HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: mrjg8679@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Michael R James)
Subject: Giraffes and HN
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 1992 15:10:35 GMT

Has anyone looked at the HN for giraffes.
I just read an article that talked about the strength
of the legs of rhinos ( it was New Scientist, I think)
and the author brought up giraffes as an example of a large
animal with thin legs.  What would happen if you applied HTE's
equation to the giraffe?  Their weight is about 2500 lbs
typically, and their  legs have a very small cross-section.

--
 Michael James       mrjg8679@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu 

      "Ludwig Boltzmann, who spent much of his life studying statistical
       mechanics, died in 1906, by his own hand.  Paul Ehrenfest, carrying
       on the work, died similarly in 1933. Now it is our turn to study
       statistical mechanics."  
                                  -David L. Goodman "States of Matter" 

P.S.  They also run VERY fast.


Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: twalters@world.std.com (Tim Walters)
Subject: Re: Hoof-in-Holden Disease
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA
Date: Mon, 27 Jul 1992 02:40:34 GMT

In article <2837@fedfil.UUCP> news@fedfil.UUCP (news) writes:
>In article <n05e6t@ofa123.fidonet.org*, David.Rice@ofa123.fidonet.org writes:
>* 2) "Where did this radiation go?"
>
>I've answered this before also.  What the fuck do you mean, "where did
>this radiation go"?  Whee does light from a light bulb go after you turn
>the light off?  Where has your youth gone?  

Uhh, Ted, radiation has this little side effect that it makes things
radioactive. Sometimes these things are radioactive for a long time.
That's why if something gets a big blast of radiation, you can measure
it for a long time afterward.

If you can't measure anything it's fair to ask "where did the
radiation go".

>That has to be the single stupidest question I've ever seen on usenet,
>in any group on usenet.  Other than t.o, I keep track occasionally of one
>or two of the political talk groups, two of the language groups (Ada and C++)
>several of the programming groups, DOS, Windows, one or two of the AI 
>groups...  I've never seen a question that STUPID elsewhere.

This is very, very basic radiation science. Where did you learn about
radiation and mutations? Sounds to me like you've been watching too
many Godzilla movies :-)

>* 3) "What kept this radiation from killing all life forms?
>
>I've answered this before also.  Luck.  Most of the life on this earth
>WAS killed off at the time of the flood.  As Plato has the Egyptian sage
>telling Solon, we are descendants of survivors, many times over.

Luck, huh. Why don't you find a couple of books about what radiation
really does to life forms? Especially in the quantities your're
talking about? Don't do it on a full stomach, though.

>* 4) "What evidence is there to posit this event?"
>
>I've just presented a huge amount of it, and shall shortly present
>more.

Could you present some physical evidence? You should be able to
present a huge amount of it given the kind of radiation you're talking
about. Oh, have a look in one of those books. You'll see what I mean.
-- 
Tim Walters	twalters@world.std.com
Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: henley@eng.auburn.edu (James Paul Henley)
Subject: Re: animals predated plants, James
Organization: Auburn University Engineering
Date: Fri, 31 Jul 1992 15:56:16 GMT

In article <92398@bu.edu> colby@bu-bio.bu.edu (Chris Colby) writes:
>In article <henley.920730104146@wilbur.eng.auburn.edu> henley@eng.auburn.edu (James Paul Henley) writes:
>
>>I would guess that the oil reserves are the result of liquification by
>>heat and pressure of a long term buildup of vegetation.  I would guess
>>that before significant animal life was around,
>
>	Animals predated plants, Mr. Henley. All (and perhaps more) of
>the animal phyla we see today evolved in around the Cambrian -- 500
>million years ago. Chordata (our phylum) was the last animal phylum 
>to evolve. The first plants did not appear until about 430 million
>years ago and they did not move onto land until about 410 million
>years ago. For many millions of years, ferns were the dominant
>plant form (ferns are seedless and vascular). About 275 million
>years ago, gymnosperms arose (these are seeded and vascular, conifers
>are an example.) A mere 130 million years ago, the final phylum of
>plants evolved -- the angiosperms (these are seeded, vascular and
>are flowering). This is during the beginning of the end of the 
>dinosaurs, by the time the dino's went extinct, angiosperms
>were the dominant plant type worldwide.

