What has been observed in nature is the principle of natural selection and function of genetic mutations - these are components of the theory of evolution rather than a comprehensive treatment of the theory. What has not been observed is the process of evolution as the "origin of the species", the beginning of life on this planet.

Theories explain and interpret facts, but theories are not facts.

I am simply asserting that these things are indeed theories, not facts and can not be presented as facts.

Whether I agree with the theory isn't the issue. I believe that when a society chooses to teach theory as fact it begins the descent into a valley of ignorance that will take a long time to climb out of. I think it is important to be impartial when we teach the next generation, things are what they are - be objective. No matter how much you like an idea, classify it fairly and be open minded enough to allow it to be labelled properly so that the young minds can see a consistent treatment of the reality they are coming to grips with.

I would go so far as to suggest that even theory is a bit strong since we can not verify the hypothesis via repeatable experiment. If we could even know what the conditions were at the time the evolutionary process began that would at least be a start, however we don't even have the most basic facts to work with in this case.

Does it make sense to suggest that I am a flat earth, sun revolving around the earth type simply because I take issue with people characterizing theory with fact? That seems like a non-sequiter to me.

How many times has evolution been shown to be accurate? The last time I checked the conditions under which life supposedly evolved have not been recreated a single time. No "live" organisms have been synthesized from primordial ooze even once. In fact, we aren't' even sure what comprised the primordial ooze.

There are plenty of theories about what the conditions might have been, however the bottom line is that we really don't know. We can only theorize about what might have been going on at the time - and that isn't based on observation (another key element of real science).

This discussion is not about whether the theory of evolution is correct, but rather whether it is a theory or a fact.

Is it reasonable to assert that a fact can be an idea that has never been observed and can not be confirmed by even a single complete test (since the conditions of the test can not be known)?

Some of the facts that are used to construct the theory of evolution are testable and observable, however the theory is an interpretation of a mixture of facts and assumptions and the theory itself is simply not a fact.

Are you suggesting that I am equivocating? I am asserting the evolution for example is simply a theory and NOT a fact. It is based on facts, in some cases dubiously interpreted, however evolution is simply not a "proven fact".

Equivocating on theory and fact occurs when one decides to describe a favorite theory as fact in order to try to give it more weight in a discussion.

I think I have the definitions of fact and theory well in hand:

From Merriam Webster:

theory noun \th--r, thir-\
plural theories
Definition of THEORY
1: the analysis of a set of facts in their relation to one another
2: abstract thought : speculation
3: the general or abstract principles of a body of fact, a science, or an art
4a : a belief, policy, or procedure proposed or followed as the basis of action
b : an ideal or hypothetical set of facts, principles, or circumstances —often used in the phrase in theory
5: a plausible or scientifically acceptable general principle or body of principles offered to explain phenomena
6a : a hypothesis assumed for the sake of argument or investigation
b : an unproved assumption : conjecture
c : a body of theorems presenting a concise systematic view of a subject
  See theory defined for English-language learners
See theory defined for kids
Examples of THEORY

a widely accepted scientific theory
Her method is based on the theory that all children want to learn.
There are a number of different theories about the cause of the disease.
She proposed a theory of her own.
Investigators rejected the theory that the death was accidental.
There is no evidence to support such a theory.
He is a specialist in film theory and criticism.
The immune surveillance theory of cancer holds that in a way we all do have cancer, that a healthy immune system fights off rogue cells as they appear. —Sallie Tisdale, Harper's, June 2007
[+]more

fact noun \fakt\
Definition of FACT

1: a thing done: as
a obsolete : feat
b : crime
c archaic : action
2 archaic : performance, doing
3: the quality of being actual : actuality
4a : something that has actual existence
b : an actual occurrence
5
: a piece of information presented as having objective reality
— in fact
: in truth
  See fact defined for English-language learners
See fact defined for kids
Examples of FACT

Rapid electronic communication is now a fact.
The book is filled with interesting facts and figures.
He did it, and that's a fact.

These stories always amuse me.

