HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: lionel@cs.city.ac.uk (Lionel Tun)
Subject: Re: AWESOME computer program (Populus)
Organization: City University, London
Date: Mon, 9 Nov 92 18:48:33 GMT

(Kent Sandvik ) writes:
>> >Lionel, why don't we have any computer programs that show that
>> >evolution is impossible? 
>> 
>> Because as usual, you would choose not to believe.
>> 
>> Example: would you like to take a ride in an Airbus
>> whose computer program was modified randomly? Why
>> not? After all, the theory of evolution states that
>> this is how improvements are generated.
>
>Well, let me ask the question once again, why don't we have any
>creationism SW programs that simulate how impossible evolution
>actually is? I'm prepared to believe, if I at least get some
>evidence, instead of assumptions.

OK, I issue a challenge. Take your favourite chess program on
your favourite computer. Randomly change any number of bits or
bytes in the program's executable file. 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.

There you are, this is my "SW program that simulates how
impossible evolution actually is", your common or garden game
of computer chess. Please report back in say ten years.

BTW to forestall any objections, please note that a computer
chess program is much simpler than a human brain.

--
Lionel Tun   (lionel@cs.city.ac.uk)
Vision Group, City University, London, EC1V 0HB. 071-477 8000 x 3889
From: esot@troi.cc.rochester.edu (Eric Sotnak)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Would you believe anyway ???
Date: 11 Nov 92 19:20:46 GMT
Organization: University of Rochester (Rochester, NY)

In article <BxJz2K.zE@brunel.ac.uk> bm90ash@brunel.ac.uk (Adrian S Harvey) writes:
>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...

  I hereby reach out to God with the desire to know him.  God, if you exist,
please cure all cases of AIDS by 12:00 noon tomorrow (11-12-92).  Since you
are perfectly-loving, you will want to do so, since you are all-powerful,
you are capable of doing so, since you are all-knowing, you will know (a)
how to do so, and (b) that you are being offered this public opprtunity to
prove your existence to all the unbelievers you so dearly want to convince
of your existence.  Failure to abide by the specified condition will be
taken as justification for disbelieving the proposition <God exists>.


>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 ......

  Your argument presupposes that Jesus is a reliable source of information
regarding the nature of God and the nature of love.  This is a somewhat
controversial assumption -- ask any atheist, jew, muslim, hindu, ....

  You also seem to be confused about different senses of the word "is". 
Perhaps you should look the word up in a good dictionary.

--
********************************************************************
Eric Sotnak                   |  One life.
esot@troi.cc.rochester.edu    |  One chance.
From: sdoe@nmsu.edu (Stephen Doe)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Probability of Evolution
Date: 12 Nov 92 00:39:51 GMT
Distribution: world, public
Organization: New Mexico State University

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

"Politically incorrect," or "scientifically bogus?"  We don't know
yet, though many here have there suspicions.

If it does turn out that people here reject your claims after reading
your book, will you accuse them of being PC?  Yeah, that's good
creationist technique.

The books in a research library should be of sufficient caliber to
actually be useful in research.  I would not take an institution which
stocked its shelves with Velikovsky and Van Daniken seriously when it
claimed to be an astrophysical research institution.  Am I just being
PC, then?  No, it's just been demonstrated that these books are
useless as science, though I bet you could start a few cults with
them. . . 

>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.
 
I'd rather not fork out a lot of cash for it if it does turn out to be
bogus.  As a graduate student, I'm living hand to mouth.  Is it too
much to ask for you to post a brief synopsis of its major arguments,
so that we may make a more informed judgment?  If these arguments have
merit, it will boost interest in the book considerably.  I know your
posts have generated a considerable amount of e-mail you feel
obligated to respond to you, and that this request results in more
work for you.  But I would rather not order this book without first
getting an idea of what its contents are like.  

Thank you,

SD
From: robd@cherry09.cray.com (Robert Derrick)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Probability of Evolution
Date: 12 Nov 92 01:55:08 GMT
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL6]

kalki33!system@lakes.trenton.sc.us wrote:
: 
: I have asked Dr. Thompson's permission to serialize the book over this
  ^
: newsgroup, and am awaiting his reply. Please understand that I am in no
                                                               ^
: way trying to "back out". It's just that I am less qualified than he to
                                           ^

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.

The Plot of T.O., as faithful as an old hound dog:

New face with "fresh" perspective crashes onto T.O. as a valiant crusader.

The "fresh" perspective is, underneathe its shiny new outfit, shown to
be the same old dirty laundry that has been aired here before, so many
times.  The T.O.ers hail the newcomer with derision and dung.

