Evolution is DEscriptive not PREscriptive

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

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?

 

[Pavel Mosko]

You are conflating or equating species adaptation with evolution. Theistic Creationist believe in that, but deny the notion that species somehow transform into other species given a great amount of time etc.

 

[ottawak]

You are conflating or equating species adaptation with evolution. Theistic Creationist believe in that, but deny the notion that species somehow transform into other species given a great amount of time etc.

Yet they have been observed to do so. You may assert that for theological reasons speciation cannot occur (prescription) Evolutionary biologists merely observe that it does occur.(description)

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

You are conflating or equating species adaptation with evolution. Theistic Creationist believe in that, but deny the notion that species somehow transform into other species given a great amount of time etc.

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.

 

[Astrid]

You are conflating or equating species adaptation with evolution. Theistic Creationist believe in that, but deny the notion that species somehow transform into other species given a great amount of time etc.

What is " species adaptation",

 

[Friedrich Rubinstein]

For your statement to be true you would have to define "evolution" first. People understand various concepts as "evolution" which range from "amoeba-to-man" evolution to merely "survival of the fittest and natural selection". Some aspects are observable, others are not.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

For your statement to be true you would have to define "evolution" first. People understand various concepts as "evolution" which range from "amoeba-to-man" evolution to merely "survival of the fittest and natural selection". Some aspects are observable, others are not.

I fail to see how your are tripped up by me saying that evolution is descriptive not prescriptive.

Do you quibble over definitions for gravity?

 

[ottawak]

For your statement to be true you would have to define "evolution" first. People understand various concepts as "evolution" which range from "amoeba-to-man" evolution to merely "survival of the fittest and natural selection". Some aspects are observable, others are not.

Which of the definitions that you are aware of require evolution to be prescriptive rather than descriptive?

 

[Friedrich Rubinstein]

I fail to see how your are tripped up by me saying that evolution is descriptive not prescriptive.

Do you quibble over definitions for gravity?

Yes. There is a huge difference between "gravity" and "the law of gravity". The law of gravity is descriptive but gravity itself (whatever it is - we don't really know) is prescriptive.

 

[Astrid]

For your statement to be true you would have to define "evolution" first. People understand various concepts as "evolution" which range from "amoeba-to-man" evolution to merely "survival of the fittest and natural selection". Some aspects are observable, others are not.

Must equivocation be the name of the game?

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Yes. There is a huge difference between "gravity" and "the law of gravity". The law of gravity is descriptive but gravity itself (whatever it is - we don't really know) is prescriptive.

Then I guess you missed what I wrote:

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.

 

[Friedrich Rubinstein]

Then I guess you missed what I wrote:

With your definition of "change in response to external pressures" it is descriptive, yes.

When it comes to the mechanisms though then it's not. The description of the mechanisms is descriptive (obviously) but the mechanisms itself are the actual cause, prescriptive. Take the mechanism of random mutations. Describing how mutations occur is descriptive, but those mutations itself are the prescriptive limits of those changes. That those mutations actually occur is part of the theory, and here it exceeds the descriptivity (if that's even a word lol).

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

With your definition of "change in response to external pressures" it is descriptive, yes.

When it comes to the mechanisms though then it's not. The description of the mechanisms is descriptive (obviously) but the mechanisms itself are the actual cause, prescriptive. Take the mechanism of random mutations. Describing how mutations occur is descriptive, but those mutations itself are the prescriptive limits of those changes. That those mutations actually occur is part of the theory, and here it exceeds the descriptivity (if that's even a word lol).

No, sorry, you're not making any sense. Mutations are not prescriptive. They are simply reactions to external stimulus.

 

[ottawak]

That those mutations actually occur is part of the theory, and here it exceeds the descriptivity (if that's even a word lol).

That those mutations are observed to occur is part of the theory, thus it is still descriptive on that point.

 

[Friedrich Rubinstein]

No, sorry, you're not making any sense. Mutations are not prescriptive. They are simply reactions to external stimulus.

Mutations are errors that occur randomly while copying the genetical information. There is no external stimulus unless you refer to deseases, which are not the mutations the theory of evolution talks about.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Mutations are errors that occur randomly while copying the genetical information. There is no external stimulus unless you refer to deseases, which are not the mutations the theory of evolution talks about.

Except that there are external stimuli that create positive mutations. A mutation is not always something that is negative. The ability for people of Northern European descent to absorb higher levels of Vitamin C because of paler skin is a mutation but a positive one.

And that is a descriptor.

 

[Friedrich Rubinstein]

That those mutations are observed to occur is part of the theory, thus it is still descriptive on that point.

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

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

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

No, that's not a requirement of evolution at all. And do you have proof that ALL mutations are a loss of 'information'?

 

[Halbhh]

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?

In the long run, I'd not worry too much about YEC stuff. It's beside the point of anything much. The best response to when someone arrives with some doctrine they insist is God's words (but is in reality their own words), is to not take it too serious, and not get too caught up in debating much, past a limited initial effort to aid them to see their own added ideas. The text doesn't specify some key things about time periods before the special 'days' of creation, or after, etc., nor even whether the vision in Genesis 1 (of course the human writer was not there, and it is a vision being written down) is a lone exception to the uniform consistency of visions in the Bible being meaning based representations (not real pictures/videography but a stylized picture for the purpose of communicating something else; here in Genesis 1 for example that something else is repeated 7 times).

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

In the long run, I'd not worry too much about YEC stuff. It's beside the point of anything much. The best response to when someone arrives with some doctrine they insist is God's words (but is in reality their own words), is to not take it too serious, and not get too caught up in debating much, past a limited initial effort to aid them to see their own added ideas.

I really just wanted to say.

To be honest, I treat the internet like a brick wall. I just scream at it every so often. If people respond, that's on them.

 

[Astrid]

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

And where did you get THAT information?