HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: bvickers@valentine.ics.uci.edu (Brett J. Vickers)
Subject: Re: Probability of Evolution
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Reply-To: bvickers@ics.uci.edu (Brett J. Vickers)
Organization: Univ. of Calif., Irvine, Info. & Computer Sci. Dept.
Date: 9 Nov 92 02:01:38 GMT

kalki33!system@lakes.trenton.sc.us writes:
>>> >  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.

kv07@IASTATE.EDU (Warren Vonroeschlaub) writes:
>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.

I looked up the author and title using Melvyl -- The UC's centralized
library lookup service (it catalogs books from all 9 UC campuses).  The
book was found at only one of them.  Here is the entry:

Author:        Thompson, Richard L.
Title:         Mechanistic and nonmechanistic science : an investigation into
                 the nature of consciousness and form / Richard L. Thompson.
                 1st ed. Lynbrook, N.Y. : Bala Books, c1981.
Description:   254 p. : ill. ; 23 cm.

Notes:         Includes index.
               Bibliography: p. 239-248.

Subjects:      Science -- Philosophy.
               Physics -- Philosophy.
               Consciousness.
               Form (Philosophy)

Call numbers:  UCSC  Science   Q175.T497 1981

I've never heard of the publisher (I suspect it's some obscure, religious
publishing house).  Unfortunately, this copy is at UC Santa Cruz, and I
don't feel like doing an interlibrary book loan.

Why don't you just summarize this devastatingly straightforward proof,
Kalki?

--
Brett J. Vickers
bvickers@ics.uci.edu
Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: huston@access.digex.com (Herb Huston)
Subject: Re: AWESOME computer program (Populus)
Keywords: AWESOME
Organization: Express Access Online Communications, Greenbelt, MD USA
Date: Fri, 6 Nov 1992 11:09:53 GMT

In article <1992Nov4.173752.24501@city.cs> lionel@cs.city.ac.uk (Lionel Tun) writes:
>I retract, withdraw and cancel my comments on the Colby program.

When will you be retracting your claim that one can easily distinguish between
ape and human fossils in all cases?  Or will you be presenting an analysis of
_Australopithecus afarensis_ to support your claim?

-- Herb Huston
From: skroger@zeus.calpoly.edu (Seth L. Kroger)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Probability of Evolution
Date: 10 Nov 92 00:26:27 GMT
Organization: California Polytechnic State University, San Luis Obispo

kalki33!system@lakes.trenton.sc.us writes:
>smullins@cidmac.ecn.purdue.edu (Scott H Mullins) writes:
>> Glad to hear that the proof is so straightforward. Give it to us
>> in your next post. Or is this a "proof is left as an exercise for the
>> reader" kind of thing. 
>> 
>> Waiting.... (but not holding my breath)
>
>Yes, it is straightforward, but it is not brief. I will develop it post
>by post and point by point, although my intention was for people to read
>the book, since Dr. Thompson is a much better scientist and expositor
>than I.
>
>First point: The known laws of physics possess low information content.
>Second point: biological organisms possess high information content.

The known laws of physics tend to have very simple statements, but usually
get very complex when you try to apply them to something real.  Newton's
2nd Law (F=ma) seems very simple, no?  Well, in my airplane controls class,
we recently wrote down F=ma for an airplane.  This monster took up
virtually all of a sizeable blackboard, and all the variable forces were
simplified to general non-dimentional coefficients too!

Fractals are also analogous.  They are built upon very simple rules (z_n+1
= z_n^2 +c for a Mandelbrot) but come out incredibly complex.

>By all means don't "hold your breath". We have received so many letters,
>most of them hostile (as a result of our "politically incorrect"
>position regarding evolution), that it is taking much of our time to
>answer them all. If you can obtain the book Mechanistic and

Any "hostile" email you get is probably the result of your trotting out the
same old creationist garbage, and refusing to back your claims up when
challenged.

