HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: weemba@libra.wistar.upenn.edu (Matthew P Wiener)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Bayesian inference (was: Why evolution is a BETTER theory.)
Date: 6 Apr 92 20:10:34 GMT
Reply-To: weemba@libra.wistar.upenn.edu (Matthew P Wiener)
Organization: The Wistar Institute of Anatomy and Biology
In-reply-to: kring@efes.physik.uni-kl.de (Thomas Kettenring)

In article <1992Apr5.175651.1606@rhrk.uni-kl.de>, kring@efes (Thomas Kettenring) writes:
>>>But Occam is the the one who is responsible for the earth running
>>>around the sun!

>>Not in the least.  Ceteris paribus did not apply, as the Copernicus view
>>predicted the fixed stars would display parallax, and this was not observed
>>at the time.  The huge distances postulated to explain this non-observation
>>was considered an unnecessary entity by many.

>I was not talking about "at the time" but about now.

It doesn't change things.  It's just that today, no one balks at huge
distances anymore, and does not think of this as a "complication" or
"unnecessary entity".  Why not?

Simplicity is and will always be in the eye of the beholder, and the
fact that universal agreement has been reached doesn't make it any more
of an objective criterion than it was before.

>>Only for the sake of elementary descriptions of what is going on.  Both get
>>used when convenient, and nobody except school children and USENET posters
>>argue over which is "right".

>Of course not.  Who talked about "right"?  I sure didn't.  I just
>prefer simple theories (that is, without many entities) to
>complicated ones.  Yes, a frame of reference hasn't the status of a
>theory anymore (no "deep relevance") but the striving after
>simplicity applies for them too.

But at this point, it's a different issue.  The previous poster and I were
talking about Occam's razor as a putative way to decide between theories.
I assumed you were too, and read your posting in that light.

>				   When you actually have to use a
>frame of reference, you choose the one where the *computation* is
>simplest ("when convenient"), and for general description you use the
>one with the least assumptions.

The difference between Occam-for-theories (O4t) vs Occam-for-frames (O4f)
is that the criteria for simplicity suddenly become quite explicit in O4f.
My objection to O4t is that simplicity is used in vague and nebulous ways,
but O4t-ers rarely notice.  These objections are irrelevant to O4f-ers.
-- 
-Matthew P Wiener (weemba@libra.wistar.upenn.edu)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: akbloom@aplcen.apl.jhu.edu (Keith Bloom)
Subject: Re: Cold-adaption of the African Elephant
Organization: The Johns Hopkins University
	<2729@fedfil.UUCP> <1992Apr15.181050.990@desire.wright.edu>
Date: Thu, 16 Apr 92 02:35:53 GMT


About Hannibal crossing the Alps with elephants, Ted Holden wrote:

>> You read lots of history, don't you, Sue?  All but a small handful of those
>> elephants died due to the hardwhips of being hauled and winched through
>> those mountains, and that handful died shortly thereafter.  Hannibal's 
>> strengths were his Spainish and Numidean cavalry groups;  the elephants were
>> a total non-factor.

and Sue Bishop replied:

>That's right, I'd forgotten how many elephants died during the trip.  BTW,
>a modern trek was done over the same route by elephants, not too very long
>ago.  I seem to remember that they finally just trucked them over.

Where are you folks getting your information from?  It can't be from
Livy, who described Hannibal's trip and said nothing about any
elephants dying.  In fact, Livy describes their participation in the
battle of Trebia in 218 B.C., after Hannibal arrived in Italy.  Most of
the elephants apparently died in that battle or soon afterwards; some
of the remaining ones died in the winter of that year in the Appenines;
one survived into 217 B.C.

Of course, Livy wasn't there at the time; but neither were Ted Holden
or Sue Bishop.  So what's the source for the statement that most of
the elephants died in the trip across the Alps?


Keith
-----
   "Taking elephants across the Alps is not as much fun as it sounds.
    The Alps are difficult enough when alone, and elephants are
    peculiarly fitted for not crossing them.  If you must take
    something over the Alps, try chamois.  They're built for it."
       -- Will Cuppy, _The Decline and Fall of Practically Everybody_
From: jloucks@uts.amdahl.com (Jim Loucks)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Darwin's Enigma
Date: 15 Apr 92 22:33:38 GMT
Organization: Amdahl Corporation, Sunnyvale CA

stassen@alc.com (Chris Stassen) writes:
>In article <01Ij027vcbQN00@amdahl.uts.amdahl.com> Jim Loucks writes:
>> [...] some support gradualism, while others are proponents of punctuated
>> equilibria. The latter of which I fail to see the difference between
>> Goldschmidt's hopeful monster concept and evidence for creation.

