HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: colby@bu-bio.bu.edu (Chris Colby)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: apology
Keywords: AWESOME
Date: 6 Nov 92 23:00:15 GMT
Organization: animal -- coelomate -- deuterostome

In article <BxALIL.6Lr@access.digex.com> huston@access.digex.com (Herb Huston) writes:
>In article <100633@bu.edu> colby@bu-bio.bu.edu (Chris Colby) writes:

>Chris, as a Friend of Washoe (I just sent in my annual contribution to help
>the research and received the newsletter), I must protest this repeated
>slurring of chimpanzees. 

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

>-- Herb Huston

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: alex@cs.adelaide.edu.au (Alex M. Farkas)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: What makes a creationist?
Date: 13 Nov 1992 07:40:50 GMT
Organization: Adelaide University, Computer Science Department.
Distribution: world
Reply-To: alex@cs.adelaide.edu.au
NNTP-Posting-Host: heruka.cs.adelaide.edu.au
Keywords: none


In article <96873@netnews.upenn.edu>, rowe@pender.ee.upenn.edu (Mickey Rowe) writes:
|> 
|> Furthermore, my graduate program (neuroscience) is split pretty evenly
|> between male and female students.  The faculty is nowhere near that,
|> but I suspect that in 25 years they will have caught up.  The
|> differences between men and women seem (to me) to be differences in
|> opportunity rather than natural ability or curiosity.
|> 

I'm in Computer Science and I have observed (in my experience) a clear majority
of males in the Mathematical/Engineering sciences and a more or less even match
in the Biological or Life Sciences.  Does neuroscience fall in the latter
category perhaps?

Strangely enough, the department has certain regulations about personnel in that
a certain percentage must be female ... it is felt that the percentage is too
high when compared to the percentage of females graduating in the field ...

|> >Onar.
|> 
|> Mickey Rowe     (rowe@pender.ee.upenn.edu)

alex

+----------------+-----------------------------------+-------------------------+
| Alex M. Farkas | University of Adelaide, Australia | alex@cs.adelaide.edu.au |
+----------------+-----------------------------------+-------------------------+
Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: kv07@IASTATE.EDU (Warren Vonroeschlaub)
Subject: Re: noah's ark
Reply-To: kv07@IASTATE.EDU (Warren Vonroeschlaub)
Organization: Ministry of Silly Walks
Date: Fri, 6 Nov 1992 23:23:43 GMT

In article <1992Nov6.112019.1@woods.ulowell.edu>, cotera@woods.ulowell.edu
writes:
> In article <Bx6Dnn.F9r@usenet.ucs.indiana.edu>,
adpeters@sunflower.bio.indiana.edu (Andy Peters) writes:
> > In article <Hq9NTB1w164w@cellar.org> kml@cellar.org (Scott Tiger) writes:
> >>bkorb@starbase.Convergent.Com (Bruce Korb) writes:
> >>> |> 	The flood did not cover mountains.  It covered a giant fertile
> >>> |> 	valley where humans lived at the time.
> 
> Then how did Noah's Ark get on top of a mountain? Or did it evolve there over
> the past million years?

  Sorry if my typing is a little more sloppy than usual here, but I just
finished a laughing fit and am a little weak.

  Ray, where do you get that Noah's ark is "on top of a mountain"?  Even the
Bible, in the most literal interpretation, does not say that.  "On" does not
mean "on top of".  Secondly, where is Noah's ark?  Are you privy to information
that we are not?  As of my latest information, nobody has located the ark.

 |  __L__
-|-  ___  Warren Kurt vonRoeschlaub
 |  | o | kv07@iastate.edu
 |/ `---' Iowa State University
/|   ___  Math Department
 |  |___| 400 Carver Hall
 |  |___| Ames, IA  50011
 J  _____
Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: huston@access.digex.com (Herb Huston)
Subject: Re: I reiterate my blender request
Keywords: AWESOME
Organization: Express Access Online Communications, Greenbelt, MD USA
Date: Fri, 6 Nov 1992 11:35:08 GMT

In article <100633@bu.edu> colby@bu-bio.bu.edu (Chris Colby) writes:
>In article <1992Nov4.173752.24501@city.cs> lionel@cs.city.ac.uk (Lionel Tun) writes:
>>Hhhmm. I was coming to that belated conclusion myself.
[some stuff deleted]
>                                                      If your chimp-like
>mental powers are too feeble or too pusillanimous to face reality, you
>might as well enjoy your delusion to its fullest. 

