HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: ingles@engin.umich.edu (Ray Ingles)
Subject: Re: Applauses to Ted
Date: Thu, 08 Oct 92 10:49:25 EDT
Organization: University of Michigan Engineering, Ann Arbor

In article <1992Oct8.101718.13261@nic.funet.fi> Teemu Makinen writes:

[deletions]

>   OK, Ted, you are primarily concerned about the question how those good ole
>saurs managed with their enormous body mass. A simple calculation gives the
>answer that they wouldn't have been able to even lift themselves off the
>ground. You have brought up a theory that explains the existence of the
>monsters by adjusting the Earth's gravitational field. Now, how could it have
>happened. Unfortunately there was another theory hanging out there which
>predicted that the Earth has been circulating a different "star" at the time of
>dinosaurs. Clinging to this funny theory you have missed all the alternative
>theories which could be much more harder to be proven totally bogus.
>   Why not, for example, say that the Earth has been bigger and less dense by
>that time? That would give the gravity difference you are looking for. It's
>only to say, that the gravitational force has pulled the Earth into a smaller
>planet than it was before. It would also give to you some anomalous mountain
>formations as the surface area shrinks.

 Um... actually, that won't work. For a sphere (which Earth is, at least
close enough for these purposes) the g outside the sphere depends only
on the mass of the sphere, whether or not the sphere is hollow. In fact,
Newton invented calculus to calculate this very result, I'm told...
 Of course, we shouldn't let such things stand in Ted's way. They haven't
before...


>Teemu Makinen  ---- teemu.makinen@fmi.fi

Sincerely,

Ray Ingles                  || The above opinions are probably
                            || not those of the University of
ingles@engin.umich.edu      || Michigan. Yet.
From: watkins@uctvax.uct.ac.za
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Questions for Evolutionists
Date: 7 Oct 92 15:25:22 GMT
Organization: University of Cape Town

In article <1992Oct6.110701.11591@hsr.no>, onar@hsr.no (Onar Aam) writes:
>>absurd:-   General Assumption: The Bible Is Absolutely true;
>>           1st Step: I think that the absence of Archaeological evidence for
>>                     some of the historical places/people/events means the
>>                     Bible is NOT absolutely true.
>>           New Theory: I think the Bible is a composite of Tribal stories
>>                      (Wellhausen's Redactors hypothesis)
>>           Result: New General Assumption: The Bible is not Asolutely
>>                                           Trustworthy
> 
>     
> 
>>           2nd Step: I discover the absent Archaeological evidence.
> 
> prove it.
> 
> 
>>           Logical Result: Return to the original Assumption, since the basis
>>                           for rejecting it was in error.
>>           Illogical Result: Retain the NEW Assumption - inspite of the fact
>>                             that it is based on an incorrect assumption - just
>>                             adjust the New Theory to accomodate new data.
>>
>>Guess what the General Assumption is Today!
>>Illogical? or not?
>>Gary
>>
> There are tons of geological evidence that genesis is wrong. I wont even bother
> presenting them here since this newsgroup are full of well-written articles on
> the subject. Read them. 
> 
> 
> Onar.

Two points;
First - I stated ARCHAEOLOGIGAL evidence as the initial assumption, not
       GEOLOGICAL nor PAELANTOLOGICAL.
Secondly - the JEPD theory applies to the whole penateuch, not only to genesis.

Now, the wide acceptance of Wellhausen's theory lay in the view point that the
archaeological evidence in the late 1800's and early 1900's showed that the
Bible had nothing to contribute to Ancient Near East archaeology since the data
it spoke about had not been found, its chronologies appeared to be inconsistant
etc. This view point has however changed since the early 1900's BECAUSE OF
SUBSEQUENT ARCHAEOLOGICAL DISCOVERIES. Nowdays it is no longer regarded as
silly to consult the OT regarding ACHAEOLOGICAL studies (before hand you might
be ridiculed for 'believing that stuff'). This answers your first objection I
hope.

