It's Friday the 13th (Dum dum dum...)

It's friday the 13th and Deja has sort of cut out again (I can still read the new messages, but I have to go and look for them since they aren't were they should be.)

Coincidence? (X-files music plays in the background do do do do do)

Not only is it Friday the 13th, but yesterday was a full moon, and 2 days ago was solar eclipse.

On Fri, 13 Aug 1999 14:13:23 GMT, Mike Quinn wrote:

Kyle The Manny Alexander of alt.sports.baseball.chicago-cubs

Ap D- T4 Ww Q++ Fn^FR O- Ow+OH+OO+Or+Od m- C--- MV! C5X F303 BB FCU! -DT--

Is that a sign of the apocalypse?! ::gasp::

hehehehehe

*~*~*~*~* Liz *~*~*~*~*~*~* See my auctions here - http://auctions.yahoo.com/user/Napua_Poire

In article , [email] (Laniakea) wrote:

Actually according to the quatrains of Nostradamus, that Solar Eclipse was supposed to usher in Armageddon.

Well, we're still here. Apparently Nostradamus wasn't as good a prophet as some people have given him credit. There was a tornado in Salt Lake City, UT but that was about it for disasters.

--.\\<-H--

Michelle Klein-Hass <[email] t> of The Underground Bummer Culture writes:

Maybe God is trying to wipe out the creationists for giving him a bad name. Or have I got the wrong state there? There was something in the news this week about one American state deciding to stop teaching the theory of Evolution in schools, and ISTR that Salt Lake City is a big religious centre of some kind.

Personally I've always preferred the Flat Earth Society to Creationism: if you're going to go out on a limb you may as well go the whole way.

-Shez.

On Fri, 13 Aug 1999 23:03:49 +0100, Shez wrote:

Darn it, you don't want to go there. Creationism is scientifically unquantifiable. Flat Earth is scientifically wrong. Evolution is in between.

Kyle The Manny Alexander of alt.sports.baseball.chicago-cubs

Ap D- T4 Ww Q++ Fn^FR O- Ow+OH+OO+Or+Od m- C--- MV! C5X F303 BB FCU! -DT--

Kyle wrote:

Actually, I think it's possible for the creationist and evolutionist theories to both be right. I mean, look at this...in the story of creation, there was never a mention on what exactly made up a "day". There are theories that state that the "day" probably wasn't the 24-hour deal we think of as a "day" but rather a slow, progressive period, utilized for each stage. And that it's highly possible that in the creation of human beings God decided to make the process an evolutionary one. That's why I believe neither in the fully creationist theory nor in the fully evolutionist theory, but rather in a mixture of the two. And...the Flat Earth theory is, as Kyle said, "scientifically wrong", and has been so for MANY MANY MANY years.

Diane

Diane Aguilar of Diane Aguilar Stylistics writes:

I was thinking in terms of the hardline 4000BC advocates, you know, the ones who say the fossil record was put there by God to test people's faith or something.

If you're willing to put the creation date back by a few billion years then there is no real problem as Science has no answer to metaphysical questions such as why the universe should have sprung into existence in the first place.

-Shez.

On Sat, 14 Aug 1999 15:04:49 +0100, Shez wrote:

You mean like those used by carbon dating? The one that puts day old mussles at about 40 billion years old?

I guess so. People tend to forget that science is not the be-all and end-all of knowledge. Ecspecially given it's history of misinformation. Look back 500 years at what we thought we knew for sure, and how much of it is still true today. Now assume 500 years from now that the same percentage of what we think we know will be proven false. Heck, our physics teacher admitted that the model of the atom printed in the 3 year old textbooks had already been disproven. I simply refuse to put much faith in something that can't ever completely prove or disprove anything, the line between theory and fact is arbitrary, and the best it can come up with is "as far as we know".

Kyle The Manny Alexander of alt.sports.baseball.chicago-cubs

Ap D- T4 Ww Q++ Fn^FR O- Ow+OH+OO+Or+Od m- C--- MV! C5X F303 BB FCU! -DT--

Kyle wrote in message news:7p47mi$8kj$[email]...

theories

there was

Well I'm opposed to carbon dating anyway. If we allow carbon to date then we'll have to let all the other elements date as well. And we all know what happens when we allow various elements to start dating each other. <G>

then

Science isn't a body of knowledge, it's a process for the acquisition of knowledge. Some things we "know" have indeed been proven false, other things we know have been demonstrated to be indeed true, and still other things have been modified in light of new discoveries. It's a never-ending process. A critical, cynical, logical mind is what's mostly required. The "facts" may change but the need for an ability to intelligently analyze facts never changes. You simply have to be able to adapt to change. When I think of the things I was taught in school that are now obsolete...

Depending on which model of the atom was published in that recently-published textbook it may have already been out of date more than a half-century ago. Some textbooks are outdated, some are simply wrong. Most textbooks oversimplify for the sake of the simple-minded. If you really want to know something you can't allow yourself to be content with the pabulum provided in school.

I continue to believe that if God really does exist that his/her existence will be demonstrated in a mathematical proof. If religion is true and science seeks truth then they must inevitably converge. It's just a matter of time.

And, like William Blake said oh so many centuries ago... "What is now proved Was once only imagin'd."

(I used that as my Senior Quote in my yearbook. I love it, being a scientific/analytic thinker-type person.)

Jess "Morgendorfer" [email]

Daria: "NOW do you think I'm timid?"

Daria code thingy A D+ T0 W1 Q+ FN^FR O+ Ow+OH+Os M+ C++ MV-- C5X F:308, 105, 210 BB+++ FCD -DT+ q+ fT

In article , "R. K. Henry" wrote:

A school of Jewish mysticism called Qabalah has held precisely this since the Middle Ages. Since Hebrew characters stand not only for letters but for numbers, there has been extensive numeric analysis of the Torah and Tanach (what Christians call the Old Testament) for literally a millenium.

Now people are starting to turn computers loose on what used to be hand-calculated. I suspect there will be some thought-provoking results from this.

