HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: amorgan@Xenon.Stanford.EDU (Crunchy Frog)
Subject: Re: Friesen on elastics and sauropod necks
Organization: Computer Science Department, Stanford University.
Date: Sat, 3 Oct 1992 01:48:05 GMT

In article <43@fedfil.UUCP> news@fedfil.UUCP (news) writes:
>In article <1992Oct2.080657.7277@nic.funet.fi>, Teemu Makinen writes:
>*In article <42@fedfil.UUCP> news@fedfil.UUCP (news) writes:
>
>*>Again, reread what McGowan says about the lives of elephants.  They spend
>*>most of their waking hours eating;  McGowan says it is not clear to him
>*>how anything could eat enough to get any bigger than elephants.  
>*     ^^^^^^^^
>
>*What about whales?
>
>He surely meant large land herbivores.  Whales eat animal protein, whether
>plankton or squid and fish in some cases, and that's a different ball game
>from what Stan and I were talking about.  Sauropods ate the same kinds of
>stuff elephants do.  

By "same kind" do you mean vegetable matter or do you have something
more precise in mind?

>The point I was making was that if elephants need to
>eat almost all day long as they do and require the volumes of green leaves
>which we know they do, then there is no way that sauropods could live in
>the kind of area which Stan was describing.

The stuff elephants eat is not particularly nutritious.  Maybe the
sauropods had access to slightly more wholesome fair. 
 
>Ted Holden
>HTE

C Frog
From: dhenry@plains.NoDak.edu (David Henry)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: God Talks! (WAS: Watson Jr's Debut on t.o. (was Re: Cain's wife)
Date: 5 Oct 92 16:57:28 GMT
Organization: North Dakota Higher Education Computing Network

In article <1992Oct1.185151.12409@cunews.carleton.ca> watson@sce.carleton.ca (Stephen Watson) writes:
|>About my son's debut on t.o. (we start 'em young at our house! :-):
|>In article <1488@esl.ESL.COM> markwc@barney.esl.com (Mark Christiansen) writes:
|>>>|> seanna@bnr.ca (Seanna Watson) writes:
|>>>|> >Amusing conversation (well at least I thought so :)
|>>>|> >Nicky:  Oh.  I guess only God heard the Big Bang.
|>>>|> AMUSING, but perhaps TRUE!
|>>
|>>No kidding!  But perhaps God set off the Big Bang.
|>>Mark
|>
|>Theologically, this is close but not quite there: God SPOKE the Big Bang.
|>Heb. 11:3 "By faith we understand that the worlds were prepared by the 
|>*word* of God..."
|>
|>Sort of gives me a warm feeling, thinking about God splashing about in the
|>quantum foam, giving a big happy shout and...FOOM...Universe!  :-) :-)

This reminds me of a book I have at home, bought it for 50 cents at a garage
sale. It's called "Life," and it's by the learned Julius Hensel, and is full
of such skeptical wonders as his proof on how the Curies were wrong, Pasteur
was wrong, the moon is shaped like a giant lens, and other funky stuff.

In any case, one of my favorite sections was in his account of the origin of
the Universe. Hensel goes beyond belief in the ether by PROVING that outer
space has an ATMOSPHERE! (Ooh!). How? HAH! Simple!

Since the Bible has written: "And God said, 'Let there be light,'", there
obviously must be an atmosphere in outer space, or else God couldn't have
spoken! (there being no medium to transmit his sound, after all).

I have a feeling that if I could understand chemistry (Hensel's "strong
point," so to speak), the book would be even more enjoyable, since he spends
some hundred pages on pictures of sugar molecules. In any case, recommended
for all readers of this group in a lazy-day mood.
-- 
David R. Henry - Rogue Fan Club - CTHULHU in '92! Why vote for LESSER evils?
"Boy, do I love PLASTIC!" -- TJ Teru // What was your question? --Kate Bush
"All you of Earth are IDIOTS!"-P9fOS // Thanks... for the memories.--Rogue
dhenry@plains.nodak.edu * ud137927@ndsuvm1.bitnet * ud137927@vm1.nodak.edu
From: wolfone@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (Patrick Chester)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Creationist CRAPOLA!
Date: 29 Sep 92 20:09:29 GMT
Organization: The University of Texas at Austin, Austin TX

In article <q946t64@zola.esd.sgi.com> livesey@solntze.esd.sgi.com (Jon Livesey) writes:
>
>In particular, are "fish" a single kind, which seems to
>be what you imply above?   
>
>Are whales fish, or if not, what kind do they belong to?
>
>jon.
Whales are air breathing mammals. 


