HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: ksand@apple.com (Kent Sandvik )
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: AWESOME computer program (Populus)
Date: 6 Nov 92 02:30:27 GMT
Followup-To: talk.origins
Organization: Apple

In article <1992Nov2.181223.24306@city.cs>, lionel@cs.city.ac.uk (Lionel
Tun) wrote:
> 
> In article <100221@bu.edu> colby@bu-bio.bu.edu (Chris Colby) writes:
> >A couple of weeks ago, I picked up a truly great ecology/evolution
> >simulation program. I thought some of the folks here might like to
> >hear about it.
> >
> >The program is called Populus and is written by some folks at the
> >Ecology, Evolution and Behavior department at the U. of Minnesota.
> 
> Aha! I thought there was something rather dodgy about this program.
> So, its a vehicle for spreading the evilutionist progaganda!
> 
> Its funny how games where one gets to play God are very poplular.

Lionel, why don't we have any computer programs that show that
evolution is impossible? 

Kent
-------------------
Kent Sandvik (UUCP: ....!apple!ksand; INTERNET: ksand@apple.com)
DISCLAIMER: Private activities on the Net.
Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: hyde@cs.dal.ca (Bill Hyde)
Subject: Re: Holden, heat, temperature, and the 2nd law
Organization: Math, Stats & CS, Dalhousie University, Halifax, NS, Canada
Date: Thu, 5 Nov 1992 16:56:39 GMT

In article <102@fedfil.UUCP>, news@fedfil.UUCP (news) writes:

|> 
|> *There are several ways in which higher heat flux does not imply higher
|> *temperature, and even ways that a higher total heat content doesn't
|> *imply a higher temperature, but perhaps the most relevant one is
|> *embodied in this analogy: add heat at one rate to a covered pot of
|> *water, and heat at many times that rate to an otherwise identical
|> *uncovered pot of water.  With many times the heat, the uncovered pot
|> *must "therefore" be "hotter", right?  Wrong. 
|> 
|> Neat analogy, Wayne.  Show me the lid on Venus' atmosphere.  The whole
|> thing is totally uncovered, heat DOES escape,


	Last year I showed you a series of thermodynamic examples
	explaining the behaviour Mr. Throop is trying to show you here,
	examples *not* including a rigid lid.  Your only comment was
	"bullshit examples deleted".  From which I gather that you
	understood me then, and probably understand Mr. Throop now.


	By the way, you still haven't answered my post concerning
	the differences between temperature and potential temperature.
	None of your arguments about atmospheric thermodynamics are
	the least bit credible unless you can address this point.


						Bill Hyde
Department of Oceanography
Dalhousie University,
Halifax, Nova Scotia
hyde@Ice.ATM.Dal.Ca or hyde@dalac
From: weemba@sagi.wistar.upenn.edu (Matthew P Wiener)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Probability of Evolution
Date: 13 Nov 92 14:39:14 GMT
Reply-To: weemba@sagi.wistar.upenn.edu (Matthew P Wiener)
Organization: The Wistar Institute of Anatomy and Biology
In-reply-to: kalki33!system@lakes.trenton.sc.us

In article <2NH4TB13w165w@kalki33>, kalki33!system@lakes writes:
>I notice that you are in the math department. You understand then that a
>proof is something that follows logically from given premises.

And if the premises are gibberish, and unrelated to the real world,
then quit claiming that anything has been proven regarding a real
world phenomenon.
-- 
-Matthew P Wiener (weemba@sagi.wistar.upenn.edu)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: watson@sce.carleton.ca (Stephen Watson)
Subject: Re: noah's ark
Organization: Home for Indigent Bit-Bashers
Date: Sat, 7 Nov 1992 02:59:02 GMT

In article <1992Nov6.112019.1@woods.ulowell.edu> cotera@woods.ulowell.edu writes:
>Then how did Noah's Ark get on top of a mountain? Or did it evolve there over 
>the past million years?
>--Ray Cote

