HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: throopw@sheol.UUCP (Wayne Throop)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: does the bible imply evolution?
Summary: recombination can't explain all
Date: 22 Jan 93 02:30:11 GMT

:: From: throopw@sheol.UUCP
:: If *all* life had such
:: population pinch points at the Flood, and if the Flood were only
:: a few thousand years ago, all life would be in the same boat as
:: the cheetah... uh, so to speak.

: From: ross@prpa.philips.com (Ross Morley)
: Message-ID: <1993Jan19.184641.24473@prpa.philips.com>
: How much genetic variation was in the cheetah species BEFORE the
: population crash?
: [...] 4 different genes in the
: population for each gene position on each chromosome (ignoring X/Y
: differences).  This yields a possible 4^N unique combinations of genes,
: which allows for a possible 4^N (^ = to-the-power-of) unique
: individuals in the descendant population even ignoring mutation. 

This analysis is more or less correct, but overlooks a few factors that
I suspect override its importance in this context.  First, there are
today more (I think many more) than 4 alleles for each of many genes. 
(Not all of them, mind you.  Just more than one would expect for such a
sort period of time.) Second, recombination doesn't really shuffle at
the granularity of the gene, so even if the parents were packed with
genetic variety, it would quite quickly shuffle out.  Third, the studies
that show a 300,000 year or more age for a particular kind of
pinch-point in human DNA were done on mitochondrial DNA, which does not
recombine.  And finally, studies of genetic similarity mostly operate on
the "junk" DNA, and show too much accumulation of change to have
happened in a short time. 

I'm not microbiologist enough (foo, I don't even play one on TV) to be
able to cite chapter and verse of specific genetic variety, but I'm
pretty sure the evidence is solid and specific. 

Basically, the second factor above is quite reliable, by the way, and
its application is how genetically pure strains of mice are created, so
the probabilities of this effect are pretty well known.  (In fact, in my
more negative moods, I think that (eg) the condor is going to be so
genetically fragile because of its population pinch that it makes me
mutter under my breath about why we are bothering trying to turn that
particular tide.)

: So in a species
: originally created with a lot of genetic variation, it would only take
: a few tens of generations to obtain a very diverse population, [...]
: [...]
: So is this idea cockeyed, or is your point about the low genetic
: variation of one present day species a moot one?

Well, I may overstate the inevitability of the cheetah's plight (or even
the condor's fate), but not all the evidences of long time periods can
be satisfied with variety gotten via recombination as outlined here. 
--
Wayne Throop  ...!mcnc!dg-rtp!sheol!throopw
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: For-sale ads on sci.math??
From: kmagnacca@eagle.wesleyan.edu
Date: 26 Jan 93 22:45:30 EST
Organization: Wesleyan University

In article <LFkVXB1w165w@kalki33.lakes.trenton.sc.us>, system@kalki33.lakes.trenton.sc.us (Kalki Dasa) writes:
> kmagnacca@eagle.wesleyan.edu writes:
> 
>> >> >The recent upsurge of "I have a book for sale" messages on sci.math is
>> >> >very annoying. Usenet etiquette is that these ads are inappropriate. I
>> >> >request the posters of such ads to stop.  [signature omitted]
>> 
>>    Is this the same Kalki Dasa who was urging everyone on talk.origins
>> to spend $10 on Richard Thompson's book when no one could find it in
>> any library or bookstore?  Or is it perhaps another one?  Or even the
>> nefarious tapeworm?!
> 
> Same Kalki. However, there is no comparison between my activities and
> those of someone who posts an advertisement whose sole purpose is to
> sell his personal property.

   Sure, you do other stuff too.  Like post inane articles and not
respond to queries about viruses (although, to be fair, I do owe my
first points in the t.o game to Kalki).

> You are making as much of this as you can,
> according to your demoniac nature. But I am innocent and free from all
> hypocrisy in this matter. Take your best shots, demons!

   Arrrggghh, you've figured me out!  I had thought I could conceal
my demonism from you, but my evil powers are no match for your temporal
and metaphysical alertness.

>> > Reading my signature is the only good thing that ever happened to you in
>> > your entire miserable life, and you should get down on your knees and
>> > thank the God who made you for giving you this opportunity to at least
>> > see His holy name in print.
>> 
>>    As well should you, Kalki, revel in the holy words printed in my 
>> own sig, especially the quote from Duke, which will bring you eternal
>> happiness and warm fuzzies.
> 
> Your own sig is useless, materialistic propaganda, suited only for those
> who are destined for darkness. "Dropping acid" is a sure route to
> spiritual suicide,

   Not true, I know several people who now enjoy a permanent world of
their own, completely different from the physical one we see around us, 
due to taking a lot of acid.