Chris, as a Friend of Washoe (I just sent in my annual contribution to help
the research and received the newsletter), I must protest this repeated
slurring of chimpanzees.  The following is reproduced without permission:

     On Monday July 1st I had a pleasant time cleaning Room
   4 with Dar keeping me company.  As I was leaving the room
   I paused by the door and turned toward Dar, giving him a 
   chance to make a request if he wished.  Dar signed COME
   so I walked over and stood next to him.  He looked at the
   pictures on the wall of the room then extended his right
   hand toward the door and signed LIGHT THAT, LIGHT, indicating
   the light switch.  I signed LIGHT?  OKAY and turnd off the light.

     Dar was leaning toward the wall outside the cage and as I
   approached I could see he was looking closely at each of the
   pictures on the wall.  He kept his gaze on these and extended
   his hand toward the light switch and signed LIGHT THAT GIMME
   LIGHT.  I turned the light on again and Dar continued to look
   from picture to picture.  Then he extended his hand and signed
   LIGHT toward the light switch and as I turned the light off he
   looked at each picture in the darkness and glanced around the
   room.  Once more he signed LIGHT toward the light switch and
   kept his gaze on the pictures as I turned the light on again.
   He seemed to be observing how the pictures looked different in
   light and darkness.  Dar es Salaam, Chimpanzee scientist.

-- Kathleen Beach, "Dar Light, Dar Bright," _Friends of Washoe_, Volume
11/12, Number 3, page 11.

May I suggest that "oyster-like" would have been more appropriate?

-- Herb Huston
From: smullins@cidmac.ecn.purdue.edu (Scott H Mullins)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Bales is a liar: evidence - one case
Date: 13 Nov 92 02:03:08 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Purdue University Engineering Computer Network

In article <7575@tekig7.PEN.TEK.COM> bobb@tekig1.PEN.TEK.COM (Robert W Bales) writes:
>
>
>Jim Meritt has written several more articles in the current battle over my
>"lying."
[deletions]

I hate to jump into this "discussion", but...

>I mentioned "design~ rather than "creation.  But since creation is the only
>prominent theory to include the idea of design, the presence in living
>organisms of characteristics of design which are not characteristics of
>evolutionary-type processes tends to indicate creation is a better 
>explanation than evolution.

Actually evolution does "design" things after a fashion. The fact that
organisms in many cases seem to be put together in a rather 
catch-as-catch-can way seems to argue against the "intelligent" designer
hypothesis. (The Panda's thumb and all that). Since there is _a_ prominent
theory that includes the idea of "design" then you will have to get 
another argument.

>   Bob Bales
>   Tektronix, Inc.
>
>I help Tektronix make their instruments. They don't help me make my opinions.

Please feel free to leave me out of this discussion if you like.

Scott
Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: m23364@mwunix (James Meritt)
Subject: Re: Probability of Evolution
Organization: MITRE Corporation, McLean VA
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 1992 13:19:49 GMT


To debate the probability of an event AFTER THE EVENT is merely an attempt
at measuring your own ignorance.  Now, if you are debating the probability of
some scenario, that is a different matter and if you are attempting to get
some concensus on the mathematical description you should first aim for a
concensus at the scenario.

Which has not, to my observation, happened.
From: alex@cs.adelaide.edu.au (Alex M. Farkas)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: What is consciousness?
Date: 11 Nov 1992 01:48:34 GMT
Organization: Adelaide University, Computer Science Department.
Distribution: world
Reply-To: alex@cs.adelaide.edu.au
NNTP-Posting-Host: heruka.cs.adelaide.edu.au
Keywords: elf

In article <1L7TTB1w165w@kalki33>, kalki33!system@lakes.trenton.sc.us writes:
 
|> What is consciousness?
|> 
|> Consider a body at the moment before and the moment after death. What is
|> it that is different between these two states? Except in cases of death
|> by massive trauma (such as being blown up), the structural integrity and
|> chemical constitution of the body are not very different at the two
|> instants. What, then, determines the instant of death?
|> 
|> We would answer by saying that the soul, or the consciousness, has
|> departed, and therefore the organism is no longer alive.
|> 

The "instant" of death has a number of physical characteristics, such as
the cessation of cardiac and neural (specifically the brain) activity, does it
not?

