HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: adpeters@sunflower.bio.indiana.edu (Andy Peters)
Subject: Re: What is consciousness?
Organization: Program in Evolution, Ecology, and Behavior, Indiana University
Date: Mon, 9 Nov 1992 05:33:29 GMT

In article <1992Nov9.014549.6456@aurora.com> isaak@aurora.com (Mark Isaak) writes:
[deletions]
>Seriously, death isn't such a great mystery as you make it out to be.  Heart
>and lung function rely on a complicated arrangement of neutrons in the brain
                                                        ^^^^^^^^
I assume you mean neurons?

>(among other things).  All cells, including said neutrons, require heart
                                                  ^^^^^^^^
>and lung to circulate blood to supply oxygen and nutrients.  When brain
>function degrades past a certain point, heart or lungs falter, causing
>oxygenation of the brain to falter, making heart and lungs fare even
>worse, etc., causing a catastrophic failure of the entire system.

No flame intended, I'm just clarifying.  I mean, you _could_ mean
"neutrons," it would just be a very bizarre way of thinking about
physiology.  Y'know, emergent properties and all that :-)

>Mark Isaak           "Every generation thinks it has the answers, and every

-- 
* Andy Peters                     * "Slugs are small and portable    *From
* Program in Evolution,           * Just stuff 'em up your nose      *"Slugs,"
*      Ecology, and Behavior      * They'll fit beneath your armpits *by David
* Indiana University, Bloomington * Or right between your toes"      *Greenberg
From: kv07@IASTATE.EDU (Warren Vonroeschlaub)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Creation vs. evolution
Date: 12 Nov 92 22:35:52 GMT
Reply-To: kv07@IASTATE.EDU (Warren Vonroeschlaub)
Organization: Ministry of Silly Walks

In article <BxMFyA.F0F@usenet.ucs.indiana.edu>,
adpeters@sunflower.bio.indiana.edu (Andy Peters) writes:
> In article <n0e24t@ofa123.fidonet.org>
Richard.Rearden.@.914/901@f8.n10.z1.fidonet.org writes:
> >In its own right evolution is a religion.  Unfortunately, most will
> >deny
> >that because that would put take it out of the realm of science and fact,
and
> >place it with religion and faith.
> 
> No, most deny that evolution is a religion because evolution is not a
> religion.

  Ah, but don't you see.  He predicted that you would deny it was a religion, so
it must be so.  QED.

  Now, if you were to admit evolution was a religion then we would be compelled
to believe you.

 |  __L__
-|-  ___  Warren Kurt vonRoeschlaub
 |  | o | kv07@iastate.edu
 |/ `---' Iowa State University
/|   ___  Math Department
 |  |___| 400 Carver Hall
 |  |___| Ames, IA  50011
 J  _____
Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: m23364@mwunix (James Meritt)
Subject: Re: Bales is a liar: evidence - one case
Organization: MITRE Corporation, McLean VA
Date: Thu, 12 Nov 1992 17:30:18 GMT

In article <1992Nov12.155904.7630@galois.mit.edu> tycchow@riesz.mit.edu (Timothy Y. Chow) writes:
}Here's what my online Webster says:
}
}4. lie n 1a: an assertion of something known or believed by the speaker to
}   be untrue with intent to deceive 1b: an untrue or inaccurate statement that
}   may or may not be believed true by the speaker 2: something that misleads
}   or deceives 3: a charge of lying
}
}Apparently Bales is denying that he has lied in sense 1a, while Meritt is
}accusing him of lying in the sense of 1b or 2.  Does this debate really
}boil down to nothing more than this?

Not quite.  I have presented evidence that:
1. Bales asserted something that he knew to be untrue (as evidenced by his
   referral to something that had previously been posted)  His behaviour
   (to wit, present the material then disappear for months when it is
   shown false beyond the shadow of a doubt to reappear later with exactly
   the same line, unmodified by the presented information) indicates that
   he wishes to deceive.

2. The assertion was demonstratedly untrue and inaccurate.

3. Since the identical assertions are often remade, in spite of evidence
   being presented to the contrary, this indicates that he desires to mislead
   or deceive.  And since one person said that he believed his same statement
   upon reiteration, he DOES deceive.

Clear?
From: weemba@sagi.wistar.upenn.edu (Matthew P Wiener)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Probability of Evolution
Date: 11 Nov 92 15:01:50 GMT
Reply-To: weemba@sagi.wistar.upenn.edu (Matthew P Wiener)
Organization: The Wistar Institute of Anatomy and Biology
In-reply-to: kalki33!system@lakes.trenton.sc.us

In article <JNi2TB2w165w@kalki33>, kalki33!system@lakes writes:
>The book demonstrates that by adopting the hypotheses of the theory
>of molecular evolution, it must follow from these hypotheses that there
>is an extremely tiny --virtually infinitesimal-- probability that a
>living cell could have arisen by random molecular combination under
>natural selection, even given a period of time much longer than the
>estimated age of the earth.

