HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: ingles@engin.umich.edu (Ray Ingles)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Bad design and vestigial organs
Date: 23 Nov 92 19:49:37 GMT
Organization: University of Michigan Engineering, Ann Arbor

In article <1992Nov23.175036.21809@mail.cornell.edu> Thomas Bjorkman <Thomas_Bjorkman@cornell.edu> writes:
>In article <YMF=z4-@engin.umich.edu> Ray Ingles, ingles@engin.umich.edu
>writes:
>>	Some non-flowering angiosperms, like the grasses, apparently
>>have vestigial flower parts.
>
>Grasses are very much flowering plants, and they have the important parts
>(the sex organs) fully developed.  Many self- or wind pollinated plants
>do not make petals or sepals (decorations) on their flowers.  They all
>have the primordia though, some just develop more than others.

 Actually, *I* didn't write what's credited to me above. Loren Petrich
 (lip@s1.gov) wrote it. The bit about vestigial plant features was a
 repost and labeled as such...

 Sincerely,
 
 Ray Ingles
 ingles@engin.umich.edu

 "The metric system has never really caught on in the U.S., unless you
count the increasing popularity of the 9 mm bullet."
Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: onar@hsr.no (Onar Aam)
Subject: Re: Information in a living cell (was: glass of water)
Organization: Rogaland University Centre
Date: Sun, 22 Nov 1992 18:40:19 GMT

>In article <1992Nov19.124217.8509@hsr.no> onar@hsr.no (Onar Aam) writes:
>...
>>But ultimately, of course, the
>>information in the cell can be packed down to the information of the genome since
>>this information defines the *processes* which created the structures in the
>>first place. 
>
>This is in general not correct, since the environment in which the
>cell grows will produce many effects which leave no trace in the DNA.
>This is particularly true for neurons whose processes grow and form
>connections and even decide whether or not they should run their
>genetic "suicide" programs based on the surroundings in which they
>mature.  Onar, you still have a *lot* to learn about biology...
>
>>Onar.
>
>Mickey Rowe     (rowe@pender.ee.upenn.edu)
>

Oh come on, Mickey. You know damn well what I meant if it hadn't been for your
hostile attitude. Is there needed more information than the human genome provides
to make a human? Except from the basic environment in which the human embryo
grows (and the physical laws) the answer is no. Do the information of the 
properties that emerge on greater scales have *anything* to do with the 
information needed to create the conditions for them to emerge? No. You sounded 
like Kalki in this reply. So maybe I need to remind you as well as him: 
There is NO correlation between the information in a process and the
information in the *states* of the process. 



Onar.
From: stuart@minster.york.ac.uk
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Probability of Evolution
Date: 16 Nov 92 12:07:31 GMT
Organization: Department of Computer Science, University of York, England

kalki33!system@lakes.trenton.sc.us wrote:
: stuart@minster.york.ac.uk writes:
: 
: > 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. 
: 
: Yes, any probability is bounded by 0<p<1. But there are also sets of

Actually it's 0<=p<=1.

: probabilities that are bounded by numbers different from these. For
: example, the set of probabilities associated with the single toss of a
: coin is bounded by .25<p<.75. This is true because p=.5.

Only for a FAIR coin, assuming it cannot land on its edge... but I guess
this is just nit picking :) (Also how can a single number express a
set of probabilities?)
 
: This is a "more definite statement" than saying 0<p<1, yet it is not
: intellectual fraud.

Not the point, is it? By your argument p is also bounded by 0.3 and 0.6,
0.2 and 0.8 etc. The original point was that you contested where the
"actual fact" came from - probability theory.