>Sincerely,
>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        |
From: rh@smds.com (Richard Harter)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Creation vs. evolution
Date: 13 Nov 92 09:47:28 GMT
Reply-To: rh@ishmael.UUCP (Richard Harter)
Organization: Software Maintenance & Development Systems, Inc.

In article <1992Nov12.193409.8782@aurora.com> isaak@aurora.com (Mark Isaak) writes:
>Richard,
>    It is apparent from your posting that you don't know enough about
>evolution to speak on it.  Perhaps you would be more convincing if
>you wrote about something you did know about.  How about Creationism?
>That subject gets remarkably little attention here.  I would like to
>know, for starters, just what the theory of Creationism claims, and
>how those claims can be verified.

I don't know which Richard you are addressing, but since quite a
number of people have claimed that I don't know enough about evolution
to speak on it, I guess you must be talking to me.

You're certainly right that Creationism gets very little attention here.

As I understand it The Theory of Creationism claims that an exact account
of the history of the universe can be found in the King James version of
the Bible.  It also claims that any discrepancy between that account
and scientific theory is the caused by The Great Satanic Conspiracy.
At this point the scientific establishment has been corrupted by the
Satanic Conspiracy that it almost impossible to sort out true science
from Satanic science.  [Molecular biologist are particularly corrupt.]

Since the truth of this is evident to any right thinking person there is
really little more that needs to be said.
-- 
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.
From: lippard@skyblu.ccit.arizona.edu (James J. Lippard)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Would you believe anyway ???
Date: 12 Nov 92 20:51:00 GMT
Distribution: world,local
Organization: University of Arizona
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41

In article <BxJz2K.zE@brunel.ac.uk>, bm90ash@brunel.ac.uk (Adrian S Harvey) writes...
>Question : If God exists, why doesn't He come and tell us?
> 
> 
>Would we believe Him if he did ??
> 
> 
> 
>Jesus Christ came to this earth ~2000 years ago to tell us that not only did God exist but that he wants to know us.
> 
>In true scientific fashion, how do you know that God exists unless you reach out to Him like he asks.
> 
>If you really want to find out what is going on then reach out to God with a desire to know Him, then you'll know that He is there...
> 
> 
>p.s. Science cannot explain some of the biggest things in life  --  LOVE,
> 
>Jesus said that "God is love "  Therefore science cannot explain God  - Simple ......

By similar logic, since love is blind, God must be blind.
This lends (inductive) support to those who claim that Ray Charles is God.

Jim Lippard              Lippard@CCIT.ARIZONA.EDU
Dept. of Philosophy      Lippard@ARIZVMS.BITNET
University of Arizona
Tucson, AZ 85721
From: rowe@pender.ee.upenn.edu (Mickey Rowe)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: placement of Burgess problematica (was Re: Deducing Evolution)
Date: 10 Nov 92 23:30:55 GMT
Organization: University of Pennsylvania

In article <96926@netnews.upenn.edu> weemba@sagi.wistar.upenn.edu
     (Matthew P Wiener) writes:
}In article <96859@netnews.upenn.edu>, rowe@lepomis (Mickey Rowe) writes:

[Loren Petrich wrote:]
}>>	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.

My impression from Loren's post was that he was interested in the
reclassification of any of the Burgess Shale problematica.  Sorry if I
misinterpreted him.

}>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. 

I don't know if it's appeared anywhere yet.  Perhaps Levinton was
relying on personal communication, but if so, then expect the
description soon.  He claims that a person at Harvard (Butterfield is
the name he gave, I think) noticed some similarities between wiwaxia
and the sea mouse back in 1990.  Medline searches on "wiwaxia" and on
"burgess shale" come up empty.

