HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: lionel@cs.city.ac.uk (Lionel Tun)
Subject: Re: design in living organisms
Organization: City University, London
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 92 12:34:29 GMT

In article <102252@bu.edu> colby@bu-bio.bu.edu (Chris Colby) writes:
>In article <1992Nov15.070436.12674@athena.cs.uga.edu> keck@athena.cs.uga.edu (Paul Keck) writes:
>>In article <101983@bu.edu> colby@bu-bio.bu.edu (Chris Colby) writes:
>
>>Chris, you left out the even worse design of having the testes form
>>inside the abdomen, then have to pass through the abdominal wall and
>>down to the scrotum, thereby leaving a weak spot (two, actually) in 
>>the wall.
>
>Yep, but be glad you are a male and only have to deal with these
>rather paltry problems in the uro-genital system. If you were a 
>female you'd have to squeeze your offspring through the only
>bone surrounded structure anywhere near the uterus. If I had designed
>females, I'd have cut them a little slack and not force them to
>send kids through (as Robin Williams put it) "the Play-Dough Fun
>Factory of Life". 

This is a sad consequence of mankind's rebellion against God,
aka the Fall.
Genesis 3:16
16. Unto the woman he said, I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy
    conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children; and thy
    desire hall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee.

Your description of difficult childbirth is correct, and is just one
example of many things in creation which were originally perfectly
designed, but have been corrupted because of the Fall.

However in many cases, including that of childbirth there is hope:
1 Timothy 2:13-15
13. For Adam was first formed, then Eve.
14. And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the
    transgression.
15. Notwithstanding she shall be saved in childbearing, if they
    continue in faith and charity and holiness with sobriety.


>You can find bad design everywhere in the human body (the wiring
>of the photoreceptors in the eye and the structure of the knee
>leap immediately to mind (perched rather precariously for such
>a supposedly important structure)). We really oughta collect a BIG
>list of these things for this board. A bunch got posted a few months
>ago... did anybody save all of them? 

This is where creationists and evolutionists are going to disagree,
and I believe the theory of evolution may well come unstuck here in
terms of being rejected by the thinking person, who considers all
the evidence carefully.

>>Paul Keck.  I'm not a strangulated hernia, but I play one on TV.
>
>Chris Colby 	---	 email: colby@bu-bio.bu.edu	---


--
Lionel Tun   (lionel@cs.city.ac.uk)
Vision Group, City University, London, EC1V 0HB. 071-477 8000 x 3889
From: keithd@well.sf.ca.us (Keith Doyle)
Subject: Re: AWESOME computer program (Populus)
Organization: Whole Earth 'Lectronic Link
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 1992 06:58:01 GMT


lionel@cs.city.ac.uk (Lionel Tun) writes:
>This is more like it, the sort of random mutation I am talking
>about. Lets say the chess program is 1M (approx 1 million bytes or
>8 million bits). You randomly change a few bits. Your claim is
>that you may by chance change a variable such as `number of
>moves ahead' or `a coefficient of some sort'. Do you really
>think that the program will play better chess? I am talking
>about a _well designed_ chess program which has _already_
>been finely tuned. In evospeak you might say an organism that
>has become well adapted to its environment.

Note Lionel, that evolution would suggest that an organism that
has become well adapted to its environment is somewhat resistant
to mutations.  It is when an organism is placed in an environment
it is not well adapted to that the significant changes occur,
more like my example of a moronic chess program affected by
selection pressures to become a better chess player.  An organism
well adapted is not under much pressure to adapt further, and in
fact, is under some pressure to preserve the adaptations it already
has.

Where we see the most interesting examples of the pressure to
adapt, is when an existing feature is re-adapted for a new purpose,
such as the Panda's thumb, the reptile-to-mammal jawbone-to-ear
transitions, etc.  Here we have evidence that selection pressures
were such that adaption took a "make do" approach to utilizing
available structures for a new purpose.

Keith

Newsgroups: talk.origins,comp.ai.philosophy
From: rsprice@pbhyf.PacBell.COM (Steve Price)
Subject: Re: Life is Information
Reply-To: rsprice@PacBell.COM (Steve Price)
Organization: Pacific * Bell, San Ramon, CA
Date: Mon, 23 Nov 1992 17:00:20 GMT

In article <69941@cup.portal.com> PLai@cup.portal.com (Patrick L Faith) writes:
>> [life as information]
>
>I agree basically, with the caveat that life is the
>ability to block and transform information - which 
>blocking and transfering must be balanced.
[omissions]
>
>Some humans have the ability to block and transfer fairly
>large levels of information.  Other humans have the very
>little information processing abilities.  

