Have theistic evolution leaders/proponents ever responded to the claim they are "heretics"/teaching heresy (looking for links, etc)?

[T_aquaticus]

@Daniel_Fisher

If I were a supporter of the grander scale of evolution, that would be essentially my position: there are no macro changes in organisms that could not have been achieved by a series, across time, and across generations, of small-scale changes. Unless I am very much mistaken, that was, essentially, Darwin’s own specific contribution: the idea that large changes between organisms were, in fact, the result of an accumulation of numerous small changes.

For me, it is about explaining the genetic differences between species and how it relates to the physical differences between species. For example, I think we could probably agree that the physical differences between humans and chimps is due to the DNA sequence differences seen between our genomes. For the vast majority of biologists, these differences look like naturally occurring mutations which can include changes in letters, insertion or deletion of letters, or recombination between sections of DNA.

If you don’t think that micro can add up to macro, then you need to find DNA differences that could not be produced by known and observed natural processes that produce mutations, or swing for the fences and show us how the DNA sequence of a genome has nothing to do with the what a species looks like or functions.

@Daniel_Fisher

If I started with “Roses are red,” I’d have no issue if someone told me said process, by itself and otherwise unguided, produced various fun new sentences such as “Noses are bled” or the like. But if someone claimEd they ran that program, let it run for a few days, and it eventually came up with the full phrase, “It is a far, far better thing that I do, than I have ever done; it is a far, far better rest that I go to, than I have ever known…” I would be incredulous, and I trust you would be too.

The first problem is that the sequences in genetics looks nothing like english, or any language for that matter. For example, this is the amino acid sequence for human cytochrome c:

GDVEKGKKIFIMKCSQCHTVEKGGKHKTGPNLHGLFGRKTGQAPGYSYTAANKNKGIIWG
EDTLMEYLENPKKYIPGTKMIFVGIKKKEERADLIAYLKKATNE

I don’t see anything approaching the sequence of letters you describe.

Second, you should be cautious not to commit the Sharpshooter fallacy. When you designate the target after the event you are painting a bulls eye around the arrow.

[Daniel_Fisher]

@T_aquaticus

Second, you should be cautious not to commit the Sharpshooter fallacy. When you designate the target after the event you are painting a bulls eye around the arrow.

Good call, but I would point out that this is specifically why I said, “the Dickens quote (or any other of comparable weight and poetry)” I would be dubious of ANY such sentence of comparable literary quality coming out of my hypothetical program.

[Daniel_Fisher]

Matthew, I have no desire or intent (or time) to enter such debate at present. For now, I only wanted to clarify to Michelle the important philosophical distinction between such micro changes and macro changes, in any context, biological or otherwise… and why the fact that I embrace the truth behind certain micro changes, that there is philosophical justification for being skeptical that large macro changes can be simply explained as the cumulative result of numerous micro changes.

[pevaquark (Matthew Pevarnik)]

@Daniel_Fisher

that large macro changes can be simply explained as the cumulative result of numerous micro changes

What is an example of a large macro change?

[Daniel_Fisher]

@T_aquaticus

The first problem is that the sequences in genetics looks nothing like english, or any language for that matter. For example, this is the amino acid sequence for human cytochrome c:

GDVEKGKKIFIMKCSQCHTVEKGGKHKTGPNLHGLFGRKTGQAPGYSYTAANKNKGIIWG
EDTLMEYLENPKKYIPGTKMIFVGIKKKEERADLIAYLKKATNE

I don’t see anything approaching the sequence of letters you describe.

The same could be said of computer code, that it wouldn’t look anything like English letters, but that would be entirely beside the point, the principle remains… I could take some initial program, set it up to keep replacing one bit or byte after another, test it each time to see if the program broke, and Find that there is conceivably a path that could change Microsoft Word into PowerPoint. Now I could conceivably see such a random process stumbling upon improvements to MSWord. But if someone suggested that this process is how PowerPoint was created, I’d be extremely dubious.

But the fact that the computer code didn’t resemble English any more than the genetic code would have little to do with the underlying principle.

[Daniel_Fisher]

@pevaquark

What is an example of a large macro change?

Bacteria becoming people.

[pevaquark (Matthew Pevarnik)]

Okay, let’s zoom in to that a little more. Can you help me understand where the macroevolution cutoff is? Let’s say we go with humans, how far is too far?

[T_aquaticus]

@Daniel_Fisher

Good call, but I would point out that this is specifically why I said, “the Dickens quote (or any other of comparable weight and poetry)” I would be dubious of ANY such sentence of comparable literary quality coming out of my hypothetical program.

Playing cards can be a good analogy. If you thoroughly shuffled a deck of cards and deal them out one by one the specific order of those cards has a probability of 1 in 52!, or 1 in 8.0658175e+67. That’s an 8 with 67 zeros after it. The order of those cards is extremely improbable, and yet there they are. It happened. The very act of shuffling and dealing the cards ensures that we will end up with a nearly impossible series of cards. The same applies to evolution. The very act of randomly changing DNA sequences and passing them through generations in a population ensures that we will end up with a nearly impossible DNA sequence.

[T_aquaticus]

@Daniel_Fisher

The same could be said of computer code, that it wouldn’t look anything like English letters, but that would be entirely beside the point, the principle remains… I could take some initial program, set it up to keep replacing one bit or byte after another, test it each time to see if the program broke, and Find that there is conceivably a path that could change Microsoft Word into PowerPoint.

You are painting the bulls eye around the arrow. Evolution does not have a goal, so expecting Microsoft Word to evolve towards the target of PowerPoint is wrong. If you ran the experiment you are describing we would most likely end up with a program that no one has ever seen before.

You are also assuming that humans are the target (Sharpshooter fallacy), and then acting amazed that a random process could hit that target. That’s not how evolution works. As I stated above, the very process of mutation and biological reproduction ensures that we will end up and a highly improbable series of DNA bases, just as shuffling a deck of cards ensures that we will produce a highly improbable series of cards.

@Daniel_Fisher

But the fact that the computer code didn’t resemble English any more than the genetic code would have little to do with the underlying principle.

Would your argument have the same weight if we start with “Roses are red” and end up with:

GDVEKGKKIFIMKCSQCHTVEKGGKHKTGPNLHGLFGRKTGQAPGYSYTAANKNKGIIWG
EDTLMEYLENPKKYIPGTKMIFVGIKKKEERADLIAYLKKATNE

[T_aquaticus]

@Daniel_Fisher

Bacteria becoming people.

Are we to assume that the following are examples of microevolution:

Humans and other apes sharing a common ancestor.
Humans and other primates sharing a common ancestor.
Humans and other mammals sharing a common ancestor.
Humans and other amniotes sharing a common ancestor.
Humans and other tetrapods sharing a common ancestor.
Humans and other vertebrates sharing a common ancestor.