And who, besides you and a certain toothless astronaut, "knows" this
Ark is on any mountain, anywhere?  I hear that astronaut (whose name
I've forgotten - I think it's in the FAQ) is planning to do his next
survey of Ararat by helicopter instead of on foot.  I predict he'll
find those teeth he lost LONG before he finds any big boats up there
:-)
-- 
==Steve Watson: watson@sce.carleton.ca===Carleton University, Ottawa, Ontario==
| The above is the output of a 7th-order Markovian analysis of all posts on   |
| this group for the past month.  Not only is it not Carleton's opinion, it's |
| not even *my* opinion: it's really just a mish-mash of all YOUR opinions!   |
Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: amorgan@csd-d-4.Stanford.EDU (Crunchy Frog)
Subject: Re: Probability of Evolution
Originator: amorgan@csd-d-4.Stanford.EDU
Organization: /usr/lib/news/organizatoin
Date: Mon, 9 Nov 1992 23:58:06 GMT

In article <1992Nov9.221404.7952@galois.mit.edu> 
  tycchow@nevanlinna.mit.edu (Timothy Y. Chow) writes:

>Hence it seems
>that a better response to such probability calculations is not to
>dismiss them out of hand but to say:
>
>1. A demonstration that the probability of an event is extremely small
>   cannot "prove" that the event did not occur, or even that the theory
>   that yields the low probability is wrong.  The probability of
>   flipping a fair coin a thousand times in a row and getting all heads
>   is 2^(-1000) but this doesn't "prove" that such an event has never
>   occurred, nor does it prove that if such an event occurred then the
>   coin could not have been fair. 

More importantly, the chance of flipping a coin 1000 times and getting
the sequence HTTHTTHTHTHHTHTHTHTTHTHTHTTTHTHTHTTHHTTH..... etc
is 2^(-1000).  The chance of *any* particular event occurring is almost
infinitesimal if you consider the myriad of other possibilities. The odds 
that my parents would meet is about one in five billion.  I guess the 
only thing is to conclude that I don't exist.

Creationists ask what is the probability that our exact form of life
emerged.  They refuse to consider the possibility that there might be
other forms of life, they also refuse to consider the possibility that
there might be other mechanisms involved other than pure chance.

The correct response to their probability calculations is to reject
them out of hand (IMHO).

>Tim Chow     tycchow@math.mit.edu

C Frog
Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: sdoe@nmsu.edu (Stephen Doe)
Subject: Re: Probability of Evolution
Organization: New Mexico State University
Distribution: world, public 
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 1992 04:43:51 GMT

In article <HN5wTB11w165w@kalki33> kalki33!system@lakes.trenton.sc.us writes:
>smullins@cidmac.ecn.purdue.edu (Scott H Mullins) writes:
>
>> Glad to hear that the proof is so straightforward. Give it to us
>> in your next post. Or is this a "proof is left as an exercise for the
>> reader" kind of thing. 
>> 
>> Waiting.... (but not holding my breath)
>
>Yes, it is straightforward, but it is not brief. I will develop it post
>by post and point by point, although my intention was for people to read
>the book, since Dr. Thompson is a much better scientist and expositor
>than I.
>
>First point: The known laws of physics possess low information content.
>Second point: biological organisms possess high information content.

AHA!  Looks like a modified form of that old bugaboo, the argument
from the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics.  Stay tuned for the next
installment. :)

>These assertions will be treated in the first installment.
>
>By all means don't "hold your breath". We have received so many letters,
>most of them hostile (as a result of our "politically incorrect"
>position regarding evolution), that it is taking much of our time to
>answer them all. If you can obtain the book Mechanistic and
>Nonmechanistic Science, that would be the best way to understand the
>argument. (Yes, we are plugging this book. But that's ok, it is a good
>and important book. Dr. Thompson is not a "crackpot", he is a professional
>scientist with a long list of published papers, etc....)

I think any "hostility" you may perceive is due to exasperation many
here feel towards creationists who have previously posted many many
articles with low low S/N.  It's not that creationism isn't PC, it's
that most of the pro-creationist posts we've seen usually indulge in
bald assertions, faulty understanding of basic scientific principles
and at times even outright distortion of the evidence.  (Not to
mention those who say we're all going to hell for our satanic
evolutionary beliefs!)  When one sees such a post for the nth time,
one can understandably get torqued by it.  I happen to think that
hamstringing science with a particular set of religious beliefs is a
really bad idea.  To date, I have seen nothing that makes me change
this opinion.

SD
From: robd@cherry09.cray.com (Robert Derrick)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Creation vs. evolution
Date: 12 Nov 92 02:16:49 GMT
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL6]

Does the image, "shooting rats in a barrel", come to mind?