I think that the statement LIFE IS INFORMIATION is intended to be refer to
much more than the highly specialized forms of information known as human
language or the more recent extrapolations from natural languages that 
computers use to pass and store information.

Living systems are embedded in complex fields of feedback loops; indeed living
systems CONSIST of multileveled feedback systems -- electrical, chemical, 
physical etc.  These feeback systems within and between living (and non-living)
systems can be understood and modeled to a great degree by understanding them
as information exchange feedback complexes.  

In this sense, every human being is constantly processing stagering amounts
of information, whether awake or asleep, conscious or unconscious, clever or
foolish, intelligent or clinically retarded.  To breathe, see, smell, walk,
grasp (anything in any sense of the word), grow hair, metabolize food, or even 
to die and decay involves literally mind-boggling amounts of information 
exchanged between an all most infinite set of complex systems ranging from the
subatomic and quantum to the macro and cosmic scale.  

LIFE IS INFORMATION is a statement bearing much more information than is 
immediately obvious.  

The writings of Gregory Bateson on cybernetics and biology are very provocative
and scientific explorations of the statement LIFE IS INFORMATION.  Sorry,
since I'm not near my library at the moment, I can't provide specific 
references.


-- 
Steve Price 		UNIX: pacbell!pbhyf!rsprice	PHONE: (510)823-1951

We must live within the ambiguity of partial freedom, partial power, and 
partial knowledge.
From: timi@mendel.berkeley.edu ( Tim Ikeda)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: What is consciousness?
Date: 20 Nov 1992 19:56:32 GMT
Organization: /etc/organization
NNTP-Posting-Host: mendel.berkeley.edu



kv07@IASTATE.EDU (Warren Vonroeschlaub) wrote:
*>   Why wouldn't it be conscious?  You said that a virus was conscious, it
*> wouldn't be too hard to manufacture a virus (I'm willing to bet it will be
*> technically achievable within the next ten years if it isn't already).

Kalki Dasa replied:
>If a virus body were manufactured by human beings, it would not be
>conscious either. Both a human body and a virus body without
>consciousness are just dead bodies. The soul, which is the source of
>consciousness, must be inserted into the body before it can be
>designated as living. This is not within the power of any human being.


How can a "manufactured" virus be distinguished from a physically
identical, "conscious" virus?  Based on the stereotyped, "reductionist"
view of "orthodox" science, we should not be able to tell the difference
between the two viruses.  How would the "exanded, non-physical" paradigm
which you have suggested, be able to accomplish the differentiation?


Regards, 
Tim Ikeda
Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: sbradley@scic.intel.com (Seth Bradley)
Subject: Re: Questions for Ted H.
Organization: Intel Corporation
Date: Mon, 23 Nov 1992 16:59:27 GMT

In article <schnitzi.722532958@eola.cs.ucf.edu> schnitzi@cs.ucf.edu (Mark Schnitzius) writes:
>throopw@sheol.UUCP (Wayne Throop) writes:
>>: From: news@fedfil.UUCP (news) (Ted Holden)
>>: Message-ID: <117@fedfil.UUCP>
>>: Albert Einstein was a friend of Velikovskys from the old Prussian Scientific
>>: Academy, and is known to have spent the last ten years or so of his life
>>: working on a unified field theory, a shot at explaining all natural forces
>>: in common terms.  He is also known to have died with a copy of Worlds in
>>: Collision open on his desk.
>
>>Irrelevant.
>
>More than just irrelevant -- this seems to be a blatant attempt to lend
>Velikovsky some credibility by associating him with Einstein without any
>mention of Einstein's opinion of his work.  I would be curious to know the 
>context in which Ted wrote this paragraph.

Looks like its time to repost this.  Its yet another example where Ted
continues to claim something despite its being well refuted (with references):

----------------
From: prl@iis.ethz.ch (Peter Lamb)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Mammoths
Date: 23 Sep 91 18:46:46 GMT

[ Stuff about mammoths deleted ]

Sullivan[1]p37 also quotes an interview by Cohen[2], with Einstein,
regarding "Worlds in Collision":
"`You know', he [Einstein] said to me, `it's not a bad book. No, it
 really isn't a bad book. The only trouble is, it is crazy.' This was
 followed by a loud burst of laughter."

