From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on polar.synack.me X-Spam-Level: ** X-Spam-Status: No, score=2.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_50,INVALID_MSGID, REPLYTO_WITHOUT_TO_CC autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: 103376,98f446539174ef31 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public From: nospam@thanks.com.au (Don Harrison) Subject: Re: OOP & Packages in Ada Date: 1998/02/05 Message-ID: #1/1 X-Deja-AN: 322182515 Sender: news@syd.csa.com.au References: Reply-To: nospam@thanks.com.au X-Nntp-Posting-Host: dev7 Organization: CSC Australia, Sydney Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Date: 1998-02-05T00:00:00+00:00 List-Id: Matthew Heaney wrote: :In article , nospam@thanks.com.au wrote: : :>: ... (read Dawkins' The Blind Watchmaker, or :>:D'Arcy Thompson's On Growth and Form, or anything by Stephen Jay Gould). :> :>Better still, read Phillip Johnson's "Darwin on Trial" which refutes both. :) BTW, "both" refers to Dawkins and Gould. I'm not familiar with Thompson's work. :My point is that systems of any kind evolve, including large software :systems... Yes, that's true of software systems. However, I'm referring to biological systems. It's an established fact that organisms can micromutate to accomodate changes in their environment. However, it's quite another thing to claim that changes in *species* can occur through: a) Accumulated micromutations (traditional Darwinism as espoused by Dawkins, for example), or b) Macromutations (Gould's theory of Punctuated Equilibrium) through a process called "natural" selection. Contrary to what many would like to think, neither of these theories have been proven. :Yes, there is some religious dogma that repudiates evolution of living :systems, ... My reference is to Gould's book. If you read it, you'll discover that it isn't based on "religious dogma". Rather, in assessing the claims of Darwinism, Johnson has stuck to factual evidence and avoided prior assumptions, including those based on religious belief. This is in stark contrast to Dawkins' and Gould's writings which reflect numerous unstated assumptions derived from the Darwinist belief system. :>Q: What's the definition of a "vestigal" organ? :>A: One whose purpose isn't understood. My point here is to take issue with your assumption of evolution of biological organs as implied by the word "vestigal". :When you're done with Johnson book (I haven't read it yet), then sit down :and read Evolution and the Myth of Creationism, by Tim M. Berra, and The :Panda's Thumb, by Stephen Jay Gould. I have finished "Darwin on Trial" and intend reading "Evolution: A Theory in Crisis" by Michael Denton next. I've read parts of Dawkins' "Climbing Mount Improbable" and Gould's "Ever Since Darwin". If I find the time, I'll take a look at Berra. Don. =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Don Harrison doELIDEnh@syd.csa.com.au