> and life is far more than what we can "touch and see."

  Well, I guess my demonic nature has prevented me from getting to the
rest of it.  Now if I could only find an exorcist...

Karl
 
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
| "Lastly, I come to China in the hope      | "All you touch and all you see  |
| of fulfilling a lifelong ambition -       | Is all your life will ever be." |
| dropping acid on the Great Wall."  --Duke |                 --Pink Floyd    |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|         A Lie is still a Lie even if 3.8 billion people believe it.         |
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: jtisdel@digi.lonestar.org (J. Michael Tisdel)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Voyagers on the Ark of Noah
Date: 27 Jan 93 17:05:50 GMT
Organization: DSC Communications Corp, Plano, TX


Bzzzt! Try again, Ray.  (Gosh, that Bzzzt! is annoying.)

Please address the Flood FAQ with out resorting to the trivial answer of
"God did it."  That is Last-Wednesdayism and a defunct philosophy.

jmt





-- 
J. Michael Tisdel                   \\\\\\\\\\\\  digi!jtisdel@uunet.uu.net
DSC Communications Corporation       \\\\\\\\\\\\ jtisdel@digi.lonestar.org
1000 Coit Rd, MS 120, Plano Tx 75075  \\\\\\\\\\\\         jmtisdel@aol.com
                     Better living through workstations.
From: brinkman@si151a.llnl.gov
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Yet Another Saturn Myth Variant
Date: 21 Jan 93 19:12:36 GMT


   In article <234@fedfil.UUCP> news@fedfil.UUCP (news) "The Inimitable
One" writes...

> Perhaps the earth was being held in an electro-magnetic baricenter, and
> the gravitational forces were yet unequal.

   And I suppose there would be "nothing magical there" either?  Ted, just to
help clarify your thoughts, let me introduce you to a wee bit of elementary
physics.

   If the Earth were at an "electro-magnetic baricenter" while the
"gravitational forces were yet unequal", the Earth would begin to accelerate
toward the greater gravitational force.  This is a consequence of Newton's
Second Law, F = ma (revised version).  Your system would blow itself apart.

   Now, let us just suppose that you mean that the Earth was at an
gravito-electro-magnetic baricenter, where the forces of gravity were unequal,
but the electro-magnetic forces were also unequal and just happened to cancel
the difference in gravitational forces out.  Would this scenario work?  NO.

   There are NO few-body systems, outside the quantum mechanical domain,
which are electro-magnetically stable for any reasonable time scale at all.
All such proposed configurations are either not at equilibrium, or are at a
point of unstable equilibirum, where even the merest hint of a nudge will
destroy them completely.  Unequal gravitational forces on the order of
~.5 g, which are required by your Saturn scenario, are much^2 more than
merest hints of a nudge.  This difficulty is further intensified by the
fact that there are NO stable static systems of gravitationally interacting
particles.  A dynamic elctro-magnetically interacting system radiates, leading
to a quick and inexorable decay of the system, until it vanishes in a puff
of ultraviolet.  Ted, how did your ancient chroniclers fail to record the
total destruction of the Earth?

   Do you understand the difficulties in your scenario, Ted?  One either
believes that the laws of physics (in this case electro-magnetism, gravity,
and the conservation of angular momentum) were completely different back in
the misty past, or one can believe that the Saturn scenario holds.  One CANNOT
believe both and be consistent, yet you claim you believe both.  Which is it,
Ted, are you inconsistent or did you profess a false belief?

   Before leaving, let me just note that Ted's claim that massive Sauropods,
huge flying objects, etc. requires the acceptance of some form of the Saturn
scenario is a fallacious appeal to an excluded middle.  Even if one believes
that the "felt effect of gravity" just had to be much lower in the misty
recesses of time, alternate interpretations of myths such as Mark Isaak's Once
Hollow Earth (tm) theory, explain this "reduced felt effect of gravity"
without violating any of the laws that the Saturn scenario does.

