HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: bvickers@valentine.ics.uci.edu (Brett J. Vickers)
Subject: Re: White skin-how did it develope?
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Reply-To: bvickers@ics.uci.edu (Brett J. Vickers)
Organization: Univ. of Calif., Irvine, Info. & Computer Sci. Dept.
Date: 21 Aug 92 04:30:08 GMT

>    Then what would be the evolutionary mechanism that would select for lighter
>skin towards the northern climates?  There's little I can see that would
>actively select against the darker skins/for the lighter skins, and I do not
>believe that a lack of evolutionary pressure is evolutionary pressure in, by,
>and of itself.

There are two hypotheses that I know of which are used to explain the
existence of light skin.  One is that in northern climates, under-
production of vitamin D (due to dark skin) led to lower reproductive
success; dark skin would be selected against.  Another is that clothing
was adopted at about the time humans moved to the cooler northern
climates, and dark skin lost its selective advantage; random mutation
and genetic drift resulted in lighter skin colors.

Of course, no one knows for sure.

--
 ___            _    _     _  _        _
(  _) ___ ___ _( )__( )_  ( )( ) o  __( ) _  ___  ___  ___
(___)(_) (__=) (_)_ (_)_   (__) (_)(_((_)(_'(__=)(_) _(_)
Brett J. Vickers (bvickers@ics.uci.edu)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: julian@tantalus.sfu.ca (Julian Shillcock)
Subject: Re: behavior and evolution
Organization: Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, B.C., Canada
Date: Mon, 17 Aug 1992 19:55:11 GMT

kring@efes.physik.uni-kl.de (Thomas Kettenring) writes:

>In article <julian.714003960@sfu.ca>, julian@fraser.sfu.ca (Julian Shillcock) writes:
>>maoh@phyast.nhn.uoknor.edu (Maureen O'Halloran) writes:
>>>We also can't solve any problem analytically (ie, write down an exact
>>>equation that is the solution) for more than two particles!  You may
>>>have heard some one say that the "three-body problem" has not been
>>>solved.  However given a big enough computer and enough time, we can
>>>solve problems numerically to arbitrary accuracy.
>>
>>Not if it is in a chaotic part of its phase space we can't. Any initial 
>>error wil be exponentially magnified until we lose all accuracy. 

>That's not the whole reason.  You need QM too.  In Newtonian mechanics, we
>*can* solve problems numerically to arbitrary accuracy, that is, if you tell me
>"Compute the solution of this three-body problem for t = 1000 years from now
>with an accuracy of epsilon", I say "OK, but I need the initial conditions
>with an accuracy of delta = epsilon^1.000.000 (or whatever) and a computer that
>can handle it."  Of course the computer is a limiting factor.

JCS responds:

Agreed, QM will obviously affect the prediction. But I seem to remember that
even in Newtonian mechanics  a dynamical system cannot be predicted to arbitrary
accuracy for an arbitrary time no matter how small the initial error.
I think I mean that the accuracy required is so minute that the calculation
takes longer-than-the-age-of-the-universe sort of time. So, for all
practical purposes Newtonian mechanics cannot compute the trajectory.
When one factors in the QM limit on observation then it becomes impossible
even in principle to calculate the trajectory (room for free-will perhaps,
just a joke, I do not believe in a god-of-the-gaps). Poincare did this
calculation back in 1900s and showed that such predictions are impossible for some systems.

julian
From: jjh00@outs.ccc.amdahl.com (Joel J. Hanes)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: KILL 'em (WAS Re: Creationists: EXPLAIN THIS -- the Brazil Nut Effect
Date: 22 Aug 92 14:15:47 GMT
Reply-To: jjh00@OUTS.ccc.amdahl.com (Joel J. Hanes)
Organization: Amdahl Corporation, Sunnyvale CA


  st1lv@rosie.uh.edu (McLeod, Stephen) writes:
>
> hmm hmm hmm.
> it will be a glory day when I figure out how to kill based on
> user id rather than subject matter.


Ask and ye shall be given:

   /lionel@cs/h:j     kills every posting by Lionel
   /news@/a:j         kills every posting by Ted, and every
                         posting that references a posting by Ted


Enjoy.