>I think I've explained this to you before.  Was there something you
>didn't like or didn't understand in my previous explanation?

That't not what I'm saying. Forget time periods for the moment as
that may be what's preventing my point from being understood. The
evidence for punctuated equilibria is a lack of transitional fossils,
which is exactly what we would expect with special creation. How 
does a scientist determine the difference in the evidence between 
a fossil that was the result of punctuated equilibria, and a 
fossil that was the result of special creation? The physical 
evidence (fossil record) for both will be identical. This is all
I'm asking.


>Gradualist types argue that it is not the speciation mechanism, but the
>spotty nature of the fossil record, which generally leaves these low-level
>gaps.  They point to places where the fossil record is very detailed (very
>fine resolution in time, and a type of creature which fossilizes very
>well), where a gradual evolution can be seen to take place.  (PE types
>would counter that this sort of evolution *can* occur, but that it is
>the exception rather than the rule.)

Doesn't this cover all angles in reference to the fossil record,
and therefore cannot be falsified?

-- 
Jim Loucks           jloucks@uts.amdahl.com 
{apple, pyramid, sun, uunet}!amdahl!jloucks
From: smullins@cidmac.ecn.purdue.edu (Scott H Mullins)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Does theory of evolution affect belief in God?
Date: 8 Apr 92 13:53:46 GMT
Article-I.D.: noose.1992Apr8.135346.27304
Organization: Purdue University Engineering Computer Network

In article <164@ccscola.Columbia> tmason@ccscola.Columbia (Timothy E. Mason) writes:
>In article <1992Apr4.022721.29979@aio.jsc.nasa.gov> mancus@sweetpea.jsc.nasa.gov (Keith Mancus 283-4283) writes:
>>back to watch, but what's the point?  I don't believe in this god (Occam's
>>Razor; show me evidence!).  But even if you do, there is no point to prayer
>>and no reason to expect survival after death.  Science rejects the notion
>>that any form of prayer can influence events or violate the laws of nature.
>I haven't bothered to look up the reference, so take this or leave this if 
>you wish...
>I heard recently (within the last few months) about a study
>published in a respected medical journal (may have been JAMA) about the 
>effects of prayer on patient recovery.
>
>This wasn't a "power of positive thinking study"; volunteers prayed for people
>in the experimental group.  These people had a statistically significant fewer
>number of serious complications than the control group.  The subjects didn't
>know if they were in the experimental or control group.
>
>Has this study been debunked yet?  Anybody know the reference for this study?
>Has this been discussed before, or do I need to get off my tail and look up
>the reference?

Hmmm. I do not know for sure but I suspect that this has become a new
urban legend. I have heard this "study" cited now numerous times and always
in the same way. The person "heard" about the study, it was published in a 
"respected" (but unspecified) journal, and it showed that prayer works to
heal people. I have now see this mentioned on a couple of different 
Xian TV shows and on the net.

I would also be very interested to see the _specific_ and _original_
reference.

>-- 
>---------------------------
>Tim Mason
>Tim.Mason@ccscola.ColumbiaSC.NCR.COM

Scott
Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: hyde@ac.dal.ca
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Ice Ages
Date: 8 Apr 92 16:17:08 GMT
Organization: Dalhousie University, Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada

In article <stmj6ha@lynx.unm.edu>, rsquires@cyclops.eece.unm.edu (Roger Squires) writes:
> gives two reasons for the occurrence of ice ages: a long term factor
> due to 
> 	1) Increasing continentality
> 	2) continental drift

	Both of these are relevant factors but are only part
	of the story.

	The long term cooling since the Cretaceous
	has been largely due to decline in CO2 (estimated to
	be several times its present value at 100 ma). 
	Other ice ages follow this pattern, for example the
	carboniferous and late precambrian ice ages occured
	at times of low CO2, possibly as low as todays (though
	this is not required due to the lower solar constant
	of that time).

	Declining bottom water temperatures (from 15C to the present
	3C) are also critical - the cretaceous ocean circulation
	led to warm upwelling near the poles, obviously unfavourable
	for ice sheet formation.