>Ted Holden

--
Matt Brinkman
brinkman@edseq1.llnl.gov
From: news@fedfil.UUCP (news)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Reality and the Merrit FAQ (2 of 4)
Date: 21 Jan 93 21:18:14 GMT
Organization: HTE

In article <1763@tdat.teradata.COM>, swf@tools3teradata.com (Stan Friesen) writes:
^In article <211@fedfil.UUCP>, news@fedfil.UUCP (news) writes:
  
^|> ^ 	When the poster posts an article a second time without reguard to
^|> ^ any of the criticisms or errors discovered in the original post by other
^|> ^ members of t.o, then he (or she) is indeed a liar because the person is
^|> ^ posting material containing known errors.  
 
^|> This then is the rationale for Merrrrrittttt, Frog, Rufus Day, and all the
^|> others to calling me, Bob Bales, and others liars.  This then is the
^|> state to which scientific debate in America has sunk.

^Yep, the definition of a liar is one who states something known to be false.
^When you repost verbatim material that has been shown to be incorrect you are
^indeed being a liar (since you have been given every opportunity to discover
^that what you are saying is false).  To avoid this you must either correct the
^errors or provide acceptible evidence that your material is not in error.

I have provided such evidence over and over again, and adequately refuted all
of the counterclaims being made by yourself and others.  Nonetheless, you and
others simply go on posting the same tired old rubbish;  obviously, by your
own standards, you and a number of the others are lairs.



-- 
Ted Holden
HTE

Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: tycchow@riesz.mit.edu (Timothy Y. Chow)
Subject: Re: Brinkman's question on carbohydrates
Organization: None.  This saves me from writing a disclaimer.
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 93 01:19:01 GMT

Ted Holden writes:
<Basically, velikovsky is saying that chemicals entering
<out atmosphere from that of Venus formed, possibly in combination with 
<elements of our own atmosphere, hydrocarbons which rained down on earth 
<during the time of plagues mentioned in Exodus and, at a somewhat later
<time, some of these same chemicals, or others, or again some other combination
<of earth and venus atmospheric elements, which were in suspension in our
<clouds still, somehow or other formed into edible compounds (carbohydrates)
<and condensed out.

In article <1993Jan20.181104.1@si151a.llnl.gov> brinkman@si151a.llnl.gov writes:
<If there is "nothing magical" about converting hydrocarbons to carbohydrates,
<show me even a single example where this has been done in the modern world.

Where did you get the idea of "converting" hydrocarbons to carbohydrates?
Ted doesn't say this.  All he says is that hydrocarbons and carbohydrates
both formed out of the combined atmospheres of Earth and Venus.  If you want
to spend time refuting Ted, at least get his claims straight.
-- 
Tim Chow     tycchow@math.mit.edu
Where a calculator on the ENIAC is equipped with 18,000 vacuum tubes and weighs
30 tons, computers in the future may have only 1,000 vacuum tubes and weigh
only 1 1/2 tons.                               ---Popular Mechanics, March 1949
Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: joff@cosc.canterbury.ac.nz (Joffre Horlor)
Subject: The HN of the Kazerpillar
Organization: University of Canterbury, Christchurch, New Zealand
Date: Fri, 29 Jan 1993 00:54:34 GMT


Here is a simple thought experiment which I think disposes of the idea
that creatures with `Holden Numbers' greater than around 27 can't exist
in our world:

Take this Kaz person weighing 350 lbs and lifting 1000. The HN is:

	(1000 + 350) / 350^(2/3) = ~27.

Now take two Kazes, each weighing 350 lbs and lifting 1000 standing
side-by-side. Now connect the two Kazes together in whatever way
needed to make the result a single creature (e.g. remove the head of
one of them and connect the body to the other Kazes' nervous system).
What is the HN of this KazKaz creature?  Well it weighs 350 + 350 =
700 lbs and can lift 1000 + 1000 = 2000, so:

	(2000 + 700) / 700^(2/3) = ~34.

See what an extra set of legs and muscles can do ?  There seems no reason
why KazKaz cannot exist in our world if Kaz can (remember - KazKaz is
simply two Kazes standing beside each other who have been `connected'
somehow into one creature).

To take this idea to the extreme, consider 100 Kazes all connected up
into one creature and all weighing 350 lbs and lifting 1000. The
resultant Kazerpillar has a HN of:

	(100 * 1000 + 100 * 350) / (100 * 350)^(2/3) = ~126.

In conclusion there seems to be no reason why animals with
ever-increasing HNs can't be created in 1g simply by adding extra sets
of legs and muscles.
--
Joffre Horlor (joff@cosc.canterbury.ac.nz)                | "Did somebody
Department of Computer Science, University of Canterbury, | say `mattress' to 
Christchurch, New Zealand.                                | Mr Lambert ?"