--.\\<-H--

[email] (Michelle Klein-Hass) wrote:

• Nuf sed. ;-)

Another remembrance from H2G2 (foggy memory alert)-- And God said, "Proof denies Faith, and without Faith I am nothing." "But the babel fish is a dead giveaway, isn't it? It proves you exist, and therefore you don't" "Oh, I hadn't thought about that," said God, and disappeared in a puff of Logic. He then went on to prove that black is white, and was killed in a zebra crossing....

Of course, this all begs the question-- how do they know which numbers are the right ones? And what if they're wrong? How will the numbers reveal the error of their ways? Are they taking into acount Standard Deviation, as well as errors brought in by miscopying? Does God exist even if they can't prove it numerically? Will the Qabalah be building Deep Thought III? Was Douglas Adams poking fun at them through the use of Deep Thought in his books? So many questions!

rich.

"Stop the bus! Stop the bus!" -- Chester

On Sun, 15 Aug 1999 18:03:10 GMT, [email] (paperpusher) wrote:

Anyone wants to hear my personal theory on where that number comes from? I don't know if Douglas Adams is actually that educated but he might have been inspired by Feynman's Lectures on Physics. For those who don't know, these are very famous among physicists around the world, especially because of their easy-to-understand style. Even for non-physicists they are very good reading material and give you a great insight into physics.

Note for the mathematically impaired : 10^42 means "10 to the power 42" and refers to the number 1000000......0 with 42 zeros in total.

Volume I, Section 7-7 What is Gravity? [snip 1st half of section] If we take, in some natural units, the repulsion of two electrons (nature's universal charge) due to electricity, and the attraction of two electrons due to their masses, we can measure the ratio of electrical repulsion to the gravitational attraction. The ratio is independent of the distance and is a fundamental constant of nature. The ratio is shown in Fig 7-14. The gravitational attraction relative to the electrical repulsion between two electrons is 1 divided by 4.17x 10^42! The question is, where does such a large number come from? It is not accidental, like the ratio of the volume of the earth to the volume of a flea. We have considered two natural aspects of the same thing, an electron. This fantastic number is a natural constant, so it involves something _deep_ in nature. Where could such a tremendous number come from? Some say that we shall one day find the "universal equation," and in it, one of the roots will be this number. It is very difficult to find an equation for which such a fantastic number is a natural root. Other possibilities have been thought of; one is to relate it to the age of the universe. Clearly, we have to find another large number somewhere. But do we mean the age of the universe in years? No, because years are not "natural", they were devised by men. As an example of something natural, let us consider the time it takes light to go across a proton, 10^-12 second. If we compare this time with the age of the universe, 2x10^10 years, the answer is 10^-42. It has about the same number of zeros going off it, so it has been proposed that the gravitational constant is related to the age of the universe. If that were the case, the gravitational constant would change with time, because as the universe got older the ratio of the age of the universe to the time which it takes for light to go across a proton would be gradually increasing. Is it possible that the gravitational constant _is_ changing with time? Of course the changes would be so small that it is quite difficult to be sure. [snip further contemplations that say it is not currently believed that the gravitational constant changes with time, but that it cannot be ruled out completely]

MSB (who hereby proposes .tv.daria be moved from the alt. to the sci. tree of Usenet)

<snip>

I am going to quote directly from The Man, Douglas Adams, himself here as to why he picked 42:

"The answer to this is very simple. It was a joke. It had to be a number, an ordinary, smallish number, and I chose that one. Binary representations, base thirteen, Tibetan monks are all complete nonsense. I sat at my desk, stared into the garden and thought `42 will do'. I typed it out. End of story."

That said, for an interesting list of the places 42 pops up, see the web site http://www.empirenet.com/personal/dljones/index.html

--J.

Wrok! Wrok! Wrok!

Jessica L. of EarthLink Network, Inc. writes:

Yeah, everyone know the *real* number is 23.

-Shez.

Hey, other than 42, that's my favorite number! (My birthday is September 23.)

--Jess.

my sister's birthday is september 24th. Coincidence....or conspiracy?

Jess "Morgendorfer" [email]

Daria: "NOW do you think I'm timid?"

Daria code thingy A D+ T0 W1 Q+ FN^FR O+ Ow+OH+Os M+ C++ MV-- C5X F:308, 105, 210 BB+++ FCD -DT+ q+ fT

umm.. maybe i missed something but, what is all this about 42? --- ~Po CROWDSURFERS WILL BE EJECTED FROM THE BUILDING. It can be harmful, and most of all disrespectful to climb on other people's heads. Crowdsurfing should only be done naked and in the privacy of your own home.

Thank you The Beastie Boys

On 21 Aug 1999 05:27:13 GMT, [email] (CrtoonDude) wrote:

Get yourself a copy of The Hitch-hiker's guide to the Galaxy by Douglas Adams. If you don't like reading, there's a BBC radio play on a 6 CD set available. MSB

And the radio plays are, in my opinion, just as good as the book. For those of you who don't know, HHGTTG was originally a radio play that was later turned into the first two(?) books of the five in the trilogy. If you're a true fan, you *have* to hear the radio series. It's hilarious and there are a few bits that aren't in the books. But if you're going to get the radio play, be sure to get the *original* cast recording. I think there's a re-recording floating around out there someplace that just plain isn't the same.

--Jess.

Jessica L. of EarthLink Network, Inc. writes:

Better! Better! I think I still have most of the two radio series on tape somewhere. I didn't realise they were now on CD too. If they changed it to mp3 it would probably fit on a single CD, so you could listen to it endlessly whilst at your computer.

Exactly, original is best. It's interesting though how he altered it for each medium, it's like each one takes part in a parallel universe as the events in the book, radio play, and tv series don't quite match up. (Have you seen the TV series? It was excellent. I don't know why it's never been repeated, it came out sometime in the early 1980's.)

