Convergent evolution

Convergent evolution seen in “hardwiring” of brains to perceive numbers

Crows don’t have a prefrontal cortex so, as Offord notes, [the researchers] suggested convergent evolution (convergence on a common goal rather than common ancestry) as an explanation [for having skills similar to macaques’]. Even so, they say, the quality is probably innate. [Interesting, how often convergent evolution is invoked these days.]

Back to Basics of ID Biology Complex Specified Information Convergent evolution Darwinism Design inference Evolution Evolutionary biology Food for thought ID ID Foundations Information Intelligent Design Natural selection Naturalism Philosophy Science Video

New Video Presentation on YouTube: Intelligent Design & Scientific Conservatism

I have recently posted a new video on my Intelligent Design YouTube channel. In this video I discuss several areas in the philosophy of science and modern evolutionary biology, and their relationship to ID. These thoughts were prompted initially by an interesting paper by philosopher of science Jeffrey Koperski ‘Two Bad Ways to Attack Intelligent Read More…

Convergent evolution Intelligent Design

Talk about convergent evolution: Lizards evolved for life in trees at least 100 times

Toepads don’t evolve until after lizards get into the trees, not before. And padless lizards will leave trees at a high frequency — much higher than padbearing lizards. Okay, now here’s a question: How, exactly, does the tree lizard “evolve” toe pads just because they would be convenient? It’s not self-evident. Many lizards did not but others did. As Michael Behe would ask, “How, exactly?”

Convergent evolution Intelligent Design

Convergent evolution: Our most distant relatives were sponges, not comb jellies, say researchers

Re the researcher’s comment, “It may seem very unlikely that such complex traits could evolve twice, independently, but evolution doesn’t always follow a simple path,” well, he is virtually admitting that Darwinism stretches (snaps?) the bounds of probability but no one is allowed to discuss that honestly. That is most likely why there is a controversy in the first place.