Here’s Darwin’s Solution for Convergent Evolution: Like Two Inventors “Independently Hit on the Very Same Invention”

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. Robert Byers

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! tjguy

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. steve4003

Like Two Inventors “Independently Hit on the Very Same Invention”

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 . . . Eric Anderson

Design:

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.

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. Mapou

I didn't read this, but it might have some interesting thoughts... http://detectingdesign.com/geneticphylogeny.html#Hierarchy JGuy

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. Design

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 Joe

Bothersome Bats and Other Pests Disturb the "Tree of Life" - Casey Luskin - December 5, 2012 Excerpt: But this is hardly the only known example of molecular convergent evolution. In his book The Cell's Design, chemist and Darwin-skeptic Fazale Rana reviewed the technical literature and documented over 100 reported cases of convergent genetic evolution. Each case shows an example where biological similarity -- even at the genetic level -- is not the result of inheritance from a common ancestor. http://www.evolutionnews.org/2012/12/bothersome_bats067121.html Common Design in Bat and Whale Echolocation Genes? - January 2011 Excerpt: two new studies in the January 26th issue of Current Biology, a Cell Press publication, show that bats' and whales' remarkable ability and the high-frequency hearing it depends on are shared at a much deeper level than anyone would have anticipated -- all the way down to the molecular level. http://www.evolutionnews.org/2011/01/common_design_in_bat_and_whale042291.html

In fact so pervasive are the examples of convergence that Simon Conway Morris stated:

Simon Conway Morris: “Fossil evidence demands a radical rewriting of evolution.” - March 2012 Excerpt: "The idea is this: that convergence – the tendency of very different organisms to evolve similar solutions to biological problems – is not just part of evolution, but a driving force. To say this is an unconventional view would be something of an understatement." https://uncommondesc.wpengine.com/evolution/simon-conway-morris-fossil-evidence-demands-a-radical-rewriting-of-evolution/

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:

Lenski's Citrate E-Coli - Disproof of Convergent Evolution - Fazale Rana - video (the disproof of convergence starts at the 2:45 minute mark of the video) http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4564682 The Long Term Evolution Experiment - Analysis Excerpt: The experiment just goes to show that even with historical contingency and extreme selection pressure, the probability of random mutations causing even a tiny evolutionary improvement in digestion is, in the words of the researchers who did the experiment, “extremely low.” Therefore, it can’t be the explanation for the origin and varieity of all the forms of life on Earth. http://www.scienceagainstevolution.org/v12i11f.htm

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:

Implications of Genetic Convergent Evolution for Common Descent - Casey Luskin - Sept. 2010 Excerpt: When building evolutionary trees, evolutionists assume that functional genetic similarity is the result of inheritance from a common ancestor. Except for when it isn't. And when the data doesn't fit their assumptions, evolutionists explain it away as the result of "convergence." Using this methodology, one can explain virtually any dataset. Is there a way to falsify common descent, even in the face of convergent genetic similarity? If convergent genetic evolution is common, how does one know if their tree is based upon homologous sequences or convergent ones? Critics like me see the logic underlying evolutionary trees to be methodologically inconsistent, unpersuasive, and ultimately arbitrary. http://www.evolutionnews.org/2010/09/implications_of_genetic_conver037841.html

As to Darwin's comment:

in nearly the same way as two men have sometimes independently hit on the very same invention

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,:

List of multiple discoveries Excerpt: Historians and sociologists have remarked on the occurrence, in science, of "multiple independent discovery". Robert K. Merton defined such "multiples" as instances in which similar discoveries are made by scientists working independently of each other.,,, Multiple independent discovery, however, is not limited to only a few historic instances involving giants of scientific research. Merton believed that it is multiple discoveries, rather than unique ones, that represent the common pattern in science. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_multiple_discoveries In the Air – Who says big ideas are rare? by Malcolm Gladwell Excerpt: This phenomenon of simultaneous discovery—what science historians call “multiples”—turns out to be extremely common. One of the first comprehensive lists of multiples was put together by William Ogburn and Dorothy Thomas, in 1922, and they found a hundred and forty-eight major scientific discoveries that fit the multiple pattern. Newton and Leibniz both discovered calculus. Charles Darwin and Alfred Russel Wallace both discovered evolution. Three mathematicians “invented” decimal fractions. Oxygen was discovered by Joseph Priestley, in Wiltshire, in 1774, and by Carl Wilhelm Scheele, in Uppsala, a year earlier. Color photography was invented at the same time by Charles Cros and by Louis Ducos du Hauron, in France. Logarithms were invented by John Napier and Henry Briggs in Britain, and by Joost Bürgi in Switzerland. ,,, For Ogburn and Thomas, the sheer number of multiples could mean only one thing: scientific discoveries must, in some sense, be inevitable. http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2008/05/12/080512fa_fact_gladwell/?currentPage=all