Stuart
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Internet:      | And the balance will shift, between the weak and the strong.
stuart@minster.| Once they would beg, and they would plead but now they demand
     york.ac.uk|	-- "Like Flames", Berlin
Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: TMakinen
Subject: Re: What is consciousness?
Organization: <none>
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 92 15:33:06 GMT

In article <eDLDuB2w165w@kalki33> kalki33!system@lakes.trenton.sc.us writes:
>> In article <aFc5TB5w165w@kalki33> kalki33!system@lakes.trenton.sc.us writes:
>> >Yes, it is a crude example. Another example is the car and the driver.
>> >The car has tinted windows, so no one can see in and know for sure that
>> >there is a driver inside. But those who understand cars know that the
>> >car is moving because there is a conscious driver inside who is
>> >steering, etc.
>
>> Yes, it is a crude example. Another example is the factory robot and the
>> driver.
>> The robot has closed covering, so no one can see in and know for sure that
>> there is a driver inside. But those who understand robots know that the
>> robot is moving because there is a conscious driver program inside who is
>> steering, etc.
>
>No. Those who understand robots know that the robot was programmed by an
>intelligent being, and that is why it is moving.

Ha ha. Thats +5 to me.

Teemu
From: kalki33!system@lakes.trenton.sc.us
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Probability of Evolution
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 92 15:09:00 EST
Reply-To: kalki33!system@lakes.trenton.sc.us
Organization: Kalki's Infoline BBS, Aiken, SC, USA

lking@athena.mit.edu (Loren King) writes:

> |> Yes. So you agree with us that it takes an intelligent being to create
> |> the conditions under which a particular configuration of matter
> |> --distinct from other configurations-- can arise. This must be true,
> |> since you shuffled the deck, and we are supposing that you are an
> |> intelligent being.
> 
> 
> Don't be silly!  You could replace him with a mechanical shuffler and the 
> probabilities would be the same.

Someone built the mechanical shuffler.

> |> Again, then, you agree with us that life comes from life, since, as you
> |> say, it was your parents who produced you.
> 
> 
> Fine, but are you suggesting that life can come from some "higher" form of li
> instead of life on its own ontological level?  If you're saying that "life co
> from life" well, fine, but it seems to me you're not.  Rather you're saying
> "terrestrial life comes from Divine life", which in my mind is just as fuzzy,
> logically more difficult to defend than saying it arose out of biochemical 
> processes.  In my mind, the latter is an easier proposition to falsify or 
> confirm to many people than your divine hypothesis, which in fact cannot be
> confirmed or falsified.

You speak of "life on its own ontological level", but what is that
level? If you say it is the level of molecular biology, then we say no,
molecular biology cannot explain all the features of life, especially
consciousness.

What, specifically, is your definition of, or what do you understand to
be the meaning of the term "living being"?

> |> Sincerely,
> |> Kalki "Show me a program without a programmer" Dasa
> 
> Loren "show me a logical religious argument without a contentious and
> untestable, unverifiable fundamental divine postulate" King

If you want verifiction of God's existence, you should investigate the
various methods of realization recommended by the devotees, the most
important of which is stated in the taglines to every one of our posts.

Sincerely,
Kalki "No pain, no gain" 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: sdoe@nmsu.edu (Stephen Doe)
Subject: Re: Probability of Evolution
Organization: New Mexico State University
Distribution: world, public
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 1992 17:15:25 GMT

In article <m7T9TB4w165w@kalki33> kalki33!system@lakes.trenton.sc.us writes:
>kmagnacca@eagle.wesleyan.edu writes:
>
>> > Read the book.
>> 
>>    I think you're starting to push your luck, Kalki.  You complain
>> about evolutionists posting "grafitti" and hate-filled messages 
>> while you keep repeating "read the book" about a book that is only
>> available from your institute?  I see asbestos in your future.
>
>Yeah, gee it's strange that these so-called "scientists" won't go out of
>their way to acquire something that disputes their cherished dream of
>being right.

Gee, it's strange that these people with such devastating disproofs of
evolution are so reluctant to post the actual DETAILS of said
disproofs.

Steve "abiogenesis != evolution" Doe
From: cdminter@icaen.uiowa.edu (Corey D Minter)
Subject: That damn giraffe!
Date: Fri, 20 Nov 1992 06:19:46 GMT
Organization: University of Iowa, Iowa City, IA, USA
Keywords: giraffe

I seemed to have come in on the middle of the discussion where some are talking
about the giraffe's neck, so this point may have already been made.

