From: bruceb@mpd.tandem.com (Bruce Burden)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Friesen on elastics and sauropod necks
Date: 15 Oct 92 22:02:44 GMT
Organization: Tandem Computers (MPD) Austin, TX

In article <73@fedfil.UUCP> news@fedfil.UUCP (news) writes:
|>In article <2633@devnull.mpd.tandem.com>, bruceb@mpd.tandem.com (Bruce Burden) writes:
|>
|>*>3.  Visually, Kaz and Anderson are stockier than the saurs.  Leverage would
|>*>favor them.
|>
|>*	But Ted, I though you have always scoffed at this "leverage" thing.
|>*    Usually you throw out posts indicating that muscle tissue has the same
|>*    capacity to exert force whether it is from an elephant or a mouse, and
|>*    leverage doesn't enter into the picture. In addition, you postulate that
|>*    the large amounts of muscle tissue actually interferes with itself, and
|>*    reduces its capacity to exert force. I guess this doesn't apply to humans?
|>*
|>*	(Obviously leverage doesn't alter the capacity muscle tissue has
|>*    to do work, but it does alter the force that can be applied).
|>*
|>*	Are you now conceding the fact that leverage does play a part in
|>*    how much work a muscle can perform?
|>
|>Visually, it doesn't appear as if leverage differences would favor anything
|>by much between a sauropod, an elephant, and Kaz.  Whatever differences there
|>might be due to leverages involved in joint connections would favor Kaz over the
|>less stocky sauropod.
|>
	Okay, then I take it that you agree that leverage does play
     some part in how much work a muscle can perform.
|>
|>*	How a particular weight lifting event is performed and the most
|>*    efficient way to lift said weight doesn't necessarily correspond. This
|>*    is a good example of obfusification by Ted.
|>
|>Bullshit.  If you know a more efficient way to lift weights than any of our
|>olympic athletes know, and they all use the squat thrust, then you should
|>have lots of olympic medals lying around.  I don't hear you making that claim.
|>
	Of course I don't make that claim. I was pointing out that,
    within the confines of the competition, the most efficient way to
    lift a weight is not used.

    I did not say that the most efficient way to lift the weight, *within
    the confines of the event* was not used.

	If you can show that the range of motion required for a human
    to perform a squat thrust is very similiar to the range of motion
    required for a quadruped to stand, AND that the muscles are attached
    to the same point, then I will give more credence to your comparison
    of Kaz and a 'saur.
|>
|>If you want me to repost Mr. D'Ippolito's t.o crew sampler once a week,
|>just say the word.  I do not ever start these t.o name calling contests;
|>I have merely made a point of replying in kind to these people.
|>
	Since you see yourself in the role of benevolent benefactor
    bringing the light of truth to the ignorant savages, perhaps you
    could humble yourself and rise above those "ignorant savages",
    rather than proving your are (emotionally) one of them?

	However, when will you provide a model for us to examine?
|>
	<asian eagle discussion deleted>
|>
|>Then the sauropods should never have evolved at all, should they?  Remember,
|>evolutionists are claiming that the sauropods evolved from single-celled
|>creatures, only a few microns tall.
|>
	Hmmm, I don't know when life is thought to have started, but I
    do know that the "age of the dinosaurs" were thought to have encompassed
    150 million years. Now, I do know that less than 150 million years
    haven't passed since the dinosaurs were thought to have died off,
    so what you are saying is, apparently: "...if it hasen't happened
    yet, it won't happen...", right?
|>
|>Try watching films of albatross takeoffs and landings.  It's real easy to
|>see why nothing gets any bigger than 35 lbs or so and flies any more.
|>

	Actually, if I didn't know what an albatross was, and had only
    seen a Common Loon attempting to take off, I could conclude that no
    water bird larger than a common loon could exist. What is your 
    point? Or is this a justification for "...if it doesn't exist today,
    it won't exist tomorrow..." position?

	Since it is known that a prolonged low g environment causes the
    astronauts bones to become more brittle, how does your "reduced
    felt effect of gravity" theory answer such potential problems as
    more brittle bones in the creatures that you believe were exposed
    to this "reduced felt effect of gravity"?



							Bruce



-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
  Bruce Burden
  bruceb@mpd.tandem.com
  Tandem Computers Inc.