}-Matthew P Wiener (weemba@sagi.wistar.upenn.edu)

Mickey Rowe     (rowe@pender.ee.upenn.edu)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: twalters@world.std.com (Tim Walters)
Subject: Re: Holden felt effect variance on Pangaea II
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA
Date: Thu, 5 Nov 1992 11:58:55 GMT

In article <1373@tdat.teradata.COM> swf@tdat.teradata.com (Stanley Friesen) writes:
>In article <720415599@sheol.UUCP> throopw@sheol.UUCP (Wayne Throop) writes:
>|   where       e is the effective acceleration (absolute value)
>|                    in units of "g"
>|               a is the angle away from pole
>|               f is the "felt effect" reduction at the pole, 
>|                    in units of "g"  (that is, f=1-e at the pole)
>|
>|I determined that for both models, and for a pretty wide range of "f",
>|the "e" was quite close to 1g for values of "a" around 60 degrees.
>
>Well, that pretty well does it.  Pangea was well over 60 degrees.
>In fact I think that Mongolia and Colorado were further aprt than that.
>[Though it is a little hard to tell for sure in the usual projections used].

[Thanks, guys]

Well, Ted? Looks like however you cut it, your theory implies:

- There were spots on Earth with near 1g

- Some of these spots have sauropod fossils

I think that pretty much blows away your "felt effect" model. Any
response?
-- 
Tim Walters	twalters@world.std.com
Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: flow@gayakum.kaist.ac.kr (Paek In-Hyeok)
Subject: Is there FAQ list of this group?
Organization: TC lab. CS Dept. KAIST
Date: Wed, 11 Nov 92 05:38:44 GMT


Hi!

I'm new user of this system.
Please post FAQ list of this group, if anybody have it.
Thanks.

				Paek, Inhyeok

e-mail: flow@jupiter.kaist.ac.kr or flow@gayakum.kaist.ac.kr

Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: ingles@engin.umich.edu (Ray Ingles)
Subject: Re: Probability of Evolution
Date: Mon, 09 Nov 92 15:33:03 EST
Organization: University of Michigan Engineering, Ann Arbor

In article <1992Nov9.172025.7605@noose.ecn.purdue.edu> smullins@cidmac.ecn.purdue.edu (Scott H Mullins) writes:
>In article <cR6wTB13w165w@kalki33> kalki33!system@lakes.trenton.sc.us writes:
>>keck@athena.cs.uga.edu (Paul Keck) writes:
>[deletions]
>>> 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?
>
>Oh, absolutely. What with the selection pressure of antibiotics the bacterium
>that cause syphilis and gonorrhea are just disappearing, right? :-)
>Is it purely by chance that these and other diseases treated with 
>antibiotics are producing resistant strains?

 So, there's one problem with this statement- cosmic rays are not the only
(or even the most prevalent) mutagens.
 Another is also simple and obvious- *how* *many* "just the right ways" are
there? This 'proof' hasn't been posted yet, but I *strongly* supect that,
all along the line, it assumes only one 'right' answer.

>>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.
>
>Very reasonable statement. Your approach is certainly smarter than the 
>average creationist in this regard. (I mean that in all seriousness)
>
>>> It should be interesting to see what kind of evidence KD will post.
>>
>>After all, you can read the book if you want to.
>
>Only if we can find it. My local bookstore doesn't even have record of the
>publisher.

 UM, I'm told, has the third largest library system in the US, and our on-line
catalog has never heard of it either.
 I heartily suggest you post this proof, hopefully all at once. Or, at least,
as a string of sequential posts if it's too large. We simply can't find the
book, and giving little dribbles of proof scattered here and there is not
endearing you so far...

>>Kalki Dasa
>
>Scott


Sincerely,

Ray Ingles                  || The above opinions are probably
                            || not those of the University of
ingles@engin.umich.edu      || Michigan. Yet.
From: colby@bu-bio.bu.edu (Chris Colby)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: a message to Kalki and his tapeworm
Date: 13 Nov 92 01:14:13 GMT
Organization: animal -- coelomate -- deuterostome

In article <e0N3TB8w165w@kalki33> kalki33!system@lakes.trenton.sc.us writes:

>If there isn't a model for abiogenesis "yet", then why do supposedly
>reputable scientists make the premature claim that life arose from
>non-life? Unless a model can be shown to be correct, then it is not
>scientific to claim that the phenomenon occurred, is it? No one has ever
>seen a living organism arise from an assemblage of lifeless matter, have
>they?