I am more than a little impressed with the tenacity with which fellow T.O.ers
will take this triviality to task, and gamely refute, point by point, the
entire progeny of this new challenger, e'en tho' they have fought the same
battle again and again.  It must be fun, hunh?

Me, I will content myself with only one thrust at the rogue:

Richard.Rearden.@.914/901@f8.n10.z1.fidonet.org wrote:

: The irony is that most Evolutionist, refuse to even take the Creationist 's
: theory into spectulation.

What, he asked breathelessly, what is this theory to which you refer?

Trot it out and I will gladly and joyously and endlessly spectulate on't.
Refuse!  Not I, sirrah.  Never!

The Creationist's Theory!  I am apoplectic with anticipation.

Lionel, don't you think it is about time you gave us yours, before this
uncircumscised philistine beats you to it?  How will you ever live with
the shame?
--

rob derrick				robd@cherry.cray.com
Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: danwell@IASTATE.EDU (Daniel A Ashlock)
Subject: Re: Lionel Tun, idiot or moron?
Reply-To: danwell@IASTATE.EDU (Daniel A Ashlock)
Organization: Iowa State University
Date: Wed, 11 Nov 1992 19:44:43 GMT

In article <ksand-101192184411@wintermute.apple.com>, ksand@apple.com (Kent
Sandvik ) writes:
> Sorry, but I must raise one issue, it's one thing to nullify
> idiotic ideas, but it's a totally different story concerning
> personal attacks.

   Yes, as the person who issued the personal attack on Lionel, I must agree. 
When is it possible to argue facts and logic one should never resort to
personal attacks.  The problem is Lionel is repeating statements that have been
carefully, politely refuted and subsequently flamed thousands of times.  Since
he will not take cognizance of fact or refutation but just continues to repeat
obvious lies over and over there are only two recourses.  Insult Lionel or
leave t.o.  I choose to make the best of a bad situation and practice my 
literary skills.

   Lionel Tun is a dishonest, lying fool and I intend to repeat this fact each
and every time I notice him repeating one of his stupid lie UNLESS he comes up
with an original stupid lie, in which case I will return to polite refutation.
(For the record, the evolution causes aparthied lie was unoriginal, he merely
filled in the blanks in his "evolution has evil consequences" lie with different
words).
 
> I don't mind flaming about insane and lunatic world views,
> or trashing non-logical scientific theories. However I'm a little
> bit worried that we sometimes look at the person writing the
> statement, instead of examining the actual statement itself.

   We examined his statments to death with nil effect.  Were I starting with
Lionel's lard butt cerebelum I would share your concern over possibly improper
procedure, but I'm ending up there.
 
> So yes, if someone believes that an outside planet nearly destroyed
> Earth, kicked off the Moon and stabilized around Venus, and there's
> nothing to back this, instead millions of pieces of evidence showing
> the contrary, then feel free to trash such bizarre ideas. However,
> remember that there's a human at the other end, and it's not fun
> taking part in person flame wars.

   Who says?  I admit it's only a _little_ bit of fun, but Lionel, in those
threads he participates in, destroys any other possible avenue of intellectual
pleasure with his nauseating mental stench.  Lionel seems demonstrably subhuman
in his thought processes.  He ignores evidence, he...   ...oh never mind.  Just
watch him for awhile yourself.
 
> Please flame this statement, and not little me...

   No, not at all, in almost any other case you would be clearly correct. 
Lionel is a supernova of dishonesty and evil.

Dan
Danwell@IASTATE.EDU
Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: tlode@nyx.cs.du.edu (trygve lode)
Subject: Re: What is consciousness?
Organization: Nyx, Public Access Unix @ U. of Denver Math/CS dept.
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 92 21:10:28 GMT

In article <1992Nov9.140953.21925@hemlock.cray.com> robd@cherry09.cray.com (Robert Derrick) writes:
>
>But I do have a real question:
>
>Is the "Kalki" a group of people, a consciousness continuum, or a king?
>
>I mean, what is all this "We" jazz?

Well, my guess is that Kalki is an individual but, based on Kalki's
continued reference to "themselves" as plural, Kalki must be either
royalty, an editor, or currently carrying a tapeworm.  My current
leaning is towards the last theory.

