One of the powerful arguments for evolution is that the species and the various biological organs and structures fall into the expected common descent pattern. We may not understand how they could have evolved and what transitional forms led to what we observe, but if they were created would they not show discontinuities from species to species? Darwin captures all of these ideas in this famous passage from Origins: Read more
12 Replies to “Here’s Darwin’s Solution for Convergent Evolution: Like Two Inventors “Independently Hit on the Very Same Invention””
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
An excerpt from a summary page of Walter ReMine’s book on this topic (convergence) with contrast of evolutionary explanations to Message Theory:
…
“16. Nested Hierarchy and Convergence
Though evolutionists created the illusions of lineage and gradualism to supplement their position, life’s nested hierarchy is (and always was) their central evidence. All the classical evidences — such as embryology, vestigial organs, fossil sequence, “imperfections”, morphological and biomolecular patterns — are mere versions of the nested hierarchy argument. Evolutionists now claim the nested hierarchy as evolution’s “central prediction”.
This chapter dismantles that illusion, and shows that evolutionary theory does not predict a nested hierarchy. It never was evidence for evolution, because evolution never predicted it. Evolutionists merely accommodated that pattern and used it as evidence against a creator. They asked, “Why would a creator design life to look like it evolved?”
This chapter overturns their argument in the most startling and ironic possible way: The nested hierarchy is the result of a design plan that includes making life look unlike the result of evolution. As one of its central design goals, life was intentionally designed to resist all theories of evolution, not just Darwin’s or Lamarck’s theories. There exist other evolutionary explanations that evolutionists embrace — such as transposition mechanisms, and the masking and unmasking of genetic libraries (known as genetic throwbacks) — which are exceedingly potent, simple, and plausible. Those “explanations” had to be defeated, and were defeated (uniformly at the morphological, embryological, and biochemical levels) by life’s nested hierarchy, while simultaneously displaying life as the unified product of one designer.
The observed abundance of so-called “convergence” is also explained with the self-same theory. These abundant features serve the ends of the biotic message — they help unify life as the product of one designer, yet they cannot be explained by common descent, nor by transposition, nor by atavism. Evolutionists are left with their least plausible explanation, that these similar designs happened to converge from highly diverse beginnings.”
– http://saintpaulscience.com/contents.htm
As to this:
and this:
So similarity disproves creatures were designed, yet similarity also, because inventors/designers sometimes ‘coincidentally’ hit on the same discovery, proves evolution?,,, There is just so much wrong with this line of thought. First off, there is far more that is different between supposedly closely related species than Darwinists presuppose. For prime example, chimps and humans are much farther apart, anatomically, than is believed in popular imagination:
In fact so great are the anatomical differences between humans and chimps that a Darwinist actually proposed that a pig and chimp mated with each other, (nicknamed the “PIMP” hypothesis by a reader on UD), and that is what ultimately gave rise to humans:
Moreover, due to the intense controversy generated in the minds of many Darwinists, Physorg published a subsequent article showing that the pig-chimp hybrid theory (PIMIP hypothesis) for human origins is much harder to shoot down than Darwinists had at first supposed it would be:
As well, DNA is not as similar as the 1975 King and Wilson study had falsely indicated:
In fact, gene similarity is also found to be much higher in widely divergent species than Darwinists had presupposed:
Moreover, where DNA dissimilarity is greatest between species, in the regulatory regions, is the place where mutations are least likely to be tolerated:
Moreover, as to the ‘convergent evolution’ of anatomical, and/or genetic, features in supposedly widely divergent species, it is found that ‘convergent evolution’ is far more widespread than Darwinists had at first presupposed it would be. Simon Conway Morris has a website documenting hundreds, if not thousands, of examples of convergence:
Some, but certainly not all, of the examples of convergence include:
In fact so pervasive are the examples of convergence that Simon Conway Morris stated:
And Dr. Morris has a right to consider such widespread convergence as ‘unconventional’ for Darwinism since Lenski’s work has shown that ‘convergent evolution’ is simply not true. Lenski’s “Long Term Evolution Experiment’ has shown that evolution is, as far as genetic sequences are concerned, ‘historically contingent’ not ‘historically convergent’. This following video and article make this point clear:
The loss of ‘convergent evolution’, as a argument for molecular sequence similarity in widely divergent species, is a major blow to neo-Darwinian story telling:
As to Darwin’s comment:
It is interesting to point out the fact that ‘coincidental scientific discoveries’ are far more prevalent than what should be expected from a materialistic perspective,:
Thus, as with convergent evolution being inexplicable to materialistic processes, it seems that man’s consciousness is also somehow, mysteriously, ‘tapped into’ a source of information/knowledge that is completely inexplicable to materialistic processes:
Verse and Music:
JGuy, Most evos don’t even know what a nested hierarchy is nor what it entails.