God that sounds terrible. I can't imagine anyone else doing the parts. I can still recall the credits being read out at the end as the cool theme tune gradually started up (and it's amazing that banjo music can actually be cool!) ... something like "Peter Jones as The Book, Simon Jones as Arthur Dent..." I don't know if I've got that right but it was something like that. Weird to refer to the narrator as "The Book". Makes me think of Illuminatus!, where you discover at the end that the narrator was the ship's computer.

I'm going to have to go and dig those tapes out now and listen to HHGTTG.

-Shez.

Some of the alterations were for legal reasons. There was another fellow who came up with the Lamuellians (er... the shapeshifters, i think that's their name), for example, and he couldn't' use it in the book 'cause it wasn't his. And anyway he states clearly in the forward to "The More Than Complete Hitchhiker's Guide" that everything HHG in any form always contradicts all the other forms. It's tradition. :-)

(Have you

They play it on PBS here in the US occasionally. While I still would rather watch it than most other TV, it's my least favorite incarnation of HHG. The fact that they chose a blonde bimbette looking chick to play Trillian kinda ruined it for me. :-) Trivia bits: you can see Douglas Adams's bare behind in the "man walking into the ocean" scene. That would be him.

Personally I can't wait for the Movie, which is coming out in Winter 2000 (or so they claim). Adams is writing the script, Jay Roach is directing, and it's being produced by Miramax. Lordy, it's going to rule!

--Jess.

Yea, verily it shalt rock. Finally, they'll have the technology (and the budget) to give Zaphod a decent second head.

One thing that worries me -- I have heard that Jim Carrey will be playing Arthur. Now this is just plain WRONG. I could see him as Zaphod, he'd probably be great for that role, but the whole essence of Arthur is bland and British, not American and wacky.

Another thought: Thom Yorke, lead singer of Radiohead, as Ford? He's got that slightly weird look about him. And they could put that song on the soundtrack... you know the one.

On Mon, 23 Aug 1999 14:11:35 GMT, [email] (Jordan Dellar) wrote:

Right. How about Hugh Grant? MSB

((...at least, not for sure. And probably not at all.))

Simon Jones. And he is a bit old for it, I saw him on a TV movie last year and he was getting a bit grey 'round the temples. However, I think a cameo as Slartibartfast would be grand. :-D

Anyway.

Whoo... interesting to see how rumors get around! Okay, the whole thing with Jim Carrey started when some dippy online entertainment mag FORGED an article saying he had been definitely cast to play Ford Prefect. alt.fan.douglas-adams was in a literal uproar of pissiness for a couple days, until Douglas Adams himself delurked (he reads the group and used to be a regular poster, but that's another story) and said that

THIS IS A LIE.

He went on to say that in fact no casting has been done at all. In addition, he also has said in the past that Arthur will be definitely and fully blooded English. Apparently that is one point on which he refuses to compromise.

That said, I'm really happy as I greatly dislike Jim Carrey in general. Especially not for Ford. Ford has a quiet madness about him. I personally think a younger Gene Wilder was made for the part. Out of today's actors, I think David Duchovney would do a good job--as one afda-er said, Duchovney has the talent of being able to say the most outrageously bizarre things as if they were utterly normal.

--Jess.

NOOOOOOOO!! aaarrgghhhsjnbkstmkjma,mdn.. lol.

now this is just a plain understatement.

yes, that would work well. he'd be perfect. can he act, though?

hehehe.

On Sat, 21 Aug 1999 12:12:04 -0700, "Jessica L." wrote:

There's also a "books on tape" version read by Douglass Adams himself - that's the one I prefer listening to personally :)

Damon Orca on #Stars!

On Sat, 21 Aug 1999 12:12:04 -0700, "Jessica L." wrote:

Yes, the play is great. I don't have the book(s) actually. MSB

I haven't seen the CDs in the US, occasionally you can find the video (our library has it). But the books are the best version IMHO.

Dagny

http://members.aol.com/Eccles9697

"I'm not different for the sake of being different, only for the desperate sake of being myself. I can't join your gang: you'd think I was a phoney and I'd know it." Vivian Stanshall

The Radio Series RULES. You can order it through Borders Books and Music, I believe.

--Jess.

It's funny how all the machines have American accents and say "Have a nice day".

-Shez.

[email] (Dagny Scott) wrote:

You can get the video from BBC-America, too. Just go to:

www.bbcamerica.com

and look for the store, I think.

rich. Who saw the TV series about 13 years ago on PBS and absolutely loved it.

Jane: Usually when I have this dream I'm wearing pink taffeta.

According to Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy, it's the answer to the ultimate question about Life, the Universe, and Everything. It was computed by an enormous computer, Deep Thought, over a period of thousands of years. The only trouble was, they had failed to frame the "ultimate question" in specific terms, so no-one knew what the answer actually meant. The nearest anyone ever came to the question was "what's 6 x 9?"

I've never been a devotee of 42 myself, as my own examination of "lucky" numbers has shown that they're invariably prime. Most small prime numbers are considered lucky or of special significance by someone or other, of which I think 23 is the most popular amongst the "underground" culture, for want of a better word.

-Shez.

Shez wrote in message ...

Not everyone. *Some* of us :) And the real real REAL number is 5, of course :)

"Greg Pallis" wrote:

Of course. That's when my birthday is... the 5th of July. The 4th of July is a holiday so that people can prepare to celebrate my birthday. ;-)

rich.

Jane: You know, I don't know why people say we have a bad attitude.

Daria: Screw 'em.

paperpusher wrote:

You just inadvertently reminded me of my grandmother, who was born on 1 January...yes, New Year's Day...in her last years of life she was still cognizant of the fact that the people throwing fireworks (this was before it was outlawed inside city limits, btw) outside were doing so because it was New Year's Day and as she sat there watching the TV show the annual downtown celebration she would say they were doing it because it was her birthday. *sigh*

Diane the sentimental

Michelle Klein-Hass wrote in message news:[email]...

existence

matter

Well I was thinking more along the lines of Unified Field Theory or astronomy or...something.

