HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: kalki33!system@lakes.trenton.sc.us
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Probability of Evolution
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 92 02:58:46 EST
Reply-To: kalki33!system@lakes.trenton.sc.us
Organization: Kalki's Infoline BBS, Aiken, SC, USA

keithd@well.sf.ca.us (Keith Doyle) writes:

> >The methods used by Dr. Thompson are based on standard
> >information-theoretic models for determining the information content of
> >physical systems. The information content of a typical cell is specified
> >(within bounds) as is the information content of the physical laws which
> >supposedly govern all possible material interactions. Since the
> >information content of the known laws of physics, and of simple organic
> >molecules, is relatively small, whereas the information content of
> >living cells is quite large, there is the question of how a system of
> >low information content can "evolve" into one of high information
> >content without there being a pre-existing source of high information
> >content to draw from.  The balance of the chapter is an investigation
> >of the reasons given by the discipline of molecular evolution that
> >purport to account for this strange trend.
> 
> Well here we have at least one new source of fallacy, that a "living cell"
> is postulated to "evolve" in a single step.  No one is claiming (except
> Dr. Thompson it seems) that this is how the process occurred, that out
> of the primordial "soup" a complete "living cell" assembled all at once.
> I would agree here, the odds *are* probably some infinitesimally small
> value such as Kalki cites.  However, since that is not how anyone in the
> scientific community suggests it has occurred, this evidence indicates
> Dr. Thomson is using a straw man argument.

My, what amazing powers of observation! Having not read the book, and
having discovered no trace of inference in any of our posts that a cell
is postulated to evolve in a single step, he is nevertheless able to
"deduce" that we have postulated this, ex nihilo! That must be the same
method of reasoning they used to come up with the theory of evolution!

Sincerely,
Kalki "oh, I thought science and scientology were the same thing" 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: huston@access.digex.com (Herb Huston)
Subject: Re: Bad design and vestigial organs
Organization: Express Access Online Communications, Greenbelt, MD USA
Date: Sun, 22 Nov 1992 17:27:38 GMT

In article <1992Nov21.013411.17810@s1.gov> lip@s1.gov (Loren I. Petrich) writes:
>	Human toes. Our feet have toes, one of which is big and
>slightly separated from the others. For walking, there is no special
>need of having a split front end of the foot; it should not be
>surprising that the toes are small. But they are there, and in most
>primate species they are much more prominent. In some species at
>least, the big toe points outward, just like a thumb. Interestingly,
>in some early hominid species, the toe bones were relatively longer
>than in our species.

Nonrotation of the human big toe is a neotenous characteristic.  In fetal apes
the big toe is situated as our is but rotates sometime before birth.

>	Wisdom teeth. Our jaws are a bit small for these late-erupting
>teeth; some people have them, while others do not.

And when they try to erupt, they're prone to impaction.

There's also the vermiform appendix.  How odd to have a vestigial cellulose-
digesting organ in an animal whose gut can't digest cellulose.

-- Herb Huston
-- huston@access.digex.com
From: rh@smds.com (Richard Harter)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Probability of Evolution
Date: 18 Nov 92 08:13:49 GMT
Reply-To: rh@ishmael.UUCP (Richard Harter)
Organization: Software Maintenance & Development Systems, Inc.

In article <Zcu9TB5w165w@kalki33> kalki33!system@lakes.trenton.sc.us writes:
>rh@smds.com (Richard Harter) writes:

>> The data supporting the thesis of abiogenesis is good but not presumptive;
>> there are proposed theories of how this event might have come about; at
>> this point there is insufficient information to determine if any of these
>> theories are correct.

>Yes, you are right.

Thank you for the kind words.  It grieves me that I cannot say the same
for you.

>So no scientist who is worthy of the title would
>ever claim that abiogenesis occurred, or even that there is sufficient
>reason to suppose that it did, right?

Wrong. 

>> >No one has ever seen a living organism arise from an assemblage of
>> >lifeless matter, have they?

>> Yes.

>Who?

