Evolution is DEscriptive not PREscriptive

[Bradskii]

Well, I certainly apologize for keeping you ignorant.

You really do keep missing the point. It's not that you don't educate me. I certainly won't get that from you. It's that you make me realise that I'm not as dumb as I thought.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

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

Correct, this is a key issue Darwin could never have known, and I was not aware of as a former Darwinist.

Of course there are examples where chaotic entropy can provide benefit in a niche environment-
birds losing flight, fish losing sight.

Corruption of functional genetic code can easily explain these losses, it cannot explain how the eye is originally designed, only how it maybe be destroyed.

 

[Bradskii]

...it cannot explain how the eye is originally designed, only how it maybe be destroyed.

We've moved on from what Darwin knew.

How the Eye Evolved | The New York Academy of Sciences

 

[Mr Laurier]

Got any pregnant dogs in your area having cats? or foxes having groundhogs?

Now that would certainly be the refutation of evolution that every creationist needs.
You would have me embracing creationism in an instant

 

[AV1611VET]

Now that would certainly be the refutation of evolution that every creationist needs.
You would have me embracing creationism in an instant

Uh-huh.

And I'm Genghis Khan.

 

[Mr Laurier]

Uh-huh.

And I'm Genghis Khan.

Well get AV back online Genghis. I'm trying to talk with him.

 

[Gottservant]

No, just no. I'm describing descriptions, nothing more.

You don't have to tell me what you are doing, I can see it.

You are not describing an absence of prescriptions, that doesn't make sense.

 

[Bungle_Bear]

Ecclesiastes 7:29 Lo, this only have I found, that God hath made man upright; but they have sought out many inventions.

Notice Solomon calls evolution an INVENTION, not a DISCOVERY?

I love how you don't understand Jacobean English. Perhaps you should find out what "invention" meant when KJV was written before you trot that verse out again.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

You don't have to tell me what you are doing, I can see it.

You are not describing an absence of prescriptions, that doesn't make sense.

Except that you can't, because evolution doesn't prescribe anything. Evolution is just a descriptor.

 

[Gottservant]

Again, you insist that there is such a thing as "an absence of prescriptions".

Only in your imagination.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Again, you insist that there is such a thing as "an absence of prescriptions".

Only in your imagination.

So what does evolution prescribe then?

 

[AV1611VET]

I love how you don't understand Jacobean English. Perhaps you should find out what "invention" meant when KJV was written before you trot that verse out again.

Next you'll be telling me Job isn't talking about texting, won't you?

Job 38:35 Canst thou send lightnings, that they may go, and say unto thee, Here we are?

 

[Mr Laurier]

Next you'll be telling me Job isn't talking about texting, won't you?

Nope.
Why state the blindingly obvious.

Job 38:35 Canst thou send lightnings, that they may go, and say unto thee, Here we are?

Stream of babble about throwing lightning bolts as spears, and calling them back like trained dogs

 

[Gottservant]

So what does evolution prescribe then?

I defer to the Holy Spirit, to reply to this.

Lord help me clarify "prescription", in Jesus' Name Amen.

I will get back to you.

 

[Shemjaza]

I defer to the Holy Spirit, to reply to this.

Lord help me clarify "prescription", in Jesus' Name Amen.

I will get back to you.

I think I can help you:

The Ten Commandments are prescriptive, they tell Christians how they should act when they have choice and control.

The law of nature are descriptive, they are just how you should expect the environment to function, regardless of choice.

 

[Gottservant]

I think I can help you:

The Ten Commandments are prescriptive, they tell Christians how they should act when they have choice and control.

The law of nature are descriptive, they are just how you should expect the environment to function, regardless of choice.

No, I really want to answer properly.

 

[Shemjaza]

No, I really want to answer properly.

good luck

 

[Gottservant]

So what does evolution prescribe then?

Ok, this is a first attempt: does Evolution prescribe "limiting rehashing past successes, in favour greater newer succession"?

Or wait, is that random? I can never tell when you mean what you say, it always seems to be about how wonderfully benign biology is?

Scripturally, Jesus prescribes not swearing by the hair on your head, because it can't be made white or black - that is definitely a prescription.

If Jesus says "don't swear" once, He means it for all time; so I guess Evolution would prescribe to "swear less" (that is even by those things that would be more effective, if swearing worked)?

You can see that prescribing swearing less, would ultimately save Evolution, from pressure to ignore what can't be adapted, at all?

Let me know if I have lost you, I'm trying to pick the most dependable prescription I can find - to help you get the surest adaptation, on the basis of what you "say" is 'necessary change'?

You wouldn't insist something be adapted, if you knew it could never be done, right?

 

[Bungle_Bear]

Next you'll be telling me Job isn't talking about texting, won't you?

Job 38:35 Canst thou send lightnings, that they may go, and say unto thee, Here we are?

Avoidance of the issue is not an honest response.

 

[Shemjaza]

Ok, this is a first attempt: does Evolution prescribe "limiting rehashing past successes, in favour greater newer succession"?

No.

Evolution is a physical process and a scientific theory explaining that physical process.

Or wait, is that random? I can never tell when you mean what you say, it always seems to be about how wonderfully benign biology is?

Biology isn't benign.

Scripturally, Jesus prescribes not swearing by the hair on your head, because it can't be made white or black - that is definitely a prescription.

If Jesus says "don't swear" once, He means it for all time; so I guess Evolution would prescribe to "swear less" (that is even by those things that would be more effective, if swearing worked)?

Jesus proscribing things is a different issue to evolution.

Evolution is simply a marker of statistical success of the current population... it isn't about the choices of individuals and it isn't about plans or long term priorities.

You can see that prescribing swearing less, would ultimately save Evolution, from pressure to ignore what can't be adapted, at all?

This doesn't make sense given that there are no prescriptions from the process of evolution.

Let me know if I have lost you, I'm trying to pick the most dependable prescription I can find - to help you get the surest adaptation, on the basis of what you "say" is 'necessary change'?

There isn't a such thing as a necessary change.

Given that your analogy isn't making sense, you need to be more specific when attempting to describe evolution.

You wouldn't insist something be adapted, if you knew it could never be done, right?

Given that there isn't choice involved in evolution, there isn't anything insisting on anything being adapted.

In fact historically many species do not adapt because they went extinct without any offspring.

For example:
Homo heidelbergensis no longer exists, but some of its descendants adapted in Africa and became Homo sapiens, while other descendants adapted in Europe and became Neanderthals.

Comparatively Homo floresiensis lived in Indonesia, but went extinct with no offspring at all.