Your second objection is invalid considering my two points above, and
considering my post was in response to someone whose objection to believing
what the Bible said lay in the JEPD theory. My post was designed to point out
the logical inconsistency of that view point. If you wish to object to the
creation accounts in GENESIS because of GEOLOGICAL and PALAEONTOLOCICAL
grounds, then, I agree, that is another story. But appealing to JEPD should be
seen as logically weak and naive as some of the creationists attempts.
Gary
>  
Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: kv07@IASTATE.EDU (Warren Vonroeschlaub)
Subject: Re: Antti dodges reality (take two)
Reply-To: kv07@IASTATE.EDU (Warren Vonroeschlaub)
Organization: Ministry of Silly Walks
Date: Wed, 7 Oct 1992 23:24:17 GMT

In article <1992Oct7.143626.23448@cs.joensuu.fi>, asiivo@cs.joensuu.fi (Antti
Siivonen) writes:
>kv07@IASTATE.EDU (Warren Vonroeschlaub) writes:
>>He also would like you to explain what happens to the formation when the lead
>>bird is shot by hunters in these species that don't switch off lead birds.
> 
> 	They do. But, if similar case occurrs, then the formation usually gets
> 	lost (but finally they find the right direction). 
> 
> 	It's the same as if the boss of your company would be shot. 

  So in other words, any bird could be the lead bird, and it is just a matter of
who gets their first.  Therefore being a lead bird is not a genetic trait and
evolution does not need to explain it.  The example was bogus.

 |  __L__   *******************************
-|-  ___    * Warren Kurt vonRoeschlaub   *
 |  | o |   * kv07@iastate.edu            *
 |/ `---'   * Iowa State University       *
/|   ___    * Math Department             *
 |  |___|   * 400 Carver Hall             *
 |  |___|   * Ames, IA  50011             *
 J  _____   *******************************
From: alanf@tekig6.PEN.TEK.COM (Alan M Feuerbacher)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Race Memory  (was: Progressive Creationism Part 6)
Date: 12 Oct 92 04:30:30 GMT
Organization: Tektronix, Inc., Beaverton,  OR.

In article <1992Oct7.213048.12269@nsisrv.gsfc.nasa.gov> jgacker@news.gsfc.nasa.gov (James G. Acker) writes:
>	Thanks, Stan -- I can't find any references dating the Mediterranean
>flood(s).  I figured it was "hominoid" era -- not Cro-Magnon, who probably
>could have told each other stories.  That's why I said race memory, and
>will say no more about it.

There is a fascinating account of the discovery of the Mediterranean
floods in _The Mediterranean Was A Desert  -- A voyage of the Glomar
Challenger_, Kenneth J. Hsu, Princeton Univ. Press, 1983.
From: simon@dcs.warwick.ac.uk (Simon Clippingdale)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Methinks it's like a weasel   IMPORTANT !
Date: 8 Oct 92 14:56:24 GMT
Organization: Department of Computer Science, Warwick University, England

In article <1992Oct5.173157.4527@cs.joensuu.fi> asiivo@cs.joensuu.fi (Antti Siivonen) writes:
>skroger@zeus.calpoly.edu (Seth L. Kroger) writes:
>>Wrong, Antti.  He clearly states that when life evolved there WAS selection.
>>That was how life was even able to occur.  I would suggest that you stop
>>misrepresenting Dawkins and pulling probability figures out your posterior
>>in the future.
>
>	He did first probability calculations with 'weasel' and got a number.
>	Then he multiplied and got the probability, but he didn't say what 
>	the probability was. Then he said that it demanded quite much 
>	fortune anyways. Also he said that when creationists were asked how
>	God has born, they asked that it has always been. In the same way 
>	Dawkins said that he can make a claim life has always existed. 
>
>	I see this as a conclusion in our discussion: We are discussing 
>	about beliefs, what people believe, not what things are according
>	to the science. And this fits perfectly to me - Dawkins himself claims
>	that evolutionism is a religion. 

Hmmm, better provide a reference for this one or get the ol' flameproof
asswear on pretty fast, Antti. Although I haven't read all his books, I
watched Dawkins' Royal Institution lecture series last year, in which he
touched on religion in general and Creationism in particular, and I find
it *very* difficult to believe that he would, or ever did, make such a claim.

I would also expect, had he done so, to have seen references (with quote,
title and page number) tossed around by jubilant Creationists like it was
the Second Coming itself.

Title and page number, please.

>		Andreas - Siperian Sirri   Siberian Stint

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.
Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: kv07@IASTATE.EDU (Warren Vonroeschlaub)
Subject: Re: 350 lb super-athlete goat?
Reply-To: kv07@IASTATE.EDU (Warren Vonroeschlaub)
Organization: Ministry of Silly Walks
Date: Thu, 8 Oct 1992 22:01:52 GMT

In article <63@fedfil.UUCP>, news@fedfil.UUCP (news) writes:
> A number of the t.o geniuses are still claiming that a sauropod
> dinosaur the size of a 200,000 version of Bill Kazmaier would be 
> far more efficient due to some intrinsic difference between weak, 
> slovenly, corrupt humans, and the noble lower animals.

