From: bruceb@mpd.tandem.com (Bruce Burden)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Friesen on elastics and sauropod necks
Date: 13 Oct 92 19:15:32 GMT
Organization: Tandem Computers (MPD) Austin, TX

In article <70@fedfil.UUCP> news@fedfil.UUCP (news) writes:
>
>If and when I ever change one of my views on any of these topics, I'll be
>very up front about it...  you won't have to figure out whether it's
>happening or not.
>
	True. Usually it is never mentioned again.
>
>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?
>
>5.  We've had a number of the t.o regulars claiming that a squat thrust
>is somehow a very inefficient way to come up with weight, i.e. that animals
>have some magical way of coming up/standing up with is far  more efficient.
>They ought to take their insight to the American Olympic weightlifting
>team.  Those guys have been looking for more efficient ways to get weight
>up for decades, and haven't found one.
>
	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.
>
>Unfortunately, I don't at present have any really good way of putting all
>this into a neat or tidy equation.  Sometimes the most difficult thing
>there is is convincing somebody of something like 2 + 2 = 4, which you'd 
>never really thought about "proving".
>
>I'm still working on it.
>
	Maybe if it didn't need so much rationalization, name calling and
    basic suspension of reality it would be easier to get people to accept
    your theories. A few models thrown in for good measure wouldn't hurt,
    either.
>
>In our age, central asians have been trying to breed eagles (berkuts) for
>size and strength for 2000 years, and cannot get them beyond 25 lbs, at
>which point they begin to experience sever problems taking off.  You've seen
>my long post on prehistoric flying creatures;  I'll repost it shortly.
>
	Of course, this doesn't really mean anything. Ted refuses to
    take genetics into account. (Ted, a quick test: Both parents are
    6' tall. Their children will most likely be: a) the same size;
    b) taller; c) shorter; than the parents?) The point is, maybe some-
    thing other than gravity is at work here?

	By the way, you have the letter combination of "sever" in your
    statement above. Was this meant to be "severe" or "several", and
    in any case, would you please specify what these problems are. As
    it stands here, you are simply arm waving.




								Bruce



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

Newsgroups: talk.origins