Why haven't I seen any ideas that the trees were also evolving.  There is
no problem then.  Remember everthing evolves, I would say that the tree
species were also getting taller for some survival advantage.
-- 
==============================================================================
Internet: cdminter@icaen.uiowa.edu | Horse of Ren&Stimpy:  "No sir, I don't 
       or cdminter@eng.uiowa.edu   |   like it!"
  Q-Link: EarthsWake (was Chaos0)  | Stimpy:  "Happy Happy. Joy Joy."
==============================================================================
Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: lionel@cs.city.ac.uk (Lionel Tun)
Subject: Laying a trap
Summary: Can random mutations result in evolution?
Keywords: Computer program, random, mutation, chess
Organization: City University, London
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 92 13:32:47 GMT

I would like to pose a couple of questions and gauge the
reactions of evolutionists (and creationists if any are
reading). As computer programs are flavour of the month..

1
Lets say there is a computer program which `knows' the
legal moves of chess - lets call it ChessMover.
ChessMover plays very poor chess because its moves are
made at random. But it does play very fast. ChessMover
is small, compact and extremely efficient. But it plays
bad chess because it has not been designed with any
chess playing algorithms at all.

Would it be possible to subject ChessMover to random
mutations, so that eventually you evolve ChessPlayer,
a chess program which plays very well, say at master
level?

2
For those of you who are not game fans, but more business
oriented:
Consider a spreadsheet program such as Lotus123 or
QuattroPro. Lets say you have a small calculator program,
like the toy ones which pop up in some windowing front
ends. Would it be possible to apply random mutations to
Calculator until it evolves into Spreadsheet?


Please note, both Calculator and ChessMover are small (by
today's standard) programs, lets say about 2 to 4K for the
executable. Shreadsheet and ChessPlayer must obviously be
of a more substantial size (I can't remember how big Lotus
is). If you like, you can randomly modify the source code
and compiler, rather than the executables, if you think this
will make it less brittle. Random modification includes of
course random additions. You might prefer the source code
approach as the compiler will reject programs which will
not even compile, let alone run. If you wish to modify
the compiler, you can keep a copy of the old compiler to 
compile it with.

--
Lionel Tun   (lionel@cs.city.ac.uk)
Vision Group, City University, London, EC1V 0HB. 071-477 8000 x 3889
Newsgroups: talk.origins,talk.politics.theory,soc.history,alt.activism,alt.society.civil-liberty
From: greeny@top.cis.syr.edu (J. S. Greenfield)
Subject: Re: [ACLU] Guardian of Liberty: American Civil Liberties Union
Organization: Syracuse University, CIS Dept.
Date: Sun, 22 Nov 92 22:57:59 EST

In article <722479037@sheol.UUCP> throopw@sheol.UUCP (Wayne Throop) writes:
>:: "Creationism" is a religious dogma that, unlike scientific theories, is
>:: not subject to scientific verification or revision based on new data.
>:
>: However, these same means of "scientific verification or revision"
>: are based on unproveable assumptions about the nature of the 
>: universe (e.g. religious articles of faith.) It is therefore
>: not a valid means of applying the First Amendment.
>
>A problem with Frank's presentation above is that, while both
>"scientific" and "religious" models of the world involve "unproveable
>assumptions", under the scientific method these assumptions are allowed
>to change to meet new data or to better account for old data, while the
>same is not true of assumptions under the religious method of thought.

What do you mean?  Didn't you hear that the Pope just declared that
Galileo *was* correct??!! :)


-- 
J. S. Greenfield                                         greeny@top.cis.syr.edu
(I like to put 'greeny' here, 
but my d*mn system wants a 
*real* name!)                        "What's the difference between an orange?"
From: isaak@aurora.com (Mark Isaak)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Was life always here?  (was: Probability of Evolution)
Date: 18 Nov 92 18:03:00 GMT
Reply-To: isaak@aurora.com (Mark Isaak)
Organization: The Aurora Group

In article <miw9TB10w165w@kalki33> kalki33!system@lakes.trenton.sc.us writes:
>What is your evidence that "at one time, life did not exist"?

