A rather terse teacher in Beaulieu
Had a class which was very unreaulieu;
In a fine fit of pique, he resigned, so to spique:
Dear Headmaster,
I'm leaving.
Yours treaulieu,
I submit a proof for evolution, by which I mean the fact of and explanation for mutability of species.
We will proceed by observation.
1. Life forms have offspring.
2. When those offspring are the result of sexual reproduction, they vary amongst themselves and from their parents in some respects.
3. More offspring are germinated/spawned/hatched/born than survive to reproductive maturity.
4. Variations exhibited by offspring are in some respects heritable.
5. Some heritable variations will make a certain individual offspring marginally more likely to breed successfully.
6. Heritable variation is passed between generations by means of the deoxyribose nucleic acid molecules known as chromosomes.
The first five observations, which are not reasonably refutable, lead one inevitably to the conclusion commonly known as "the survival of the fittest", though note that it is breeding success rather than actual survival which is enjoyed by the fittest; barren survivors don't come into the calculation.
When observation 6 and our detailed understanding of genetic heritability is added, it becomes perfectly _inevitable_ that a breeding population will change its heritable characteristics (i.e. EVOLVE) to fit its environment.
When populations are divided, observation 2 means that subsequent changes cause the two populations to diverge in their heritable characteristics, particularly if the populations are subjected to different environmental challenges or opportunities.
Sufficient genetic divergence then results in the appearance of different species, by which we mean a population with sufficiently different characteristics that a good taxonomist *says* they're separate species, or perhaps (given point 6) that chromosomal differences make interbred offspring non-viable or infertile. Q.E.D.
~~~~~~~~
I genuinely would like to know in what ways a creationist might argue against the above, if by creationism we mean immutability of all species created by $DEITY. If creationism is reduced only to special pleading for Homo sapiens, as being created in God's image, perhaps, then the debate is somewhat altered.
Three scientists took the train northwards from England to attend a multi-disciplinary conference in Edinburgh.
Conversation flagged as the journey continued, until some time after crossing the border into Scotland when the social scientist, used to seeing Friesan herds in the south, pointed out some Highland cattle.
"Oh, look", he said, "the cows are brown in Scotland!"
The physicist put down the newspaper and looked out of the window.
"Yes, so I see, but your remark isn't scientific, you know. You can't know that all the cows are brown. What do you think, Bob?"
Bob the mathematician glanced up over his glasses at the grazing cattle.
"Observation shows that, through this window, at least one side of some bullocks in Scotland appears brown".
Moral: question your assumptions.
As AC points out, I WAS talking in my first reply about whether or not SCOG could be said to own the code, not on the fact of copying or derivation from anywhere.
I'd add another point to your list of So:
-Even if they owned the code and even if some lines of it were infringed and even if Novell's waiver doesn't hold, SCOG went on distributing *the same code* under the GPL for years after they started suing folk (IBM, Novell, Autozone, RedHat...).
I've got a licence for the Linux kernel from Caldera/SCOG already. As SCOG's lawyer said in his summing up for the jury trial in Utah, SCOSource is gone and it can't be resurrected.
http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20100326184700459
The moon is made of green cheese. -- John Heywood