In my college physics course, the prof told us there was no good
explanation of gravity. The phenemena was well established, but no
mechanism was known (Aside to any physics types Is this still true? 
I don't know.) Having a mechanism generally helps (it helped plate
tectonics become accepted), but isn't always needed to get something
generally accepted in science.

Do you have evidence that life wasn't formed naturally? Has anybody
seen a living organism being spontaneously created? Life arising
from non-life is the best hypothesis we have so far. Please feel free
to try to disprove it with real (i.e. unfaked, unselected)
data and intellectually honest arguments. 

PS Say hi to your tapeworm from me.

PPS I'm anxiously awaiting your mechanism of creationism (unless
your model is shown to be correct, how can you say it occurred?)

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: isaak@aurora.com (Mark Isaak)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: AWESOME computer program (Populus)
Summary: Don't forget genetic drift.
Date: 12 Nov 92 18:13:55 GMT
Reply-To: isaak@aurora.com (Mark Isaak)
Organization: The Aurora Group

In article <BxKwD8.5GB@usenet.ucs.indiana.edu> adpeters@sunflower.bio.indiana.edu (Andy Peters) writes:
> _Any_ beneficial change _will_ be significant.

Well, not quite.  In large populations, this is true, but in small
populations, small advantages in fitness are dominated by genetic
drift.  If (as you might expect) you start with the change in only
one individual, in all likelihood, the change will go extinct through
chance events alone.
-- 
Mark Isaak           "Every generation thinks it has the answers, and every
isaak@aurora.com      generation is humbled by nature." - Philip Lubin
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Probability of Evolution
From: kmagnacca@eagle.wesleyan.edu
Date: 10 Nov 92 01:16:15 EDT
Organization: Wesleyan University

> By all means don't "hold your breath". We have received so many letters,
> most of them hostile (as a result of our "politically incorrect"
> position regarding evolution),

   "Politically incorrect"?  I'm not even sure what it is yet; all
we have is some muddle about probabilities and consciousness.

> 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.

   Velikovsky had lots of published papers too, didn't he?

> > 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"?

   I think this statement is reason enough not to take him seriously 
on the subject of probability.

Karl
------
"Find a great ideal, a great purpose, marry it, and raise a family."
					 --Negativland, "U2"
-- 
------
"Find a great ideal, a great purpose, marry it, and raise a family."
					 --Negativland, "U2"
Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: jgacker@news.gsfc.nasa.gov (James G. Acker)
Subject: Re: noah's ark
Organization: Goddard Space Flight Center
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL6]
Distribution: usa
Date: Fri, 6 Nov 1992 15:00:24 GMT

Dale Skiba (ds0007@medtronic.COM) wrote:

: There appear to be two flavors of "modern creationism" here.  
: Mark Issac seems to be referring to the 'Scientific' (sic) Duane
: Gish style of creationism.  Bruce Korb seems to be referring to a
: non-literal Hugh Ross style creationism.  The latter style seems
: a good deal more reasonable. 

	Still, despite accepting old-earth and cosmology, Ross 
does not give one whit of credit to evolution.  I will postulate
from his statements in that regard (as taken from the Gish-Ross
debate transcript from Dobson's "Focus on the Family") that he believes 
Noah is the descendant of all humanity (as Noah was the only 
survivor of the global Biblical flood).  Bruce Korb stated that the
Ark story was based on a description of a regional flood where only
useful animals (i.e. domestic livestock) were transported.  Ross is
unlikely to agree.