---
Joel Hanes
From: scharle@lukasiewicz.cc.nd.edu (Scharle)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Subtle is the Lord (was Re: Young earth creationist logic NOT!)
Date: 18 Aug 92 12:07:12 GMT
Reply-To: scharle@lukasiewicz.cc.nd.edu (Scharle)
Organization: Univ. of Notre Dame

In article <zs9msg+.alc@netcom.com>, alc@netcom.com (Chris Stassen) writes:
    ...
|> Certainly, it isn't beyond God's ability to do something like this.  The
|> tree could be created with perfect appearance of age.  Not only does it
|> have rings, but it has patterns of thickness of rings that correlate with
|> other created trees -- giving the impression of rainy and dry years that
|> never happened.  It has scars from parasites that never existed, and
|> damage from a fire that never happened.  Each ring carbon dates as if it
|> had grown naturally in a year that never was.
    ...
|> It may not be God's "intent to deceive" in making such a creation, but
|> surely He would know that any honest student of His creation would be
|> misled when reading it "at face value."

    It would seem that ways that He would not be misleading us (there
may be others) would be to 
(0) do nothing special, perhaps, if the matter is of no importance 
(not a very satisfactory possibility [footnote])
(1) do things in a way that we have the possibility of figuring out 
(2) make it impossible for us to discover those things which He 
couldn't have done in an understandable way (#1)
(3) allow us to know that we are incapable of interpreting those 
things which he could not hide (#2) or do in another way (#1)  

1.  Let us assume that the tree rings serve a mysterious purpose X.
Could not God have produced something which serves that purpose, and
which does not mislead in the way that tree rings do?

2.  Or, if it were impossible for God to do it some other way, then
He would not have given us the intellectual tools to discover the
tree rings and apply radiocarbon dating to their interpretation.

3.  Or, in the end, would He not do something like what happened 
with quantum physics, incompleteness theorems in mathematics, and
chaos theory?  We know that certain things are unknowable.

|> -- 
|> Chris Stassen						stassen@alc.com
|> DISCLAIMER:  My employer's account, but not their opinions.

Footnote:  I suppose there could be a sort of joke -- when we get to 
heaven, God tells us how things really work, and we are all amused at 
the cleverness of it.  All us humans overlooked that one little 
detail, and the square root of two is rational after all.  On the 
other hand, some people point out that God has gone to exceptional 
lengths to make sure that no one will take the Bible literally.  So 
we have one clue as to His straightforwardness about things of 
importance.

-- 
Tom Scharle                |cm65n6@irishmvs(Bitnet)
Room G003 Computing Center |scharle@lukasiewicz.cc.nd.edu(Internet)
University of Notre Dame  Notre Dame, IN 46556-0539 USA
From: swf@teradata.com (Stanley Friesen)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Christian message (in defense of Jim Loucks)
Date: 20 Aug 92 01:29:32 GMT
Reply-To: swf@tdat.teradata.com (Stanley Friesen)
Distribution: world,local
Organization: NCR Teradata Database Business Unit

In article <eejc036363kF00@amdahl.uts.amdahl.com> jloucks@uts.amdahl.com (Jim Loucks) writes:
|
|I have two of their issues and the one article I've had the chance
|to read was entitled something like "Precambrian Strata and the Fossils
|they Contain." I don't know that much about geology but the article
|appeared pretty good and doesn't fall under the above categories.
|
Well, I do know a fair bit about geology (and even Precambrian fossils).

Why don't you post a summary of the article, giving its main arguments
and conclusions, and I will critique it from an informed point of view.

There are probably others on the net that know even more geology than
I do, so between us we should be able to evaluate the article fairly
well.
-- 
sarima@teradata.com			(formerly tdatirv!sarima)
  or
Stanley.Friesen@ElSegundoCA.ncr.com
From: huston@access.digex.com (Herb Huston)
Subject: Re: White skin-how did it develope?
Organization: Express Access Online Communications, Greenbelt, MD USA
Date: Sat, 22 Aug 1992 17:45:04 GMT

In article <BtCtJ0.BC8@quake.sylmar.ca.us> brian@quake.sylmar.ca.us (Brian K. Yoder) writes:
>My understanding is that there are two counteracting mechanisms at
>work.  One is that darker skin offers better protection from the 
>sun.  The other is that vitamin D is produced by exposing the skin
>to the sun, and lighter skin makes this process more efficient.
>The result is what you would expect to see.  People whose ancestors
>lived in warmer sunnier climates have darker skin while those who
>lived in colder (and in the wintertime darker) regions have lighter
>skin.

Better double-check your results.  Compare the skin colors of aboriginal
peoples of Alaska, the Amazon, and Tierra del Fuego.  Check the skin color
of the aboriginal Tasmanians (you'll find photographs of the last Tasmanian
man and last Tasmanian woman in _The Third Chimpanzee_ by Jared Diamond
[the publishers should be paying me for these plugs!  B-)>]).