Peter Lamb (prl@iis.ethz.ch)

[1] Sullivan, W, "Continents in Motion", ed 2, Chapter 3, "Colliding
	Worlds and other Catastrophes", American Institute of Physics, 1991.

[2] Cohen, I. B, "An interview with Einstein", Scientific American,
	vol. 193 (July, 1955), pp68-73.

--------
-- 
Seth J. Bradley, Senior System Administrator, Intel SCIC
Internet: sbradley@scic.intel.com   UUCP: uunet!scic.intel.com!sbradley
----------------------------------------
"A system admin's life is a sorry one.  The only advantage he has over
Emergency Room doctors is that malpractice suits are rare.  On the other
hand, ER doctors never have to deal with patients installing new versions
of their own innards!"  -Michael O'Brien
Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: kv07@IASTATE.EDU (Warren Vonroeschlaub)
Subject: Re: Probability of Evolution
Reply-To: kv07@IASTATE.EDU (Warren Vonroeschlaub)
Organization: Ministry of Silly Walks
Date: Fri, 20 Nov 1992 23:21:32 GMT

In article <o97HuB3w165w@kalki33>, kalki33!system@lakes.trenton.sc.us writes:
> Richard Thompson is in Europe untill November 30.
> 
> You can e-mail to Drutakarma Dasa at dkarma@pro-nbs.acme.fred.org if you
> want to talk to someone who directly works for the Bhaktivedanta
> Institute.

  Hey!  Good old Drutakarma is still around.  Hmm, he dissapeared from here a
while back.  I wonder why he never mentioned Dr. Thompson?  I guess he was just
too hung up on his bogus skulls.

 |  __L__
-|-  ___  Warren Kurt vonRoeschlaub
 |  | o | kv07@iastate.edu
 |/ `---' Iowa State University
/|   ___  Math Department
 |  |___| 400 Carver Hall
 |  |___| Ames, IA  50011
 J  _____
From: weemba@sagi.wistar.upenn.edu (Matthew P Wiener)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Let's cut the crap, Ted (an apology)
Date: 23 Nov 92 17:13:50 GMT
Reply-To: weemba@sagi.wistar.upenn.edu (Matthew P Wiener)
Organization: The Wistar Institute of Anatomy and Biology
In-reply-to: news@fedfil.UUCP (news)

In article <117@fedfil.UUCP>, news@fedfil (news) writes:
>Albert Einstein was a friend of Velikovskys from the old Prussian Scientific
>Academy, and is known to have spent the last ten years or so of his life
>working on a unified field theory, a shot at explaining all natural forces
>in common terms.  He is also known to have died with a copy of Worlds in
>Collision open on his desk.

Proof that it is a sickening book.
-- 
-Matthew P Wiener (weemba@sagi.wistar.upenn.edu)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: ingles@engin.umich.edu (Ray Ingles)
Subject: Re: design in living organisms
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 92 00:05:02 EST
Organization: University of Michigan Engineering, Ann Arbor

In article <102252@bu.edu> colby@bu-bio.bu.edu (Chris Colby) writes:
>
>You can find bad design everywhere in the human body (the wiring
>of the photoreceptors in the eye and the structure of the knee
>leap immediately to mind (perched rather precariously for such
>a supposedly important structure)). We really oughta collect a BIG
>list of these things for this board. A bunch got posted a few months
>ago... did anybody save all of them? 
>
>Chris Colby 	---	 email: colby@bu-bio.bu.edu	---

 I saved a few. I tacked on these last couple posts, too. I'll post them
after this article; I do;t have time to keep a FAQ, but maybe someone will
be moved to store these for posterity....

 Sincerely,


 Ray Ingles
 ingles@engin.umich.edu
 
 "Um, you mean I shouldn't have folded the disk in half before I put it in
the drive?" - actual user quote
From: throopw@sheol.UUCP (Wayne Throop)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Lionel, Evolution and the Theory of Games
Summary: a additional example
Date: 16 Nov 92 00:15:22 GMT

: From: lking@athena.mit.edu (Loren King)
: Message-ID: <1992Nov11.220916.4256@athena.mit.edu> 
: Well, the subject line sort of says it all.  Robert Axelrod, William
: Hamilton and John Maynard Smith have done what you've suggested,
: although with a different game (i.e. the prisoner's dilemma).
:: From: adpeters@sunflower.bio.indiana.edu (Andy Peters)
:: Message-ID: <BxMG96.FHK@usenet.ucs.indiana.edu>
:: Actually, for even more realism, insert a probability function (as
:: opposed to a deterministic one):  if you lose 50% of the time, you
:: have a 50% probability of death after each game, etc.