--
--
Joffre Horlor (joff@cosc.canterbury.ac.nz)                | "Did somebody
Department of Computer Science, University of Canterbury, | say `mattress' to 
Christchurch, New Zealand.                                | Mr Lambert ?"
Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: danwell@IASTATE.EDU (Daniel A Ashlock)
Subject: Re: Evolution implied by the Bible
Reply-To: danwell@IASTATE.EDU (Daniel A Ashlock)
Organization: Iowa State University
Date: Tue, 26 Jan 1993 19:02:10 GMT

In article <1993Jan25.144819.1@woods.ulowell.edu>, cotera@woods.ulowell.edu
writes:
> However here is the Theory of Creationism in a nutshell: God created the
> universe.
> --Ray Cote

   This theory is entirely consistent with the theory of evolution.

   This theory explains nothing about biology.

   This theory produces no models to be used in other disciplines.

   This theory is not supportable or impeachable by available evidence
   is a scientific fashion.

   I don't know of any experiment that can be done to test this theory.

   In a nutshell: that not a scientific theory.

Dan
Danwell@IASTATE.EDU
Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: ccw@prefect.cc.bellcore.com (wood,christopher)
Subject: Re: They want to debate Phillip Johnson
Organization: Bellcore, Livingston, NJ
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 93 16:25:54 GMT

In article <qXiuXB1w165w@kalki33.lakes.trenton.sc.us> 
system@kalki33.lakes.trenton.sc.us (Kalki Dasa) babbles:

>The basis of Darwinism is materialism, i.e. the proposition that 
>there is nothing in existence except matter and material energy, and 
>nothing ever influences matter except other matter or material energy.

When "material energy" is defined as that which influences matter, this
is a tautology.  To insist otherwise is nonsense.

>The basis of creationism is that there is something else in addition 
>to matter. There is a "spiritual" element, which is not detectable by 
>scientific instruments, but which is nevertheless real, and which 
>exerts a definite controlling influence on material phenomena.

Just like the pink elephants that live inside of my refrigerator that
turn on the light and turn invisible when I open the door.

>Neither of these positions is arrived at by "science." 

One is the definition of science, the other is pink elephants that live
in fridges.

>Sincerely,

Not!

>Kalki Dasa

Chris
-- 
Chris Wood     Bellcore     ...!bellcore!prefect!ccw
                         or ccw@prefect.cc.bellcore.com
From: ford@hpmcaa.mcm.hp.com.mcm.hp.com (Dan Ford)
Subject: Re: Duane T. Gish, Ph. D.
Organization: HP Cardiology Business Unit - McMinnville, OR
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL7]
Date: Tue, 26 Jan 1993 13:51:14 GMT

Lionel Tun (lionel@cs.city.ac.uk) wrote:
: The fossil record for intermediates is sparse or non existent
: per se. There is a good reason for this.

	Quit waffling Lionel, which is it, sparse or non-existent?

If your answer is that it is sparse, how do you explain the sequences that
we do find sometimes bridging high-level taxanomic groups?

If your answer is that it is non-existent, how do you explain the presence of
sequences that we do find sometimes bridging high-level taxanomic groups?

	But then, I can probably imagine what you answer will be.  Those
"supposed" sequences exist only in the minds of those conspiring EVILutionists
who are seeking to undermine the morality of the masses. Am I close?

Dan
Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: David.Rice@ofa123.fidonet.org
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: James Meritt Speaks For t.o Regulars
X-Sender: newtout 0.06 Jan  3 1993
Date: 22 Jan 93  11:17:24

 
Dear Tedster,
 
  Though I am a Talk.Origins irregular, and not a regular, I would
be pleased as punch to have Mr. Meritt speak for me concerning your
Velikovskyism. You have refused to correct the errors in your
understanding of basic Greek mythology, refused to understand that
the physics involved for tossing planets around and ejecting Venus
from a gas giant is impossible, refused to offer proof of your
claim that white folks predate black folks, and, well, damn near
refused to explain every contradiction to the laws of nature that
your assertions raise.
 
  Every time you assert said sillyness, Mr. Meritt makes hamburger
out of you. Don't you get just a little bit tired of having the facts
presented by Mr. Meritt et al utterly crushing your assertions?
 