  Not enough to insult people?  Now you feel the need to insult animals?

> If so, then they should be able to demonstrate some similar quadruped,
> roughly the same weight as Kaz, say around 350 lbs., whose weight, like
> that of the sauropods, is mostly digestive system, which can lift
considerably
> more than the 1000 lbs which Kaz has shown himself able to either deadlift
> or squat.  The sauropod would HAVE to be able to lift at least double
> what the 200,000 lb version of Kaz can be shown to be limited to, or 
> he'd have no chance of standing up at all.

  What is the Holden Number for a hippo or rhino?  These would probably be some
of the best modern day models for a sauropod.

> The t.o regular crew says no problem.  Fine;  you should be able to show 
> me a goat, a mountain sheep, a burro, or some such animal which, at around
> 300 - 400 lbs, can lift 2000 lbs.  

  These are no good.  They are designed for running/jumping.  Unless there is
evidence for sauropods leaping across mountainsides goats are a definate no for
auropod models.

> Maybe the great agronomist Sue Bishop has such a burro.

  Maybe.

 |  __L__   *******************************
-|-  ___    * Warren Kurt vonRoeschlaub   *
 |  | o |   * kv07@iastate.edu            *
 |/ `---'   * Iowa State University       *
/|   ___    * Math Department             *
 |  |___|   * 400 Carver Hall             *
 |  |___|   * Ames, IA  50011             *
 J  _____   *******************************
From: news@fedfil.UUCP (news)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Holden and the C programming language
Date: 13 Oct 92 04:35:39 GMT
Organization: HTE

In article <ksand-111092152633@wintermute.apple.com>, ksand@apple.com (Kent Sandvik) writes:
> In article <67@fedfil.UUCP>, news@fedfil.UUCP (news) wrote:
> > K&R C compilers, free with UNIX, are a classic example of getting what
> > you pay for in life.  
> 
> Well, gcc is also free

GCC is one of the rare exceptions;  the standard C compiler isn't.  

For anybody who hasn't seen it, the Delorie compiler is now an integral         part of the Deskview/X system;  it could make you forget MSwindows and BS/2
in a hurry.

> a devilish plan to destroy the minds of the modern man?
> 
Don't interpret anything I might have said as imparting such a motive to Sagan;
the basic motive there is to advance the yuppie career of one Carl Sagan...
if a few inferior minds get destroyed here and there in the process, and it
looks like they might have, hey, that's the American system.  Rejoice.



-- 
Ted Holden
HTE
From: bvickers@valentine.ics.uci.edu (Brett J. Vickers)
Subject: Re: Please Help
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Reply-To: bvickers@ics.uci.edu (Brett J. Vickers)
Organization: Univ. of Calif., Irvine, Info. & Computer Sci. Dept.
Date: 8 Oct 92 20:51:26 GMT

>kingsley@hpwrce.mayfield.hp.com (Kingsley Morse) writes:
>>              Please answer these 9 questions and return.

isaak@aurora.com (Mark Isaak) writes:
>Please learn something about taking surveys before actually taking
>them.  Surveys require a high response rate before you can get any
>useful information out of them.  On USENET, you can't even measure
>accurately what the response rate is.  Also, some of your questions
>appear badly formed for various reasons, particularly #4, which
>uses a lot of emotionally loaded words.

Not to mention that the readership of USENET (or talk.origins for that
matter) is hardly representative of the population as a whole.

What really annoyed me about the survey was that it was not even
relevant to talk.origins in the first place.  Keep that kind of
stuff in talk.abortion and talk.politics.misc where it belongs.

--
Brett J. Vickers		"Substitute `damn' everytime you're
bvickers@ics.uci.edu		 inclined to write `very'; your editor
				 will delete it and the writing will be
				 just as it should be."  - Mark Twain
From: timi@mendel.berkeley.edu ( Tim Ikeda)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: evolution through time
Date: 7 Oct 1992 19:56:48 GMT
Organization: UC Berkeley
NNTP-Posting-Host: mendel.berkeley.edu

In response to Onar [onar@hsr.no (Onar Aam)], regarding whether chaos
theory applications are being examined in evolutionary biology:

>Oh, you can bet on it. The problem is that chaos-theory and, more generally,
>theory of complexity is still not awknowledged by many biologists.

I wouldn't say that these weren't "acknowledged" but rather, "not generally
used."  The number of biological problems which would benefit from the
application of chaos-theory is indeterminant.  For many it may not be
all that helpful. Definately worth looking at, though.