Or maybe something like that cartoon of the scientist working on a blackboard. Lots of formulas with an open space and a single notation "Then a miracle occurs.." leading to the result.

I just don't think it's reasonable that in all of creation there's not a single shred of unambiguous evidence that what the religious community has been telling us about the cosmos is true. I dislike taking someone else's word for anything. I prefer what I can see, or what I can figure out from that. I've been told all kinds of things that turned out to be completely untrue and I don't like being placed in a situation where I'm required accept that. I refuse to accept that.

On the other hand, I sense...something...a disturbance in the force. Maybe...

Oh well. A solution exists, all I have to do is find it.

Kyle writes: (re science)

I don't think you can carbon date fossils. You need some organic material for that. Fossils are dated geologically I think. I've not heard of people dating day-old mussels or obtaining dates of billions of years. Carbon dating dates a thing from the point of it's death, ie when it stopped exchanging carbon atoms with its environment. You simply measure the ratio of Carbon-14 to Carbon-12 in the organic matter. Since Carbon 14 gradually decays with a known half-life, you can estimate the age of the item from this ratio. It's not totally foolproof nor accurate to within more than about 100 years I think, but it's nevertheless a pretty useful measure.

Yes but to put that in context, you can usually trust scientific laws more than you can trust your own senses. Everyone desires certainty, but in the end nothing is totally certain. But for most of us 99.9% certain is just fine.

As to scientific laws being rewritten as time goes by, I think it's usually more a matter of refinement. The underlying models might change radically, but what they say about the world around us changes rather less. Newton's theories got replaced by Einstein's after 300 years, but for 99.9% of things going on around us, Newton's laws still give us the right results. The underlying shift of world views did however explain some minor niggles where Newton's laws were giving the wrong results, and opened up exciting new possibilities.

-Shez.

I'm sorry for this long off-topic message. But this discussion has pulled my philosophy trigger.

This message is divided in 3 parts: 1) The biblical part: The story of creation in the bible 2) The scientific part: Evolution: How it works and why it is a FACT! 3) The funny part (skip 1 and 2 but don't miss this!): How to create a universe the elegant way or "If I was God I wouldn't get my hands dirty"

On Fri, 13 Aug 1999 21:39:36 -0500, Diane Aguilar wrote:

1)

_THE_ story of creation? I'm sorry, but I think I have to correct you on that. There are TWO stories of creation written at different times and by different people. If I recall religious ed class correctly Genesis 1 was most likely written by Hebrew scholars during captivity (I forgot who their captors were). You can clearly notice that these people were very intelligent since in fact Genesis 1 is very much in accordance with science. It describes a kind of evolutionary process (1st life in the water, then animals, then humans). As you already mentioned, the day was most likely meant as a metaphor for a longer period (these guys were scholars, after all). This story ends with Genesis 1, 4. The 2nd story of creation is Genesis 2, verses 5+ which is actually OLDER than Genesis 1. It is most probably a story that has developed among ordinary people. It features the naive man-from-earth-woman-from-rib explanation and is very naive in general. Interestingly, the King James bible I have (unlike my Zwingli-bible, no I'm not Ned Flanders even though I have more than 1 bible) blurs the distinction and tries to create a continuous storyline. This is an excellent example of how differences in translation, no matter how subtle, can be used to create different impressions. The distinction between the 2 different stories is much clearer in the New American Standard Bible and also very noticeable in the New International Version (though the respective passage is a rather complicated and long sentence here). BTW see www.gospelcom.net for bible texts. Nevertheless, even the King James translation could not hide the fact that in Genesis 2,19 the Lord creates the animals AGAIN, this time AFTER man, thusly making it obvious we are reading a second (and different) account of creation.

To sum up what I've just said: Genesis 1 good (doesn't contradict science), Genesis 2 bad (naive and childish).

2)

I'll give you my personal mixture of the two. It this result of a lot of thinking on my part. I guess, it is clear at this point that I am a firm believer in God _and_ Science. Let's start with an important fact: Evolution is a principle that can be mathematically proven. To say it in a more provocative way this means, Evolution is a FACT! Reduced to plain maths, evolution means the following (OK, it's not plain maths it's an example, to be easier understood): Population A doubles every second, population B triples every second. You don't need to be a mathematician to understand that after some time, population B will dominate in the sense that a higher percentage of the total population belongs to population B than to population A.

This is all there is to it. This is evolution. No apes, no dinosaurs, no humans. The populations don't even have to be living things. The same works with molecules, computer programs, abstract mathematical objects, .... All you need are groups of something that multiply in some way. The law of evolution simply states that the group that multiplies faster will at some point dominate. In fact, evolution is being used in engineering, to find solutions to certain problems. A very common example where evolution can be used are jet engines. The optimal jet engine cannot be computed mathematically (I don't remember if it's not possible or just too complicated) so you use evolution. As populations you use different jet engines, the speed with which a population multiplies is defined by the efficiency of the respective type of engine (this efficency can be determined in a simulator). To make the whole thing work, you introduce random changes (mutations) in some individuals from the populations. By doing this you create new populations that inherit certain aspects of the original population but differ in others. The law of evolution guarantees that the longer you let your jet engine populations multiply, the more will the good engines dominate. In case you are confused by the mutation aspect, I want to emphasize that it is NOT directly related to evolution. It is just necessary for a practical application of evolution because you cannot start out with all possible jet engines. Mutation and evolution work hand in hand because the dominating (i.e. good) populations mutate more often statistically (simply because they have more individiuals) so that it is likely that a good population gives birth to an even better mutation. Additionally, mutations are only partial, making it very likely that a mutation of an individual from a strong population (one whose individuals are good) will also have the good traits. You see, mutation is necessary in real life to continually improve the results of evolution because real life limits the size and variety of the total population. In a theoretical environment where all possible entities do already exist, mutation is redundant and evolution will work alone, leading the optimum entities to domination.