  Next time you post your Velikovsky "FAQ," it would be a great
treat if you would correct the mythology first. Goddesses tend to
get pissed when they get slandered by the likes of you. Venus may
very well enjoy being atributed as a different Goddess if said
Goddess were a real bitch, but Hera might turn you into a baboon
(Oops! Warning may be too late!). Just because your Master got it
wrong in his WIC book, doesn't mean you have to remain ignorant.
From: throopw@sheol.UUCP (Wayne Throop)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Holden and venus
Summary: Holden Venus scenario inconsistent with self (whether or not with greenhouse)
Date: 22 Jan 93 02:30:15 GMT

: From: news@fedfil.UUCP (news)
: Message-ID: <231@fedfil.UUCP>
: [entire article deleted for lack of serious content]

Now, now.  Ted isn't giving me enough credit for serious temperment.
I'm being VERY serious when I point out the reasons that Ginenthal
comes across as a scientific illiterate.

: Basically, I have shown that, in order to satisfy their own preconceived
: notions, astronomers are presently falsifying/doctoring/concocting weird
: explainations for three entire classes of phenomena, [...]
: Throop has no way of denying that I have shown this and he knows it;
: anything else on his part is bullshit. 

I acknowledge that Ted has claimed to show this.  I don't need to
agree with his interpretation of the material he quotes.

But the above Ted-ism completely misses the point.  The point is, even
when you take the numbers Ted and Ginenthal have presented, they don't
add up.  Let's look at the three points Ted addressed:

: i.e. actual measurements
: of heat flux at the top of the Venereal atmosphere, 

The only reference to a quantity for these measurements Ted has supplied
is 15% excess over solar input. 

: actual observations 
: of rising, planet-wide concentric waves in the middle and high atmosphere
: (huge evidence of heat being dissipated far beyond what SGH would call for),

The number Ginenthal gets from Strabismus is several times solar input,
and he purports that this much energy is transported from the surface to
the upper atmosphere.

: and evidence of major upward heat (ir) flux in the low atmosphere.  

The number Ted gives (of 600 w/m^2) would be roughly equal to
solar input if planet wide, less if only some percentage of the
cross section of the lower atmosphere was involved.

Now, Ted is claiming that several times solar input energy is
transported from the surface to the upper atmosphere, yet only 15% solar
input energy is leaving the planet.  I repeat: these are the numbers Ted
presented in his support for his three points above, the numbers he
claims the "uniformitarian conspiracy" are covering up. 

There is no way all three of those numbers can be correct, they aren't
even *close* to being mutually consistent.  Yet they are all part of
Ted's scenario, as he himself explained above. 

: When an entire discipline, organization, or area of study is snaffed
: up that badly, something is wrong with one of the high-level constructs
: of their entire world view: in this case, the insistence on believing in
: a multi- million year age for Venus. 

When an entire gaggle of catastrophists insist that 2+2=22,
something is wrong with their arithmetic.
--
Wayne Throop  ...!mcnc!dg-rtp!sheol!throopw
From: mab@wdl39.wdl.loral.com (Mark A Biggar)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Moon dust
Date: 26 Jan 93 21:51:42 GMT
Organization: Loral Western Development Labs

In article <1993Jan25.140646.1@si151a.llnl.gov> brinkman@si151a.llnl.gov writes:
>   If scientists REALLY expected there to be a 20-40 foot accumulation of
>lunar dust, why do you think they would let the first Apollo launch go off as
>scheduled?  Doesn't this suggest a rather depraved indifference towards human
>life?  Don't you find it rather difficult to believe that not even one
>scientists would say, "Hey, wait a minute.  You are sending those fine
>astronauts off to their death!"  Not only are you suggesting that the Apollo
>11 launch was tantamount to premeditated murder, you are suggesting that there
>was a global conspiracy of scientists to commit the crime.
>   Here are the logical interpretations one can put on your claim that Neil
>Armstrong was fortunate:
>1) There was a global scientific conspiracy to kill the Apollo 11 astronauts.
>2) None of the Apollo launches ever occurred, and a scientific conspiracy
>   is now in place to hide this fact.
>3) The story that scientists in the 1960's believed that there was a 20-40
>   foot accumulation of moon dust is nothing more than a myth. 
>As a scientist, which of these interpretations do you think is the most
>viable?

Nasa knew full well how much dust to expect on the moon.  Remember that we
landed (I guess crashed is a better term) at least one Ranger probe long
before Apollo.  There was some worry about dust collected in depressions,
but there was no expectation of more then 2 or 3 inchs of dust at any of
the Apollo landing sights.  Besides we had satalite dust measurements in the 
early 60s that predicted only a few inchs of dust.

--
Mark Biggar
mab@wdl1.wdl.loral.com
Newsgroups: talk.origins