Tell me something, what did most of the dinosaurs eat?
Were the first dinosaurs carnivorous?  I seriously doubt that any
air breathing animals could have survived long without significant
plant life.  Or should I have said before there was signifcant
*air breathing* animal life was around?  And why are you worried about
mere speculation anyhow?

>
>>James P. Henley Jr.
>
>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"
>

James P. Henley Jr.
Chemical Engineering Dept
Auburn University

Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: colby@bu-bio.bu.edu (Chris Colby)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: outline of evolution file
Date: 23 Jul 92 21:00:46 GMT
Organization: animal -- coelomate -- deuterostome


	I'm going to post my evolution FAQ again; here's the outline.

EVOLUTIONARY BIOLOGY
Introduction
	What is evolution?
	What isn't evolution?
	What evolution isn't
Genetic variation
	How is genetic variation described?
	How much genetic variation is there?
Evolution within a lineage -- anagenesis
	Mechanisms that decrease genetic variation
		Natural selection
			Sexual selection
		Genetic drift
	Mechanisms that increase genetic variation
		Mutation
			Directed mutagenesis
		Recombination
		Gene flow
	Overview of anagenesis
Evolution among lineages -- cladogenesis
	Speciation -- increasing biological diversity
		Modes of speciation
		Observed speciations
		Macroevolution vs. microevolution
	Extinction -- decreasing biological diversity
		"Ordinary" extinctions
		Mass extinctions
	Punctuated equilibria
Conclusion



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: schinder@leprss.gsfc.nasa.gov (Paul J. Schinder)
Subject: Re: Biogenesis in the warm pool -- the next step
Reply-To: schinder@leprss.gsfc.nasa.gov
Organization: Goddard Space Flight Center
Date: Sat, 25 Jul 1992 15:09:15 GMT

In <9207242206.AA04017@neptune.gsfc.nasa.gov> jgacker@NEPTUNE.GSFC.NASA.GOV (James G. Acker) writes:


>	One question, Paul -- why does intelligence have to be alive?

I don't know, just asking.  The problem with all "attribute X couldn't
have arisen naturally, therefore God must have created it" arguments
is that those proposing such arguments usually eagerly give God
attribute X.  This begs the question, of course, of how attribute X
could have arisen in the first place.

>I didn't get that  (yah, it does get into the higher philosophical
>realms of "Is God alive?")  But the intent of the proposed "research"
>is to prove that biogenesis does not require interaction with an 
>intelligent "force".  IF intelligent interaction is proven as 
>necessary, then we can start worrying about where it came from.

I don't see *how* this program can be carried out.  All chemical
reactions needed for life are (obviously) "physic-ally correct"
because they're occuring right now.  So this just seems to be a more
sophisticated "argument from design" that you're embarked on.  How do
you decide when you've proven that intellegent intervention is
necessary?  What level of "it's too hard for this to occur
'naturally'" is your threshold?

This ties in with the thermodynamics thread.  Thermodynamically, it's
wildly improbable that, say, all the gas molecules in a box are in the
left hand side of the box, *but the probability isn't zero*.  The
answer may just be that the earth lucked out.

I understand your desire to cut down the "phase space" where a miracle
isn't necessary, but the answer just may be that a natural "miracle"
*did* occur (although I personally tend to doubt it).  Then we can
have fun with the anthropic principle; if it hadn't occured, we
wouldn't have t.o to talk about it:-)

>	Now, thank you for supplying abiotic carbon.  I should've remembered
>the carbon dioxide snows of Mars.  We now have CO2, we also have water 

Methane too.  I should have remembered methane.  Actually there are
other molecules in the ISM which may also survive planet formation.