If you are interested in seeing evolution at work, I have written a small PASCAL program that demonstrates it. It starts out with 4 people (Adam, Eve, Thomas and Christine) who start multiplying and produce offspring. Because this is supposed to be a real-life-biology example there are some differences to the above jet engine example: a) rate of multiplication is defined indirectly by an individual's lifespan, i.e. longer life ==> more sexual contacts ==> more offspring b) the life-span depends on an the indivual's fitness for the environment. The environment is supposed to be very hot, so the fitness depends on the two traits: heat-resistance and body-cooling. Every round, a random heat value is determined and persons lose a number of hit-points depending on their traits. c) the total number of individuals is limited (in the above jet engine example it would be limited, too, I just didn't mention it) because of computer memory constraints. In real life this limit depends on resources like food etc. d) Instead of mutation (which occurs very infrequent in humans) the program uses crossing-over to produce variety. Unlike mutation, crossing-over doesn't increase or decrease the gene-pool. It doesn't create new genes for the child but selects the child's genes from those of its grandparents as it happens in real life. In other words, the individuals in the program reproduce sexually while the jet engines practiced asexual reproduction. Side note: By default, the creatures in the program marry for life (and they are faithful, of course). This can be disabled.

I will put the program (DOS .EXE and .PAS source) on my homepage at http://www.cip.physik.uni-muenchen.de/~benkmann in the next few days. Until then, here's a small sample of what the ouput looks like:

EVOLVE Program for simulating evolution Copyright 1994 Matthias Benkmann

ROUND 1 Adam and Eve give birth to Rebecca Thomas and Christine give birth to Sigmund ROUND 2 Sigmund and Rebecca give birth to Siegfried Adam and Eve give birth to Niki ROUND 3 Adam and Eve give birth to Leila Siegfried and Niki give birth to Adam ROUND 4 Thomas dies having lived 3 rounds! Christine dies having lived 3 rounds! Adam and Leila give birth to Elvira Siegfried and Niki give birth to Leila

The program, simple as it is reveals some interesting facts about evolution in a real-life environment (hint: change "marriages:=true" to "marriages:=false" in the "const" part and see how much faster evolution goes)

3) How to create a universe the elegant way or If I was God I wouldn't get my hands dirty

Copyright (c) 1999 by Matthias Benkmann. All rights reserved. Reproduction permitted if unaltered and complete. Excerpts must include a pointer to the complete and unchanged text. All partial and complete reproductions must include this statement and the above copyright notice.

I'll put myself in God's position for a moment (now, if that doesn't say something about my personality :-). I am the almighty, everlasting, all-knowing �ber-entity. I am hovering around in all this chaos, thinking to myself: "Hmm, this chaos stuff gets boring with time. Let's do something new. Let's make some scaled-down copies of myself. That should be entertaining. And if I give them the freedom to decide over their own lives, I can experience the joy of being surprised. Yes, I think I'll just stop knowing everything for a while by giving them that freedom. After all, what can I lose. If I don't like it, I can resume knowing and controlling everything anytime I want, right? Okay, where do I start? Well, these guys will need a world to live in. This chaos is just no good. Hmm, let's start creating something. I think I'll start with, ... HEY, wait a second! This looks like it's gonna be an awful lotta work. Jeez, I KNOW it's gonna be an awful lotta work. Goddamn omniscience! I should have stopped knowing everything before starting this. I think I'll just have to forget this whole idea of ..., HEY wait a second! I'm almighty, right? And I'm pretty smart, too. I'll just think of something that'll do all the work for me. Yes, that's a brilliant idea. Dammit, I'm good. Now, what's it gonna be. It better be something simple and elegant, I don't wanna strain myself. I'm a thinker not a worker. Besides, I would have to invent physics just to do some working. No, it must be simpler than that. Some kind of basic principle that just says "Go forward!" and that'll make this whole chaos go away and form something useful without me having to do anything. Eureka! I got it! I will invent EVOLUTION. Even better, I _have_ already invented evolution, just by thinking about it. Wow and it's already working. Just look at how all that chaos starts to get organized. Before I created this evolution thing the chaos was constantly shifting and changing, creating gazillions of combinations of physical laws. It didn't matter if a set was stable or not. But that's over now. The stable laws have always lived longer than the unstable sets before being swallowed by the chaos again. It just didn't help them. But that has changed. My evolution makes sure that the stable laws gain the upper hand over those short-lived little jerks. Just watch, the chaos is almost gone. Just a couple of the more stable of the unstable sets are left. And these are already starting to fall apart. 5, 4, 3, 2, 1, .... JESUS CHRIST! That was a hell of a big bang. If I'd had any eyes I'd probably be blind now. Once all that chaos had transformed into an orderly set of natural laws, it started forming a universe immediately. Who could have known? Well, of course, I could have known, after all, I'm....HEY wait a second. I _have_ known that. It's the reason why I created this evolution thing in the first place. Dammit, I'm good. I've known it without even thinking about knowing it. Ahh, it feels so great to be great. If only my little buddies were finished, yet. They could admire and worship my greatness. Hah, they'll think I worked hard to create all this. They're gonna believe I made all this stuff, stars, planets, animals one by one. What a silly thought. Me, actually taking some clay or something and forming it into a creature on my own. What an effort that would've been. Not to mention inventing clay and pottery in the first place. And physics. And a place to put the clay. And, and, and, and... I get tired just thinking about it. <yawn>I think I'll just lie back and watch how my buddies are evolving. Oh, the show has already started. This red planet over there has produced sentient beings, and ....HEY wait a second. They're all green. And those longish extremities. They look like plants. No, I don't want my buddies to be green. I'll wait till those hairy fellows on that blue planet over there get smart enough to worship me."

MSB (who thinks presenting one's religious beliefs doesn't have to be boring)

In article , [email] (Matthias Benkmann) wrote:

Danke schoen, Matthias...good, thought-provoking stuff.