Sorry, I was being a bit unfair -- I answered the question you asked.
Briefly, people have taken viruses apart and put them back together.  The
components are lifeless; when the components are intermixed [an assemblage
of lifeless matter] they spontaneously reform in living viruses.  It's a
well known experiment -- I can dig up the references if you want them.

-----

I'm sorry, sir, but I will be joining the horde that is giving up on
responding to you.  If you do go through with posting the "proof" I
will read it with interest.

PS:  Have you figured out the difference between abiogenesis and evolution
yet?

PPS: Did you know that "molecular evolutionist" is a neologism [i.e. a
phrase of your own invention] that your readers perceive as semantic
noise?
-- 
Richard Harter: SMDS Inc.  Net address: rh@smds.com Phone: 508-369-7398 
US Mail: SMDS Inc., PO Box 555, Concord MA 01742.    Fax: 508-369-8272
In the fields of Hell where the grass grows high
Are the graves of dreams allowed to die.
From: keck@athena.cs.uga.edu (Paul Keck)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: design in living organisms
Date: 22 Nov 92 19:37:15 GMT
Organization: University of Georgia, Athens

In article <Bxxu71.Luy@aplcenmp.apl.jhu.edu> akbloom@aplcenmp.apl.jhu.edu (Keith Bloom) writes:
>lionel@cs.city.ac.uk (Lionel Tun) writes:
>
>>This is a sad consequence of mankind's rebellion against God,
>>aka the Fall.
>[ ...deleted... ]
>>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.
>
>Yes, before Eve ate the apple, a woman came equipped with a zipper on
>her abdomen.  When the baby was ready to be born, all she'd have to do
>is unzip, and out it would come with no trouble at all.  After the
>Fall, God was so mad at Eve that He took away the zipper, and that's
>why childbirth became so dangerous and difficult.
>
>Keith

Further proof of creation!  The two halves of the zipper, which we
cannot observe, mate together like the parts of a feather.  The 
two halves of the zipper could not possibly have arisen through
evolution.  It's a good thing God removed them before we could
observe them, because invisible zippers are an even better proof
(yes, I said PROOF) of creation than existing feathers.

Paul Keck
Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: schnitzi@cs.ucf.edu (Mark Schnitzius)
Subject: Re: Questions for Ted H.
Organization: University of Central Florida
Date: Mon, 23 Nov 1992 15:35:58 GMT

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.


Mark Schnitzius
schnitzi@eola.cs.ucf.edu
University of Central Florida
Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: onar@hsr.no (Onar Aam)
Subject: Re: Information in a system.
Organization: Rogaland University Centre
Date: Sun, 22 Nov 1992 18:10:13 GMT

>>Information 
>>is by nature an abstract concept. 
>>Also the order which arose in your program is very much associated with
>energy.
>>In computers a clockcycle of the processor is associated with an energy unit. 
>>(Hence the frequency of the processor is associated with the effect) The order
>>in your program probably did not arise immediately since the process towards
>order
>>is iterative. So instead of spending energy directly, it spent processor time 
>>which in this case is roughly equivalent with energy. 
>
>  Well, yes.  But then one can say that the laws of physics are "processor time"
>that "generates information" too.  Kalki seems to be arguing that since the
>computer was made by an intelligence, the universe was made by an intelligence.
>
>  However there doesn't seem to be any reason not to take it one step further
>and say "Since the computer was made by humans, the universe must have been made
>by humans."
>

I only wish that Kalki would see this too. Have you noticed that when he is
referring to information theory it seems like he is quoting it directly from a
book, and then two lines further down comes with a statement which completely
contradicts his quoted statements? 





> |  __L__
>-|-  ___  Warren Kurt vonRoeschlaub
> |  | o | kv07@iastate.edu
> |/ `---' Iowa State University
>/|   ___  Math Department


Onar.
From: colby@bu-bio.bu.edu (Chris Colby)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Bales is a liar: evidence - one case
Date: 17 Nov 92 02:15:27 GMT
Organization: animal -- coelomate -- deuterostome

In article <5X58TB12w165w@kalki33> kalki33!system@lakes.trenton.sc.us writes:

>An intelligent engineer...
>... would probably use a basic plan that could be modified by
>some simple adjustments.