-- 
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Patrick Chester            |"The earth is too fragile a basket in which to keep
wolfone@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu |  all your eggs." Robert A. Heinlein
Politically Incorrect      |"The meek shall inherit the earth. The rest of us
Future Lunar Colonist      |  are going to the stars." Anonymous
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: kck+@cs.cmu.edu (Karl Kluge)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Object-oriented creation
Date: 1 Oct 92 04:30:47 GMT
Organization: School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon

This idea suffers from a serious flaw. Given that the hierarchical nesting
is the same for different traits (skeletal morphology, brain functional
anatomy, DNA coding for various proteins, etc), we would be forced to
conclude that either there was some odd reason that the appropriate
distribution of all these traits just happens to follow the same pattern, or
that the creator happened to choose to engage in separate acts of special
creation in a way that mimics evolution.
Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: lking@athena.mit.edu (Loren King)
Subject: Antti and Goedel's Theorem (was Re: Real issues for Antti)
Organization: Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 1992 22:56:42 GMT

In article <1992Sep30.155024.14018@cs.joensuu.fi>, asiivo@cs.joensuu.fi
(Antti Siivonen) writes:

|> kv07@IASTATE.EDU (Warren Vonroeschlaub) writes:
|> >  Now math, is that Empirical or not?  None of the concepts expressed in math
|> >allows any kind of direct observation until it is applied to the real world.
|> >On the other hand, mathematics is probably the only field where one can prove
|> >things in the strictest sense of the word prove.
|> 
|> 	You answered your own question. If I have one apple and then another,
|> 	that makes two apples, mathematically 1 + 1 = 2. The rest of math is
|> 	just applications of this rule. Very empiric. 


  What a delightfully simple-minded view of mathematics!  Russell and
Whitehead, and Hibert, tried a similar approach (establishing that
all significant -- i.e. definable with respect to a truth value --
mathematical propositions could be derived from a small set of logical
axioms).  They didn't suggest that mathematics was empirical, as you have,
but that it derived from simple, self-evident logical properties.
  I suggest you read Kurt Goedel's seminal paper of 1931, "On Formally
Undecidable Propositions in Principia Mathematica and Related Systems"
for an exposition of why all of mathematics is NOT simply an algorithmic
derviation from simple logical, OR empirical (as in you example), cases
and rules.


___________

Loren King
Massachusetts Institute of Technology
From: brinkman@si194b.llnl.gov
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Neo-Catastrophist Jokes
Date: 26 Sep 92 23:55:07 GMT


   In article <36@fedfil.UUCP> news@fedfil.UUCP (news) "The Inimitable One"
presents...

>The following are a few of my favorite astronomer jokes:

   Come on Oh Mighty Tedster.  These are not astronomer jokes, these are
but pale rip offs of other jokes with astronomers plugged in as the subject.
I mean these are no more funny than jokes like,

Q: What's the difference between Ted Holden and a bag of putrid pond scum?
A: The bag.

Is it too much to ask that your astronomer jokes at least have something to
do with astronomers?  Just as an example,

Scientist #1: That guy must be an astronomer.
Scientist #2: How can you tell?
Scientist #1: He has error bars on the exponents.

   Anyway, in keeping with spirit of this endeavor, let me demonstrate how
this relevance factor would be applied using neo-catastrophist jokes*...


Q: How many neo-catastrophists does it take to screw in a light bulb?
A: Only one, but what's the point?  Pretty soon Venus will come whipping
   back past the Earth and provide all the nightly illumination one could
   need.


Velikovsky is throwing a huge dinner party.  As the guests sit down to eat,
V places before them a huge platter of charred Vaseline.  Ginenthal asks how
V could possibly be so rude as to try and serve his guests petroleum products
for dinner.  Velikovsky replies, "Hydrocarbons, carbohydrates, what's the
difference?"


Q: What do you call a self-contradictory reference?
A: A Ginenthal source.


Velikovsky: What has four wheels and flies?
Rose: I don't know, what?
Velikovsky: A garbage truck.  What is ten thousand years old with four wheels
            and flies?
Rose: A Sumerian garbage wagon?
Velikovsky: No, nothing!  Everyone knows that flies evolved on Jupiter and
            didn't come to Earth until ~4,000 years ago.


Q: What's the difference between publically proclaiming that a respected
   scientist is a drug user and name calling?
A: I dunno, but Ted Holden seems to feel there is one.


Q: What do you call an Antediluvian standing between a porcupine and
   a giraffe?
A: A translator.