>	Jim Acker
>	jgacker@neptune.gsfc.nasa.gov
--
--------
Paul J. Schinder
NASA Goddard Space Flight Center
schinder@leprss.gsfc.nasa.gov
From: bvickers@valentine.ics.uci.edu (Brett J. Vickers)
Subject: Re: Some answers for Chuck (on evolution and marriage)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Reply-To: bvickers@ics.uci.edu (Brett J. Vickers)
Organization: Univ. of Calif., Irvine, Info. & Computer Sci. Dept.
Date: 22 Jul 92 19:07:41 GMT

maier@romulus (Chuck Maier) writes:
>Below is an illustration of why a Christian should utterly reject evolution.
>It is also an example of how much of what is called science and or education
>is a crime against the family and taxpayers in general.

Science is amoral.  If you want to draw moral conclusions from scientific
evidence in favor of evolution, then that is your right.  But please...
To call science a "crime" or a "SIN" is to bask in ignorance and blind,
religious zealotry.

PS. With this screaming of the word SIN all over your posts, Chuck,
    I find myself confusing you with Brother Jim, one of those street
    preachers that visits all the university campuses and calls the
    students whores.

PPS. Are you a young-earth creationist?  I sincerely hope so.  You
     wouldn't want to be accused of being a non-literalist.

--
 ___            _    _     _  _        _
(  _) ___ ___ _( )__( )_  ( )( ) o  __( ) _  ___  ___  ___
(___)(_) (__=) (_)_ (_)_   (__) (_)(_((_)(_'(__=)(_) _(_)
Brett Vickers (bvickers@ics.uci.edu)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: kv07@IASTATE.EDU (Warren Vonroeschlaub)
Subject: Re: What they never told you about gyroscopes...
Reply-To: kv07@IASTATE.EDU (Warren Vonroeschlaub)
Organization: Ministery of Silly Walks
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 1992 21:39:28 GMT

In article <1992Jul22.235136.14326@uwm.edu>, markh@csd4.csd.uwm.edu (Mark
William Hopkins) writes:
>    Actually, a spinning gyroscope will not keep a steady axis when it's set
in
> rotation about the Earth.  The axis will tend to rotate somewhat (just a
> little bit) in the manner Ted is speaking of.

  If you are talking about precession it doesn't even come close to what Ted
needs.

***********************************************************************
* Warren Kurt   *  "I believe there is an inteligence to the universe *
* vonRoeschlaub *   with the possible exception of certain parts of   *
* kv07@iastate  *   New Jersey" -Woody Allen                          *
***********************************************************************

Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: kv07@IASTATE.EDU (Warren Vonroeschlaub)
Subject: Re: Attenuated Nonsense (Lengthy!)
Reply-To: kv07@IASTATE.EDU (Warren Vonroeschlaub)
Organization: Ministery of Silly Walks
Date: Tue, 21 Jul 1992 22:56:42 GMT

In article <1992Jul21.154124.7059@CSD-NewsHost.Stanford.EDU>,
amorgan@Xenon.Stanford.EDU (Crunchy Frog) writes:
> > Ted "Thickie" Holden writes: 
> > 
> >>    Mammoths were as big and bigger than the largest 
> >>    elephants, however, and pliestocene art clearly shows them 
> >>    galloping around.  Over and over again, this same dilemma, things 
> >>    which can't happen in our world being the norm in the antediluvian 
> >>    world. 

> Ya ever noticed that in all these old paintings there is no
> perspective?  I guess the world was two dimensional up until
> the Renaissance.

  And Egyptians wandered about alwways facing sideways from the direction their
feet pointed!

***********************************************************************
* Warren Kurt   *  "I believe there is an inteligence to the universe *
* vonRoeschlaub *   with the possible exception of certain parts of   *
* kv07@iastate  *   New Jersey" -Woody Allen                          *
***********************************************************************
Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: m23364@mwunix (James Meritt)
Subject: Re: just what is the Holden Felt Effect of Gravity?
Organization: Mitre Corporation, McLean VA
Date: Tue, 21 Jul 1992 12:03:12 GMT


Magic.