The tarnished crusader, knocked off of the high steed of authority,
engages in hand to hand combat, and gradually comes to realize that
he is up against a formidible foe.  Perhaps in league with the forces
of evil itself.  Blood is drawn.

As the crusader weakens, he starts to promise to return to the battle
soon with the Holy Grail, the Proof, the Theory, the Unassailible Truth.

Battle after battle is fought, the terrible foe ever scoffing at the
weakened and indefensible position of the horribly wounded crusader.

Finally, a pathetic little dagger is drawn by the crusader, probably
spoon shaped, rusty, with "Made Many Times Before" stamped clearly on
its blade, and weakly, he shouts, "Here it is; well, this is not all
of it, only part of it, and if I only had time I would return with
the real Sword Of Truth, but I have so many other pursuits, and I
am so very busy, and you are so mean, and heartless, and cruel, and
your evil is so total and complete that I doubt that even the Sword
of Truth could ever penetrate your horny hide."  Whereupon the 
trounced villein hies himself to a monastery to lick his scabrous
wounds and curse all villianous bullies of T.O.

: If I do get permission to post it, I am wondering how to type the
: mathematical symbols on this ascii terminal! I guess I will just use
: "computerese".

I would not worry overmuch about how you will do it.  You will in
all probability give up long before you ever get that far.

Here you are, expounding vasty statistics to us as one of great and
profound knowledge.  And here you are, also, about to become one.

And how doth that prick thy consciousness?



	"There is nothing new under the sun."
--

rob derrick				robd@cherry.cray.com
Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: jgacker@news.gsfc.nasa.gov (James G. Acker)
Subject: Re: Comet Will Destroy th
Organization: Goddard Space Flight Center
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL6]
Date: Thu, 5 Nov 1992 13:45:32 GMT

Stan Friesen (swf@tools3teradata.com) wrote:

: True, but this discussion was triggered by the observation that the Earth may
: have a collision/near-collision with a *particular*, *known* comet, of the
: size mentioned.  (I forget its name).
	Swift-Tuttle, now the longest periodic comet known.   Last
return before this year was during the Civil War.

	Jim Acker
From: danwell@IASTATE.EDU (Daniel A Ashlock)
Subject: Lionel Tun, idiot or moron?
Reply-To: danwell@IASTATE.EDU (Daniel A Ashlock)
Organization: Iowa State University
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 1992 20:04:08 GMT


   Once again Lionel picked, as an example of a situation where evolution cannot
occur a situation where evolution has been repeatably demonstrated in the
present day.  Lionel: do you make up every example out of thin air?
Do you know how likely you are to be wrong if you do this?

In article <1992Nov9.184833.16734@city.cs>, lionel@cs.city.ac.uk (Lionel Tun)
writes:
> OK, I issue a challenge. Take your favourite chess program on
> your favourite computer. Randomly change any number of bits or
> bytes in the program's executable file. 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.
> 
> There you are, this is my "SW program that simulates how
> impossible evolution actually is", your common or garden game
> of computer chess. Please report back in say ten years.
> 
> BTW to forestall any objections, please note that a computer
> chess program is much simpler than a human brain.

   Lionel, the failure of one particular example you think up, said example
having nothing to do with evolution, has no valid implications.  You need to
mutate millions of chess programs and then pick only the good ones.  You
need to iterate.

   In addition GOOD CHESS PROGRAMS HAVE BEEN PRODUCED BY EVOLUTION, specifically
genetic algorithms.

Enjoy the crow, you idiot.

Dan
Danwell@IASTATE.EDU
Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: isaak@aurora.com (Mark Isaak)
Subject: Re: What is consciousness?
Summary: an answer
Reply-To: isaak@aurora.com (Mark Isaak)
Organization: The Aurora Group
Date: Wed, 11 Nov 92 22:45:26 GMT

In article <BeJ1TB1w165w@kalki33> kalki33!system@lakes.trenton.sc.us writes:
>isaak@aurora.com (Mark Isaak) writes:
>> What purpose will be served by having a definition [of consciousness]?

>[Kalki reply, in effect, "Because it's there."]

Fair enough.  How's this for a working definition:
"Consciousness is a mental behavior--namely, it is an organism's thinking
about itself."

>the program of science is to identify and quantify all phenomena and all
>relations between phenomena. Right?

Science confines itself to observable phenomena, and, with consciousness,
this leads to a problem.  Although you might claim that you can observe
consciousness in yourselves, you can't observe it in anyone or anything
else.  Your study of consciousness won't apply to anyone but you.  (I
have read quotes by schizophrenics saying things like, "my thoughts are
a solid sphere of glass."  Do you think such a person's view of
consciousness would be readily generalizable?  In fact, do you think one
could generalize the introspections of someone who habitually referred to
himself in the plural?)

