From: kv07@IASTATE.EDU (Warren Vonroeschlaub)
Subject: Re: THE MIND OF THE BIBLE BELIEVER
Reply-To: kv07@IASTATE.EDU (Warren Vonroeschlaub)
Organization: Ministry of Silly Walks
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 1993 23:11:50 GMT

In article <1jpmv9INN272@dmsoproto.ida.org>, rlg@omni (Randy garrett) writes:
> : }Science cannot prove anything!  That's right!  All it can do
> : }is disprove things.
> 
> Hmm, if you can't prove anything, how can you disprove anything?

  The button on the table in front of me is unmarked.  I hypothesize that
pressing it will cause the Earth to explode.  [presses button]  The Earth did
not explode.  I have disproven the hypothesis.

  My hypothesis is now that it will call up the process list.  [presses button] 
PID TT STAT   TIME COMMAND
28986 p0 S      0:01 -tcsh (tcsh)
29005 p0 I      0:08 xmh
29132 p0 S      0:17 xrn
29354 p0 R      0:00 ps
it did call up the process list.  Does this prove that my hypothesis is correct?
No, it only proves that it is better than my hypothesis that it causes the Earth
to explode.  Only by repeated testing can I reduce the thousands of hypothesis
down to only a narrow range.

  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.

> : }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.

> Could you reconcile the two?  Also, if we mean by evolution
> the changing of one species into another, then evolution 
> has certainly NOT been observed, other than, arguable, in the
> fossil record and certainly not in the laboratory.

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

>  If, by
> evolution you mean changes WITHIN a species, then you are
> certainly right -- just look at all the variations of dogs.
> However, they're still dogs; that is, they produce fertile
> offspring only when mating with other individuals that we
> classify with dogs.

  And beetles are still beetles, and humans are still primates, and lungfish are
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.

> 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).

> 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).

 |  __L__
-|-  ___  Warren Kurt vonRoeschlaub
 |  | o | kv07@iastate.edu
 |/ `---' Iowa State University
/|   ___  Math Department
 |  |___| 400 Carver Hall
 |  |___| Ames, IA  50011
 J  _____
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc