1) This is the (D)ARPANet... I'm sure the US government would not take kindly to spoofing a root level name server even if the mechanism by which it was done was legal
2) Never mind the military/government basis of the internet, knowingly messing with.com domains could presumably be taken as messing with interstate commerce and fall under the scrutiny of the FBI. I sure wouldn't do it!
For the owner of the original IP address now being vacated by ICANN, there is also maybe a self-interest motive of identifying the servers who hadn't updated so as to notify them and kill the unwanted traffic.
Given how visible this is, it's hard to imagine anyone doing it for criminal purposes and thinking they could get away with it.
Agreed - I didn't intend to imply any connection between those two groups (rather the opposite - the figures are at least somewhat additive). They are both groups that one would very much not expect to be using e-mail.
Here's a (still truncated) copy of the quote at the top of the story.
Quoting: "Over the past two years, some 200,000 surveillance cameras have been installed throughout the city. Many are in public spaces, disguised as lampposts. The closed-circuit TV cameras will soon be connected to a single, nationwide network, an all-seeing system that will be capable of tracking and identifying anyone who comes within its range -- a project driven in part by U.S. technology and investment. Over the next three years, Chinese security executives predict they will install as many as 2 million CCTVs in Shenzhen, which would make it the most watched city in the world...."
You chose to truncate this quote at the end of the first sentence "... thoughout the city.", ignoring the fact that it later named city as Shenzen.
As already noted, the Rolling Stone article (well worth reading) the quotes comes from names the city upfront at the start of the article.
The quote you truncated includes the name of the city, and the Rolling Stone article (linked to in the story) the quote was taken from, also names it in the very first sentence.
Since you're so lazy, the city is Shenzhen (fastest growing city in the world over the last 30 years).
With Dell, and even Walmart, selling Linux on the desktop, it has undoubtedly already arrived.
Linux is also the desktop OS of choice for a whole new class of low-cost computers from the OLPC to the Asus "Eee PC", MSI Wind, etc.
I think the "desktop" goalposts are also moving... The future of mass-market home computers (or at least a very major segment of them) is surely more along the lines of the simple-to-use internet appliance with a launcher menu rather than the general-purpose install-your-own-software PC. In this environment you could care less what the OS is, anymore than you care what OS your DVD player, Tivo, or the bank's ATM machine is running.
From other sources about 11-12% of the US population is below the official poverty level, and I'll bet there's only partial overlap of that figure will the functionally illiterate group.
From that perspective 80% of households using e-mail seems remarkably high, especially for such a new technology with such a high barrier (computer ownership/literacy, internet access, intellectual curiosity) to entry.
If that is true then it sounds like a bad decision.
If the BKL code is rarely used then the general usage performance impact is minimal and the efficiency of a spinlock vs mutex is irrelevant. If this is not true then saying it is rarely used is misleading.
However for real-time use you either do or don't meet a given worst case latency spec - the fact that a glitch only rarely happens is of little comfort.
It seems like it should have been a no-brainer to leave the pre-emptable code in for the time being. If there's a clean way to redesign the lock out altogether then great, but that should be a seperate issue.
I think "agnostic" is more of a considered position than "aethiest". Unless you've been indoctrinated in some religion, you simply don't have a concept of god, yet alone a considered opinion that you don't have enough knowledge to decide whether god exists. Given a choice between agnostic and aethiest I'd therefore say that aethiest better describes a new born child (or indeed an adult who has never taken the notion of god seriously) - you can be "without god" either as a considered opinion or simply as a matter of default.
The trouble is that the english language doesn't have any word that is widely used/recognised to describe someone who believes in a purely natural rather than supernatural world, so the ambiguous word "atheist" is normally used, which seems better to describe someone who has actively rejected god rather than the default position of someone non-indoctrinated who has no reason to label themself in such a negative/redundant manner.
I'd argue that "scientist" (i.e. ascribing to the scientific method of "theorize & verify") is a reasonable label for the naturalistic worldview, notwithstanding that some self-decribed scientists may also ascribe to religious views (which is really more a matter of holding multiple conflicting beliefs). Strictly speaking we don't really need a word to describe people who don't believe in or do things (consider how odd it would be to have a word to label someone as a disbeliever in father christmas, non-practitioner of kung-fu, etc) since that's the default condition, but in a religous society or in religous discussion it is useful to have a word to identity yourself as non-religious.