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:

John 15:5 "I am the vine; you are the branches. If you remain in me and I in you, you will bear much fruit; apart from me you can do nothing. John Michael Talbot & Michael Card - "One Faith" http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yQXiLOLw5-o

bornagain77

Moreover, where DNA dissimilarity is greatest between species, in the regulatory regions, is the place where mutations are least likely to be tolerated:

Evolution by Splicing – Comparing gene transcripts from different species reveals surprising splicing diversity. – Ruth Williams – December 20, 2012 Excerpt: A major question in vertebrate evolutionary biology is “how do physical and behavioral differences arise if we have a very similar set of genes to that of the mouse, chicken, or frog?”,,, A commonly discussed mechanism was variable levels of gene expression, but both Blencowe and Chris Burge,,, found that gene expression is relatively conserved among species. On the other hand, the papers show that most alternative splicing events differ widely between even closely related species. “The alternative splicing patterns are very different even between humans and chimpanzees,” said Blencowe.,,, http://www.the-scientist.com/?articles.view%2FarticleNo%2F33782%2Ftitle%2FEvolution-by-Splicing%2F Gene Regulation Differences Between Humans, Chimpanzees Very Complex – Oct. 17, 2013 Excerpt: Although humans and chimpanzees share,, similar genomes (70% per Tomkins), previous studies have shown that the species evolved major differences in mRNA expression levels.,,, http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/10/131017144632.htm A Listener's Guide to the Meyer-Marshall Debate: Focus on the Origin of Information Question -Casey Luskin - December 4, 2013 Excerpt: "There is always an observable consequence if a dGRN (developmental gene regulatory network) subcircuit is interrupted. Since these consequences are always catastrophically bad, flexibility is minimal, and since the subcircuits are all interconnected, the whole network partakes of the quality that there is only one way for things to work. And indeed the embryos of each species develop in only one way." - Eric Davidson http://www.evolutionnews.org/2013/12/a_listeners_gui079811.html Darwin or Design? - Paul Nelson at Saddleback Church - Nov. 2012 - ontogenetic depth (excellent update) - video Text from one of the Saddleback slides: 1. Animal body plans are built in each generation by a stepwise process, from the fertilized egg to the many cells of the adult. The earliest stages in this process determine what follows. 2. Thus, to change -- that is, to evolve -- any body plan, mutations expressed early in development must occur, be viable, and be stably transmitted to offspring. 3. But such early-acting mutations of global effect are those least likely to be tolerated by the embryo. Losses of structures are the only exception to this otherwise universal generalization about animal development and evolution. Many species will tolerate phenotypic losses if their local (environmental) circumstances are favorable. Hence island or cave fauna often lose (for instance) wings or eyes. http://www.saddleback.com/mc/m/7ece8/

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:

Map Of Life - Simon Conway Morris http://www.mapoflife.org/browse/

Some, but certainly not all, of the examples of convergence include:

"The ability to do photosynthesis is widely distributed throughout the bacterial domain in six different phyla, with no apparent pattern of evolution. Photosynthetic phyla include the cyanobacteria, proteobacteria (purple bacteria), green sulfur bacteria (GSB), firmicutes (heliobacteria), filamentous anoxygenic phototrophs (FAPs, also often called the green nonsulfur bacteria), and acidobacteria (Raymond, 2008)." "Despite its complexity, C4 photosynthesis is one of the best examples of 'convergent evolution', having evolved more than 50 times in at least 18 plant families (Sage 2004; Conway Morris 2006)." Edith Widder: Glowing life in an underwater world - video http://www.ted.com/talks/edith_widder_glowing_life_in_an_underwater_world.html Description: Some 80 to 90 percent of undersea creatures make light -- and we know very little about how or why. Bioluminescence expert Edith Widder explores this glowing, sparkling, luminous world, sharing glorious images and insight into the unseen depths (and brights) of the ocean. Fish flaunt neon glow - Scientists find extensive evidence of biofluorescence in marine species. - Danielle Venton - 08 January 2014 Excerpt: More than 180 species of fish, from at least 50 taxonomic families, can absorb light and re-emit it as a different color, researchers report today in PLoS ONE1. Caught by cameras fitted with yellow-colored filters, fish such as the flathead (Cociella hutchinsi), found in the tropical Pacific Ocean, become show stoppers. "It's like they have their own little private light show going on," says John Sparks, a curator of ichthyology at the American Museum of Natural History in New York who helped to lead the work. "We were surprised to find it in so many.",,, http://www.nature.com/news/fish-flaunt-neon-glow-1.14488 Various (widely divergent) Creatures with Photocytes by Matthew Coghill on Prezi (interactive site) http://prezi.com/cerg_tftffo8/photocytes/ Convergent evolution seen in hundreds of genes - Erika Check Hayden - 04 September 2013 Excerpt: “These results imply that convergent molecular evolution is much more widespread than previously recognized,” says molecular phylogeneticist Frédéric Delsuc at the The National Center for Scientific Research (CNRS) at the University of Montpellier in France, who was not involved in the study. What is more, he adds, the genes involved are not just the few, obvious ones known to be directly involved in a trait but a broader array of genes that are involved in the same regulatory networks. http://www.nature.com/news/convergent-evolution-seen-in-hundreds-of-genes-1.13679

