From: rlg@omni (Randy garrett)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc,talk.origins
Subject: Re: THE MIND OF THE BIBLE BELIEVER
Date: 25 Jan 1993 17:21:08 GMT
Organization: IDA, Alexandria, VA
NNTP-Posting-Host: omni.ida.org
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL4

:   So, I have been unable to prove anything, but I have managed to disprove a
: hypothesis.  That is how you can disprove things even if you can't prove
: anything.

Well, you proved a negative hypothesis.  I am considered terms in
a little more mathematically rigorous fashion than is perhaps
common and this may be the cause of some miscommunications.
For instance ...

: 
: > : }Evolution is not "just a theory."  It is a fact.  It has been
: > : }observed, it has been duplicated in the laboratory, and the
: > : }evidence is astoundingly consistent.
: > 
: > Your "Evolution is not "just a theory."  It is a fact."
: > statement would seem to be in disagreement with your statement:
: > 
: > "Science cannot prove anything!"
: 
:   Is the existance of France a theory or a fact?  How about the existence of
: atoms?  There comes a level of evidence where all but the most pig headed would
: not refer to it as a fact.

I wasn't dealing with an individual's stubborness or lack thereof,
but with definitions.  I would call a fact an individually observable,
independently verifiable piece of information.  A theory is more a
model that attempts to the facts.  Many different theories can be
constructed to fit the same facts.  I realize that philosophers
have umpteen jillion different versions of these definitions 
and even disagree as to whether facts even exist or not (or whether
the universe exists or not, etc.)  Nevertheless, I think the above
definitions would be held by most working scientists.

:   Uh, read Chris Colby's FAQ.  He identifies several _observed_ cases of
: speciation.

Could you tell me where to FTP this?

: still vertibrates, and trees are still living creatures.  You seem to be rather
: arbitrary in your descision of where the line evolution can't cross is.  There
: aren't any barriers anybody has been able to locate so far.  If someone finds
: one let us know.

I believe my definition of species is a pretty commonly accepted one.

: 
: > If evolution had been clearly and unequivocally demonstrated in
: > a laboratory setting, this would be big news.
: 
:   It was, you missed it (not having been born yet most likely).

Gee, lots of other ardent evolutionists appear to have missed it
as well.  If you could be so kind as to give a journal reference.
I have access to some pretty good libraries, though I assume such
important news would be widely distributed.

: 
: > Finally, I'm not sure what you mean by evolution of software 
: > viruses, unless, again you mean minor adaptations.  If you
: > have more information or a reference, I'd certainly be interested.
: 
:   I can send you a program I wrote which evolves predator-prey interaction. 
: Write me for the details (it's kind of long).

I'd certainly be interested in more details.  I'm going to assume
it has to do with gradual improvements/adaptations/changes
of the interaction between
the prey and predator, ala' some of the programs seen in, for
example the Artificial Life conferences.  Maybe you are using
the term "evolve" to mean "change".  This is a perfectly reasonable
usage, but I was thinking of "evolve" more specifically meaning to
change from one species to another.

Xref: sparky talk.religion.misc:27625 alt.atheism:27051