Surely the reason the Eee PC created such an initial buzz was the price - at the promised $199 or delivered $249 it was in a category of it's own as a cheap, small, notebook/internet applicance. At that price it was more of an impulse purchase than one to be considered too seriously, and the cheap price also made it appropriate for more casual use than a traditional lap top that needs to be treated as a more valuable object. Similar price difference and mental image of a cheap consumer digital point & shoot camera vs an expensive DSLR - different markets.
Asus seem to be determined to lose this new market they created (so new it hardly even has a name) as quickly as they created it. At $500-600 this is now competing with traditional laptops - an underpowered competitor in a large field as opposed to owning a new category they created. Seems dumb to me.
Pricing the Windows model below the Linux one seems to be another bizarre step in the wrong direction.I assumed they were using Linux for the strategic/pricing advantage it gave, but they just threw that advantage out of the window.
Oh, well... at least Asus proved there is a market for a cheap & cheerful $249 notebook / internet appliance... I guess it'll be up to another company to actually take advantage of that market!
you are an archer, your brother in an archer your dad was an archer your grandfather was an archer your great grandfather was an archer...
Are you descended from archers? Yes
Does that mean you were descended from your brother? No
Now substitute ape for archer, and extend the timeline from a few generations to 15 million years to cover the evolution of the entire great ape family, and maybe you get it.
So I'm not sure what your problem is with the description of us being descended from apes. I'd have hoped you'd have realized I wasn't saying that we were descended from a modern ape (such as ourself)!
I believe that the final design was man and the ecosystem to support us. As for man finally evolving to something else, the Bible states that the world will end long before that happens.
Why pick and choose? If you believe we're descended from apes then you've already thrown out one chunk of the Bible as well as any notion of us being anything other than animals... So why do you choose to believe the Bible on the end game if you reject it on the beginning? Seems kinda arbitrary !
There's nothing to stop you from exclusively using reference-counted smart pointers and garbage collection in C++, for some or all of a project, if that's really your thing.
For me, C++ destructors (each object responsibe for it's own storage) remove most of the hassle of freeing storage, and I've never hankered after garbage collection.
Note: I believe in ID. I just believe that in order to reach the "Design", evolution was used.
1) Surely you mean "is being used", not "was used". Evolution hasn't stopped, not can be expected to ever stop (evolving to not evolve would be mal-adaptive). Conceivably there's an attractor that life will eventually circle, but we're not looping yet!
2) Even if evolution did, unexpectedly, arrive at some final "Design" (even if a dynamic rather than fixed one), we're not there yet, nor is there much chance that anything resembing man or anything described in the Bible will be a part of it. Time will take care of that. In a few tens/hundreds of millions of years Homo Sapiens will be nothing but a random species far back on the evolutionary tree - no more priviliged than any other point in our own current evolutionary history. Most branches of the evolutionary tree are dead ends, and only a few keep growing... there's no guarantee that our branch (or maybe mammals as a whole) will not eventually be a dead end, and it may well be that in 100,000,000 or so years time there's no species left with the intelligence to even ponder how insignificant our own species proved to be.
Computer generated speech and human speech arn't as far apart as you seem to think, and the differences are more in areas like natural sounding intonation and emphasis that would be present in spontaneous speech but not so much in someone emotionlessly reading "the cat sat on the mat" from a captcha prompt.
The computer vs human differentiation approach that would seem to provide **least** insight (that could lead to the computer improvement) would be a trained (neural net, SVM or whatever) classifier, but if such an automated classifier was indeed achievable then one could at worst use it as basis of a genetic algorithm to tweak a speech synthesis engine into the classified-as-human realm by varying those factors that affect the classifier inputs.
I respect your point of view, and realize that we're not going to agree, but let me just leave you with one final thought..
However counter-intuitive the idea of all life, us included, having evolved from a common source may be, and however much it may clash with other beliefs you may like to hold (maybe for very good reason), there is still the reality that evolution has to be happening, even if it may not be the whole story (although I think in essence it is).
Micro and macro evolution are the same thing - just a matter of the genetics of successive generations becoming better matched to the prevailing environment, and as we've seen the logic is inescapable. All that seperates micro from macro evolution is how far the DNA of any population of a species has diverged from any other population (e.g. indian elephants vs african elephants), but since evolution/adaptation is a never ending process you can't expect it to just conveniently stop before crossing the line of incompatability (lack of ability to interbreed - creation of a new species).