1- Nested hierarchies are man-made constructs and are not made by nature
2- Transitional forms, by their very nature, would make creating an objective nested hierarchy impossible
3- Linnean taxonomy, the observed nested hierarchy, is based on a common design which uses shared characteristics to formulate an archetype
4- Linnean taxonomy doesn’t have anything to do with evolutionism
1. Echolocation found in bats and dolphins, which are in unrelated lineages gives the phylogenetic tree quite a problem. It isn’t as if bats and dolphins encountered the same selective pressures to develop echolocation. They live in two totally different environments. In addition, there is a major difference in eyesight between the two, where a dolphin has amazing eyesight, whereas bats that use echolocation can have very poor eyesight.
Scientists have found nearly 200 genes in bats and dolphins related to echolocation that according to them “have identical changes”. Of course they are giving the credit to evolution when they use the term “identical changes”. But they don’t follow that thought up with the question: How can the changes be identical when the selective pressures were totally different?
It is my firm belief that convergent evolution was invented in order to keep the phylogenetic tree in-tact. Without it, the tree falls apart.
I didn’t read this, but it might have some interesting thoughts…
http://detectingdesign.com/gen.....#Hierarchy
Design:
You’re correct. Convergent evolution is BS, of course. The finding of identical sequences in distant branches of the tree of life that appeared long after the branches became separated, clearly falsifies the Darwinian theory of evolution and is powerful evidence that living organisms were designed. It’s clear that the designers decided to graft DNA segments that were designed for one genus onto another. Only brain-dead and dishonest Darwinists can continue to pledge allegiance to the theory of evolution at this point. The theory is dead.
Having said that, I would not say that the tree of life falls apart. The tree is still there, mostly nested, but with purposely grafted branches here and there. This is what should be expected from design evolution over time.
Of course. Because two inventors look at a problem, analyze possible solutions, draw inspiration from known fields of knowledge. Whereas evolution is blind, undirected, and hits upon a solution only as a result of a wildly improbable sequence of events. We would naturally expect a wildly improbable sequence of events to occur more than once, right? You know, just like inventors sometimes come up with similar solutions to the same problem.
So, yes, claiming that evolution works like intelligent agents is a good way to explain that what we see in biology isn’t the work of an intelligent agent, but rather the work of a process that is completely different from the work of an intelligent agent.
Wait a minute . . .
We’ve heard of Darwin’s Doubt and Darwin’s Dilemma. Maybe this “like 2 inventors” example could be called Darwin’s Blunder (ala Berra’s Blunder), where the given example actually is the result of designing intelligence.
Steve said:
“We’ve heard of Darwin’s Doubt and Darwin’s Dilemma. Maybe this “like 2 inventors” example could be called Darwin’s Blunder (ala Berra’s Blunder), where the given example actually is the result of designing intelligence.”
I love your idea! This argument of homology and nested hierarchies is a powerful tool for evolutionists! They have gotten much mileage out of this argument and I fear many people have been duped by it.
If some well respected name would write a book and explain the problem and inconsistencies of the homology argument, I think it would be a big help in countering their propaganda.
Creationists have long pointed out this problem, but if they were to write a book, it wouldn’t have the power, respect, or exposure that Meyer could get.
ID love to see a book devoted just to this problem that would expose the evolutionary bias of the homology and convergent evolution story!
Convergent evolution really does, hilariously, shatter so much of evolutionary biology. Its mocks the already difficult idea of mutations doing and creating new and radical biology inside and out.
If its that easy to look alike by unrelated critters then mutations couldn’t be that unique.
Its stupid. I really mean that. Its an embarrassment to mankind and Englishkind civilization.