	All this said, however, the drift of continents to
	the north did have an impact, and the cooling over
	the last 100 ma was not uniform (the mid eocene was
	almost as warm as the late cretaceous).

	Increasing polar continentality can work both ways.
	There has to be some polar land for ice sheets to
	form, but too much land leads to a strong seasonal
	cycle in temperature - in particular, to warm polar
	summers which tend to prevent ice from forming.
	The critical size appears to be about 30% larger
	than Antarctica.


> which lowered temperatures over the last 50-60 million years, and
> a short term factor called the Orbital Hypothesis, due to the earth's
> rotation around the sun.  Can anyone comment on recent theories of
> how the Ice Ages came about?  

	The "smoking gun" confirming the orbital hypothesis
	(often known as the "Milankovitch Theory") was found in
	1976 Hays, Imbrie, and Shackleton, Science 1976, p1121)
	and further evidence has come in great quantities since.
	An entertaining book on the subject is "Ice ages, solving
	the mystery" by Imbrie and Imbrie, which covers the
	history of the astronomical theory from the early 1800s to
	the late 1970's.


The section in [1] on the Cretaceous
> extinctions does mention periodicities that may be due to comet showers
> or a planet X.  Is the Nemesis theory dead?


	As dead as can be.  It has been shown that any object
	orbiting the sun with a 25 million year long period
	is so weakly bound gravitationally that perturbations
	by other stars or molecular clouds would cause it
	to leave its orbit in a few tens of millions of years.

	On the other hand, the idea that there was an impact
	at the cretateous/tertiary boundary has been rather
	convincingly demonstrated, though it appears to have hit
	an ecosystem which was already in trouble.  Climate
	change appears to have set in two million years before
	the impact.



						Bill Hyde
Department of Oceanography
Dalhousie University,
Halifax, Nova Scotia
hyde@ac.dal.ca or hyde@dalac
From: kring@efes.physik.uni-kl.de (Thomas Kettenring)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Occam (was: Bayesian inference)
Date: 12 Apr 92 21:33:14 GMT
Organization: FB Physik, Universitaet Kaiserslautern, Germany

I lost the last Occam article by Matthew P Wiener.
(Can you believe it, t.o articles are thrown away here after
four days!)

But I saw it, and I took a glance at it.
I think now that you are probably right in that Occam's razor
is not very useful for *theories*, since the 'all things being
equal' bit is too unlikely there.  

It is useful for frames of reference, and it is useful for
fuzzy pseudoscience-hypothese-theory-like things like astrology,
which don't make real measurable predictions.
That is, you can explain things with astrology (if the horoscope
is right, fine; if it is wrong, you say that the stars don't force),
and you can explain things without astrology (all statistics,
with the possible exception of the non-reproducible Gauquelin one,
say that this is possible), therefore you choose "no astrology"
because of Occam.

-- 
-Caddy--(thomas kettenring, 2 dan, kaiserslautern, germany)-----
The question of whether the electron is a wave or a particle
has a clear and definite answer:  No.
Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: btd@iastate.edu (Benjamin T Dehner)
Subject: Re: Falsifying Data
Organization: Iowa State University, Ames IA
Date: Mon, 6 Apr 1992 05:56:38 GMT

	I wish I could include Ted's original article, but it was too long
to repost.  Instead, I will post general comments about it.

1) Ted lies about the surface features of Venus.  He claims that Venus is a
smooth, lava-covered surface.  The Magellan radar maps of Venus are available
via anonymous FTP at ames.arc.nasa.gov (I forget where; ask/look for FAQ on
sci.astro or sci.space.news for more info) which CLEARLY show mountainous
and rugged terrain.

2) Ted shows total ignorance of radiative transfer and atmospheric modeling.
He mistakes measurements of the infra-red (IR) energy flux in the middle 
atmosphere with IR flux at the top of the atmosphere, does not take into
account any convective processes which may be going on, nor does he take into 
account the true complexities of radiative transfer.  Only a complete 
atmospheric model of Venus (with loads of data) can show us what is going on.
However, Ted would never accept such a model, as it would be based on current
'uniformitarian' physisc.  Furthermore, Ted gives us no clue as to how HIS 
physics work so that we can try a model based on that.

3) Ted shows total ignorance of observational/experimental physics.  He wants
to read a number on a dial and plug it in. Uunfortunately, this ain't so.  
First of all, there is ALWAYS an error associated with any measurement.    
Furthermore, all insturments must be calibrated to some extent.  This usually
requires input data from a calculated model.  (See above.)  While admittedly, 
this can lead to some biases, there are some self-checking parts involved in 
this; usually a good order-of-magnitude estimate is known well beforehand.