--.\\<-H--

On Sun, 15 Aug 1999 22:02:03 -0700, [email] (Michelle Klein-Hass) wrote:

And many thanks to you for the "oe" in schoen. MSB

On Sun, 15 Aug 1999 18:24:39 GMT, [email] (Matthias Benkmann) wrote:

Hmm. As far as I know, it's STILL a theory,.

Kyle The Manny Alexander of alt.sports.baseball.chicago-cubs

Ap D- T4 Ww Q++ Fn^FR O- Ow+OH+OO+Or+Od m- C--- MV! C5X F303 BB FCU! -DT--

Pretty much everything in Biology is a theory. Physics may have laws, but that's because you can speculate about all those like fictionless staticless objects and stuff. Biology deals with the world, and therefore there is only theory, so saying Evolution is a theory doesn't mean much.

Dagny

http://members.aol.com/Eccles9697

"I'm not different for the sake of being different, only for the desperate sake of being myself. I can't join your gang: you'd think I was a phoney and I'd know it." Vivian Stanshall

On 16 Aug 1999 14:21:41 GMT, [email] (Dagny Scott) wrote:

The general consensus in biology may be that evolution is true, but Darwin's "Theory Of Evolution", which I believe is what was being referred to, is far too specific to be brought under that category, and I have yet to see any theory on evolution on that level of specificness that is scientifically sound.

Kyle The Manny Alexander of alt.sports.baseball.chicago-cubs

Ap D- T4 Ww Q++ Fn^FR O- Ow+OH+OO+Or+Od m- C--- MV! C5X F303 BB FCU! -DT--

Dagny, speaking from Galt's Gulch, said:

Exactly. Put another way, there's a hierarchy of scientific "purity" and "fundamentality", with mathematics being the "purest" and most "fundamental" science. Physics is built on mathematical foundations, chemistry on physical foundations, biology on chemical foundations, and various sciences involving phylae upon biology.

Biological evolution is a very high order theoretical abstraction about some very concrete events. You can't "see" a species "evolve" by watching a predator catch prey or animals compete for mates, but over generations, you can see the EFFECTS of evolution (species appear or go extinct or change their characteristics).

When you look at VERY LARGE expanses of time (millions of years) the effects of evolution become very apparent; the biosystem of the Earth even as recently as a million years ago differs markedly to the expert eye; if you go back 10 million years, one would have to be rather oblivious not to detect the differences; and if you go back 100 million years the differences are gross (dinosauria rather than mammalia dominating the ecosystem). Go back a billion years, and there's no multicellular life. 10 billion years, and no life ... no Earth either.

Evolutionary change is normally very slow ... even under the "punctuated equilibria" theory of evolution you would not notice it happening within the span of a few generations. But when you observe many generations, either because you are observing vast expanses of time or very fast-breeding organisms (like bacteria) it's easy to detect.

Sincerely Yours, Jordan

"Man is a god in ruins" (Ralph Waldo Emerson)

Actually one of the things that has surprised biologists in recent decades is that evolutionary changes are discernible over relatively short time frames. For instance, it has been found that black Americans already show genetic differences from their African counterparts, notably the sickle cell anaemia gene is dying out. In Africa the gene which causes sickle cell anaemia also provides a measure of protection against malaria, so it has a positive as well as negative survival value. But in America malaria is not a problem, making the gene wholly a liability. This it's disappearing due to the forces of natural selection. What surprised people was that the change was already quite marked after only 10 generations or so, whereas conventional wisdom had it that it would take thousands of years for noticeable changes in the gene pool to emerge.

It has generally been held that modern man emerge 40,000 years ago and has remained virtually unchanged since then, biologically speaking. Maybe though we have continued to evolve quite rapidly, but in ways that are not obvious from the sort of ancient human remains that we have to compare ourselves against, ie. bones etc.

-Shez.

Shez said:

That's what's called "punctuated equilibrium". A population in a stable environment tends to remain near an ideal equilibrium with that environment; when the environment changes, evolution speeds up (the "punctuation") and not only may a new variety but even (sometimes) a new species may emerge.

I'd suspect that American blacks were helped out in this change by the fact that the population is genetically part-Caucasian anyway, and has very much so since the rate of importation of slaves was swamped by the natural growth rate in the population.

Quite probably, since skeletally speaking, Homo Sapiens Sapiens first appears in Africa over 100,000 years ago, but something dramatic seems to have happened around 40,000 years ago that caused this subspecies to suddenly surge over the whole planet, developing a much more complex material culture and replacing all other varieties of Man (the invention of the first full language, maybe?)

Sincerely Yours, Jordan

"Man is a god in ruins" (Ralph Waldo Emerson)

On 15 Aug 1999 22:59:12 GMT, [email] (Kyle) wrote:

Too lazy to read my complete message, huh? I'm not talking about apes becoming men. That is not proven, of course, and will never be proven unless we invent a time machine. I'm talking about evolution as a well-defined mathematical principle. By the definition I give for the term "evolution", it is a mathematical fact. MSB

Matthias Benkmann wrote in article ...

FACT!

create a

<snip> I'm saving this message for just this one line:

<more snippage>

"Jet Engines reproduce ASEXUALLY!!!"

steve

On Fri, 13 Aug 1999 23:03:49 +0100, Shez wrote:

Nah, that banning of Evolution in schools was in Kansas. Utah is about 2 states away from Kansas (Colorado is next to Kansas, Utah is next to Colorado). Unless God has some pretty bad aiming, I doubt bad karma was the reason that tornado hit :)

<snip>

The whole thing seems to be blown out of proportion IMO. I guess if they don't believe their kids are smart enough to think for themselves, those kids will never enter the halls of college (where *gasp* individual thinking is sometimes required).

"Why is it that even in my dreams everyone's a jerk?"

In article , [email] (Nicole Lee) wrote:

Not to defend crerationism (because I don't believe in it) but I don't think they banned the teaching of evolution, they just stopped making it a requirement to graduate from Kansas' public schools. The individual school districts are still allowed to teach it (whether they do or not is another issue).