>There is a huge gap nowadays, I think, between molecular biologists and
>evolutionists. They don't communicate very well. Until this happens,
>progress in evolution will be restrained.

I don't know. Perhaps. Most molecular biologists are interested in
quite different subjects than evolutionary biologists. However,where
interests overlap I've seen quite a bit of collaboration, at least
in the bacteriological fields.  (Hell, in bacteria there's practically
no evolutionary studies that can be done without data at the
molecular level.)


Regards - Tim Ikeda
(timi@mendel.berkeley.edu  *OR* timi@wormsex.berkeley.edu)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: keithd@well.sf.ca.us (Keith Doyle)
Subject: Re: Observations
Organization: Whole Earth 'Lectronic Link
Date: Sat, 10 Oct 1992 04:56:18 GMT



jgacker@news.gsfc.nasa.gov (James G. Acker) writes:
>        If I think God healed it, it's because I believe in a God
>that can heal.  Could be that the leg grew back on its own, due to
>some hyperfunctionality of the hypothalamus.  My anecdotal reading
>memory recalls a recent Reader's Digest article about a baby born
>partially undeveloped (heart), whose heart developed fully after
>birth.  Amazing.  Some might ascribe that to God, others to a
>an amazing natural anomaly.  Take your pick.

And those who ascribe the event to God will go off fat, dumb and
happy, while others may take it as evidence that there may be
physical processes involved which we might be able to study,
understand and utilize to help others who aren't just going to
have a magic spontaneous event to save their lives.


Keith
From: bocmunro@bnr.co.uk (Bruce Munro)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Friesen on elastics and sauropod necks
Date: 16 Oct 92 17:09:12 GMT
Organization: BNR Europe, New Southgate, London.
NNTP-Posting-Host: bnsgs179.bnr.co.uk

In article <72@fedfil.UUCP> news@fedfil.UUCP (news) writes:
>*
>A quadruped isn't really built for lifting weight very well.  CARRYING weight
>yes, assuming they've already got the weight up...  But when you think about
>it, the only quadruped which really does anything resembling an efficient
>lift, such as a benchpress, would be a crockadile or some other such
                                        ^^^^^^^^^^
>amphibian, i.e. arms splayed such as a humans are in benching, thus using
>pectorals and triceps.

A crockadile?!?!?! More like a crockashit, which in a word, describes all
your posts.

-- 
Bruce Munro.  <B.Munro@bnr.co.uk> || ...!mcsun!uknet!bnruk!B.Munro
BNR Europe Ltd, Oakleigh Rd South, London N11 1HB. | Note the change
Phone : +44 81 945 2174 or +44 81 945 4000 x2174   | of e-mail address.
"There are no strangers, only friends we don't recognise" - Hank Wangford
From: news@fedfil.UUCP (news)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: 350 lb super-athlete goat?
Date: 8 Oct 92 02:06:24 GMT
Organization: HTE


A number of the t.o geniuses are still claiming that a sauropod
dinosaur the size of a 200,000 version of Bill Kazmaier would be 
far more efficient due to some intrinsic difference between weak, 
slovenly, corrupt humans, and the noble lower animals.

If so, then they should be able to demonstrate some similar quadruped,
roughly the same weight as Kaz, say around 350 lbs., whose weight, like
that of the sauropods, is mostly digestive system, which can lift considerably
more than the 1000 lbs which Kaz has shown himself able to either deadlift
or squat.  The sauropod would HAVE to be able to lift at least double
what the 200,000 lb version of Kaz can be shown to be limited to, or 
he'd have no chance of standing up at all.

The t.o regular crew says no problem.  Fine;  you should be able to show 
me a goat, a mountain sheep, a burro, or some such animal which, at around
300 - 400 lbs, can lift 2000 lbs.  

Maybe the great agronomist Sue Bishop has such a burro.

-- 
Ted Holden
HTE

Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: twalters@world.std.com (Tim Walters)
Subject: Re: Kazmaier at 200,000 lbs vs the 200,000 lb sauropod
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA
Date: Sat, 10 Oct 1992 00:35:52 GMT

In article <60@fedfil.UUCP> news@fedfil.UUCP (news) writes:
>This scaling indicates that at 200,000 lbs, Kazmaier, the strongest man
>we know of in our age, would not be able to squat even half his weight;
>he'd be pinned to the ground by our present gravitational system.

Poor fellow, he'd have to get up some other way.

But that probably wouldn't be a problem, since squat thrusts are very
inefficient. It's much easier to get up other ways. Which is why no
animals I've ever heard of use squat thrusts to stand up.