Well, if you define "magic" as requiring a suspension of physics (gravity,
electromagnetism,...) as we know it and the introduction of forces that
are not in evident and their behavior contrary to physics (see above) as
we know it.
From: adpeters@sunflower.bio.indiana.edu (Andy Peters)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Postcards from the edge
Date: 21 Jul 92 20:42:40 GMT
Organization: Program in Evolution, Ecology, and Behavior, Indiana University

I thought this would be interesting to readers of t.o.

My adviser was quoted in the recent "sex" issue of _Discover_ magazine.
Today he got a postcard in the mail from one Charles L. Skelley, Jr. of
Bellflower, CA (T/Sgt. USMC Ret. LLd. Gen 1:1).  It seems largely
incoherent, and the writing is extremely difficult to read, but I
thought I'd transcribe it as best I can.  The card is hand-written, with
two stamp-pad stamps.

Hand-written part: (begin quote):

Re:  Discover - Jun/92

"Java Jive" had no sex habits because he failed to pass his _origin_
exams!  However, he did manage to 'father' some guessperteased(?)
progeny thru Huxley & Darwin's 'kind' services w/ handy 'midwife'
rhetoric(?) passed off as science and knowledge - Q.E.D.

"OMNE VIVUM EX VIVO"  [I assume this means "all life comes from life"]

Job 38:4 <--CRUX 1
4 the defense
Gen 1:11 = No Evol. <--Major Crux.  Q.E.D!!

CL Skelley


Stamp-pad Part:  (begin quote):

(a picture of, maybe, an ape of some sort, covered with scripture references):

John 7:24
Col(?) 2:8
1st Cor. 1:27,28
Rev. 22:18,19
Psalms 104
Matt. 15:9
1st Timothy 6:20
Genesis 1:11 (Handwritten addition:  <--CRUX)
Luke 6:39

(and a "poem"):

"NEITHER 'HOMO HABILIS' NOR 'ERECTUS'
CAN IN _ANY WAY_ 'REFLECT' US,
AS 'ANCIENT' DATES ARE JUST 'ESCAPES'
FROM _LARGER_, 'CONTROVERSIAL *'APES'*. . .


Funny, thing.  My advisor didn't even mention the "sex habits" of "Java,"
or any other organisms, for that matter.  He was talking about the
possible mechanisms for the maintenance of sexual reproduction, and
the only organisms he mentioned were snails, and their trematode
parasites.  No sex "habits."  Nothing at all about the origin of
man.  It was _all_ microevolution, and population biology.  Things
even most creationists on t.o wouldn't have any problems with.

Nothing really earth-shattering or surprising here.  I just thought
people would find it interesting.

-- 
* Andy Peters                     * "Evolution . . . does not support     *
* Program in Evolution,           * atheism, Marxism, or fascism any more *
*      Ecology, and Behavior      * than mathematics is a plank of the    *
* Indiana University, Bloomington * Republican Party" -Dr. Mark Wilson    *


-- 
* Andy Peters                     * "Evolution . . . does not support     *
* Program in Evolution,           * atheism, Marxism, or fascism any more *
*      Ecology, and Behavior      * than mathematics is a plank of the    *
* Indiana University, Bloomington * Republican Party" -Dr. Mark Wilson    *
From: David.Rice@ofa123.fidonet.org
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Hoof-in-Holden Disease
X-Sender: newtout 0.01 Jul 13 1992
Date: 25 Jul 92  10:15:08

Tag: Wayne Throop (throopw@sheol.UUCP (Wayne Throop))
 
WT> "Let's try to quantify what Ted's getting at here. He is
WT> saying that within a span of seven days, enough radiation
WT> was released to create the diversity we currently see from
WT> a severe population pinch. Taking humanity for an example,
WT> the variation that ordinary theories have happening over
WT> 100,000 years or so, concentrated into a week or so. Ted
WT> is attributing all the additional variation to radiation.
WT> Let's be generous and say that all new genetic variation
WT> at the current time arises due to radiation, and that the
WT> period of time was a month or so. We're already being
WT> generous with the 100,000 years. Ted's theory therefore
WT> requires that the planet was subjected to a MILLION times
WT> the current background radiation for a period of many days."
 