Velikovsky walks into a bar and says, "Hey fartender, I'd like a fartini."
He finishes his drinks and says, "Hey fartender, I'd like another fartini."
V gulps the second drink down and says, "Hey fartender howzabout another
fartini?"

At this point the barkeep, having had about all he could stand, growls,
"Look buddy, I'm not a Fartender, I'm a Bartender.  Furthermore, it's not a
Fartini, it's a Martini."

Somewhat abashed, Velikovsky mewls, "What do you expect from me?  I can't
even keep Aphrodite and Athena straight."


>-- 
>Ted Holden
>HTE

*  These jokes are all either directly or indirectly related to posts from
   Ted and/or the writings of the primary sources.  Explanations available
   upon request.

--
Matt Brinkman
brinkman@edseq1.llnl.gov
Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: asiivo@cs.joensuu.fi (Antti Siivonen)
Subject: Re: Real issues for Antti
Organization: University of Joensuu
Date: Thu, 1 Oct 1992 13:28:06 GMT

colby@bu-bio.bu.edu (Chris Colby) writes:
>They do not interbreed (as it says in my FAQ that you supposedly read). 
>Why don't you look up the reference? They are not defined by morphology.
>The real world doesn't go away just becuase you ignore it, Antti.

	No, I was told that they're defined just by morphology. 
-- 

		Andreas - Siperian Sirri   Siberian Stint

	No ITU, love, evolution.           Tuusniemi ! Siis imein suut !
From: colby@bu-bio.bu.edu (Chris Colby)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: satanic conspiracy club qualifications
Date: 28 Sep 92 02:17:36 GMT
Organization: animal -- coelomate -- deuterostome

In article <n0adct@ofa123.fidonet.org> David.Rice@ofa123.fidonet.org writes:

>Chris Colby we keep
>for his pretty face.

Egad, I'm not so sure I want to part of any organization that includes
me based on the esthetic value of my visage. Who the hell are you
turning away, David... the elephant man? 8-)

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)
Subject: Re: Methinks it's like a weasel (Blind Watchmaker)
Summary:  I hope I don't lose too much money on this deal.
Reply-To: isaak@aurora.com (Mark Isaak)
Organization: The Aurora Group
Date: Thu, 1 Oct 92 23:55:15 GMT

In article <BRUCE.92Sep30153607@suprenum.supr.scm.liv.ac.uk> bruce@supr.scm.liv.ac.uk (Bruce Stephens) writes:
>Here's another example: suppose I want to roll six sixes (with six
>dice).  How many rolls would I expect to need if
>     a) I just keep rolling all six until they all come up sixes?

65536, on the average.

>     b) If I take out any that come up sixes and just reroll the rest?

I think the expected number of rolls is 14.7 exactly (6/6 + 6/5 + ...
+ 6/1), but I'm not entirely confident of my reasoning.


Here's another probablility argument on the subject of abiogenesis:
The odds of atoms arranging themselves into some kind of pattern by
chance is astronomical, right?  I mean, even if abiogenesis required
that 10 atoms of type A end up above 10 atoms of type B, the odds
against that are 1:2^20, or worse than one in a million, right?  So
if we model this process with, say, pingpong balls and golf balls,
and throw them at random into a swimming pool, the odds that all the
pingpong balls end up above all the golf balls is worse than one in
a million, right?  So I'll wager one dollar of mine against a million
dollars of yours that the balls will sort like that, and since the
odds against that happening are so much in your favor, you can expect
to make money on the deal, and you'll take the bet, right?  Heck,
I'll even throw in two dollars!  Any takers?
-- 
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: huston@access.digex.com (Herb Huston)
Subject: Re: New Evidence for Creation!
Organization: Express Access Online Communications, Greenbelt, MD USA
Distribution: na
Date: Sat, 3 Oct 1992 19:07:20 GMT

In article <1992Oct1.190826@IASTATE.EDU> kv07@IASTATE.EDU (Warren Vonroeschlaub) writes:
>[...] I can't resist pointing out that the
>average human lifespan has NOT been declining since the fall.  The average human
>lifespan has gone up about 30 years since the turn of the century.

While Neanderthals lived into their 40s, Cro-Magnons lived into their 60s.
However, the development of agriculture about 10,000 years ago not only caused
populations to soar but resulted in falling lifespans due to, paradoxically,
poorer diets and the easy spread of disease with overcrowding.  We've only
recently regained pre-agricultural lifespans.  Developing agriculture was
a major mistake, and its principal consequence, overpopulation, may yet prove
to be our undoing.