No one believes in random molecular combinations.  Molecules combine
and break up according to the laws of physics and chemistry, which are
not random.  If you don't take this into account in the calculation,
it's a proof of nothing.
-- 
-Matthew P Wiener (weemba@sagi.wistar.upenn.edu)
From: kalki33!system@lakes.trenton.sc.us
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Probability of Evolution
Date: 11 Nov 92 11:25:37 GMT
Reply-To: kalki33!system@lakes.trenton.sc.us
Organization: Kalki's Infoline BBS, Aiken, SC, USA

danwell@IASTATE.EDU (Daniel A Ashlock) writes:

> > "A typical initial condition for a model of the origin of life will
> > consist of an ensemble of possible initial states, such as one of the
> > thermodynamic ensembles of statistical mechanics or some simple
> > combination of these....Such an ensemble can be specified by a simple
> > equation or a brief set of equations." (Page 107)
> 
>    Bullshit.  This means you need to have a particular model of abiogenisis i
> mind and there isn't one yet.  Again the "straitforward" proof can't be right
> because it rests on wildly unknown facts, e.g. the mechanism of abiogenisis. 
> The above paragraph is essentially "I will make a cool sounding but nonsensic
> initial assumption, the better to grind my axe."  You _should_ be aware of th
> if you're going to claim such "proofs".


If there isn't a model for abiogenesis "yet", then why do supposedly
reputable scientists make the premature claim that life arose from
non-life? Unless a model can be shown to be correct, then it is not
scientific to claim that the phenomenon occurred, is it? No one has ever
seen a living organism arise from an assemblage of lifeless matter, have
they?

> >> In actual fact, the probability of evolution of higher life forms is
> >> bounded below by 0 and bounded above by 1.  Any more definite statement
> >> is an exercise in intellectual fraud.
> > 
> > Where did you get this "actual fact"?
> 
>    From _knowing_ that the parameters needed to make a "proof" of the sort
> you give worth spit are as yet undiscovered.  Until we find out how life can
> arise and get a handle on the spped and complexity of evolution ALL PROBABILI
> ESTIMATES FINER THAN 0<p<=1 are a priori bullshit.

I agree with you that, since no one can agree on a model for the
evolution of life from matter, it is unscientific to claim that it
happened. It is, therefore, an article of faith to state that one knows
such evolution occured.

Sincerely,
Kalki Dasa


       -------------------------------------------------------
      |  Don't forget to chant:   Hare Krishna Hare Krishna   |
      |                           Krishna Krishna Hare Hare   |
      |                           Hare Rama Hare Rama         |
      |                           Rama Rama Hare Hare         |
      |                                                       |
      |   Kalki's Infoline BBS Aiken, South Carolina, USA     |
      |        (kalki33!kalki@lakes.trenton.sc.us)            |
       -------------------------------------------------------
From: keck@athena.cs.uga.edu (Paul Keck)
Subject: Re: Science is inadequate--NOT! 
Keywords: Steve Martin, SNL
Organization: University of Georgia, Athens
Date: Thu, 5 Nov 1992 19:45:11 GMT

In article <Bx7JAo.1LL@news.cso.uiuc.edu> mchaffee@ux4.cso.uiuc.edu (Real life?!  Bahahahahah!!) writes:
>TMakinen writes:
>
>>In article <1992Oct30.032457.4418@nmsu.edu> sdoe@nmsu.edu (Stephen Doe) writes:
>>>Science does a
>>>superb job of explaining processes in the natural world.  Maybe it's
>>>not so hot at the supernatural, but then it's problematical that the
>>>supernatural even exists.
>
>>I've always been in belief that supernatural processes are *defined* as ones
>>which lie outside science because they do not obey the reality described by
>>scientific means. Therefore the statement "science cannot explain the
>>supernatural" is a empty conclusion. If something happens and it obeys *some*
>>rule then it clearly is not "supernatural". I think somebody is defining
>>"supernatural" in a different way as being unexplained by the current science.
>>But were the wave-like and particle-like properties of ligth a supernatural
>>phenomenon before the invention of quantum mechanics?
>
>>Teemu Makinen  --- teemu.makinen@fmi.fi
>
>
>What you fail to note is that EVERYTHING was a supernatural phenomenon before
>it was explained.  Used to be disease was simply a punishment struck upon you
>by god.  Now we know, through science, that disease is caused by microorganisms
>and the like.  Or perhaps, like fossils, they were planted by the Devil to 

I'm reminded of the Saturday Night Live episode (late '70's) when Steve Martin
played 'Theodoric of York, Medieval Barber'.  He had a short speech as
follows, describing why a girl is sick:

"Why, years ago, we would have thought your daughter's illness was brought
on by demonic possession, or witchcraft.."
<Jane Curtin laughs>
"..but now we know that your daughter is suffering from an imbalance of 
bodily humors, brought about by a toad or small dwarf living in her stomach."