In fact, Ted, I'll bet even *you* don't stand up with a squat thrust.
Am I right?
-- 
Tim Walters	twalters@world.std.com
From: tkacik@hobbes.hobbes.cs.gmr.com (Tom Tkacik)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Applauses to Ted
Date: 13 Oct 92 18:47:57 GMT
Reply-To: tkacik@hobbes.hobbes.cs.gmr.com
Organization: GM Research Labs

In article 1@eagle.wesleyan.edu, kmagnacca@eagle.wesleyan.edu ( writes:
> In article <1992Oct8.173948.15843@msuinfo.cl.msu.edu>, klein@frith.egr.msu.edu (Jeffrey Klein) writes:
> > 
> > (Not to be confused with the Church of Last Wednesdayism.)
> 
>    Is this another sect of Last Thursdayism?

And please do not confuse either of these two false sects with the one true
"Church of the Later Day Fridayist's".  New members are always welcome.

Tom Tkacik
GM Research Labs
tkacik@hobbes.cs.gmr.com
tkacik@kyzyl.mi.org

Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: onar@hsr.no (Onar Aam)
Subject: Re: some more stuff about fruit flies
Organization: Rogaland University Centre
Date: Thu, 15 Oct 1992 08:17:47 GMT


[Deleted]
>|         ... Likewise, small changes in regulatory genes
>|can cause large changes in phenotype. ...
>
>In fact the latter is considered to be of major importance by most modern
>researchers.  I would suggest that Alan read a little Ernst Mayr, he
>*frequently* points out this little 'discrepency' between amount of DNA
>change and amount of morphological change.  [And don't make a mistake here,
>Ernst Mayr was one of the architects of the 'New Synthesis' - the modern
>form of the theory of evolution - so he is hardly claiming this is a
>problem, in fact it is one of the facts he incorporated into the modern
>theory of evolution].

I have noticed that in nearly all creationist texts I have read there is no
recognition of the 'New Synthesis'. They keep muttering about the improbabilities
of the successfullness of genes etc. Perhaps there should be more on that in the
FAQ? But to continue the chimp-human line: If you compare the embryos of chimps
and humans they are, at a point, virtually identical. And when following the
further developement of the embryos, you find the answer to how our feet lost its
"thumb". It was never there! At a certain stage an ape foot looks exactly like a
human foot! THEN, on the ape foot, the digit starts to "move" to its proper
position. Obviously this developement has been retarded in humans. This shows the
importance of the regulatory system in evolution (yes, in all biology for that
matter.) 


>|>    The author of virtually every
>|>    contemporary book supporting evolution trots out the human-chimp
>|>    DNA comparison, but very few mention the frogs or another
>|>    discovery of microbiology that has been known for some time.
>|
>|I've heard the frog story numerous times, what about it does Fix
>|think contradicts evolution? The frogs simply have accumulated a lot of
>|neutral variation while staying morphologically similar -- humans and
>|chimps, on the other hand, have diverged phenotypically but have done
>|so without accrueing much variation.
>
>Indeed, this may be evidence that frogs have been around longer than
>mammals.  (Hmm, interesting, I believe that is pretty much what the
>fossil record indicates too ...)


Yup, and in general: the longer since the time of divergence of two species,
the more divergent their genomes are. Often individual genes are much better 
preserved than the entire genome. As mentioned earlier, large amounts of the
genomes are "junk" DNA. In these areas virtually anything can happen without
changing the morphology. 


 
Onar.


Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: dave@hpdstma.ptp.hp.com (Dave Waller)
Subject: Re: Holden and the canine set
Organization: Hewlett Packard
Date: Fri, 9 Oct 1992 18:26:33 GMT

In article <718507727@sheol.UUCP>, throopw@sheol.UUCP (Wayne Throop) writes:
|> : news@fedfil.UUCP (news) (Ted Holden)
|> : In many other cases, such as dogs, disfunction due to size means real
|> : disfunction, hip problems etc. 
|> 
|> This implies that Ted thinks that hip displasia in dogs is caused by
|> mechanical difficulties of size.  This is clearly not the case.  It is
|> known to be genetic in origin, environmental in onset, and size is
|> definitely not the dominant factor.  There are pekingese doglets that

DOGLETS? I love this! Thanks, Wayne.

Gotta remeber to feed my 8 month old catlets when I get home tonight.

-- 
Dave Waller
Hewlett-Packard Co.
Workstation Systems Division
Sunnyvale VAB Consulting
(408) 746-5324
Newsgroups: talk.origins