-- Herb Huston
 


Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: julian@fraser.sfu.ca (Julian Shillcock)
Subject: Are we privileged observers?
Summary: Is physics true for the universe or only the part we observe?
Keywords: universe,earth, paradox
Organization: Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, B.C., Canada
Date: Fri, 14 Aug 1992 23:47:39 GMT

 I have remembered an argument I heard some time ago about whether physics
is consistent, or must be supplemented by unphysical assumptions. I think
it might have a bearing on the "Is there a God working in the universe"
question.
A standard (probably wrong) argument for the existence of God is that
the universe must have had some "cause" initially and we call the author
of this cause God. To which the reply is why postulate a god to be the
cause rather than just stopping at the physical universe, ie, why add
a different unknowable thing called God instead of sticking with
an unknowable cause for the universe. But if science can be shown to
need extra assumptions OUTSIDE the realm of science itself in order to explain
the unvierse we observe then we might be justified in postulating God
with some assurance.
For if there are some assumptions which we need that are already outside
science why not God as well? Not a wholly convincing argument but it
does (perhaps) show that science is no capable of explaing everything we
observe, let alone everything aoround.
Anyway the argument is: We can only observe those parts of the universe
where the light has had time to reach us. If we assume a finite age
of say 15 billion years or so then there is a "horizon" at 15 billion
light years distant from us beyond which we cannot observe any events.
Now, dp the laws of physics as we know them here hold beyond this horizon?
If one answers yes, then it is an unscientific assertion as we can by 
definition do no experiments there, if no, then why do we hold a special
position in the universe so that where we cannot see the laws of physics
change?
We seem to need a meta-physics to tell us where the laws of physics hold.
It is made even worse if the laws themselves change in time as we then
have no idea what happens even in the parts of the universe we can observe.

(Alsom if the universe is infinite then how come we are still here?)

julian 
Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: danwell@IASTATE.EDU (Daniel A Ashlock)
Subject: Jim's NEXT unsupported assertion.
Reply-To: danwell@IASTATE.EDU (Daniel A Ashlock)
Organization: Iowa State University
Date: Wed, 19 Aug 1992 18:05:48 GMT

In article <75Ch030z62.E00@amdahl.uts.amdahl.com>, jloucks@uts.amdahl.com (Jim
Loucks) writes:
>sbishop@desire.wright.edu writes:
>I wrote:
>>>>Marvin Lubenow of the ICR is putting the finishing touches on a
>>>>book regarding human evolution and the fossil (or lack of) evidence
>>>>for such. This should be an interesting book.
> 
>>I wonder if Lubenow is going to discuss Lucy?  Actually human evolution
>>is pretty well documented.  Lots of discoveries in the last decade or so.
> 
>Most likely, Lubenow will discuss Lucy. But human evolution is only
                                         ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>"pretty well documented" if you favor a certain worldview or bias.
 ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>Of course the t.o regulars who hold that worldview will disagree with
>the information in the book, I still think it will be quite interesting.

   Jim, you dog, your doing it again.  This "worldview" your claiming leads to
bias is one painfully worked out over the centuries to AVOID or CORRECT FOR
bias.  Essentially you're pushing the "we all have our own opinions and their
all pretty much equivalent" lie, used by creationists to create a context of
blinding ingnorance in which there views may be given equal time.

   Evolution has been carefully proven to be the result of the unbiased
viewpoint.  We have given you this proof.  If you can't understand the 
proof then go back to school.  If you can understand it then either refute
it or accept it.

   In order to stop making creationists look like complete idiots though 
could you please STOP OFFERING UNSUPPORTED ASSERTIONS!  THEY SUCK!

> Jim Loucks           jloucks@uts.amdahl.com 
> {apple, pyramid, sun, uunet}!amdahl!jloucks

Dan
Danwell@IASTATE.EDU
Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: hyde@cs.dal.ca (Bill Hyde)
Subject: Re: Felt Effect of Gravity
Organization: Math, Stats & CS, Dalhousie University, Halifax, NS, Canada
Date: Fri, 14 Aug 1992 16:49:43 GMT

In article <1992Aug13.215641.3446@desire.wright.edu>, sbishop@desire.wright.edu writes:


|> I have some interesting stuff to post eventually about size and climate.
|> Animals who live in northern climates tend to be larger than others of the
|> same type who live in southern climates.  The Alaskan brown bear is the
|> largest bear in the world, much larger than the Grizzlies (same species) 
|> found in the U.S.  The Polar Bear is next after the brown in size.  A large
|> size means more body density to protect core heat.
|> 
|> This makes me wonder if the really large dinosaurs lived in fairly cold
|> climates.