You can observe behaviors which imply consciousness, but that's not the
same thing.  The best you can do is study various external behaviors and
try to fit them all into a general model of consciousness.  Even then,
you're not really studying consciousness; you're studying the external
behaviors.
-- 
Mark Isaak           "Every generation thinks it has the answers, and every
isaak@aurora.com      generation is humbled by nature." - Philip Lubin
Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: ds0007@medtronic.COM (Dale Skiba)
Subject: Re: noah's ark
Organization: Medtronic, Inc.
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL6]
Distribution: usa
Date: Thu, 5 Nov 1992 23:02:35 GMT

Bruce Korb (bkorb@starbase.Convergent.Com) wrote:
: |> In article <1992Nov2.013016.4905@aurora.com>, isaak@aurora.com (Mark Isaak) writes:
: |> |> Can any Creationists address even half of the points in this list?
: |> |> 

[ lots of problems with ICR literal Genesis Creationism deleted ]

[ lots of answers using non-literal Genesis Creationism deleted ]

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.  Unfortunately the prior style has
greater political clout.  And people following the first style 
believe people following the second style have been influenced
by the devil.

I think the term "modern creationism" is a bit misleading to
use to describe the ICR variety.  That is something that Gish
would use to describe it!  The use of the word "modern" seems
to fit just about as well as the word "scientific" :-)

--
Dale Skiba
Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: isaak@aurora.com (Mark Isaak)
Subject: Re: Emergent Properties
Reply-To: isaak@aurora.com (Mark Isaak)
Organization: The Aurora Group
Date: Fri, 6 Nov 92 17:11:21 GMT

In article <Bx88Jq.4AM@gpu.utcs.utoronto.ca> lamoran@gpu.utcs.utoronto.ca (L.A. Moran) writes:
>I have thought long and hard about biology and I have directly experienced,
>and marvelled at, its complexity. Nevertheless, I reject vitalism and I also
>reject the holistic middle way.

When I write a computer program, I give little thought to the
architecture of the machine it will run on.  That level of detail may
influence a few of my descisions, but by and large, it is enough to
know that the machine supports the computer language.  Even when I
design electronic circuits, I don't much worry about how the electrons
are behaving; instead, I read the specs for the chips I'm using.  If
I were to follow each and every electron while writing a program, I'd
never get anything done.

The same principle applies to other fields as well.  Automobile
manufacturers may do some analysis based on the molecular properties
of the materials they use, but they still do crash tests nonetheless.
Drug companies can model the behavior of their drugs on a molecular
level, but can they get FDA approval without testing the drugs on
individuals?  Economists don't trace every dollar bill, every person,
or even every factory, much less the atoms that comprise them.

Sometimes systems simply get too complex to deal with at one level of
detail.  In such cases, you must back up a ways and look at a higher
level of detail.  "Emergent properties" are those properties which show
up at the higher levels of detail.  There's nothing magical or
vitalistic about them; they are a natural consequence of the properties
at the lowest level.  They appear emergent simply because its hard to
see them when you're only looking at small pieces of them.
-- 
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: What is consciousness?
Date: 10 Nov 92 05:06:44 GMT
Reply-To: rh@ishmael.UUCP (Richard Harter)
Organization: Software Maintenance & Development Systems, Inc.

In article <1992Nov9.170243.6781@aurora.com> isaak@aurora.com (Mark Isaak) writes:
>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.

Ah, come on.  Not fair.  You're not allowed to claim a typo defense.
You said neutrons, you gotta give us neutrons.  This is a very important
and weighty matter of cosmic signifigance.  In fact, it's The Isaak Neutron
Theory of Universal Gravity.

-- Sorry about that.
-- 
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: rh@smds.com (Richard Harter)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Ted cleans up his act
Date: 7 Nov 92 12:05:35 GMT
Reply-To: rh@ishmael.UUCP (Richard Harter)
Organization: Software Maintenance & Development Systems, Inc.

In article <104@fedfil.UUCP> news@fedfil.UUCP (news) writes:

Scatological content: 0

Congratulations, Ted, keep up the good work.
-- 
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: keithd@well.sf.ca.us (Keith Doyle)
Subject: Re: Probability of Evolution
Organization: Whole Earth 'Lectronic Link
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 1992 04:02:15 GMT



Kalki Dasa scrawls:
>  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.

Wanna see me pull a number out of a hat?  10e-150000.

Wanna see it again?