-- Herb Huston
From: livesey@solntze.esd.sgi.com (Jon Livesey)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: pi=3 (was Re: Abuse By t.o Regulars
Date: 5 Oct 92 00:57:03 GMT
Organization: sgi

In article <98aO02kg24C=01@JUTS.ccc.amdahl.com>, czl30@duts.ccc.amdahl.com (Chris Lee) writes:
>
> Unfortunately the creationist logic goes something like:
>    "the bible is 100% accurate and everything is therefore 100%
>     fact and therefore the genesis and flood stories are 100% true"

Except for that nice get-out where some guy drops a monster load 
of acid and has this "revelation" that excuses us from a whole 
bunch of dietary, etc., rules that we happen to find a bit 
inconvenient.

jon.
From: mikel@Apple.COM (Mikel Evins)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: evolution and natural selection
Date: 2 Oct 92 18:56:25 GMT
Organization: Apple Computer Inc., Cupertino, CA

Point of curiosity: do the definitions below assume (as they
seem to) some constant environment in which fitness is
defined? It seems to me that evolution might alter the
environment (in the smaller sense of changing the populations
of organisms sharing it, or the larger sense of having effects
on the climate or on chemical composition of the environment
and so on), thus altering the fitness of the organisms in
the environment.

In article <97169@bu.edu> colby@bu-bio.bu.edu (Chris Colby) writes:

>evolution: a change in the gene pool of a population over time
>(or, more narrowly,a change in allele frequency)
>
>natural selection: differential reproductive success of (pre-existing)
>genotypes in a population
>
>fitness: average reproductive success of a genotype in a population
>(usually expressed relative to the most fit genotype in the population
>which is arbitrarily assigned a fitness of one.)
>
>When fitness differences exist, natural selection can cause a change
>in allele frequencies (evolution). Eventually selection will drive
>allele frequencies to an equilibrium point and will then serve to
>prevent evolution until mutation (or recombination or gene flow) 
>replenishes genetic variation with differences in fitness.
>
>Selection and evolution are not synonomous; selection is but one 
>of the mechanisms of evolution. The others are mutation, recombination,
>gene flow and genetic drift.
>
>The moths are definately an example of evolution (via natural selection).
>
>Follow-ups to talk.origins 
>
>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"


Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: tlode@nyx.cs.du.edu (trygve lode)
Subject: Re: Kazmaier and standing up at 200,000 lbs:  why it can't happen
Organization: Nyx, Public Access Unix @ U. of Denver Math/CS dept.
Date: Sat, 3 Oct 92 17:28:15 GMT

In article <46@fedfil.UUCP> news@fedfil.UUCP (news) writes:
>In article <1992Oct3.064526.16716@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu>, tlode@nyx.cs.du.edu (trygve lode) writes:
>*In article <45@fedfil.UUCP> news@fedfil.UUCP (news) writes:
>
>*>I have (sufficiently often), on t.o.  presented a rather simple and
>*>elegant demonstration as to why nothing now evolves into any size beyond
>*>that of the largest elephants, and the regular crew of t.o has never
>*>been able to comprehend it.
>
>*Actually, it seems that the problem is 
>
>[Other blatter indicating that Trygve read as far as the first paragraph
>of my post omitted]
>
>Try reading the rest of the article, and then get back to me.

No problem--I've read your article again, just like I did the first time
and your model still suffers from the problem that it doesn't apply to
anything other than proportionally scaled weightlifters performing
squats; it ignores such important considerations as leverage, joint
conformation and tendon attachment, proportions, range of motion, the
fact that getting up for a quadruped bears little resemblance to performing
squats, and the ability of weightlifters to lift much greater weights in
lifts other than the squat.  So far, you have failed to address any of 
these issues, so I suppose I ought to be the one concluding that you haven't
read beyond the header of any of the messages I've posted directed at you.
Why don't you read the previous post I sent your way on this subject and
get back to me on how your model handles these issues?
From: colby@bu-bio.bu.edu (Chris Colby)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: a clarification
Date: 27 Sep 92 01:27:52 GMT
Organization: animal -- coelomate -- deuterostome

In article <96858@bu.edu> colby@bu-bio.bu.edu (Chris Colby) writes:

> when you look at large groups
>of organisms, biological traits are hierarchically distributed.