>Kalki Dasa

Yes, Kalki this is precisely what an intelligent engineer would do.
This would, however, be evident because traits would "mixed and
matched" across taxa. However, this is not the pattern seen in
biological characters. They are distributed in a nested (or
hierarchical) pattern. This (along with evidence that traits
are modified with descent) are two strong lines of support for
evolutionary biology. 

Try this Kalkster. Get a botany book. Now using the following
characters: presence of -- stomata, swimming sperm, xylem, dominant
sporophye generation, pollen, seeds, double fertilization, flowers
and fruits and arrange the following plant groups in the simplest
logical way: liverworts, mosses, ferns, cycads, conifers, angio-
sperms. (Alternately, pick any characters and any groups of plants
you chose... it's not going to matter.)

Now tell me again how an intelligent designer would have done it.

Chris Colby 	---	 email: colby@bu-bio.bu.edu	---
"'My boy,' he said, 'you are descended from a long line of determined,
resourceful, microscopic tadpoles--champions every one.'"
 	--Kurt Vonnegut from "Galapagos"

Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: arandia@panix.com (Joel Arandia)
Subject: request!!
Date: Sat, 21 Nov 1992 09:28:56 GMT
Organization: PANIX Public Access Unix, NYC

Hi!
	I'm looking for that huge file I found here a while back with all the 
arguments for and against evolution and creationism.  Basically, it was more 
along the lines of, "What weapons Creationists use to debunk Evolution and how 
to disarm them."  Please, if someone has it, could s/he mail it to me?

						Joel D. Arandia
						
Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: mls@cbnewsm.cb.att.com (mike.siemon)
Subject: Re: More (verbal) Flooding of "the" flood
Organization: AT&T
Date: Fri, 20 Nov 1992 14:07:35 GMT
Summary: redeeming value

In article <1992Nov20.125525.18902@news.nd.edu>, scharle@lukasiewicz.cc.nd.edu (scharle) writes:

> the Flood histories don't have any redeeming musical value.

Actually, there's a rather nice piece by Benjamin Britten for chorus
and piano (& percussion?, I forget) on the subject ...
-- 
Michael L. Siemon		   "Oh, stand, stand at the window,
					As the tears scald and start;
mls@usl.com			   You shall love your crooked neighbor
standard disclaimer			With your crooked heart."
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Us? Them?
From: lippard@skyblu.ccit.arizona.edu (James J. Lippard)
Date: 21 Nov 1992 10:30 MST  
Distribution: world,local
Organization: University of Arizona
Summary: A small correction
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    

In article <1992Nov19.060057.11662@serval.net.wsu.edu>, elsberry@beta.tricity.wsu.edu (Wesley Elsberry) writes...
>In article <1992Nov18.161846.15905@hemlock.cray.com> robd@cherry09.cray.com (Robert Derrick) writes:
>>
>>Long gone:
>>  Jim Loucks, Jim Henley, Ray Cote, C. Allen Roy, Chuck Maier, Michael LeHoullier,
>>  and the guy that promised us free copies of the JW "Life" book and never
>>  delivered (what was his name?).  
> 
>Steve something-or-other.  I don't know what happened to your copy, Rob,
>but I got mine.  (Why is your name not Jack?  ;-} )

I was another person promised a copy who did not receive one.

Jim Lippard              Lippard@CCIT.ARIZONA.EDU
Dept. of Philosophy      Lippard@ARIZVMS.BITNET
University of Arizona
Tucson, AZ 85721
From: rowe@pender.ee.upenn.edu (Mickey Rowe)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Probability of Evolution
Date: 21 Nov 92 00:04:49 GMT
Organization: University of Pennsylvania

In article <o97HuB3w165w@kalki33> kalki33!system@lakes.trenton.sc.us writes:

>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.

No thanks; he precedes you to talk.origins.  He was much more
interesting than you (IMHO) but he was also very frustrating to deal
with. 