4) like a good creationist, Ted jumps all over any statement that sounds
vaguely like "we don't know".  Modern science doesn't have all the answers,
so therefore we should drop everything for the first crackpot that comes along.

5) Ted calls almost all astronomers liars and dogmatics.  Several responses
suggest themselves, varying from insulting to obscene.  While I don't mind
so much insults directed at me, as I have little concern for the opinions
of Ted, he is now attacking the integrity of a professional community of
which I am a part.  Keep it up Ted; one of these days you will have a chance
to prove your paranoid rambling in a court for a slander suit.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Benjamin T. Dehner          Department of Physics and Astronomy 
btd@iastate.edu             Iowa State University 
                            Ames, IA 50011

Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: danwell@IASTATE.EDU (Daniel A Ashlock)
Subject: Re: The Myth Of Morality-- and Christian Judgment
Reply-To: danwell@IASTATE.EDU (Daniel A Ashlock)
Organization: Iowa State University
Date: Thu, 16 Apr 1992 16:04:05 GMT

In article <1992Apr15.190839.13256@reed.edu>, bcushman@envy.Reed.Edu (Ben
Cushman) writes:

    [example of grotesque hipocracy rationalized by religion deleted]
> 
> 	I'm sorry, but this kind of discussion of someone's character  
> turns my stomach.  What ever happened to "do not judge, lest ye be  
> judged"; "let he who is without sin cast the first stone", and "take the  
> log from your eye".

   They got thrown out with the other garbage?  Seriously, such quotes are poor
grade of tripe when used to silence protest against hipocracy, freeloading,
refusal to take responsibility for one's self, and disgusting violation of the
social contract.  If this woman is as described, she is scum.  One need not be
perfect to detest scum.  

> 	I'm not perfect, the woman you describe is not perfect-- and I  
> would be simply amazed, Mr.(?) Bishop, if you turned out to be perfect.   
> Wouldn't that be something.  The Second Coming already!

   Anyone who uses Jesus' death as an excuse for being a worthless dreg is
missing the point.  I judge others constantly and listen to their judgements of
myself.  Sometimes I even accept them and modify my behavior.  Your implicit
assertion that only the perfect have the moral standing to criticise is
sophomoric, saccharine, and impractical.

> 						Ben Cushman
> 						Reed College

Dan
Danwell@IASTATE.EDU
From: tmason@ccscola.Columbia (Timothy E. Mason)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Does theory of evolution affect belief in God?
Date: 7 Apr 92 19:25:41 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: NCR Corp, E&M-Columbia, Columbia, SC

In article <1992Apr4.022721.29979@aio.jsc.nasa.gov> mancus@sweetpea.jsc.nasa.gov (Keith Mancus 283-4283) writes:
>back to watch, but what's the point?  I don't believe in this god (Occam's
>Razor; show me evidence!).  But even if you do, there is no point to prayer
>and no reason to expect survival after death.  Science rejects the notion
>that any form of prayer can influence events or violate the laws of nature.
I haven't bothered to look up the reference, so take this or leave this if 
you wish...
I heard recently (within the last few months) about a study
published in a respected medical journal (may have been JAMA) about the 
effects of prayer on patient recovery.

This wasn't a "power of positive thinking study"; volunteers prayed for people
in the experimental group.  These people had a statistically significant fewer
number of serious complications than the control group.  The subjects didn't
know if they were in the experimental or control group.

Has this study been debunked yet?  Anybody know the reference for this study?
Has this been discussed before, or do I need to get off my tail and look up
the reference?


>	If you can't even *conceive* of a "critical experiment" on which a given
>theory will stand or fall, then your theory is meaningless.  A difference
>which makes no difference IS no difference.  If there is no conceivable
>experiment that will reveal the existence of god (some theologians seem
>to think this is the case), then there is no point in believing in god
>or behaving accordingly.  After all, it WON'T MAKE A DIFFERENCE! A = A!

This is what makes the study above so interesting.  If the study is valid,
it must surely prove something (although I'm not sure what).  To me, this 
experiment seems like a "critical experiment."  If prayer were shown to 
have no statistical effect, it would have denied the power of prayer (at
least for the prayer volunteers in the study.)