I read up on this a while back :) If you do teach it, it's required to put before a disclaimer saying, basically: This is a controversial theory which some scientists believe in.

pretty much everyone in the field of Biology believes the theory of evolution, it's so central to the modern way of studying Biology. Even if you're studying anatomy, you study it by way of what environmental influences caused that specific feature (such as food sources determining the variety of beaks in the South American finches)... the only scientists who choose not to believe the theory of evolution are those who are being paid to by people who sell soap through MLM (De Vos or Van Andel or someone started a center for creationism)

Dagny

http://members.aol.com/Eccles9697

"I'm not different for the sake of being different, only for the desperate sake of being myself. I can't join your gang: you'd think I was a phoney and I'd know it." Vivian Stanshall

On 16 Aug 1999 19:20:09 GMT, [email] (Dagny Scott) wrote:

See, since I've never interviewed the scientists, I don't know. I've seen studies going both ways on what scientists believe, and all I know is I don't believe i a single one of them.

Kyle The Manny Alexander of alt.sports.baseball.chicago-cubs

Ap D- T4 Ww Q++ Fn^FR O- Ow+OH+OO+Or+Od m- C--- MV! C5X F303 BB FCU! -DT--

in.

evolution,

studying

the

the

creationism)

Yeha. But I suppose in Kansas or wherever, it IS a controversial theory which some scientists believe in. Less so in other places, sure, but....

sake

In article , "Greg Pallis" wrote:

I don't live in Kansas, either, but I would think that statement would be more accurate with the word "politicians" replacing "scientists." Just my opinion...

Mike Quinn wrote in message news:7pbot7$v7p$[email]...

Either works. Why do you think they call it "political science"?

Or am I just TOO cynical?

"R. K. Henry" wrote:

"You know, you might be too cynical, even for me." "Really, ya think?" "No, I was being sarcastic."

rich.

"Joseph Stalin, grab my armored muu-muu and together we will leave this foul Earth behind." -- Toon-La.

paperpusher wrote:

I don't have anything to contribute, I just wanted to say that I love that quote. :-{)>

MIKE (a.k.a. "Progbear")

make GEORYN disappear to reply

"Siento que debemos saber para el sue�o de qui�n brillar� esta luz o consagrar una propia estrella" --Alberto Felici

N.P.:"Earth Juice"- R e t u r n T o F o r e v e r / W h e r e H a v e I K n o w n Y o u B e f o r e ?

[email] (Rat Korga) wrote:

That's my all-time favorite "Tick" quote... I just had to put in the list of sigs.. *Sigh* I miss that show-- those guys at FOX were idiots.

rich.

"Joseph Stalin, grab my armored muu-muu and together we will leave this foul Earth behind." -- Toon-La.

Brandishes swathe of "Tick comics", smiling smugly :)

foul

that

yep that one and "Hey! I bought his brain!"

Bob Ohler wrote:

Not to mention, "You can't fight evil with a macaroni duck!"

MIKE (a.k.a. "Progbear")

make GEORYN disappear to reply

"'Thin Thighs For Your Man.' But I don't *like* men with thin thighs" --Daria

N.P.:nothing

On 19 Aug 1999 05:33:39 GMT, [email] (Rat Korga) wrote:

I say to you now, KNOCK OFF ALL THAT EVIL!

Kyle The Manny Alexander of alt.sports.baseball.chicago-cubs

Ap D- T4 Ww Q++ Fn^FR O- Ow+OH+OO+Or+Od m- C--- MV! C5X F303 BB FCU! -DT--

In article ,

--Daria

Uh huh! She likes Trent and his thighs are damn thin if you ask me!

wicka_chick

Helen- You know I used to wear miniskirts...but life goes on.

R. K. Henry wrote:

Hell no, you're not! You couldn't even BE "too cynical". TRUST me on this one, I've seen a website by this complete asshole of a misanthrope and she makes you guys look like Up With People. Then again the girl seemed to me to be a spoiled rotten person who's never had to work hard a day in her life so she rants on just about everything and makes herself out to be the most ungrateful person I've ever known and I know that I'd love to impart on this little asswipe my own life or the lives of any of you guys out there so she knows not to be a spoiled brat and I hope she rots in hell and all...so you guys just keep on being you. :)

Diane

(looking at most everyone else she's known online with rose-colored glasses now)

Diane Aguilar said:

one,

The Misanthropic Bitch? (Not an insult, that's the online name of a real person). If that's who you're talking about, I agree, she's more cynical than the people on this board.

Though even she, I think, isn't as bad as she claims to be. If you read between the lines, I think she simply has had a fortunate life (as you point out) and has rarely had her claims really tested. I get the impression, for example, that she's mostly lived at home, her parents are well off and basically good to her, and the boyfriend whom she goes on about the joys of sex with has stuck with her for years (which also makes me think that in person she's probably more amusing than obnoxious).

Sincerely Yours, Jordan

"Man is a god in ruins" (Ralph Waldo Emerson)

Hey, just because the people my parents elect are idiots, doesnt mean we all are.

defending his fellow residents of Oz, --- ~Po CROWDSURFERS WILL BE EJECTED FROM THE BUILDING. It can be harmful, and most of all disrespectful to climb on other people's heads. Crowdsurfing should only be done naked and in the privacy of your own home.

Thank you The Beastie Boys

Well there's that whole wrestle mania week or whatever that they have going on at MTV...

*~*~*~*~* Liz *~*~*~*~*~*~* See my auctions here - http://auctions.yahoo.com/user/Napua_Poire

In article , [email] (Laniakea) wrote:

You're right...if that isn't the beginnings of the Apocalypse I don't know what is.

--.\\<-H--

Michelle Klein-Hass wrote:

Well, we know how reliable *he's* been in the past. %-{)>

And there was an earthquake in the Berkeley area. I wouldn't even know it had happened had there not been a crawl mentioning it on TV. It was a piddly 2.5. I think it has to be at least 3 to merit a crawl, and at least 5 to warrant actually interrupting a program for.