We should all be careful, lest we become so self-assured that we make 
statements like this.  But, a worse thing would be to throw up our hands
and say "God did it" when confronted with something seemingly inexplicable.

Paul Keck  I'm not a small dwarf, but I play one on TV.
From: kalki33!system@lakes.trenton.sc.us
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Probability of Evolution
Date: 11 Nov 92 10:19:33 GMT
Reply-To: kalki33!system@lakes.trenton.sc.us
Organization: Kalki's Infoline BBS, Aiken, SC, USA

TMakinen writes:

> In article <cR6wTB13w165w@kalki33> kalki33!system@lakes.trenton.sc.us writes:
> >But if the bacterium is being pressured by "natural selection" (i.e. a
> >hostile environment) to mutate and reproduce or perish, then if it
> >doesn't get just the right burst of cosmic rays at the right time, it
> >will perish and decompose back into its component chemicals. Is it not
> >so?
> 
> Yeah. That's just right. The ones that are not lucky enough to have a suitabl
> mutation will perish when there is strong pressure in some direction. Still
> there may be a lot of those who do have luck. Have you heard, by the way, tha
> E.Coli is reported to be able to force (at least some) needed mutations to
> happen? Not that I rely on this argument but have you taken care of this kind
> of "coinsidenses" in your calculations?

Calculations of what? What are you talking about? Did you read the
entire post?

Sincerely,
Kalki Dasa


       -------------------------------------------------------
      |  Don't forget to chant:   Hare Krishna Hare Krishna   |
      |                           Krishna Krishna Hare Hare   |
      |                           Hare Rama Hare Rama         |
      |                           Rama Rama Hare Hare         |
      |                                                       |
      |   Kalki's Infoline BBS Aiken, South Carolina, USA     |
      |        (kalki33!kalki@lakes.trenton.sc.us)            |
       -------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: ksand@apple.com (Kent Sandvik )
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Flat Earth in the Bible (was: High costs of education)
Date: 6 Nov 92 02:40:14 GMT
Followup-To: talk.origins
Organization: Apple

In article <Bx7InI.1AD@news.cso.uiuc.edu>, mchaffee@ux4.cso.uiuc.edu (Real
life?!  Bahahahahah!!) wrote:
> Let's not forget that for the authors of the Bible "the world" consisted of
> little, if anything, more than the Middle East.  To their point of view, the
> entire world was such a small part of the globe that it could be seen as flat
> or, if you want to give them a lot of credit, as curved but with edges.

That would also explain quite elegantly why they believed the whole
world was under water during a really big flood that took place 
in Babylonia. Isn't it hilarious to think that there are people today that 
then believe that the whole planet was covered with water :-).

Kent

	"The problem with computers is you *play* with them."
					-- Richard Feynman
-------------------
Kent Sandvik (UUCP: ....!apple!ksand; INTERNET: ksand@apple.com)
DISCLAIMER: Private activities on the Net.
Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: keithd@well.sf.ca.us (Keith Doyle)
Subject: Re: AWESOME computer program (Populus)
Organization: Whole Earth 'Lectronic Link
Date: Thu, 12 Nov 1992 07:34:54 GMT


lionel@cs.city.ac.uk (Lionel Tun) writes:
>OK, I issue a challenge. Take your favourite chess program on
>your favourite computer. Randomly change any number of bits or
>bytes in the program's executable file. If you manage to find
>a random change which makes the program better at chess, I will
>accept it as evidence that significant AND beneficial random
>mutations are possible. Oh, and I'll eat my flat cap.

In addition to the fact that this is roughly how several chess
programs WERE developed, it ought to be pretty simple to
demonstrate on a simple level....  Suppose we started with
a program that really is pretty terrible at playing chess,
a relatively untrained chess moron.  It would be easier
to see the improvements over time in such a program.

It could be made to play a mutation of itself, where the
winner is retained for the next generation.