	Probably not.  Mid-Cretaceous warmth is rather well established.
	Bottom water temperatures were about 15 degrees centigrade, and
	evidence for ice rafted debris (i.e. evidence of sea ice) is
	much more sparse than for cenozoic times.  Both observations and
	theoretical models seem to show a much higher CO2 concentration
	at this time, in the region from four to eight times the 
	preindustiral value.  GCM studies show that the continental
	positions also favoured a warm climate.

	However, in other eras (Jurassic, late Cretaceous) when sea levels
	and presumably CO2 were lower) there probably was seasonal cold,
	especially on the larger continents, since the seasonal cycle of
	temperature increases as distance from the ocean grows.
	
	But during times of high sea level such as the mid-Cretaceous
	continental sizes may have been too small for high seasonality
	and thus (given the high ocean temperatures) freezing temperatures
	might have been rare.

	The above is taken from Crowley and North's Paleoclimatology
	(Oxford Monograph on geology and geophysics number 18, 1991).

						Bill Hyde
Department of Oceanography
Dalhousie University,
Halifax, Nova Scotia
hyde@Ice.ATM.Dal.Ca or hyde@dalac
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Gish vs. Ross debate - tapes
From: lippard@skyblu.ccit.arizona.edu (James J. Lippard)
Date: 13 Aug 1992 12:11 MST  
Distribution: world,local
Organization: University of Arizona
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    

In article <9208131413.AA05693@neptune.gsfc.nasa.gov>, jgacker@neptune.gsfc.nasa.gov (James G. Acker) writes...
>	I am somewhat amazed that Dobson put this on his show.  My 
>opinion of Dobson just soared (it was good to begin with, but I don't
>get a daily chance to hear him.)

Hugh Ross has previously been on Dobson's show, which led to both the ICR
and the Bible-Science Association blasting Ross.  The BSA also attacked
Dobson.

Refs:
Paul A. Bartz, "Hugh Ross Judged the Bible on 'Focus on the Family';
   Now... The Bible Judges 'Progressive Creationism,'" _Bible-Science
   Newsletter_ 29(June 1991):1-2, 4.  (This article lists other media
   appearances of Ross.)
Gregory A. Hull, "An Open Letter to Dr. James Dobson," _Bible-Science
   Newsletter_ 29(June 1991):3.  (This issue of the BSN also attacks the
   American Scientific Affiliation.)
Gregory A. Hull, "Focus on the Family Responds to Creationist Concerns:
   From My Point of View: The Real Issue," _Bible-Science Newsletter_
   29(July/August 1991):1,3.
James S. Stambaugh, "Hugh Ross, ICR, and Facts of Science," _Impact_
   No. 218 (August 1991).

Jim Lippard              Lippard@CCIT.ARIZONA.EDU
Dept. of Philosophy      Lippard@ARIZVMS.BITNET
University of Arizona
Tucson, AZ 85721
From: colby@bu-bio.bu.edu (Chris Colby)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: behavior and evolution
Date: 16 Aug 92 19:27:47 GMT
Organization: animal -- coelomate -- deuterostome

In article <julian.713910132@sfu.ca> julian@fraser.sfu.ca (Julian Shillcock) writes:
>Thanks for the references, I'll see if the university library has them,
>and whether I can understand them( not a given!). I am reading a book
>on the brain called "Corticonics:Neural circuits of the cerebral cortex" 

[much about lack of knowledge of brain workings deleted]

Yes, I'm fairly sure nobody has a good working model/theory of
how the brain works. But, that doesn't mean that evolutionary
biology cannot make any predictions about behavior -- because
explanations of behavior can fall into two catagories: proximate
and ultimate. The first would try to explain the behavior in terms
of neurotransmitters and neural architecture; the second would try
to explain a behavior in terms of it's adaptive value.

Let me give a quick example: Male bluegills (a fish) have two
reproductive strategies. These are genetically based(*). One type
of male matures slowly(**), but eventually reaches a large size and
attempts to guard a harem of females. The other type matures
quickly(***), but is much smaller and "sneaks" matings. They wait until
the females drop the eggs and swim by before the territorial male
can fertilze them.

(*) ~30 percent of the male offspring from territorial males are
"sneakers", ~50 percent of the male offspring from "sneakers" are
"sneakers". Obviously more that one locus controls which phenotype
is produced -- the behavior type appears to be fixed rather than
conditional (i.e. the fish can't switch behaviors).
(**) six years until reproductive
(***) two years until reproductive

Now, somebody might be working on the proximate mechanisms of this
behavior (although I doubt it) -- but evolutionary biologists find
it much more interesting to examine the ultimate causes of this
behavior. In other words, how do these two behaviors coexist in
the same species? Why doesn't one reproductive behavior type
outcompete the other? And yes, biologists use mathematical
models to figure these sorts of things out. The answer is, at a
certain frequency of territorial males to sneakers, both
reproductive strategies have the same average fitness. Alcock
gives the basics of this in his book, check the references for
the gory details.