>sponges cnidarinas flatworms   nemotodes        arthropods  echinoderms
>       ctenophores probiscids  rotifers	annelids    chordates
>						mollusks
>       ________________________________________________________________
>       (all the above animals have a more complex devlopmental plan
>	than sponges)
>                   ----------------------------------------------------
>                                _______________________________________
>                                               ________________________

[deletions]

In my response to McGrath, I included the above (now edited) diagram
intended to show a hierarchy. In it I only followed the subdivisions
down one "path". The end result was protostomes (arthropods and etc.)
and deuterostomes (echinoderms and etc.) had the most subdivisions.
I should point out that this is only a consequence of following that
particular path -- I did not mean to imply that outgroups (where I did
not fill in any further information) were more primitive or less
evolved. I could have followed any (or all) lineages and showed
different subdivisions (and therefore a hierarchy), but I singled
out the path leading to more familiar organisms because I thought
the characteristics might be a bit more, well... familiar.

I could have just as easily (if I knew anything about sponge
taxonomy) started out with "sponges" and "other animals" and
continued to divide up the sponge phylum (Porifera). All 
lineages of organisms have equally long evolutionary histories.
Within any phylum you can find species with highly derived
characters along with less derived characters. In fact, 
all species are a mix of derived and ancestral characters, that's
where the hierarchy bit comes from. In the diagram I simply
chose to mention increasingly derived characters in the path
leading to chordates.

So, in any case, I didn't mean to imply an _overall_ more/less 
specialized direction to the diagram. If I was a sponge or a 
jellyfish, or writing for an audience of sponges or jellyfish, 
I would have filled in the diagram with different information.

(I got some email telling me I was implying "higher" and "lower"
so I thought I'd try to clear that up.)

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: shouse@oscar.UUCP (claude shouse)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Creationist CRAPOLA!
Date: 30 Sep 92 20:28:03 GMT

In article <1992Sep30.115509.26590@city.cs>, lionel@cs.city.ac.uk (Lionel Tun) writes:
> In article <714@oscar.UUCP> shouse@oscar.UUCP (claude shouse) writes:
> >In article <1992Sep28.121140.24899@city.cs>, lionel@cs.city.ac.uk (Lionel Tun) writes:
> >> 
> >> As to the interpretation of that, evo's say its because of
> >> evo, but an equally if not more valid interpretation is that
> >> of hydrological sorting in the flood.
> >
> >Hydrological sorting.  OK Lionel, I'll buy that if you can tell me
> >two things:  1.  Where did all the water come from.  and  2.  Where
> >did it go.  Remember, no miracles.  This is science not belief.
> 
> 1. The water came from the water vapour canopy around the earth.
> 2. The water ended up in the oceans.
> 
> This also explains why lifespans became shorter after the flood,
> because of the cosmic rays getting through and causing ageing.
> I can supply details of lifespans if you wish.
> 
No, no, no.  This simply will not do.  I submitted my second post
to show the magnitude of water involved in a global flood.

             ~3.25  BILLION CUBIC MILES OF WATER.

This is at least 2 to 3 times the amount of water existing.  Please
support your position with some mathematical rigor or logical
constructs.  Bald assertion doesn't cut it.  Show how physical mechanics
allows this much water to be suspended in a "vaporous canopy" above
the earth.  Next, since this much water does not presently exist in the
oceans, I repeat,  Where did it go?

Once again:  This is science not belief.  Demonstrate the mechanics
of the vapor canopy.  Show how this canopy could collapse in 960
hours.  What triggered the collapse?  

We'll get to lifespans later, much later.

Claude Shouse
From: isaak@aurora.com (Mark Isaak)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Information in DNA  (was: Creationist CRAPOLA!)
Summary: What does information theory say?
Date: 28 Sep 92 15:47:30 GMT
Reply-To: isaak@aurora.com (Mark Isaak)
Organization: The Aurora Group

In article <1992Sep28.100020.27769@hsr.no> onar@hsr.no (Onar Aam) writes:
>In junk-DNA (j-DNA) there are Four amino acids, A,T,C & G, which can give four
>different combinations: A-T, T-A, C-G, G-C. . . .
>You can easily see that describing such chains, no matter content, requires
>INFORMATION.

Just because an alphabet has four letters doesn't mean any arrangement
of those letters carries information, any more than the fact that English
has 26 letters implies that uow vzlihlwgvdl pm cxsafhudhkec lnwlqmciyovf.

A question to those who know more about the subject than me:  Information
theory has some simple formulas (which I can't recall offhand) to
measure how much information a message carries.  Someone has undoubtedly
applied this to DNA.  How much information is there in a length of DNA?
Does the amount of information in junk-DNA differ from the rest of it?
-- 
Mark Isaak           "Every generation thinks it has the answers, and every
isaak@aurora.com      generation is humbled by nature." - Philip Lubin
Newsgroups: talk.origins