So, whatever other forces you believe may also be at work, you can't just ignore evolution. Evolution IS happening, and IS creating new species, regardless of what else is going on, and since the result of evolution is to make each generation better suited to the environment (if I plant two types of apple tree in sandy soil, one that likes sandy soil, and one that doesn't, which one will leave behind more apples and little apple trees?...), the result of this dumb/mechanical process may give the appearance of intelligence.
Even if you like to believe that there is a designer that put life in some form on earth (maybe there was - evolution doesn't conflict with that possibility), or that may be intelligently nudging evolution of different species in different directions, there is no need to reject the reality that evolution is also occuring, and it would be entirely illogical to do so. If you believe that life was designed, then DNA - the ability to evolve - was certainly part of the plan!
I don't think it makes sense to distinguish micro and macro evolution - it's just a matter of degree of change.
The key to understanding macro evolution is to realize that the only definition of species that makes sense is based on the ability to interbreed. If two animals can interbreed (and produce healthy young) then they are defined as being the same species, else they are not.
The reason this definition is useful is because if two populations can't interbreed then they can't mix their DNA - they are now on different branches of the evolutionary tree. However if they can still interbreed then however much they may have diverged it's not yet past that point of no return. Note that this definition of species is more stringent than that which has been historically applied which was based at least partly on appearance and habits; e.g. lions and tigers are offially named as seperate species, but since they can interbreed we know those differences are not yet necessarily permanent (they could still re-mix).
Given this stringent definition of species, it is now easy to see how new species get created - it's just a matter of two populations of a single species genetically diverging apart (due to some form of seperation preenting them from much interbreeding while they are still able) until they get past the point of being able to interbreed. Initially the two halves of such a species split will still appear very similar (e.g. horse and donkey - effectively diverged since their offspring - mules - are sterile), but since they have pased that no-turning-back point their DNA can no longer mix and they will almost certainly slowly drift further and further genetically apart.
Note that macro evolution aka speciation, the creation of new species, is (like evolution itself) just a matter of logic. If two populations have drifted apart to the point of inability to interbreed (not that it always happens) then they are simply by definition new species, and will necessarily now form their own branches on the evolutionary tree.
The HISTORY of macro evolution is again a seperate issue. We don't need to know which species branched, and when they did, to accept that occasionally they must do so - there is no force that only allows genetic divergence up to a certain point and not beyond the loss of ability to interbreed. Of course the fossil record, and nowadays gentic sequencing, does in fact let us know an awful lot about the history.
A scientific theory is a possible explanation based on observation.
Yes, but you are not listening. Evolution is not a scientific theory - it is simple logic like (A > B) && (B > C) => A > C.
If two individuals P and Q have children, but P has more children than Q, then in the children's generation there will be a greater percentage of P's genetics than Q's, agreed? Would you call that a sciwntific theory, or accept it as just plain logic?
That is all there is to evolution at the core - the fitter genes are more represented in each successive generation.
The HISTORY of evolution is what you are referring to - exactly how did it play out over the last millions/whatever of years? That's an interesting question, and one we know quite a lot about, but it's also an entirely different question that "do species evolve due to natural selection acting upon hereditory traits", to which the only answer can be "yes - it's unavavoidable".
"theory" means one thing in the everyday english language, has a seperate formal meaning in science and yet another in math.
A mathematical theory can be either be proven or falsified (or even provably unknowable) or merely hypothesized.
A scientific theory can never be proved, only falsified.
The "theory" of evolution doesn't need to be proved because it isn't, nor ever was, a theory other than in the sloppy english sense. It is just a consequence of natural selection acting upon hereditory traits, which is precisely what Darwin's insight was.
Slashdot Mirror
Yes, but...
.com domains could presumably be taken as messing with interstate commerce and fall under the scrutiny of the FBI. I sure wouldn't do it!
1) This is the (D)ARPANet... I'm sure the US government would not take kindly to spoofing a root level name server even if the mechanism by which it was done was legal
2) Never mind the military/government basis of the internet, knowingly messing with
It does seem like the simplest explanation.
For the owner of the original IP address now being vacated by ICANN, there is also maybe a self-interest motive of identifying the servers who hadn't updated so as to notify them and kill the unwanted traffic.