bornagain77

As to this:

Why, on the theory of Creation, should this be so? Why should all the parts and organs of many independent beings, each supposed to have been separately created for its proper place in nature, be so invariably linked together by graduated steps?

and this:

I am inclined to believe that in nearly the same way as two men have sometimes independently hit on the very same invention, so natural selection, working for the good of each being and taking advantage of analogous variations, has sometimes modified in very nearly the same manner two parts in two organic beings, which owe but little of their structure in common to inheritance from the same ancestor. [Charles Darwin, Origin of Species, 1st ed., 1859, Ch. 6, p. 193]

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:

“The molecular similarity between chimpanzees and humans is extraordinary because they differ far more than sibling species in anatomy and way of life. Although humans and chimpanzees are rather similar in the structure of the thorax and arms, they differ substantially not only in brain size but also in the anatomy of the pelvis, foot, and jaws, as well as in relative lengths of limbs and digits (38). Humans and chimpanzees also differ significantly in many other anatomical respects, to the extent that nearly every bone in the body of a chimpanzee is readily distinguishable in shape or size from its human counterpart (38). Associated with these anatomical differences there are, of course, major differences in posture (see cover picture), mode of locomotion, methods of procuring food, and means of communication. Because of these major differences in anatomy and way of life, biologists place the two species not just in separate genera but in separate families (39). So it appears that molecular and organismal methods of evaluating the chimpanzee human difference yield quite different conclusions (40).” King and Wilson went on to suggest that the morphological and behavioral between humans and apes,, must be due to variations in their genomic regulatory systems. David Berlinski - The Devil's Delusion - Page 162&163 Evolution at Two Levels in Humans and Chimpanzees Mary-Claire King; A. C. Wilson - 1975 The Red Ape - Cornelius Hunter - August 2009 Excerpt: "There remains, however, a paradoxical problem lurking within the wealth of DNA data: our morphology and physiology have very little, if anything, uniquely in common with chimpanzees to corroborate a unique common ancestor. Most of the characters we do share with chimpanzees also occur in other primates, and in sexual biology and reproduction we could hardly be more different. It would be an understatement to think of this as an evolutionary puzzle." http://darwins-god.blogspot.com/2009/08/red-ape.html Mona Lisa smile: The morphological enigma of human and great ape evolution - 2006 Excerpt: The quality and scope of published documentation and verification of morphological features suggests there is very little in morphology to support a unique common ancestor for humans and chimpanzees.,,, http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/ar.b.20107/abstract

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:

A chimp-pig hybrid origin for humans? - July 3, 2013 Excerpt: Dr. Eugene McCarthy,, has amassed an impressive body of evidence suggesting that human origins can be best explained by hybridization between pigs and chimpanzees. Extraordinary theories require extraordinary evidence and McCarthy does not disappoint. Rather than relying on genetic sequence comparisons, he instead offers extensive anatomical comparisons, each of which may be individually assailable, but startling when taken together.,,, The list of anatomical specializations we may have gained from porcine philandering is too long to detail here. Suffice it to say, similarities in the face, skin and organ microstructure alone is hard to explain away. A short list of differential features, for example, would include, multipyramidal kidney structure, presence of dermal melanocytes, melanoma, absence of a primate baculum (penis bone), surface lipid and carbohydrate composition of cell membranes, vocal cord structure, laryngeal sacs, diverticuli of the fetal stomach, intestinal "valves of Kerkring," heart chamber symmetry, skin and cranial vasculature and method of cooling, and tooth structure. Other features occasionally seen in humans, like bicornuate uteruses and supernumerary nipples, would also be difficult to incorporate into a purely primate tree. http://phys.org/news/2013-07-chimp-pig-hybrid-humans.html