Not that I DON'T have my suspicions about the existence of a higher self (call
it what you will) but I don't think the definition of conciousness is that
simple.  Furthermore, what is the point at which conciousness commences? When a
spermatazoon and ovum unite? or later ... ? 

I suppose I'm just provoking the issue, but I think all of these aspects need
to be considered when defining life or conciousness.  In fact, does one
necessarily infer the other? 

ciao,

alex
-- 

+----------------+-----------------------------------+-------------------------+
| Alex M. Farkas | University of Adelaide, Australia | alex@cs.adelaide.edu.au |
+----------------+-----------------------------------+-------------------------+
From: news@fedfil.UUCP (news)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Meritt calls Sagan Ignorant / was Re: Probability of Evolution
Date: 14 Nov 92 03:30:46 GMT
Organization: HTE

In article <1992Nov10.131949.25778@linus.mitre.org>, m23364@mwunix (James Meritt) writes:
 
> To debate the probability of an event AFTER THE EVENT is merely an attempt
> at measuring your own ignorance.  

Since that is the core of the most major argument which Sagan advanced against
Velikovsky's scenarios at the famous AAAS heresy tribunal and later in
Pseudoscientists Confront Velikovsky, you have to assume the attempt (at 
measuring his own ignorance) succeeded in Sagan's case.

Need a yardstick there, Meritt?  The section of I95 between DC and Richmond
is just about 100 miles, laid out pretty nearly straight.


-- 
Ted Holden
HTE

Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: sbradley@scic.intel.com (Seth Bradley)
Subject: Re: apology
Keywords: AWESOME
Organization: Intel Corporation
Date: Sat, 7 Nov 1992 17:18:14 GMT

In article <1992Nov7.103548.26514@smds.com> rh@ishmael.UUCP (Richard Harter) writes:
>moral integrity] is the equal of any self-respecting chimpanzee.  I
>think it would be fair to say that he is brighter than the average
>parrot, albeit less instructive in his discourse.

Has anyone considered the possibility that Lionel _is_ a parrot, one
which has been tought to peck at a keyboard?  It would explain the
monotonous sameness of his posts.  Any AI program written by a
competent undergrad would produce more variety....
-- 
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: keithd@well.sf.ca.us (Keith Doyle)
Subject: Re: What is consciousness?
Organization: Whole Earth 'Lectronic Link
Date: Thu, 12 Nov 1992 07:32:46 GMT


kalki33!system@lakes.trenton.sc.us writes:
>Why do you say this, as if your pride was offended? What can sarcasm
>possibly contribute to this discussion, or any discussion whose purpose
>is to arrive at the truth by sober analysis. This is our purpose.

Plants eat, sleep, die, are born, etc., therefore *poof* have
conciousness?  Methinks your "sober" analysis is somewhat short of
sobriety.

Keith
From: colby@bu-bio.bu.edu (Chris Colby)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Molecular Genesis
Date: 10 Nov 92 04:59:37 GMT
Organization: animal -- coelomate -- deuterostome

In article <BxDFrs.57G@usenet.ucs.indiana.edu> adpeters@sunflower.bio.indiana.edu (Andy Peters) writes:

>If people are interested in discussing this further, I can try to get
>John Logsdon (a sometime-t.o-poster who studies this stuff) to comment.

I'm interested.