My point is that we don't need to know how something works to
produce theories as to why it works. Both types of questions
are interesting. There are biologists interested in both
aspects of understanding behavior. If you are looking for
mathematical models of behavior you should read stuff about
optimality theory and game theory and ESS (evolutionary stable
strategies). (I'm not really very familiar with anything in
these fields, but Alcock gives references to all the really
influential stuff in his text.)

>Ciao
>julian    

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"
From: lippard@skyblu.ccit.arizona.edu (James J. Lippard)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: What is creationism?
Date: 20 Aug 92 19:44:00 GMT
Distribution: world,local
Organization: University of Arizona
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41

In article <1992Aug20.123542.20417@news.nd.edu>, scharle@lukasiewicz.cc.nd.edu (Scharle) writes...
>     Of course, first of all I have to comment in amazement at Jim Lippard's
>scholarship in this area.  Words do fail me ... how do you manage to keep
>up on all this stuff?  

Unfortunately, it's only by falling behind on other, more important things.

>     Now, my little posting was made up by me fairly quickly.  It has a 
>bunch of flaws that I recognize.   It may not represent the position of any
>creationist.  Yet, for all of those flaws:
>     It is, to the best of my knowledge, the most comprehensive statement
>of creationism.
>     I have not heard from any creationist who objects to any point of it.

I'd like to partially retract my previous comment on what you said.
My remarks were based more on what creationists *say* they are doing,
rather than what they *are* doing.  I think it's correct to say that
whatever the scientific evidence says is not relevant to most Christians'
beliefs.

>     So, why is it so difficult for any creationist, or any group of creationists,
>to come up with a statement of position sort of like what I did for them?

Probably because it conflicts with what they *claim* to be doing.

Jim Lippard              Lippard@CCIT.ARIZONA.EDU
Dept. of Philosophy      Lippard@ARIZVMS.BITNET
University of Arizona
Tucson, AZ 85721
Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: kv07@IASTATE.EDU (Warren Vonroeschlaub)
Subject: Re: The Philosophical problems of Creationism (Was: Try the Bible (Re: Calling Young-earth Creationists)
Reply-To: kv07@IASTATE.EDU (Warren Vonroeschlaub)
Organization: Ministry of Silly Walks
Date: Tue, 18 Aug 1992 16:55:06 GMT

In article <1992Aug17.212828.25905@dscomsf.desy.de>, hallam@zeus02.desy.de
(Phillip M. Hallam-Baker) writes:
> In article <1992Aug15.025008.26950@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu>,
> tlode@nyx.cs.du.edu (trygve lode) writes:
> |>>Ahh, but do we know it exactly?
> |>
> |>Pi in a Euclidean space can be defined in closed form and can be
> |>calculated
> |>to any specified precision in a finite period of time; I think that's
> |>sufficient to say that we know it exactly. 
> 
> Unfortunately not so. PI may be defined, however the definition rests on
> the definition of a calculus. PI is only defined to the same extent that
> the calculus is defined. In order to argue about whether the calculus is
> defined we have to resort to a calculus of the definedness of calculii,
> thus the objection is raised agin for the metacalculus. Ultimately every
> calculus is undefined, the most that can be said is that it is
> consistent with another calculus or with itself.

  Just a guess here, but either you are a non-mathematician, or you are in
analysis.  Us algebraeists have it a little easier: Pi is the ratio of the
circumfrence of the circle to its diameter.  There, now we know it exactly.  I
couldn't write it down exactly, but big deal, I have it defined absolutely
precisely.

> [Note that the traditional tool used at this point, recursion is not
> avaliable since recursion itself might be suspect.]

  Recursion fails because it only works for a finite number of steps.  Example:
if n is finite, so is n+1.  By recursion infinity is finite.

> For practical purposes this is not a problem since it is the utility of
> a calculus that is important, not whether it is "true" in an absolute
> sense.

  Ack!

[history of predictions deleted]

 |  __L__   *******************************
-|-  ___    * Warren Kurt vonRoeschlaub   *
 |  | O |   * kv07@iastate.edu            *
 |/ `---'   * Iowa State University       *
/|   ___    * Math Department             *
 |  |___|   * 400 Carver Hall             *
 |  |___|   * Ames, IA  50011             *
 J  _____   *******************************