Given how visible this is, it's hard to imagine anyone doing it for criminal purposes and thinking they could get away with it.
Agreed - I didn't intend to imply any connection between those two groups (rather the opposite - the figures are at least somewhat additive). They are both groups that one would very much not expect to be using e-mail.
Nope - go back and look again.
Here's a (still truncated) copy of the quote at the top of the story.
Quoting: "Over the past two years, some 200,000 surveillance cameras have been installed throughout the city. Many are in public spaces, disguised as lampposts. The closed-circuit TV cameras will soon be connected to a single, nationwide network, an all-seeing system that will be capable of tracking and identifying anyone who comes within its range -- a project driven in part by U.S. technology and investment. Over the next three years, Chinese security executives predict they will install as many as 2 million CCTVs in Shenzhen, which would make it the most watched city in the world...."
You chose to truncate this quote at the end of the first sentence "... thoughout the city.", ignoring the fact that it later named city as Shenzen.
As already noted, the Rolling Stone article (well worth reading) the quotes comes from names the city upfront at the start of the article.
Nah - it's just you.
The quote you truncated includes the name of the city, and the Rolling Stone article (linked to in the story) the quote was taken from, also names it in the very first sentence.
Since you're so lazy, the city is Shenzhen (fastest growing city in the world over the last 30 years).
With Dell, and even Walmart, selling Linux on the desktop, it has undoubtedly already arrived.
Linux is also the desktop OS of choice for a whole new class of low-cost computers from the OLPC to the Asus "Eee PC", MSI Wind, etc.
I think the "desktop" goalposts are also moving... The future of mass-market home computers (or at least a very major segment of them) is surely more along the lines of the simple-to-use internet appliance with a launcher menu rather than the general-purpose install-your-own-software PC. In this environment you could care less what the OS is, anymore than you care what OS your DVD player, Tivo, or the bank's ATM machine is running.
According to this Newsweek article from 2002, in 2002 44M of the (then approx. 280M) US population were functionally illiterate.
http://www.shashitharoor.com/articles/newsweek/illiterate.php
From other sources about 11-12% of the US population is below the official poverty level, and I'll bet there's only partial overlap of that figure will the functionally illiterate group.
From that perspective 80% of households using e-mail seems remarkably high, especially for such a new technology with such a high barrier (computer ownership/literacy, internet access, intellectual curiosity) to entry.
If that is true then it sounds like a bad decision.
If the BKL code is rarely used then the general usage performance impact is minimal and the efficiency of a spinlock vs mutex is irrelevant. If this is not true then saying it is rarely used is misleading.
However for real-time use you either do or don't meet a given worst case latency spec - the fact that a glitch only rarely happens is of little comfort.
It seems like it should have been a no-brainer to leave the pre-emptable code in for the time being. If there's a clean way to redesign the lock out altogether then great, but that should be a seperate issue.
I think "agnostic" is more of a considered position than "aethiest". Unless you've been indoctrinated in some religion, you simply don't have a concept of god, yet alone a considered opinion that you don't have enough knowledge to decide whether god exists. Given a choice between agnostic and aethiest I'd therefore say that aethiest better describes a new born child (or indeed an adult who has never taken the notion of god seriously) - you can be "without god" either as a considered opinion or simply as a matter of default.
The trouble is that the english language doesn't have any word that is widely used/recognised to describe someone who believes in a purely natural rather than supernatural world, so the ambiguous word "atheist" is normally used, which seems better to describe someone who has actively rejected god rather than the default position of someone non-indoctrinated who has no reason to label themself in such a negative/redundant manner.
I'd argue that "scientist" (i.e. ascribing to the scientific method of "theorize & verify") is a reasonable label for the naturalistic worldview, notwithstanding that some self-decribed scientists may also ascribe to religious views (which is really more a matter of holding multiple conflicting beliefs). Strictly speaking we don't really need a word to describe people who don't believe in or do things (consider how odd it would be to have a word to label someone as a disbeliever in father christmas, non-practitioner of kung-fu, etc) since that's the default condition, but in a religous society or in religous discussion it is useful to have a word to identity yourself as non-religious.