I think an even more realistic scenario exists, which is also closer to
Lionel's requirement that actual running code be vulnerable to mutation. 
That's the "Core Wars" game, where automatons compete for memory space,
and try to "eat" their competitors' code.  This is more exactly what
Lionel was asking for: a case where the code itself is blasted, and yet
improved versions occur.  Further, the code for Core Wars is redundant,
hairy, and armored in various arcane ways, just as living DNA is.  As I
say, a more realistic scenario, and one that bears out the plausibility
of evolution, even if it is deterministic (sort of) and its analog of
"sex" is more akin to what "It" does to the men and dogs in the
antarctic campground, and it may beg the question of abiogenesis, 
but there it is. 

Now, I don't know much in detail about it, never having entered Core
Wars play, but I'm pretty sure of the essentials: 1) a population of
competing automatons, 2) the automatons are subject to replication
error, 3) the end result is evolution of this population, and even the
creation of some better adapted automatons as a result of (1) and (2). 

All this, and it wasn't even intended as an example of evolution
in action (as far as I know).
--
Wayne Throop  ...!mcnc!dg-rtp!sheol!throopw
Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: weemba@sagi.wistar.upenn.edu (Matthew P Wiener)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Post-Goedel confidences
Date: 17 Nov 92 14:10:56 GMT
Reply-To: weemba@sagi.wistar.upenn.edu (Matthew P Wiener)
Organization: The Wistar Institute of Anatomy and Biology
In-reply-to: tycchow@athena.mit.edu (Timothy Y Chow)

In article <1992Nov16.195604.12845@athena.mit.edu>, tycchow@athena (Timothy Y Chow) writes:
>>That's simply not true.  Platonism and logic are a powerful force in
>>assertions regarding open problems.  Just sometimes folks are wrong.

>Are you saying that it can be valuable to treat an open problem AS IF
>there is a proof one way or the other, even if on occasion one may turn
>out to be wrong?

No, I'm saying that mathematicians generally haven't been cowed by
Goedel's results regarding their own intuitions.  They see a pattern
building up so gloriously, and they believe it.  See, for example,
the recent posts by Chris Long in sci.math,sci.crypt,comp.theory on
NP, where he baldly asserts that anyone who believes P=NP is an idiot.

Mathematicians do not, deep down, identify knowledge with proofs.
-- 
-Matthew P Wiener (weemba@sagi.wistar.upenn.edu)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: onar@hsr.no (Onar Aam)
Subject: Re: Information in a system.
Organization: Rogaland University Centre
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 1992 10:53:01 GMT


>>       |  Don't forget to chant:   Hare Krishna Hare Krishna   |
>>       |                           Krishna Krishna Hare Hare   |
>>       |                           Hare Rama Hare Rama         |
>>       |                           Rama Rama Hare Hare         |
>
>  Dont forget to chant: Awa Tana Siam
>                        Yea Siam Anas
>


Don't forget to chant:   Shit Happens Shit Happens
                         Happens Happens Shit Shit 
                         ...


Onar.

Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: sdoe@nmsu.edu (Stephen Doe)
Subject: Re: Probability of Evolution
Organization: New Mexico State University
Distribution: world, public
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 1992 17:26:41 GMT

In article <8gV9TB8w165w@kalki33> kalki33!system@lakes.trenton.sc.us writes:
>weemba@sagi.wistar.upenn.edu (Matthew P Wiener) writes:
>
>> In article <7ZD4TB3w165w@kalki33>, kalki33!system@lakes writes:
>> 
>> >> >Read the book.
>> 
>> >Read the book.
>> 
>> Is this your new chant?
>
>We think you're a chicken, bwak, bwak, bwak! Come on, you yellow-bellied
>pseudo scientist. Put up them dukes! Awwww, does duh poor baby want
>momma to take away dat nasty pwoof? Awwww, don't cwy, baby! Momma will
>make dem nasty cweationists all go away. Den baby can have his bottle!
 