If Lionel wants to argue that the underlying binary code
is usually not modified, only the associated "data" driving
the decision processes, it is important to note that this
is because the factors driving success in a chess program
are significantly MORE complex that in living systems.
In particular, a mutated chess program only survives if
it becomes better at playing chess, a very specific and narrow
criteria.  In living systems, the ONLY factor involved in an
organisms success is its ability to reproduce.  Reproduction
is a much more general criteria for success than is BOTH
reproduction AND chess ability, which a chess program would
have to have to survive and improve.

Lionel in effect, is proposing the "human organism all at
once" scenario, which is not predicted by evolution.  Note
that in the incremental stages of an organisms evolution,
ALL THAT IS SELECTED FOR IS THE ABILITY TO REPRODUCE.  Not
the ability to play chess, think like a human being, walk
and talk, and climb trees, etc.  As long as the organism
can reproduce it is considered successful, so the selection
criteria is relatively simple compared to Lionels chess
example.

An experiment a little more to the point would be to take
your favorite "whatever" program, flip a random bit, and
then test it to see if it can still execute AT ALL (perhaps
a core dump could be considered a failure).  A core dumping
program is considered unable to reproduce, while one that
doesn't core dump is retained for the next generation.

This could determine its ability to merely survive within a
mutational environment.  In time, the program that you do
retain I predict, would become more resistant to mutations
that would inhibit its ability to execute, and you would see
fewer and fewer core dumps as a result of point mutations.
Thus the "organism" would build up a resistance to detrimental
mutations.

Keith
From: weemba@sagi.wistar.upenn.edu (Matthew P Wiener)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Probability of Evolution
Date: 9 Nov 92 14:58:02 GMT
Reply-To: weemba@sagi.wistar.upenn.edu (Matthew P Wiener)
Organization: The Wistar Institute of Anatomy and Biology
In-reply-to: TMakinen

In article <1992Nov9.115616.11913@nic.funet.fi>, TMakinen writes:
>	   (Yes, we are plugging this book. But that's ok, it is a good
>and important book. Dr. Thompson is not a "crackpot", he is a professional
>scientist with a long list of published papers, etc....)

He's a crackpot.  Long lists of published papers are no defense.
-- 
-Matthew P Wiener (weemba@sagi.wistar.upenn.edu)
From: livesey@solntze.wpd.sgi.com (Jon Livesey)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: What is consciousness?
Date: 8 Nov 1992 02:10:26 GMT
Organization: Silicon Graphics, Inc.  Mountain View, CA
NNTP-Posting-Host: solntze.wpd.sgi.com


In article <1L7TTB1w165w@kalki33>, kalki33!system@lakes.trenton.sc.us writes:
> 
> To us, however, the most striking feature of life is the fact that it is
> conscious.

Eh?

jon.
From: kalki33!system@lakes.trenton.sc.us
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Probability of Evolution
Date: Thu, 05 Nov 92 05:27:00 EST
Reply-To: kalki33!system@lakes.trenton.sc.us
Organization: Kalki's Infoline BBS, Aiken, SC, USA


  The probability of evolution of higher life forms by known physical
processes during a 4.5 billion year period is bounded by an UPPER limit
of 10e-150000.

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

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

  These statements are from Mechanistic and Nonmechanistic Science, by
Dr. Richard Thompson. His arguments are based on information theory
and molecular biology. The proof is straightforward.

Sincerely,
Kalki Dasa

       -------------------------------------------------------
      |  Don't forget to chant:   Hare Krishna Hare Krishna   |
      |                           Krishna Krishna Hare Hare   |
      |                           Hare Rama Hare Rama         |
      |                           Rama Rama Hare Hare         |
      |                                                       |
      |   Kalki's Infoline BBS Aiken, South Carolina, USA     |
      |        (kalki33!kalki@lakes.trenton.sc.us)            |
       -------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: keck@athena.cs.uga.edu (Paul Keck)
Subject: Re: Bales is a liar: evidence - one case
Organization: University of Georgia, Athens
Date: Thu, 12 Nov 1992 02:28:21 GMT

In article <7552@tekig7.PEN.TEK.COM> bobb@tekig1.PEN.TEK.COM (Robert W Bales) writes:

Let me state for the record that I am not a Bales-Basher (tm).  Bob, you've
made some good points, and you're obviously an intelligent man.  BUT, this 
statement in your post:

>The fact that there is objective,
>observed evidence to sugest that life came through a process of creation

[rest of sentence included for completeness]
>justifies including the possibility in a cirriculum in the interests of
>accuracy. 
>
>     Bob Bales
>

_really_ makes me have to ask- what?  Please tell me.  I've never
seen any.  Please don't get sidetracked on reasons why the earth is 
young, or quote the Bible, or anything of that sort.