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:

Human hybrids: a closer look at the theory and evidence - July 25, 2013 Excerpt: There was considerable fallout, both positive and negative, from our first story covering the radical pig-chimp hybrid theory put forth by Dr. Eugene McCarthy,,,By and large, those coming out against the theory had surprisingly little science to offer in their sometimes personal attacks against McCarthy. ,,,Under the alternative hypothesis (humans are not pig-chimp hybrids), the assumption is that humans and chimpanzees are equally distant from pigs. You would therefore expect chimp traits not seen in humans to be present in pigs at about the same rate as are human traits not found in chimps. However, when he searched the literature for traits that distinguish humans and chimps, and compiled a lengthy list of such traits, he found that it was always humans who were similar to pigs with respect to these traits. This finding is inconsistent with the possibility that humans are not pig-chimp hybrids, that is, it rejects that hypothesis.,,, http://phys.org/news/2013-07-human-hybrids-closer-theory-evidence.html

As well, DNA is not as similar as the 1975 King and Wilson study had falsely indicated:

Guy Walks Into a Bar and Thinks He's a Chimpanzee: The Unbearable Lightness of Chimp-Human Genome Similarity Excerpt: One can seriously call into question the statement that human and chimp genomes are 99% identical. For one thing, it has been noted in the literature that the exact degree of identity between the two genomes is as yet unknown (Cohen, J., 2007. Relative differences: The myth of 1% Science 316: 1836.). ,,, In short, the figure of identity that one wants to use is dependent on various methodological factors. http://www.evolutionnews.org/2009/05/guy_walks_into_a_bar_and_think.html Chimp chromosome creates puzzles - 2004 Excerpt: However, the researchers were in for a surprise. Because chimps and humans appear broadly similar, some have assumed that most of the differences would occur in the large regions of DNA that do not appear to have any obvious function. But that was not the case. The researchers report in 'Nature' that many of the differences were within genes, the regions of DNA that code for proteins. 83% of the 231 genes compared had differences that affected the amino acid sequence of the protein they encoded. And 20% showed "significant structural changes". In addition, there were nearly 68,000 regions that were either extra or missing between the two sequences, accounting for around 5% of the chromosome.,,, "we have seen a much higher percentage of change than people speculated." The researchers also carried out some experiments to look at when and how strongly the genes are switched on. 20% of the genes showed significant differences in their pattern of activity. http://www.nature.com/news/1998/040524/full/news040524-8.html Comprehensive Analysis of Chimpanzee and Human Chromosomes Reveals Average DNA Similarity of 70% - by Jeffrey P. Tomkins - February 20, 2013 Excerpt: For the chimp autosomes, the amount of optimally aligned DNA sequence provided similarities between 66 and 76%, depending on the chromosome. In general, the smaller and more gene-dense the chromosomes, the higher the DNA similarity—although there were several notable exceptions defying this trend. Only 69% of the chimpanzee X chromosome was similar to human and only 43% of the Y chromosome. Genome-wide, only 70% of the chimpanzee DNA was similar to human under the most optimal sequence-slice conditions. While, chimpanzees and humans share many localized protein-coding regions of high similarity, the overall extreme discontinuity between the two genomes defies evolutionary timescales and dogmatic presuppositions about a common ancestor. http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/arj/v6/n1/human-chimp-chromosome

In fact, gene similarity is also found to be much higher in widely divergent species than Darwinists had presupposed:

Kangaroo genes close to humans Excerpt: Australia's kangaroos are genetically similar to humans,,, "There are a few differences, we have a few more of this, a few less of that, but they are the same genes and a lot of them are in the same order," ,,,"We thought they'd be completely scrambled, but they're not. There is great chunks of the human genome which is sitting right there in the kangaroo genome," http://www.reuters.com/article/science%20News/idUSTRE4AH1P020081118 First Decoded Marsupial Genome Reveals "Junk DNA" Surprise - 2007 Excerpt: In particular, the study highlights the genetic differences between marsupials such as opossums and kangaroos and placental mammals like humans, mice, and dogs. ,,, The researchers were surprised to find that placental and marsupial mammals have largely the same set of genes for making proteins. Instead, much of the difference lies in the controls that turn genes on and off. http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/05/070510-opossum-dna.html

bornagain77

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 JGuy