MIKE (a.k.a. "Progbear")

make GEORYN disappear to reply

"The world of the heterosexual is a sick and boring life." --Edith Massey

N.P.:nothing

Kyle of writes:

Erm, you don't get solar eclipses on a full moon. Only the new moon. Otherwise the moon would be in the wrong place to eclipse the sun. Having shivered under a 96% eclipse on Wednesday, I can vouch for where the moon was at the time. Unless someone was just holding an enormous black cardboard disk over the sun, way up high.

-Shez.

Isn't the real significance of Friday the 13th that on that day in October of 1307 that King Philip IV of France had all the Knights Templars arrested? I guess that would be considered unlucky, but since I'm in no way connected with that order, what do I have to worry about?

And just a money grab. I wonder how anyone studies history without becoming cynical.

Friday the 13th is just another day.

Ah, but first they came for the Knights Templar, and I was unconcerned as I was not a Templar. Then they came for the Jews and the communists, and I stayed silent because I was not a jew or a communist.... (you probably know how the rest of it goes)

On Sat, 14 Aug 1999 15:07:54 +0100, Shez wrote:

And then they came for me and, what shall I say, I made a deal and now I'm commanding my own little country. All's well that ends well. MSB

Shez wrote in message ...

They always said that Friday 13th was always an unlucky day. They don't know how right they were.

I went out to eat with my family after mom bitched and bitched at me to get ready (I wanted yesterday to be a lazy day, even though that I was supposed to prepare for another DSA update), after fifteen minutes of nothing but that horrible shrill from mom's voice, I finally got ready and went to the usual resturaunt with the family. Then IT happened.

A violent storm broke out. Reports stated that it was a minuature twister that went through the Kanawha Valley, there was minor damage, no injuries, but a branch severed a telephone wire, cutting off lines of communication for the rest of the day. Plus some kind of electric shock got into my TV and messed up the colors. Now it flickers to a yellowish kind of color.

On the upside, they rescheduled the Insane Clown Posse concert to next Sunday, so I'll still have time to get some tickets. :-)

The story has a happy ending (A small one, but that's still cool), we got our phone working again, but in order to do anything with it, we have to unplug the telephone cord at the wall outlet and plug it back in. It's good for one call.

You'd think that Bell Atlantic would get off its asses to help, but no. Cheap [address]

On 13 Aug 1999 16:53:12 GMT, [email] (Kyle) wrote:

Plus: continuing meteor showers planets align into a "cross" formation today the aztec calendar ends today (it doesn't start over, it just ends) The Cassini space probe (carrying 76 pounds of plutonium) will pass dangerously close to earth on its way....somewhere.

I didn't think anything of it until I saw this: http://www.theregister.co.uk/990811-000009.html

Confused? you wont be after this episode of Soap. [cue theme song]

And I've decided to break up with my boyfriend of 2 and a half years, whose 28th birthday is tomorrow. I think there are some malignant influences in the heavens. Spooky.

Jess "Morgendorfer" [email]

Daria: "NOW do you think I'm timid?"

Daria code thingy A D+ T0 W1 Q+ FN^FR O+ Ow+OH+Os M+ C++ MV-- C5X F:308, 105, 210 BB+++ FCD -DT+ q+ fT

On 13 Aug 1999 22:08:27 GMT, [email] (Jessica M. Slover) wrote:

And one month before this Friday 13th, I had an exam as part of my maths Vordiplom (that's something like a BA). Guess, what. In all the other exams I had a 1.0 (the best grade possible) only in that particular exam I had a 2.0. Creepy. MSB

shouldn't we all be dead by now?

Dagny

http://members.aol.com/Eccles9697

"I'm not different for the sake of being different, only for the desperate sake of being myself. I can't join your gang: you'd think I was a phoney and I'd know it." Vivian Stanshall

On 13 Aug 1999 23:17:20 GMT, [email] (Dagny Scott) wrote:

If I had a penny for every time I heard that in the average year...

Kyle The Manny Alexander of alt.sports.baseball.chicago-cubs

Ap D- T4 Ww Q++ Fn^FR O- Ow+OH+OO+Or+Od m- C--- MV! C5X F303 BB FCU! -DT--

Happydude wrote:

I've got my umbrella.:)

(Snip)

How very short-sighted. I suppose it's a good thing the Aztecs ended first, then.

Remember how 1998 was supposed to be "the" year? Because 666+666+666=1998. Since no unholy trinities popped up then, I'm not worried about the apocalypse just yet.:)

Len

Hey, my best friend Monica considers Friday the 13th to be her lucky day, and today I had a pretty awesome day myself. Even though I wasn't looking forward to it, for example, I actually had fun clothes shopping today. And I got to watch "The Blair Witch Project", which IMO is reeeeally good. *And* I got to eat a gyro today...granted, it was topped with sour cream and guacamole instead of cucumber sauce, but it was pretty good nonetheless. *And* I found out that one of my online friends is possibly back on her way to relationship success with her online boyfriend (which is good because I'm friends with both of them and I think they're a good couple). Only thing I wish would work is this whole "this time of the month" deal. Damn Vicodin. LOL.

Diane

You, too? One of my co-workers recommended Darvoset. I'll try almost anything (legal) at this point -- the ol' 800mg of Motrin just ain't doing the job anymore.

Chirping (& cramping) the night away,

Cricket

I don't have to worry about that anymore...I went on Depo-Provera about a year and a half ago and it completely halted my cycle. I'm now on Norplant, but still haven't got my curse back. I used to cramp so bad I got sick, though, so I know exactly how you feel (and am eternally grateful to the gift that Depo-Provera has bestowed upon me.)

Jess "Morgendorfer" [email]

Daria: "NOW do you think I'm timid?"

Daria code thingy A D+ T0 W1 Q+ FN^FR O+ Ow+OH+Os M+ C++ MV-- C5X F:308, 105, 210 BB+++ FCD -DT+ q+ fT