I've put that question to Ted three times within the last eight
months; I asked him, among other questions:
 
1) "Where did this radiation come from?"
2) "Where did this radiation go?"
3) "What kept this radiation from killing all life forms?
4) "What evidence is there to posit this event?"
 
I also told him that the Babalonian and Egyptian "Emerald God"
is a vegetation God, and not a sun God such as Ya, Ra, and Yahwey.
The "Ruby God" is the fire God; just as they had the Blue God for
water, and the Brown God for earth. Of coursh Vishnu is Blue too.
Sheba is ebony. The color denotes elemental attributes; Ted wants
to (apparently =NEEDS TO=) take these myths litterally.
 
Yet out of these myths, Ted chooses to believe that the Sun (Sol)
was once green!
 
Ted ignored my questions the first two times, then he replied
with "What do you mean 'where did the radiation go?' Where does
microwave oven radiation 'go?'"
 
Which puts Ted's foot in his mouth. If the radiation wasn't
ionizing, how could it cause the mutations he is counting on?
If it was ionizing, how could it, or traces of it, not still
be here?!?!?!?
 
Ted also chooses to believe that "the first humans" were WHITE!
He chooses to believe that "the other races" were caused by some
occult, magical curse.
 
I wonder if Ted is insane. His rants are not anything like a sane
individuals. As Hitler said, propaganda doesn't need any basis in
fact; it need not avoid contradicting itself; it need not avoid
contradicting reality---- it need only be effective.
Xref: sparky talk.origins:8737 sci.astro:8356
From: pcl@oxford.ac.uk (Paul Leyland)
Newsgroups: talk.origins,sci.astro
Subject: Re: Elements for Life was Re: stars & carbon
Date: 27 Jul 92 12:03:02 GMT
Organization: Oxford University Computing Service, 13 Banbury Rd, Oxford, OX2
	6NN
In-reply-to: ajpierce@med.unc.edu's message of 26 Jul 92 23:53:03 GMT


Lots of people have commented on CHONP to build life out of, and how Si and
B are no good.

There is some truly fascinating chemistry build around BCN clusters,
in which most of the atoms are boron.  They tend to be wildly oxygen
and water sensitive which, given the cosmological abundance of oxygen
and the rarity of boron, would mitigate against life being built
around BCN clusters.  Nonetheless, large, stable and complex
boron-carbon-nitrogen compounds do exist.


I could also easily believe in silicate lifeforms which live within a
plastic mantle of a terrestial planet.  These things would be large
(kilometres across) and would reproduce by fission; metabolise the
heat flow from the hot interior and move by sailing the convection
currents.

If you're prepared to stick with carbon; but drop the requirement for
(relatively) pure water; ammonia has a lot going for it.  Pure, it
requires slightly lower temperatures and/or higher pressures than we
have on earth.  If you mix it well with water, then it is a very fine
solvent indeed.  It is cosmically common and is a good greenhouse gas.

I can see no good reason why an interstellar cloud can't be alive.
There's ample materials; e-m fields could give organization; it would
metabolize starlight to produce complex molecules; it would move by
becoming selectively opaque and/or conductive to use radiation
pressure and the galactic magnetic field.  Needless to say; these
would be *very* large (order 1/10 parsec).

Lots of opportunities for non-terrestial life forms exist.