	Jim Acker
	jgacker@neptune.gsfc.nasa.gov

	
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: Tue, 10 Nov 1992 20:19:20 GMT

In article <JTPyTB3w165w@kalki33>, kalki33!system@lakes.trenton.sc.us writes:
> amorgan@csd-d-3.Stanford.EDU (Crunchy Frog) writes:
> 
>> I have checked the Stanford library archives.  They don't have
>> it.  I can't get it through the local bookstores in any reasonable
>> amount of time.  I don't want to spend time and money in getting a book
>> which, if it is as good as other creationist works, isn't worth using
>> as a doorstop. Please post the proof if it is so blasted straightforward.
>> If I can't find one major flaw in the first paragraph I will be very
>> surprised.
> 
> If you have not made up your mind about the issue of evolution vs.
> creation, then why should you not take the time to acquire this book? If
> you have already made up your mind in favor of evolution, then why even
> bother with it?

   Sorry, the issue is that you are citing a source none of us can 
get hold of without spending money and that source claims to prove something
that is just exactly like crap we have refuted before.  Worse, every scrap
of material from that source you have chosen to post is riddled with errors.
 
> I am trying to get Dr. Thompson's permission to "serialize" the chapter
> that deals with this. If he agrees, I will begin posting in
> installments. The proof is straightforward, but it is long.

   I've already shown that either the proof is wrong or Dr. Thompson can compute
an upper bound on the computational power of evolution.  Which is
it?

> I am not surprised that a huge materialistic institution like Stanford
                                 ^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> does not have this book. After all, it is "politically incorrect".

   I just KNEW it.  Oh well.  Go back to sleep everyone...
 
> 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.

   Gee, thanks for telling us up front.

> Sincerely,
> Kalki Dasa

Dan
Danwell@IASTATE.EDU
Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: danwell@IASTATE.EDU (Daniel A Ashlock)
Subject: Re: Would you believe anyway ???
Reply-To: danwell@IASTATE.EDU (Daniel A Ashlock)
Organization: Iowa State University
Date: Wed, 11 Nov 1992 19:57:15 GMT

   Well I sure wouldn't believe anyone who talked like this:

In article <BxJz2K.zE@brunel.ac.uk>, bm90ash@brunel.ac.uk (Adrian S Harvey)
writes:
> Question : If God exists, why doesn't He come and tell us?
> 
> 
> Would we believe Him if he did ??
> 
> 
> 
> Jesus Christ came to this earth ~2000 years ago to tell us that not only did
> God exist but that he wants to know us.
> 
> In true scientific fashion, how do you know that God exists unless you reach 
  ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> out to Him like he asks.
> 
> If you really want to find out what is going on then reach out to God with a 
>desire to know Him, then you'll know that He is there...
> 
> 
> p.s. Science cannot explain some of the biggest things in life  --  LOVE,
> 
> Jesus said that "God is love "  Therefore science cannot explain God  - 
                                            ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> Simple ......
> 
> Adrian Harvey
> BM90ash@brunel.ac.uk

   Explain why I sould take you seriously.  You seem to have contradicted
yourself in less than one page while making bald unquantified assertions at a
remarkable rate.

   Also, you're severly off topic

Dan
Danwell@IASTATE.EDU
From: isaak@aurora.com (Mark Isaak)
Subject: Re: Creation vs. evolution
Reply-To: isaak@aurora.com (Mark Isaak)
Organization: The Aurora Group
Date: Thu, 12 Nov 92 19:34:09 GMT

Richard,
    It is apparent from your posting that you don't know enough about
evolution to speak on it.  Perhaps you would be more convincing if
you wrote about something you did know about.  How about Creationism?
That subject gets remarkably little attention here.  I would like to
know, for starters, just what the theory of Creationism claims, and
how those claims can be verified.
-- 
Mark Isaak           "Every generation thinks it has the answers, and every
isaak@aurora.com      generation is humbled by nature." - Philip Lubin