Evolution is DEscriptive not PREscriptive

[Friedrich Rubinstein]

And do you have proof that ALL mutations are a loss of 'information'?

Biophysicist Lee Spetner wrote an entire book showing with detailed probabilistic analysis that information-adding mutations are completely precluded. He also examines the classical textbook cases of mutations cited in favor of neo-Darwinian evolution and shows conclusively that, without exception, they are all losses of information.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Biophysicist Lee Spetner wrote an entire book showing with detailed probabilistic analysis that information-adding mutations are completely precluded. He also examines the classical textbook cases of mutations cited in favor of neo-Darwinian evolution and shows conclusively that, without exception, they are all losses of information.

From his wiki page:
Dr Lee M. Spetner is an American and Israeli creationist author, mechanical engineer, applied biophysicist, and physicist, known best for his disagreements with the modern synthesis. In spite of his opposition to neo-Darwinism, Spetner accepts a form of non-random evolution outlined in his 1996 book "Not By Chance! Shattering the Modern Theory of Evolution".

So he's not someone who is actually trustworthy with regards to biological science then.

Also, you just saying "Well, there's this book by this guy" is not evidence to support your claim that all mutations are a 'loss of information'. To support your claim, you'd need to actually SHOW evidence.

 

[Astrid]

Biophysicist Lee Spetner wrote an entire book showing with detailed probabilistic analysis that information-adding mutations are completely precluded. He also examines the classical textbook cases of mutations cited in favor of neo-Darwinian evolution and shows conclusively that, without exception, they are all losses of information.

Some reason not to mention he is a creationist engineer?

And, some reason to accept this non specialist as the
final authority- other than that he says what you want to hear?

Here is a bit of info: IF he did as you say to the satisfaction
of anyone but fellow- travellers, he would be famed for the
perhaps the greatest discovery in the history of science
Nobel prize would be the least of it.

Actually he is one of many with " discoveries" to disprove ToE.
There's Paluxy man- tracks too! Those "prove" that people
and dinosaurs coexisted!
I see he claims Archaeopteryx is a fraud. Of course he would.
What do you think of that?

Heres the deal. If you have a question, something to say,
Say it. Dont play argument by " authority" and expect
to " win" with challenging people to argue with a book
or a video. Pick something that can actually be discussed.

 

[ottawak]

All mutations that have ever been observed are a loss of information. Evolution requires mutations that add information. That has never been observed.

An interesting assertion, given that it is a well-estabished principle of information theory--all the way back to Claude Shannon--that a random signal contains the most information.

 

[TLK Valentine]

Must equivocation be the name of the game?

Define "game..."

 

[Astrid]

An interesting assertion, given that it is a well-estabished principle of information theory--all the way back to Claude Shannon--that a random signal contains the most information.

Reference?

 

[AV1611VET]

Evolution is DEscriptive not PREscriptive.

Yup -- on paper.

 

[AV1611VET]

I'm not here to have a debate on the minutia of creationism vs non-creationism. It's a simple post about how evolution is descriptive nor a prescriptive.

So describe it then.

Get a ream of paper and a pencil and describe it in five thousand words or less.

Use drawings -- draw pictures like this one:

Make charts -- make graphs (be sure and connect the dots though).

Write it all out.

Be as descriptive as you want to be.

On paper.

 

[ottawak]

Reference?

https://people.math.harvard.edu/~ctm/home/text/others/shannon/entropy/entropy.pdf

 

[Bradskii]

This is something I see nearly always pop up when evolution is discussed.

Someone invariable goes "Well, evolution says..." or evolution gets treated as some sort of philosophy with tenets to follow.

It simply isn't.

Evolution is a descriptor given to a fact of biology; that animal populations change in response to external pressures. Evolution is not about what a population of animals should do, evolution is about what a population of animals will do.

The theory of evolution is also not something that is prescriptive either, like many people who feel it is a bad thing treat it to be. The theory of evolution merely talks about the minutia, the mechanics, of evolution.

Should be simple, right?

There is a sense in which it could be described as prescriptive. As theories are explanations of why things happen, they are also explanations of why other things can't happen. So the ToE might be used to say that you will not find rabbit fossils in the pre Cambrian. Or alternatively, you will only find rabbit fossils in eocine and later periods.

But that could be better stated as more a conclusion of the theory or even as evidence to support the theory rather than it being prescriptive.

 

[Shemjaza]

All mutations that have ever been observed are a loss of information. Evolution requires mutations that add information. That has never been observed.