What objective, observed evidence is there that suggests life came 
through a process of creation?

Paul.
From: jtisdel@digi.lonestar.org (J. Michael Tisdel)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Creation vs. evolution
Summary: a Theory of Creationism?
Date: 12 Nov 92 19:01:15 GMT
Organization: DSC Communications Corp, Plano, TX

In article <n0e24t@ofa123.fidonet.org> Richard.Rearden.@.914/901@f8.n10.z1.fidonet.org writes:
>
>        This is the first time I have even read this net and it is fascinating
>to read the diversity of messages as well as the diversity of origins of the
>messages. 

Hm, fresh meat?  No, wait.  This *may* be the Enlightened One sent unto
the Evolution Heathen to propound unto them the Theorey of Creation (ToC). 8)

Now, in all seriousness, I present some selected lines from Mr. Rearden's post.
The phrases added in square brackets are for clarification of pronoun
antecedents.

     This is the way it is with evolution.  They [those supporting evolution,]
     claim many facts support their theory, and the Creationist claim the same
     facts support theirs as well.

This statement of Mr Rearden's implies the existence of a ToC.

     So, then we have two theories, one is taught as fact in all the public
     schools, the other is looked upon as a myth, or an allegory at best.

This statement explicitly states the existence of a ToC.

     Two different detectives may come up with two different theories.  The
     irony is that most Evolutionist, refuse to even take the Creationist's
     theory into spectulation.

Again, explicit statement on the existence of a ToC.

Now, Mr. Rearden, such allusions and statements have been made before on t.o.
Can you offer the actual ToC?  Usually, those who claim to be Creationists
spend their time and effort attempting to debunk evolution.  Rather than taking
such a negative attitude, let's analyze this ToC of which you speak.  Provide
for us the text of the ToC and we will analyze it.  We promise to give
it a fair shake.  We are waiting...

-- 
-----------------------------------\\\\\\\\\\\\\---------------------------
J. Michael Tisdel                   \\\\\\\\\\\\\ jtisdel@digi.lonestar.org
DSC Communications Corporation       \\\\\\\\\\\\\   ...!uunet!digi!jtisdel
1000 Coit Rd, MS 120, Plano Tx 75075  \\\\\\\\\\\\\        jmtisdel@aol.com
From: vaccaro@novavax.UUCP (N. Trafford Vaccaro)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Great-etc-grandparents
Keywords: ancestry
Date: 12 Nov 92 09:37:33 GMT
Organization: Nova University, Fort Lauderdale, FL

Hi, OK, what's wrong with this: you have 2 parents, 4 grandparents,
8 great-grandparents, 16 great-great-grandparents, and so on,
and I figured that if you go back to 20-times-great grandparents
you end up with 1,048,576 people that were living at the time
that were related to you. Of course this takes into account
that no one married their uncles, etc. If you go back 1000
generations, the number of people is mind boggling. 

Where is the flaw? Can you imagine that x number of years from
now everyone on this planet will have one common descendent known
as our great-etc-grandson/daughter?

I'm probably the only one who cares.
Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: huston@access.digex.com (Herb Huston)
Subject: Re: apology
Keywords: AWESOME
Organization: Express Access Online Communications, Greenbelt, MD USA
Date: Sun, 8 Nov 1992 18:57:43 GMT

In article <100918@bu.edu> colby@bu-bio.bu.edu (Chris Colby) writes:
>          I heartily apologize to any and all chimps I may have 
>offended by my remarks. 

On behalf of Dar and his colleagues at Central Washington University, I
accept your apology.  Here's another extract from a Friends of Washoe
newsletter:

   ... Loulis didn't contain himself and he spit a large mouthful
   of water on Bob.  At this, we signed WE GO, and we and the treats
   left with Bob and Olive.  Washoe, Dar, Tatu, and Moja watched with
   concern as we left.  Loulis became quite subdued and signed GOOD
   GOOD FOOD COME, I responded with , YOU BAD YOU SPIT, Loulis signed
   GOOD GOOD YOU, I signed YOU SORRY?  Loulis signed GOOD, I signed
   YOU SIGN SORRY TO FRIENDS.  Washoe sitting next to Loulis through-
   out this conversation, reached over and signed SORRY on Loulis'
   chest.  We accepted her apology for him and went back in for 
   another round of strawberries and games of chase.

-- Debbi Fouts, "A Spring Visit," _Friends of Washoe, Volume 10, Number 3,
Page 2.

Loulis is Washoe's adopted son.

-- Herb Huston
Newsgroups: talk.origins