Trygve   (Though I'm still waiting for proofs that viruses are conscious
          and the revelation of the "simple, straighforward proof" that is
          nonetheless far too complex and convoluted to post.  But, let's
          give Kalki another week or so and if support for "their" claims
          isn't forthcoming, maybe we could convince the tapeworm to try
          its...er...hand at it.)
From: weemba@sagi.wistar.upenn.edu (Matthew P Wiener)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Emergent Properties
Date: 5 Nov 92 15:20:03 GMT
Reply-To: weemba@sagi.wistar.upenn.edu (Matthew P Wiener)
Organization: The Wistar Institute of Anatomy and Biology
In-reply-to: lamoran@gpu.utcs.utoronto.ca (L.A. Moran)

In article <Bx88Jq.4AM@gpu.utcs.utoronto.ca>, lamoran@gpu (L.A. Moran)
quotes Gould and is puzzled:
 
|     "First, nothing in biology contradicts the laws of physics and
|      chemistry; any adequate biology must conform with the "basic"
|      sciences...

|      Second, the principles of physics and chemistry are not sufficient
|      to explain complex biological objects because new properties 
|      emerge as a result of organization and interaction.  [...]

|      Third, the insufficiency of physics and chemistry to encompass
|      life records no mystical addition, [...]

>On the one hand Gould states without evidence that the laws of physics and 
>chemistry are not sufficient in biology while on the the hand he claims that 
>no mystical addition to these laws is required because that would be too much 
>like vitalism! 

>Gould's premises are vacuous statements [...]

I think you misunderstand what Gould was getting at.  I understand his
"principles of physics and chemistry" to refer to the accepted organiza-
tional notions that take place within the laws of physics (note that,
in this context, there are no laws of chemistry), as witnessed by the
various physics and chemistry journals.

I also think Gould is wrong, but not for speaking self-contradictory
gibberish.  He's just wrong because he is unaware of what a good number
of physicists and chemists are doing.  Among the more prominent, for
example, is the work of Anderson and Eigen.
-- 
-Matthew P Wiener (weemba@sagi.wistar.upenn.edu)
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, 6 Nov 1992 23:47:21 GMT

In article <PJHRTB1w165w@kalki33>, kalki33!system@lakes.trenton.sc.us writes:
>   The probability of evolution of higher life forms by known physical
> processes during a 4.5 billion year period is bounded by an UPPER limit
> of 10e-150000.

  Bletch.  This old one again?

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

  Define "higher" and explain why this cannot happen.

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

  Well, again you have to define "higher".

  However, going on the assumption by "higher" you mean the class Homo Sapiens
Sapiens, Mammals, or just multicellular life (take your pick), keep in mind that
once you have one you have as many as you want.  It isn't a one try deal: you
can work your way up to it in tiny steps.

  Also keep in mind that if you mean the probability of humans appearing, then
if we were all goinkleblats we would be talking about how improbable it was that
goinkleblats evolved.

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

  Oh good.  There are plenty of experts in both fields available.  So, if it is
so streightforward you won't mind posting it  (or at least giving a reference to
it in a widely available publication).

>       |  Don't forget to chant:   Hare Krishna Hare Krishna   |
>       |                           Krishna Krishna Hare Hare   |
>       |                           Hare Rama Hare Rama         |
>       |                           Rama Rama Hare Hare         |

  Oh goody, another Hindu creationist.  What ever happened to Druta anyway?

 |  __L__
-|-  ___  Warren Kurt vonRoeschlaub
 |  | o | kv07@iastate.edu
 |/ `---' Iowa State University
/|   ___  Math Department
 |  |___| 400 Carver Hall
 |  |___| Ames, IA  50011
 J  _____
From: livesey@solntze.wpd.sgi.com (Jon Livesey)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: apology
Date: 6 Nov 1992 23:42:27 GMT
Organization: Silicon Graphics, Inc.  Mountain View, CA
NNTP-Posting-Host: solntze.wpd.sgi.com


In article <100918@bu.edu>, colby@bu-bio.bu.edu writes:
> 
> I also got email to this effect. I'm not trying to say Lionel is
> chimp-like, only his mental powers are. Chimps are (I'm sure) fine,
> upstanding, noble beasts. Lionel is, by contrast, a disgrace to his
> species.

Surely you mean "to his kind"?

> I heartily apologize to any and all chimps I may have 
> offended by my remarks. 