Yep, and Google's your friend for conversions:
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&safe=off&q=186+miles+per+hour+in+km%2Fhr&btnG=Search
Surely the reason the Eee PC created such an initial buzz was the price - at the promised $199 or delivered $249 it was in a category of it's own as a cheap, small, notebook/internet applicance. At that price it was more of an impulse purchase than one to be considered too seriously, and the cheap price also made it appropriate for more casual use than a traditional lap top that needs to be treated as a more valuable object. Similar price difference and mental image of a cheap consumer digital point & shoot camera vs an expensive DSLR - different markets.
Asus seem to be determined to lose this new market they created (so new it hardly even has a name) as quickly as they created it. At $500-600 this is now competing with traditional laptops - an underpowered competitor in a large field as opposed to owning a new category they created. Seems dumb to me.
Pricing the Windows model below the Linux one seems to be another bizarre step in the wrong direction.I assumed they were using Linux for the strategic/pricing advantage it gave, but they just threw that advantage out of the window.
Oh, well... at least Asus proved there is a market for a cheap & cheerful $249 notebook / internet appliance... I guess it'll be up to another company to actually take advantage of that market!
[Flash] used by YouTube to deliver huge quantities of crap video to people
YouTube have recently added MPEG-4 support though (done for the iphone, I beleive) :
http://googlesystem.blogspot.com/2008/04/download-youtube-videos-as-mp4-files.html
That's deep.
You must be the next fuckin' Plato.
you are an archer, your brother in an archer ...
your dad was an archer
your grandfather was an archer
your great grandfather was an archer
Are you descended from archers? Yes
Does that mean you were descended from your brother? No
Now substitute ape for archer, and extend the timeline from a few generations to 15 million years to cover the evolution of the entire great ape family, and maybe you get it.
Or maybe not.
Whatever.
Huh?
The whole branch of the evolutionary tree we're in, going back 15 million years, is the great apes (Hominidae family) :
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Graphical_timeline_of_human_evolution
So I'm not sure what your problem is with the description of us being descended from apes. I'd have hoped you'd have realized I wasn't saying that we were descended from a modern ape (such as ourself)!
I believe that the final design was man and the ecosystem to support us. As for man finally evolving to something else, the Bible states that the world will end long before that happens.
Why pick and choose? If you believe we're descended from apes then you've already thrown out one chunk of the Bible as well as any notion of us being anything other than animals... So why do you choose to believe the Bible on the end game if you reject it on the beginning? Seems kinda arbitrary !
There's nothing to stop you from exclusively using reference-counted smart pointers and garbage collection in C++, for some or all of a project, if that's really your thing.
For me, C++ destructors (each object responsibe for it's own storage) remove most of the hassle of freeing storage, and I've never hankered after garbage collection.
Note: I believe in ID. I just believe that in order to reach the "Design", evolution was used.
1) Surely you mean "is being used", not "was used". Evolution hasn't stopped, not can be expected to ever stop (evolving to not evolve would be mal-adaptive). Conceivably there's an attractor that life will eventually circle, but we're not looping yet!
2) Even if evolution did, unexpectedly, arrive at some final "Design" (even if a dynamic rather than fixed one), we're not there yet, nor is there much chance that anything resembing man or anything described in the Bible will be a part of it. Time will take care of that. In a few tens/hundreds of millions of years Homo Sapiens will be nothing but a random species far back on the evolutionary tree - no more priviliged than any other point in our own current evolutionary history. Most branches of the evolutionary tree are dead ends, and only a few keep growing... there's no guarantee that our branch (or maybe mammals as a whole) will not eventually be a dead end, and it may well be that in 100,000,000 or so years time there's no species left with the intelligence to even ponder how insignificant our own species proved to be.
And just as importantly, if you stacked them all up, would it get you to the moon or not?
Computer generated speech and human speech arn't as far apart as you seem to think, and the differences are more in areas like natural sounding intonation and emphasis that would be present in spontaneous speech but not so much in someone emotionlessly reading "the cat sat on the mat" from a captcha prompt.
The computer vs human differentiation approach that would seem to provide **least** insight (that could lead to the computer improvement) would be a trained (neural net, SVM or whatever) classifier, but if such an automated classifier was indeed achievable then one could at worst use it as basis of a genetic algorithm to tweak a speech synthesis engine into the classified-as-human realm by varying those factors that affect the classifier inputs.
If a computer could recognize the difference between human and computer generated speech, then it would know how to generate human sounding speech.
Thanks, Monkey.
...), the result of this dumb/mechanical process may give the appearance of intelligence.