-- 
---------------------------
Tim Mason
Tim.Mason@ccscola.ColumbiaSC.NCR.COM
From: kv07@IASTATE.EDU (Warren Vonroeschlaub)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: False C O R R E L L A T I O N S, a couple of better examples
Date: 13 Apr 92 14:32:19 GMT
Article-I.D.: IASTATE.1992Apr13.093219
Reply-To: kv07@IASTATE.EDU (Warren Vonroeschlaub)
Organization: Iowa State University


  I was only 6 in '72.  What was the Ervin committee?  Who was John Dean?  Why
was he the one who was correct?

Ted:
>I've seen several examples of this kind of thing over the years.  A couple of
>times the Educational Testing Service in Princeton NJ has provided excellent
>examples.  Their tests usually involve several paragraphs, each followed by
>several questions based ON that paragraph, and I personally have seen one
>such paragraph which was absolutely ambiguous.  Assuming you worked your
>arithematic right, you either got all of those questions right or all of them
>wrong depending upon which way you interpreted the ambiguity.  This is the
same

  Perhaps we are not talking about the same tests, but the first part of the
sentence suggests you mean the reading comprehension exam.  But there is no
"arithmatic" involved, unless you mean counting (ie "How many type of warthogs
are there?" questions).  And the questions are usually designed so that no two
are based on the same section of the text, so to say all right or all wrong is
to say that the person either read the paragraph or didn't.

                                             -Kurt
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Cold-adaption of the African Elephant
From: sbishop@desire.wright.edu
Date: 16 Apr 92 17:21:59 EST
 <2729@fedfil.UUCP> <1992Apr15.181050.990@desire.wright.edu> <1992Apr16.023553.7305@aplcen.apl.jhu.edu>
Organization: Wright State University 

In article <1992Apr16.023553.7305@aplcen.apl.jhu.edu>, akbloom@aplcen.apl.jhu.edu (Keith Bloom) writes:
> 
> About Hannibal crossing the Alps with elephants, Ted Holden wrote:
> 
>>> You read lots of history, don't you, Sue?  All but a small handful of those
>>> elephants died due to the hardwhips of being hauled and winched through
>>> those mountains, and that handful died shortly thereafter.  Hannibal's 
>>> strengths were his Spainish and Numidean cavalry groups;  the elephants were
>>> a total non-factor.
> 
> and Sue Bishop replied:
> 
>>That's right, I'd forgotten how many elephants died during the trip.  BTW,
>>a modern trek was done over the same route by elephants, not too very long
>>ago.  I seem to remember that they finally just trucked them over.
> 
> Where are you folks getting your information from?  It can't be from
> Livy, who described Hannibal's trip and said nothing about any
> elephants dying.  In fact, Livy describes their participation in the
> battle of Trebia in 218 B.C., after Hannibal arrived in Italy.  Most of
> the elephants apparently died in that battle or soon afterwards; some
> of the remaining ones died in the winter of that year in the Appenines;
> one survived into 217 B.C.
> 
> Of course, Livy wasn't there at the time; but neither were Ted Holden
> or Sue Bishop.  So what's the source for the statement that most of
> the elephants died in the trip across the Alps?
> 

Well sheesh!  I finally let Ted have a point, since I wasn't sure as to my
source, and I get tromped for it.  Actually I really don't know how many
of the elephants died, I do remember a fairly large mention in a book by
David Taylor, guess I'll have to look it up.

Sue
> 
> Keith
> -----
>    "Taking elephants across the Alps is not as much fun as it sounds.
>     The Alps are difficult enough when alone, and elephants are
>     peculiarly fitted for not crossing them.  If you must take
>     something over the Alps, try chamois.  They're built for it."
>        -- Will Cuppy, _The Decline and Fall of Practically Everybody_
From: ksand@apple.com (Kent Sandvik)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Belief in God and Evolutionism !
Date: 8 Apr 92 23:30:01 GMT
Distribution: talk.origins
Organization: MacDTS Mongols

In article <REUS.92Mar30120036@klein.euromath.dk>, reus@klein.euromath.dk (Jens
Peter Reus Christensen) writes:
> Clearly people can be atheists and/or Christians with or without
> believing in Evolutionism and/or Creationism ( yes despite the
> admittedly and rather obvious paradox it is possible to have
> creation without a creator ). 

That paradox happens every nano second in the world of quantum
mechanics. Is it even a paradox?

Cheers,
Kent
Newsgroups: talk.origins