>Kalki "the galloping galapagan" Dasa

Mickey Rowe     (rowe@pender.ee.upenn.edu)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: danwell@IASTATE.EDU (Daniel A Ashlock)
Subject: One to a customer please!
Keywords: K
Reply-To: danwell@IASTATE.EDU (Daniel A Ashlock)
Organization: Iowa State University
Date: Sun, 15 Nov 1992 22:57:13 GMT

   This is a suggestion for dealing with the K continum 
which is obviously trying to saturate my newsfeed.  Note:
this is futile, oh evil K, I gotta BIG newsfeed :).  I'm
going to limit myself to replying to K only when he replies
to me.

   Thus far, if you're keeping score, K has agreed with my
evidence that renders his original "proof" (that he can't
post) garbage.  The proof must be a terror if it's longer 
than the several hundred posts K has made so far defending
it.

Dan
Danwell@IASTATE.EDU
"The reason I read talk.origins is that there is substantial
though venal comfort in knowing that there is one group that
disagrees with you and is uniformly composed of ignoramuses
or fools."
-Joe Barbilli.
From: kalki33!system@lakes.trenton.sc.us
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Probability of Evolution
Date: Sun, 22 Nov 92 03:03:50 EST
Reply-To: kalki33!system@lakes.trenton.sc.us
Organization: Kalki's Infoline BBS, Aiken, SC, USA

maguire@sun.soe.clarkson.edu (Bill Maguire) writes:

> So lets compare these theories.  What evidence do we have for
> abiogenesis?
> 
> Well scientists have placed gases in a container, zapped it with
> electricity and created the building blocks of life.  Not life, but
> getting close.  There might even be more evidence, you'd have to ask
> others more knowledgeable on talk.origins.

A few amino acids and simple peptides. You think that's "close" to being
life? And that experiment was done 30 years ago. Surely in 30 years the
scientists should have gone from "close" to "life". The truth is that
chemicals, however complicated, are not and never will be "life" at all,
not even close, except in the imagination.

> Instead of blasting abiogenesis present the evidence for your pet
> theory.  Post your theory and list the evidence for it.  Then we'll
> compare it side by side with abiogenesis and see how the two stack up.

The existence of God is an observational fact. We can show Him to you,
and you can see Him for yourself.

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: rowe@pender.ee.upenn.edu (Mickey Rowe)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Information in a living cell (was: glass of water)
Date: 20 Nov 92 23:19:58 GMT
Organization: University of Pennsylvania

In article <1992Nov19.124217.8509@hsr.no> onar@hsr.no (Onar Aam) writes:
...
>But ultimately, of course, the
>information in the cell can be packed down to the information of the genome since
>this information defines the *processes* which created the structures in the
>first place. 

This is in general not correct, since the environment in which the
cell grows will produce many effects which leave no trace in the DNA.
This is particularly true for neurons whose processes grow and form
connections and even decide whether or not they should run their
genetic "suicide" programs based on the surroundings in which they
mature.  Onar, you still have a *lot* to learn about biology...

>Onar.

Mickey Rowe     (rowe@pender.ee.upenn.edu)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: sieferme@stein.u.washington.edu (Eric Sieferman)
Subject: Re: Theory of Creation and Proof
Organization: University of Washington, Seattle
Date: Mon, 23 Nov 1992 22:01:31 GMT

In article <MMEYER.92Nov23135826@m2.dseg.ti.com> mmeyer@m2.dseg.ti.com (Mark Meyer) writes:
>In article <1992Nov20.133150.16641@spectrum.xerox.com> eschbach@abc.wrc.xerox.com (Reiner Eschbach) writes:
>> I think you are malvolently excluding Last Thursdayism! LT'ism is by
>> far the most consistent and logical theory of creation.
>
>	'Fraid not.  The One Truth is, of course, Last Fridayism.  It
>has all the explanatory power of that old, discredited Last
>Thursdayism, PLUS the fact that God was rushing to get out and start
>his weekend explains why the world is such a cock-up.
>	Deal with THAT, pink boy!  :-)

But today is not Friday.  The name of this belief
should be qualified as:
Last Fridayism, Monday Synod.