I respect your point of view, and realize that we're not going to agree, but let me just leave you with one final thought..
However counter-intuitive the idea of all life, us included, having evolved from a common source may be, and however much it may clash with other beliefs you may like to hold (maybe for very good reason), there is still the reality that evolution has to be happening, even if it may not be the whole story (although I think in essence it is).
Micro and macro evolution are the same thing - just a matter of the genetics of successive generations becoming better matched to the prevailing environment, and as we've seen the logic is inescapable. All that seperates micro from macro evolution is how far the DNA of any population of a species has diverged from any other population (e.g. indian elephants vs african elephants), but since evolution/adaptation is a never ending process you can't expect it to just conveniently stop before crossing the line of incompatability (lack of ability to interbreed - creation of a new species).
So, whatever other forces you believe may also be at work, you can't just ignore evolution. Evolution IS happening, and IS creating new species, regardless of what else is going on, and since the result of evolution is to make each generation better suited to the environment (if I plant two types of apple tree in sandy soil, one that likes sandy soil, and one that doesn't, which one will leave behind more apples and little apple trees?
Even if you like to believe that there is a designer that put life in some form on earth (maybe there was - evolution doesn't conflict with that possibility), or that may be intelligently nudging evolution of different species in different directions, there is no need to reject the reality that evolution is also occuring, and it would be entirely illogical to do so. If you believe that life was designed, then DNA - the ability to evolve - was certainly part of the plan!
See you on another thread!
I don't think it makes sense to distinguish micro and macro evolution - it's just a matter of degree of change.
The key to understanding macro evolution is to realize that the only definition of species that makes sense is based on the ability to interbreed. If two animals can interbreed (and produce healthy young) then they are defined as being the same species, else they are not.
The reason this definition is useful is because if two populations can't interbreed then they can't mix their DNA - they are now on different branches of the evolutionary tree. However if they can still interbreed then however much they may have diverged it's not yet past that point of no return. Note that this definition of species is more stringent than that which has been historically applied which was based at least partly on appearance and habits; e.g. lions and tigers are offially named as seperate species, but since they can interbreed we know those differences are not yet necessarily permanent (they could still re-mix).
Given this stringent definition of species, it is now easy to see how new species get created - it's just a matter of two populations of a single species genetically diverging apart (due to some form of seperation preenting them from much interbreeding while they are still able) until they get past the point of being able to interbreed. Initially the two halves of such a species split will still appear very similar (e.g. horse and donkey - effectively diverged since their offspring - mules - are sterile), but since they have pased that no-turning-back point their DNA can no longer mix and they will almost certainly slowly drift further and further genetically apart.
Note that macro evolution aka speciation, the creation of new species, is (like evolution itself) just a matter of logic. If two populations have drifted apart to the point of inability to interbreed (not that it always happens) then they are simply by definition new species, and will necessarily now form their own branches on the evolutionary tree.
The HISTORY of macro evolution is again a seperate issue. We don't need to know which species branched, and when they did, to accept that occasionally they must do so - there is no force that only allows genetic divergence up to a certain point and not beyond the loss of ability to interbreed. Of course the fossil record, and nowadays gentic sequencing, does in fact let us know an awful lot about the history.
A scientific theory is a possible explanation based on observation.
Yes, but you are not listening. Evolution is not a scientific theory - it is simple logic like (A > B) && (B > C) => A > C.
If two individuals P and Q have children, but P has more children than Q, then in the children's generation there will be a greater percentage of P's genetics than Q's, agreed? Would you call that a sciwntific theory, or accept it as just plain logic?
That is all there is to evolution at the core - the fitter genes are more represented in each successive generation.
The HISTORY of evolution is what you are referring to - exactly how did it play out over the last millions/whatever of years? That's an interesting question, and one we know quite a lot about, but it's also an entirely different question that "do species evolve due to natural selection acting upon hereditory traits", to which the only answer can be "yes - it's unavavoidable".
You're confused on terminology.
"theory" means one thing in the everyday english language, has a seperate formal meaning in science and yet another in math.
A mathematical theory can be either be proven or falsified (or even provably unknowable) or merely hypothesized.
A scientific theory can never be proved, only falsified.
The "theory" of evolution doesn't need to be proved because it isn't, nor ever was, a theory other than in the sloppy english sense. It is just a consequence of natural selection acting upon hereditory traits, which is precisely what Darwin's insight was.