The folks that are religious about the "truth" of the big bang, evolution, climate change or any other theory try to defend presenting the THEORY as scientific fact in the name of good science. Whether you believe in it or not, it is just plain silly to present it as fact. Theory and fact are two very different things.

It is dishonest to present these theories as fact, no matter how convinced you are of their truthfulness, they remain theories. There are plenty of goons on both sides of the argument, but you have to admit that there are just as many people who are closed minded and simply unwilling to accept reality who are in favor of these theories as are against them.

Of course I don't care for their attitude toward women, domestic violence etc. My point is that no one nominated the US as the global cop and they don't appreciate our trying to fill that role. The question here is not whether a nation is behaving in a way that we are comfortable with - the question is whether one nation has a right to waltz in and reshape another nation. It is a very tricky thing to translate individual morality to the national level. You really do NOT want the national government making moral pronouncements. Trust me - it is a really bad idea. History is full of example where the national governments made horrible messes (with the best intentions).

If we really care about human rights, and I mean really care then why are we not more directly involved with the genocide in the various African countries? The answer is that we don't care about human rights - it is a shill that politicians use to excuse their abuse of power.

The founders of the US knew that this would happen, they feared it. Washington made it very clear in his final speech in office - he warned the people to not get involved in the old world national issues.

I did read part of the FM :) My comment wasn't intended to suggest that any robot of non-humanoid shape would meet the requirements, just that humanoid shape isn't a requirement - only the illustration.

You are correct - the requirements are stiff. Many of the challenges lend themselves better to a multi-legged chassis with manipulators that can handle tools. The human form is tricky for a number of reasons, odd center of gravity, etc. that are more suited to biological form than a machine. This looks like a great challenge.

RTFM - the robot does not have to be humanoid, it simply needs to be compatible with human tools.

In this case Iran isn't trying to control the internet, they are choosing to unplug themselves (or parts of their populate). I say that is a problem for Iran, not the rest of the world. I don't want anyone telling me what to do with my "intertubes" and I don't want to tell other countries what to do with their intertubes. Now, if an elected official in the US tried a stunt like that I would be all over that like a hobo on a ham sandwich - but the US is MY country.

I don't like the idea of fetters of any kind - if folks want to hurt themselves they should be able to as long as it doesnt involve me. This goes back to the 2 fundamental points in common law:

1. Do everything you agree to do.
2. Do not encroach on others or their property.

I think it is silly for any government to do something like sensor "the internet" - but is what Iran does in their country my business?

I find it amusing that we (the US in my case) often feel we have a right to tell other countries how to govern themselves, how to run their industry, how to run their elections, etc. Where does any country get off thinking it can tell another country what to do? I am not defending the criminal heads of state - just saying that we wouldn't take kindly to another country deciding how things should work in the US, deciding who they would allow to serve in elected office etc.

When will people realize that we need to leave people alone. If the Iranians want a different government then it is up to them to make one. Every single time the US tries to force other countries to behave it results in piles of corpses and enormous debt and a giant dose of hate directed at the US by BOTH sides of the conflict in the foreign country.

I have telecommuted 3/5 days each week for almost 6 years at the same company, here are a few observations:

- be in the office the same days each week so that people know where/when to find your face
- make your work visible, send status reports in even if they are not asked for
- speak up on a call, if you have nothing to contribute then make jokes, use humor but make sure your voice is heard
- when you are in the office, work hard
- make sure folks see you online in instant messenger when your are at home

One of the major problems is that most of our markets are NOT free - government regulation and intervention has constrained the markets and created significant imbalance and malinvestment. The US used to have something closer to a free market.

Disk quotas or separate file systems are a simple solution to this problem. Just takes a little more work than a line in a config file.

As western civilization has grown through the industrial revolution we have found that as technology replaces skill sets and workers it typically frees them up for more profitable work. A specific set of jobs is replaced, but those workers are then put to work on something that is ultimately more productive. In a command economy this would be a problem, in a capitalist economy those workers will be employed in the next role until that one is replaced as well.