You're welcome.

jon.
Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: mk452a@oktext.sbc.com (Mark Kamphaus)
Subject: Re: noah's ark
Reply-To: mk452a@oktext.UUCP (Mark Kamphaus)
Organization: Southwestern Bell
Date: Wed, 11 Nov 92 15:14:35 GMT

In article <1992Nov9.171935@IASTATE.EDU> kv07@IASTATE.EDU (Warren Vonroeschlaub) writes:
>In article <s25yTB2w164w@cellar.org>, kml@cellar.org (Scott Tiger) writes:
>[claim that people who deny a global flood are not using a literal reading of
>Genisis]                                                   ^^^^^^^
>
>  You have apparently completely missed the point.  The whole idea is that I
>(and most CWACKs) _don't_ believe Genisis should be read literally.
                                                         ^^^^^^^^^^
>
>[more stuff to address a nonexistant point]
>> To repeat: it was not local, it required all animals to be on the ark,
>> and its effects should be seen worldwide.  They're not.
>
>  If you read it literally, yes.  But it is the meaning behind the words for
                 ^^^^^^^^^^^
>which it was written that I use.  Why do you feel the need to attack your
>allies?

Come on now, Do you mean that if you read some *ENGLISH* *TRANSLATION* of
the Bible and try to force the *literal* meaning of *english* words onto
the Hebrew, that you may not end up with the meaning that was intended?
Tsk, Tsk.  Try looking up *translation* and *interpretation* before we
start talking about *literal*.  Literal has little meaning after those
processes, especially if the translation is a dynamic equivalent or a
paraphrase.  Formal equivalency may tend to give a more "exact" translation,
but then you can't assume the same connotation and usage of the english word.
I don't see taking the Bible literally as a major obstacle, although there are
some difficulties.  What I do see is that the creationist tend to believe that
the KJV and NIV translations are the inerrant literal equivalent of the
autographs.  (Am I right?  I would be surprised to see a creationist post
Gen 1:1 from Youngs Literal Translation or to comment on what it literally
means for the earth to bring something forth (Gen1:24-25)).

mark
Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: MANDTBACKA@finabo.abo.fi (Mats Andtbacka Ktf92)
Subject: Re: Probability of Evolution
Organization: Unorganized Usenet Postings UnInc.
Date: Fri, 13 Nov 1992 10:14:58 GMT
X-News-Reader: VMS NEWS 1.23

In <q8m3TB6w165w@kalki33> kalki33!system@lakes.trenton.sc.us writes:

> smullins@cidmac.ecn.purdue.edu (Scott H Mullins) writes:
>>
>> Oh, absolutely. What with the selection pressure of antibiotics the bacte-
>> rium that cause syphilis and gonorrhea are just disappearing, right? :-)
>> Is it purely by chance that these and other diseases treated with 
>> antibiotics are producing resistant strains?
> 
> I'm not sure I can read through the sarcasm. Do you mean to say that,
> despite the pressure of the alleged mechanism of "natural selection"
> (or, sarcastically, "unnatural selection") organisms can and do survive?
> And that if organisms do change, it is not by "random mutation" but is
> instead a somehow intelligent response to the environment?

      More or less. Because of this selectional pressure (antibiotics),
the total stock base of these species of organisms DO change (as some
get weeded out), and the species as a whole survive, in spite of the
pressure, very well thank you. Organisms DO change, but this change is
NOT intelligent, but due exactly to your "random mutations".

> Does this mean that you think organisms do actually change into new
> species by some process, although not by the processes of random
> mutation and natural selection as claimed by most evolutionists? Or do
> you support the thesis that the forms of the living organisms have been
> surviving more or less intact since their "creation"?

      It means he thinks organisms do actually change into new species by
a process, namely that of random mutation and natural selection. It's
really that simple!

> I am willing to discuss the theory of evolution on its own terms, by
> using its own premises and definitions.

      This is very, *very* good, indeed; but, honestly, are you *really*
sure you understand them? Some of the "mechanisms" involved in evolution
seem to have passed you by, judging from the above few statements.

> I am convinced that there are
> serious flaws in the theory, that the flaws are contained in the
> premises, and that the flaws can be exposed by deducing false
> conclusions from the premises.

      So far, noone has been able to do so, though. Give it your best
shot. BTW: What would these "false" conclusions look like - species that
should have evolved, but didn't?

 - + - + - + - + - + - + - + - + - + - + - + - + - + - + - + - + - + - + - + - 
           Opinions? What's that, mom - some new kind of dessert?
     "Every day for us, something new / Open mind for a different view /
                       And nothing else matters..."     ---     Metallica