The microwave background radiation, for one.  You can't do much
biology when it's too hot even for neutral atoms to form.  Shall I
continue?  Do you really believe that biological life is as old as
time?  (And I thought Jainism was extinct!)
-- 
Mark Isaak           "Every generation thinks it has the answers, and every
isaak@aurora.com      generation is humbled by nature." - Philip Lubin
From: cust_ts@klaava.Helsinki.FI (Tero Sand)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Probability of Evolution
Date: 17 Nov 92 09:06:21 GMT
Organization: University of Helsinki

In article <8gV9TB8w165w@kalki33> kalki33!system@lakes.trenton.sc.us writes:
>weemba@sagi.wistar.upenn.edu (Matthew P Wiener) writes:
>
>> In article <7ZD4TB3w165w@kalki33>, kalki33!system@lakes writes:
>> 
>> >> >Read the book.
>> 
>> >Read the book.
>> 
>> Is this your new chant?
>
>We think you're a chicken, bwak, bwak, bwak! Come on, you yellow-bellied
>pseudo scientist. Put up them dukes! Awwww, does duh poor baby want
>momma to take away dat nasty pwoof? Awwww, don't cwy, baby! Momma will
>make dem nasty cweationists all go away. Den baby can have his bottle!

I think it is time for you to leave, Kalki, or you might end up on a
funny farm.

	Tero Sand
-- 
	EMail: cust_ts@cc.helsinki.fi   or   custts@cc.helsinki.fi
   "I feel most ministers who claim they've heard God's voice are eating
too much pizza before they go to bed at night, and it's really an 
intestinal disorder, not a revelation." - Reverend Jerry Falwell
From: weemba@sagi.wistar.upenn.edu (Matthew P Wiener)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Thompson's proof UPDATE
Keywords: Kalki is dishonest: proof.
Date: 18 Nov 92 16:14:01 GMT
Reply-To: weemba@sagi.wistar.upenn.edu (Matthew P Wiener)
Organization: The Wistar Institute of Anatomy and Biology
In-reply-to: danwell@IASTATE.EDU (Daniel A Ashlock)

In article <1992Nov18.091816@IASTATE.EDU>, danwell@IASTATE (Daniel A Ashlock) writes:
>> We will post the chapter in sections, about 10k at a time, so that you
>> prabhus have time to digest each part. Let's call it the "Anti-evolution
>> FAQ", shall we?

>   NO, NO, NO, NO.  It is _already_ known to be garbage and you have admitted
>that.  That leaves no reason to post it.

Sure he should post it.  It'll be the "Hairy Kirchners are Brain-Dead FAQ".
-- 
-Matthew P Wiener (weemba@sagi.wistar.upenn.edu)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: kalki33!system@lakes.trenton.sc.us
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Probability of Evolution
Date: Sat, 14 Nov 92 04:16:08 EST
Reply-To: kalki33!system@lakes.trenton.sc.us
Organization: Kalki's Infoline BBS, Aiken, SC, USA

robd@cherry09.cray.com (Robert Derrick) writes:

> The K has slipped.  It has collapsed its form and become a single
> entity.  It is no longer speaking from the lofty authority of the
> royal we.  It is becoming human.  A sign, I believe, of the end times.
> K is now on the run, and the inevitable end is depressingly familiar.

We are glad that you have finally decided that we are human. It will no
doubt be reflected in your future posts by an increase in intelligent
probing and a corresponding decrease in useless chatter.

Sincerely,
Kalki "Primordial soup...NOBODY MAKES IT!" 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
Subject: Re: Probability of Evolution
From: skroger@zeus.calpoly.edu (Seth L. Kroger)
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 1992 22:08:23 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:
>> 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?
>
>I'm not sure I can read through the sarcasm. Do you mean to say that,
>despite the pressure of the alleged mechanism of "natural selection"
>(or, sarcastically, "unnatural selection") organisms can and do survive?
>And that if organisms do change, it is not by "random mutation" but is
>instead a somehow intelligent response to the environment?