-- 
| Eric Sieferman            |    sieferme@u.washington.edu          |
| U. of W., M.C.I.S.        |    (206) 685-3104                     |
From: weemba@sagi.wistar.upenn.edu (Matthew P Wiener)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Ted makes some sense!!!!!
Date: 15 Nov 92 16:34:57 GMT
Reply-To: weemba@sagi.wistar.upenn.edu (Matthew P Wiener)
Organization: The Wistar Institute of Anatomy and Biology
In-reply-to: colby@bu-bio.bu.edu (Chris Colby)

In article <101988@bu.edu>, colby@bu-bio (Chris Colby) writes:
>Several times during the session we (biologists) were urged to use
>animals as "low on the evolutionary scale as possible". In addition,
>the words "higher" and "lower" kept getting bandied about.

Surely this is just common talk that won't ever go away?  Although I'm
certain this language colors professional thinking badly, preventing
people from seeing the obvious all too often.

(Actually, you were there, I was not, but from a distance, I can't tell.)
-- 
-Matthew P Wiener (weemba@sagi.wistar.upenn.edu)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: simon@dcs.warwick.ac.uk (Simon Clippingdale)
Subject: Re: In case Bales has convinced you of his honesty...
Organization: Department of Computer Science, Warwick University, England
Date: Mon, 23 Nov 1992 22:26:39 GMT

In article <7695@tekig7.PEN.TEK.COM> bobb@tekig1.PEN.TEK.COM (Robert W Bales) writes:
> [...]
> Michael Simeon has also joined in, calling me "blatently dishonest."

Not, of course, to neglect my own accolade of "intentional dishonesty"
(see the `"Bales is lying" thread' thread).

> [...]
> My dispute with Jim is of long standing.  But since Jon and Michael appear to
> have decided that I am a liar because of this one case, I ask them to tell me
> in what sense my quotes above are not an answer/explanation [*] and why
> (assuming they still believe it isn't) the matter should not be called a
> difference of opinion instead of an example of "blatent dishonesty."

Your `dispute' with me is getting a little one-sided, in that I have now
issued no less than four invitations including my original followup (five
if you count this one) for you to respond to my allegation that you have
used statistics in a bogus manner (original followup on 16 July, subsequent
reminders [all posted as followups to various of your posts] on 27 September,
26 October, and two today [including this one], 23 November).

If you regard allegations of "intentional dishonesty", backed up with
evidence, as a trifling matter unworthy of a response, there are those
here who do not. I am one of them and have no intention of going away.

>   Bob Bales
>   Tektronix, Inc.

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.
Organization: Doctoral student, Physics, Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Date: Fri, 13 Nov 1992 09:42:33 -0500 
From: Steven Timm <st0o+@andrew.cmu.edu>
Subject: Re: Great-etc-grandparents

The question was asked "Can you imagine that someone will eventually
exist who is the common descendant of all of us living now?"
Problem is that a large percentage of people living now will never have
any descendants because they will die childless (or not even survive 
to adulthood.  

An argument often given against large common ancestry (such as the "Eve"
furor which raged a few years ago with mitochondrial DNA) is that 
this involves only the common maternal line.  However, if one goes 
N generations back and has 2^N descendants, it's not long before 2^n is 
larger than the population of the earth, so some common ancestry 
is required.  In either creationist or evolutionist ideas, Homo Sapiens
began with a rather small gene pool.

Steve Timm
From: colby@bu-bio.bu.edu (Chris Colby)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: design in living organisms
Date: 17 Nov 92 01:50:31 GMT
Organization: animal -- coelomate -- deuterostome

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". 

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? 

>Paul Keck.  I'm not a strangulated hernia, but I play one on TV.

Chris Colby 	---	 email: colby@bu-bio.bu.edu	---
"'My boy,' he said, 'you are descended from a long line of determined,
resourceful, microscopic tadpoles--champions every one.'"
 	--Kurt Vonnegut from "Galapagos"