That isn't true using any coherent definition of information I've seen.

Can you define what you mean by information in this context, what metric it is measured in and what objective method you use to measure it?

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Yup -- on paper.

So describe it then.

Get a ream of paper and a pencil and describe it in five thousand words or less.

Use drawings -- draw pictures like this one:

Make charts -- make graphs (be sure and connect the dots though).

Write it all out.

Be as descriptive as you want to be.

On paper.

I see you're just going for the excuse to troll again, as per usual when you have nothing to add to a thread.

 

[TLK Valentine]

Yup -- on paper.

AV, you worship a book; what matters more to you than what's on paper?

 

[TLK Valentine]

So describe it then.

Get a ream of paper and a pencil and describe it in five thousand words or less.

5000 words is the limit of your attention span? You're giving yourself a lot of credit. But here you go:

It's like gravity -- if you jump out of a 40th-floor window, I can, with 100% accuracy, predict that you will end up as a red stain on the pavement below.
That's descriptive -- in no way am I saying that you should or deserve to become street pizza; that would be prescriptive.

The only promise that evolution or any other physical science makes is that physical actions have physical reactions. What you want, need, or deserve are irrelevant... so stay away from that window; I assure you that you will not grow wings halfway down.

 

[Larniavc]

Evolution is not about what a population of animals should do, evolution is about what a population of animals will do.

I’d say ‘has done’.

 

[AV1611VET]

AV, you worship a book; what matters more to you than what's on paper?

The salvation of the lost.

 

[AV1611VET]

5000 words is the limit of your attention span? You're giving yourself a lot of credit. But here you go:

It's like gravity -- if you jump out of a 40th-floor window, I can, with 100% accuracy, predict that you will end up as a red stain on the pavement below.
That's descriptive -- in no way am I saying that you should or deserve to become street pizza; that would be prescriptive.

The only promise that evolution or any other physical science makes is that physical actions have physical reactions. What you want, need, or deserve are irrelevant... so stay away from that window; I assure you that you will not grow wings halfway down.

Serious question:

Is Bible prophecy prescriptive, and their fulfillment descriptive?

 

[Friedrich Rubinstein]

That isn't true using any coherent definition of information I've seen.

Can you define what you mean by information in this context, what metric it is measured in and what objective method you use to measure it?

I'll try to put it simple:
DNA is like a book containing the genetic information. The sentences (aka sequences) are coherent and make sense in context. A mutation is a random change to this book. Most mutations just scramble a few words or sentences - which means the information of those sequences got lost. Some mutations outright delete a sequence - which means the information of those sequences got lost. And some mutations duplicate a sequence - like writing a sentence twice. This doesn't just disturb the flow of reading but it also doesn't add any information. You can read the same sentence a hundred times - you still only get the same information from it.
In order to add information we need a mutation that adds a word, sentence or page to the book that is not only coherent in itself but also makes sense in the context of the entire book. None of the observed mutations has ever done that (and the chances for it are zero).

If you'd like more detailed information I recommend the book "Am Anfang war die Information" by Werner Gitt.

 

[TLK Valentine]

Serious question:

Is Bible prophecy prescriptive, and their fulfillment descriptive?

Serious question? I'll give you the benefit of the doubt:

No, prophecy is descriptive because it is (allegedly) describing events that will happen.

It is the Bible's moral and legal teachings that are prescriptive, because it describes things that should be done.

 

[Bungle_Bear]

I'll try to put it simple:
DNA is like a book containing the genetic information. The sentences (aka sequences) are coherent and make sense in context. A mutation is a random change to this book. Most mutations just scramble a few words or sentences - which means the information of those sequences got lost. Some mutations outright delete a sequence - which means the information of those sequences got lost. And some mutations duplicate a sequence - like writing a sentence twice. This doesn't just disturb the flow of reading but it also doesn't add any information. You can read the same sentence a hundred times - you still only get the same information from it.
In order to add information we need a mutation that adds a word, sentence or page to the book that is not only coherent in itself but also makes sense in the context of the entire book. None of the observed mutations has ever done that (and the chances for it are zero).

If you'd like more detailed information I recommend the book "Am Anfang war die Information" by Werner Gitt.

You completely ignore an extremely important part of what you wrote:
DNA....makes sense in context.

Your linguistic argument changes the context in an attempt to demonstrate it doesn't make sense.

If you just want to play the equivocation card, then allow me to point out that "Am Anfang war die Information" is gibberish as an English sentence.