Paul
--
Paul Leyland <pcl@oxford.ac.uk>          | Hanging on in quiet desperation is
Oxford University Computing Service      |     the English way.
13 Banbury Road, Oxford, OX2 6NN, UK     | The time is come, the song is over.
Tel: +44-865-273200  Fax: +44-865-273275 | Thought I'd something more to say.
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Elephants going bump in the nightREFRESH
From: sbishop@desire.wright.edu
Date: 22 Jul 92 08:02:50 EST
 <1992Jul12.215943.1@cuavax.dnet.cua.edu> <84020@netnews.upenn.edu>
Organization: Wright State University 

In article <84020@netnews.upenn.edu>, rowe@pender.ee.upenn.edu (Mickey Rowe) writes:
> In article <1992Jul12.215943.1@cuavax.dnet.cua.edu>
>      winner@cuavax.dnet.cua.edu writes:
> 
>>There has been a fair bit of traffic recently about how elephants are in such
>>grave danger of falling.  (You can decide if the pun is intentional.)  I'm
>>having a difficult time with this.
> 
> ...
> 
>>Secondly, elephants are rather expensive animals.  You may have
>>noticed that zoos these days take good care not to damage their
>>expensive animals.  ...The zoos I have been to tend to enclose the
>>elephants with moats.  ...
> 
> Not that I'm backing Ted or anything, but at the Philadelphia zoo,
> there are many signs requesting that people *not* try to feed the
> elephants across the moats.  The reason is that one of our elephants
> died due to complications that resulted from falling into the mote and
> breaking her leg.  I think that she lived a couple of years, but I can
> assure you that the moats are quite dangerous to the elephants.
> 

Moats are fairly deep.  I would think that they would be a serious hazard
to the majority of animals who might fall into them.  
The Cincy zoo had one of their male gorillas try to leap the moat and land
in it.  He was unharmed, sat in the bottom pouting for quite a while, refused
to climb out, even when offered ropes and a ladder.  So they had to net him
and hoist him out.

> ...
> 
>>Also, elephants stampeed.  
> 
> Do they really?  I don't know either, but...
> 
>>Now when cows stampeed they often fall down.  I'd 
>>have to go back and watch my tarzan movies (more footage of
>>stampeeding                  ^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> 
> ...I hope this isn't your only piece of evidence.
> 

At least it is factual.  Just a little better than the drivel Ted has
been quoting from time to time.


> ...  
>>Sorry folks, but I think elephants (like babies) bounce better
>>than they break.
> 
> While I think Ted overstates the case even with elephants (and of
> course it's ludicrous to extend any firm conclusions to an animal with
> such a distinctly different shape--e.g. a Tyrannosaur), it does seem
> to be correct that elephants don't deal all that well with falls.
> 

Neither do horses, often breaking legs.  Sounds like the felt effect of
gravity is localized to them?

Sue


>>-Jim Winner
> 
> Mickey Rowe     (rowe@pender.ee.upenn.edu)
From: simon@dcs.warwick.ac.uk (Simon Clippingdale)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Scientific Method
Date: 28 Jul 92 15:42:05 GMT
Organization: Department of Computer Science, Warwick University, England

In article <Bs26H3.GtE@news.cso.uiuc.edu> cmaier@uiuc.edu writes:
>In <1992Jul27.124651.27652@linus.mitre.org> jmeritt@rod.mitre.org (Jim Meritt) writes:

> [...]

>> What experiments have been conducted (especially, what experiments
>> have been done, or are possible, that can _FALSIFY_ creationism?

> Have functional complexity arise without adding intelligence. 

Heat a pan of water and watch the geometric arrangement of convection
cells form as if by magic, but actually by only the addition of energy
in the right place (bottom of pan) and a little symmetry breaking.

Is this "functional" complexity? If not, why not and what is?

Is creationism falsified, dead and buried yet? Can we go now?

Cheers

Simon
-- 
Simon Clippingdale                simon@dcs.warwick.ac.uk
Department of Computer Science    Tel (+44) 203 523296
University of Warwick             FAX (+44) 203 525714
Coventry CV4 7AL, U.K.            or 0203 etc. if you're in the sunny UK
Newsgroups: talk.origins