No, the organisms survive because of natural selection.  As I pointed out in
a responce to your previous post, mutation happens beforehand, and a number
of mutant genes are availible.  A certian number of bacteria will have genes
confering resistence to antibiotics (but not all).  When the antibiotics
hit, natural selection works on the existing variation in bacteria.  Those
without resistence get killed, while those that do, survive.  The survivers
will have a much greater proportion of resistant bacteria among them,
producing a resistant strain of bacteria.  The change in this poputation of
organisms is through random mutation and natural selection, not an
"intelligent responce" to the environment.

>I am willing to discuss the theory of evolution on its own terms, by
>using its own premises and definitions. I am convinced that there are
>serious flaws in the theory, that the flaws are contained in the
>premises, and that the flaws can be exposed by deducing false
>conclusions from the premises.

I would be happy to have such a discussion.

>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: schumach@convex.com (Richard A. Schumacher)
Subject: Re: Probability of Evolution
Date: Sat, 21 Nov 1992 01:52:01 GMT
Organization: Engineering, CONVEX Computer Corp., Richardson, Tx., USA
X-Disclaimer: This message was written by a user at CONVEX Computer
              Corp. The opinions expressed are those of the user and
              not necessarily those of CONVEX.

In <XBTHuB2w165w@kalki33> kalki33!system@lakes.trenton.sc.us writes:

>"Kalki Dasa" = "Servant of Kalki"
>"Kalki" = Name of next avatara of Supreme Personality of Godhead,
>scheduled to make descent at end of present age. Mission is to kill all
>demons, kick out atheists, clean up planet, reestablish Vedic
>civilization.
>"Dasa" = "servant of"

Hey, thanks! When is His Kalkitude supposed to return? Is parading
your ignorance of physics and biology (uh, pardon me: "your knowledge
of Vedic science") a form of worship of the Kalkmeister? How many of
you are hiding under that pseudonym?


Now, put the dweeb Dasa back on. How'd the Krishnas sucker you into
letting them use your system? Do you feed them? For goodness sake,
don't let any of them sleep in your house.


Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: MANDTBACKA@finabo.abo.fi (Mats Andtbacka Ktf92)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Probability of Evolution
Date: 17 Nov 92 09:36:18 GMT
Organization: Unorganized Usenet Postings UnInc.
X-News-Reader: VMS NEWS 1.23

In <1Ru9TB6w165w@kalki33> kalki33!system@lakes.trenton.sc.us writes:

>>> Well then the proposal of molecular evolution that life arose from
>>> reactions between simple organic molecules cannot be demonstrated, can
>>> it?
>> 
>>       That's not quite what he said... It might be quite some task to
>> *model it mathematically*, I think you'll agree.
> 
> He said "intractable".

      English isn't my first language... If "intractable" is roughly
equal to "impossible" (don't have a dictionary handy, I'm afraid), then
doing such modelling would still be rather difficult, no?

>>       This is possible - that everything we do, we do on some form of
>> faith or other, I mean. If so, what is faith? I still think molecular
>> evolution is *much more probable* than anything else put forth, though.
> 
> It is the attempt to quantify this "probable" that leads to our
> conclusion.

      And mine, and our conclusions differ. Now, basically, prove that
my conclusion is incorrect, and after that, prove that yours isn't even
worse off.
 
>>       Rest of your posting - a *lot* - deleted, as it went a bit over my
>> head, I'm afraid. This point I'd wish to make: Living blobs of organic
>> (and some inorganic) would have a definite evolutionary advantage over
>> dead blobs of organic and inorganic matter, when in an environment more
>> or less hostile to the continued existence of such blobs. Thus, life
>> could (and probably would) evolve.
> 
> There is that "probably" again!

      But you just aren't listening - MY probabilities are MUCH HIGHER
than yours!
...
      Thus, they must have achieved a much higher form of existence, and
so must be much, much closer to the absolute, most exalted truth...
Please excuse my very wicked sense of humor, will you...

 - + - + - + - + - + - + - + - + - + - + - + - + - + - + - + - + - + - + - + - 
           Opinions? What's that, mom - some new kind of dessert?
     "Every day for us, something new / Open mind for a different view /
                       And nothing else matters..."     ---     Metallica