wanted the book, you
> would get it.

   I did, all I got was a muddle of non-straightforward probabilistic
stuff.  I have yet to see an actual proof.

>>    Velikovsky had lots of published papers too, didn't he?
> 
> Yes, so do Dawkins and Gould. Oh, but then, you AGREE with them, right?
> So their papers REALLY count, right?

   You missed the point.  The point is that having papers published
is no indication that someone isn't a crackpot, as you seem to think.

   BTW, the library here has five books by Velikovsky, a noted 
crackpot, so your PC argument doesn't hold water.

Karl
------
"Find a great ideal, a great purpose, marry it, and raise a family."
					 --Negativland, "U2"
From: huston@access.digex.com (Herb Huston)
Subject: Re: _Hallucigenia_ and the predictive power of evolution (was: Deducing evolution)
Organization: Express Access Online Communications, Greenbelt, MD USA
Date: Thu, 5 Nov 1992 22:13:13 GMT

In article <1371@tdat.teradata.COM> swf@tdat.teradata.com (Stanley Friesen) writes:
>This pretty well closes the book on this one - Hallucigenia is an onychophore.
>[As I have already stated, I tend to be somewhat of a lumper at the phylum
>level, so I use a rather broad defintion of Onychophora].

Okay!  It's time for me to make a trip to the Smithsonian's National Museum
of Natural History, walk past the humongous elephant that is *not* named Jumbo,
and check the Burgess Shale exhibit again.  I'll report back on whether _H.
sparsa_ has been inverted and recaptioned.

-- Herb Huston
From: kmagnacca@eagle.wesleyan.edu
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Bales argument
Date: 14 Nov 92 04:53:46 GMT
Organization: Wesleyan University

In article <Bxo3nK.949@encore.com>, bseymour@encore.com (Burch Seymour) writes:
> 
>  [stuff about transitional forms/punc. eq. deleted]
> 
> Corrections welcome.

   It's "fossil," not "fossile." :-)

Karl
------
"Find a great ideal, a great purpose, marry it, and raise a family."
					 --Negativland, "U2"