>  The entire history of the earth would have to be repeated over and over
>again at least 10e150000 times for there to be a substantial chance that
>higher living entities would evolve even once.

>  This shows that the standard dogma that evolution of higher life forms
>will occur "given enough time" is false, at least for any of the
>current estimates of the earth's age.

Independent of abiogenesis, these statements are clearly proven false by a
number of computer programs, the Tierra simulator for one.  Despite the fact
you have failed to define "higher life form", the Tierra simulator shows
that significant improvements can occur in mere tens to hundreds of
generations.  Natural selection accumulates such enhancements over time
providing a clear vehicle for increase in complexity (nowhere to go but
up) and for isolated populations to diverge to a degree related to the
length of time they have been isolated.

And, if the above statement are intended only to apply to abiogenesis,
then they have no application to evolution, which is a different subject.

And as I have stated before, the probability of abiogenesis can only be
determined if we can identify the following values:

    1. The total number of viable chemical combinations producing an
       abiogenesis "event".

    2. The total number of possible chemical combinations out of which
       such an abiogenesis event can occur.

    3. The rate at which combinations are "tried" which must take into
       account the massive parallelism of chemical processes that occur
       throughout the universe.

At least for starters.

>  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.

Then his willful ignorance is particularly astounding, as is yours.

Keith
From: weemba@sagi.wistar.upenn.edu (Matthew P Wiener)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Emergent Properties
Date: 8 Nov 92 15:20:45 GMT
Reply-To: weemba@sagi.wistar.upenn.edu (Matthew P Wiener)
Organization: The Wistar Institute of Anatomy and Biology
In-reply-to: weemba@sagi.wistar.upenn.edu (Matthew P Wiener)

In article <96275@netnews.upenn.edu>, weemba@sagi (Matthew P Wiener) writes:
>|     "First, nothing in biology contradicts the laws of physics and
>|      chemistry; [...]

>|      Second, the principles of physics and chemistry are not sufficient
>|      to explain complex biological objects because [...]

>>Gould's premises are vacuous statements [...]

>I think you misunderstand what Gould was getting at.  I understand his
>"principles of physics and chemistry" to refer to the accepted organiza-
>tional notions that take place within the laws of physics (note that,
>in this context, there are no laws of chemistry), as witnessed by the
>various physics and chemistry journals.

>I also think Gould is wrong, [...]

On further reflection, I partly take this back.  I suspect now that Gould
is also referring to the historical component to biology.  An explanation
of "it just happened that way" can not be acceptable in physics/chemistry,
the disciplines, as opposed to "it just happened that way" is in accordance
with the laws of physics.  Even at the quantum level, experiments are re-
peated enough times so that probabilistic events follow a definite pattern.
-- 
-Matthew P Wiener (weemba@sagi.wistar.upenn.edu)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: lking@athena.mit.edu (Loren King)
Subject: Re: Creation vs. evolution
Keywords: natural selection
Organization: Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Date: Thu, 12 Nov 1992 03:01:22 GMT


The experiment which replicated hypothesized atmospheric 
conditions on early earth, and generated simple proteins,
was first carried out by a Professor Miller at the University 
of Chicago in 1953, I think (this is off the top of my 
head, so the date may be wrong).

Two different senses of evolution have been stuck together in
your post:

1.  Evolution as fact: features (traits, strategies) in populations 
    do change over time, and certain traits come to predominate.

2.  Evolution as theory, i.e. the model that accounts for such changes in 
    populations by postulating a non-teleological mechanism by which
    some traits come to predominate over time.  This postulate is roughly
    as follows: traits which allow an organism (or strategy) to be more
    effective in pursuing its interests in a given environment will
    become more frequent over time.  Now, if "interest" is defined as
    "perpetuating the genome" (i.e. number of offspring), then you also 
    have an explanation as to why these traits come to dominate: they 
    are more successful at reproducing themselves than others.


  So, in a really soggy, ambiguous sense, natural selection (not evolutionary
theory) replaces God, as you suggest.  "The Will of God" is one possible 
mechanism driving change in trait frequencies over time.  "Natural selection, 
however, avoids such a vague and untestable hypothesis by postulating that 
the mechanismmdriving change is found among individuals and their ecosystem, 
not beyond them.

  Natural selection thus also replaces any other explanatory logic which 
postulates a systemic purpose which transcends the individual.  It pretty 
much discounts Hegel and Marx, for instance, as well as Islam, and it 
takes a pretty solid swipe at Lovelock's Gaia  hypothesis as well 
(although I think it is relatively unsuccessful in this last case).

Just a few thoughts.

Loren King
MIT
Newsgroups: talk.origins