>* Andy Peters                     * "Slugs are small and portable    *From

"The intron late hypothesis is the root of racism, nazism, communism,
atheism, imperialism, anarchism, socialism, botulism, Perry Como
recordings, that annoying god-damn bunny that keeps going and going
until I want to put my foot through the @#$^$ TV screen, the hairdo
of Marilyn Quayle, atheletes foot, lions, tigers, bears, oh my, the
current predicament of the Cleveland Browns and all manner of stuff
that generally makes you want to vomit bile and wallow in it 8-)"
- (mis)quoted from Henry Morris (1972)
 
Chris Colby 
"'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: kv07@IASTATE.EDU (Warren Vonroeschlaub)
Subject: Re: Probability of Evolution
Reply-To: kv07@IASTATE.EDU (Warren Vonroeschlaub)
Organization: Ministry of Silly Walks
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 1992 17:09:44 GMT

In article <1992Nov10.005540.1@eagle.wesleyan.edu>, kmagnacca@eagle.wesleyan.edu
writes:
> In article <96759@netnews.upenn.edu>, weemba@sagi.wistar.upenn.edu (Matthew P
Wiener) writes:
> > In article <1992Nov9.115616.11913@nic.funet.fi>, TMakinen writes:
> >>	   (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....)
> > 
> > He's a crackpot.  Long lists of published papers are no defense.
> 
>    Apparently with no long list of published papers in respected 
> scientific journals.  The only reference the library here could 
> come up with was a review of one of his biomechanistic books.

  Same thing here.  I wouldn't jump to conclusions though.  All I can be sure of
is that it was by a person with the same first and last name and same middle
initial.  Richard Thompson is a common name (8 of them in our library), and L
isn't all that uncommon a middle initial.

 |  __L__
-|-  ___  Warren Kurt vonRoeschlaub
 |  | o | kv07@iastate.edu
 |/ `---' Iowa State University
/|   ___  Math Department
 |  |___| 400 Carver Hall
 |  |___| Ames, IA  50011
 J  _____
Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: danwell@IASTATE.EDU (Daniel A Ashlock)
Subject: It just keeps going and going...
Reply-To: danwell@IASTATE.EDU (Daniel A Ashlock)
Organization: Iowa State University
Date: Mon, 9 Nov 1992 16:50:37 GMT

In article <1992Nov6.111851.29067@city.cs>, lionel@cs.city.ac.uk (Lionel Tun)
writes:

>In article <ksand-051192183202@wintermute.apple.com> ksand@apple.com 
(Kent Sandvik ) writes:
>>Lionel, why don't we have any computer programs that show that
>>evolution is impossible?

 
> Because as usual, you would choose not to believe.

   This is a damned insulting lie, Lionel.  Once again you are claiming that
we, the human race, follow you blind dogmatic reasoning priciples.  You could
not, with direct devine intervention from your pathetic God produce such a
program.  It's logically obvious that such a program can't exist; it would
contradict demonstrations in MY computer that certian forms of evolution are
directly observable.

   Nevertheless you hit one of your high marks by trying to give and example:
 
> Example: would you like to take a ride in an Airbus
> whose computer program was modified randomly? Why
> not? After all, the theory of evolution states that
> this is how improvements are generated.

   Kurt!  Put it in forTun 2.0!!!

   Lionel: this isn't even close to what evolution says.  The problems with your
example are:

   (1) A brain damaged partial stab at evolution says nothing about evolution
       as a whole.  The program you imagine is not what Kent asked for.

   (2) Airbus probablt does use randomly modified programs for their 
       scheduling, at least if they are up to date on their methods.  The 
       results aren't random, but then niether are the result of evolution.

   (3)  Evolution speaks of filtered randomness.  Since you've read but not
        understood this roughly a zillion times, which part of "filtered"
        didn't you understand?

   So you are continuing to repeat the lies "evolution is random" and "random
inputs force random outputs" in spite of hundereds of demonstrations to the
contrary.  Also you've just asserted what is almost certianly a false fact
"Airbus doen't use randomly modified programs".  I am of course blurring the
distinction between code and data, tres modern, n'est pa?  In any case the
implicit claim is remarkable and I would appreciate documentation.

Dan
Danwell@IASTATE.EDU
From: e_p@unlinfo.unl.edu (edgar pearlstein)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Probability of Evolution
Date: 6 Nov 1992 22:22:43 GMT
Organization: University of Nebraska--Lincoln	
Distribution: global
NNTP-Posting-Host: unlinfo.unl.edu

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.
  etc, etc.