*I* think you're chicken for ignoring my e-mail on observed
speciation.

*I* think you're chicken for being so parsimonious with the details of
this wonderful disproof of abiogenesis you keep blathering about.
*Why* is it so difficult for you to post a brief synopsis of this
argument?  Surely you understand this argument sufficiently to post
the basics about it?  Or have you been convinced by an argument you
didn't understand?

Steve "I can't wait to see Matthew flame this guy" Doe
From: kalki33!system@lakes.trenton.sc.us
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Probability of Evolution
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 92 04:48:44 EST
Reply-To: kalki33!system@lakes.trenton.sc.us
Organization: Kalki's Infoline BBS, Aiken, SC, USA

weemba@sagi.wistar.upenn.edu (Matthew P Wiener) writes:

> In article <H4LDuB4w165w@kalki33>, kalki33!system@lakes writes:
> >As far as we know no one has yet proposed a possible mechanism for
> >abiogenesis that involves the nuclear forces in any way. If this is
> >the case, and if the nuclear forces do indeed play a crucial role in
> >abiogenesis, then, it would seem that there is less justification
> >than ever for supposing that abiogenesis occurred, since it is now
> >dependent on an unknown set of laws.
> 
> I see "we" are back to this total gibberish.
> 
> I repeat: using what passes for Kalki "thought", we could argue that,
> since the nuclear forces do indeed play a crucial role in supernova
> explosions, it would seem that there is less justification than ever
> for supposing that supernovae occurred, since they are dependent on
> an "unknown set of laws", as you call them.

Supernovae have been observed, have they not? So it is known that they
occur, whether or not the mechanism is known.

Has abiogenesis been observed? No it has not. So this fact plus the fact
that no adequate model under which it can occur has been proposed
indicate that there is no justification for believing that it occurred.

This is what passes for "thought" to us.

Sincerely,
Kalki "my, what a fertile brain you have" 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: TMakinen
Subject: Re: Probability of Evolution
Organization: <none>
Date: Mon, 16 Nov 92 17:33:51 GMT

In article <J3Z9TB13w165w@kalki33> kalki33!system@lakes.trenton.sc.us writes:
>
>We get, as our payment, the pleasure of seeing self-proclaimed "rational
>thinkers" turn into the slavering, boot-licking, do-anything-to-be-right
>cowards they really are. While they snidely boast that they are far
>above our level of intelligence, and that they are not going to bother
>reading any book that conflicts with their delusion that they evolved
>from chickens, they nevertheless post at least 50 times a day their
>denials that they are going to pay any attention to us!

When I have calculated a complicated scattering problem all night long so that
it is hard to distinguish between the table and the papers, and still there is
that missing detail that prevents me from finding the solution, a small voice
chants in my ear: "Boy are you a stupid moron". As I then sit by the computer
and log in, that very moment the screen fills with a bunch of new articles from
you (pl). When I read the first one, all my sorrow is gone as the yesterday
wind. If there is somebody so phenomenally stupid as you then I have nothing at
all to worry about. Please don't tell that you are just kidding in order to
create some action in this newsgroup.

Still you are more boring every time you write. As soon as you stop to proclaim
bogus facts which are so easy to shoot down and escape to vague analogues and
something like that one above I drop this trail.

Teemu

P.S. If the proof is so terribly long compared to your postings this far, it
really must be a monster.
From: bvickers@valentine.ics.uci.edu (Brett J. Vickers)
Subject: Re: Request Information for Young Earth
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Reply-To: bvickers@ics.uci.edu (Brett J. Vickers)
Organization: Univ. of Calif., Irvine, Info. & Computer Sci. Dept.
Keywords: Young Earth
Date: 20 Nov 92 02:01:53 GMT
Distribution: na

tsc@cbnewsh.cb.att.com (tong.s.chen) writes:
>According to the biblical dating, the earth should only be 6,000 to 10,000
>years old, not millions or even billions years old.  Can someone kindly
>supply me a copy on some scientific (or non-biblical based) arguments for
>young earth.

As I'm sure you already know, biblical dating is far superior to the
more conventional dating techniques like radiocarbon, K-Ar, isochron,
U-Pb, and flourine analysis.  It therefore requires no scientific
evidence to validate it.
--
Brett J. Vickers
bvickers@ics.uci.edu