            I don't know just what model is used in the calculation 
       referred to, but my guess is that it has to do with the random 
       coming together of atoms to form some particular organism or 
       large molecule.  Note the word "particular", for therein lies a 
       major falacy.  Although any particular outcome of the randomness 
       is highly improbable, there must an outcome!  And that outcome is 
       extremely improbable.
            I'll illustrate with a case much simpler:  In the game of 
       bridge, the 52 cards are dealt to 4 people.  Any particular 
       outcome of the deal is so improbable, that if a million hands 
       were dealt every second for 10**17 seconds (about the age of the 
       universe), that particular outcome would likely not have 
       occurred.  Yet it in fact did!  The calculation in this case is a 
       straighforward application of permutation-combination theory. 

  Edgar Pearlstein, University of Nebraska
From: cust_ts@klaava.Helsinki.FI (Tero Sand)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Probability of Evolution
Date: 6 Nov 92 14:15:10 GMT
Organization: University of Helsinki

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.

Yawn. Again this argument.

>
>  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.
>
>  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.
>

To me it doesn't show anything.

>  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.

If it's straightforward, oh please enlighten me. I'm willing to bet my
life that I, who knows practically nothing about neither, can counter
the explanation (to some extent, at least).

-- 
-Tero Sand
  EMail: cust_ts@cc.helsinki.fi     Snail mail: Auroran Sairaala os. 6-1
  (if that doesn't work, try                    Nordenskioldinkatu 20
   custts@cc.helsinki.fi)                       00250 Helsinki 25, Finland
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, 13 Nov 1992 00:04:58 GMT

In article <uVF4TB6w165w@kalki33>, kalki33!system@lakes.trenton.sc.us writes:
> keithd@well.sf.ca.us (Keith Doyle) writes:
> > Independent of abiogenesis, these statements are clearly proven false by a
> > number of computer programs, the Tierra simulator for one.  Despite the
fact
> > you have failed to define "higher life form", the Tierra simulator shows
> > that significant improvements can occur in mere tens to hundreds of
> > generations.  Natural selection accumulates such enhancements over time
> > providing a clear vehicle for increase in complexity (nowhere to go but
> > up) and for isolated populations to diverge to a degree related to the
> > length of time they have been isolated.
> 
> Yes, we agree that if matter is somehow manipulated under the control of
> a sufficiently advanced computer program --and that necessarily means a
> computer programmer too-- then the body of a living organism can be
> formed out of simple materials. The more advanced the computer --and
> that means the more knowledgable the programmer-- the faster this can be
> accomplished. If the programmer is intelligent enough, he can write a
> program that will turn stones into bread in a nanosecond!

  1) Do you know any programming?  Download and examine the Tierra simulator. 
The program does not do anything to the artificial life it is simulationg except
obey their commands and randomly mutate them.

  2) The universe can be viewed as a computer processor.  The laws of physics
are the assembly code, the atoms & molecules are commands & data.

  3) No computer can be programmed to change reality, trust me on this.

> But the best computer in the universe will do nothing without being
> programmed, and it will never be programmed unless a living person comes
> along and programs it. And of course the computer will never exist in
> the first place unless someone designs and builds it.

  False assumption.  First, the universe _is_ a computer (so to speak).  Second,
the mear existence of code actives the Universe 1.0, one atom and it is up &
running, no programmer needed.

> So what is your point? That you agree with us that life was caused by an
> intelligent being? If not, then what becomes of your computer example?

  The point was that the life wasn't created by an intelligent being.  The
"physical laws" were determined by a human, but the rest happened on its own.

 |  __L__
-|-  ___  Warren Kurt vonRoeschlaub
 |  | o | kv07@iastate.edu
 |/ `---' Iowa State University
/|   ___  Math Department
 |  |___| 400 Carver Hall
 |  |___| Ames, IA  50011
 J  _____
Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: jbm@hal.trl.OZ.AU (Jacques Guy)
Subject: Re: AWESOME computer program (Populus)
Keywords: AWESOME
Organization: Telecom Research Labs, Melbourne, Australia
Date: Thu, 5 Nov 1992 05:11:20 GMT

Could the original writer please repost the info about
Populus? I missed it. I take it has nothing to do
with "Populous" of Bullfrog fame, but is a serious-
minded simulation.

Thanks in adavnce.