Homoplasy is fancy jargon for convergent evolution which is often times invoked as an explanation of organisms having supposedly and independently converge on the same complex solution from the same complex problem via evolution. It has been subject to debate for many years within evolution about whether or not it exhibits directionality or inevitability.
In science daily…
“The authors provide many fascinating examples of homoplasy, including different species of salamanders that independently, through evolution, increased their body-length by increasing the lengths of individual vertebrae. By contrast, most species grow longer by adding vertebrae through evolution.”
In any case, it’s incredibly and enormously hard (and this is being generous) for a random process to produce specified things like eyes just one time let alone doing a number of times again which suggests that multiple independent cases would falsify evolution big time! The authors mentioned in science daily using taxpayer funding decided that the damaging evidence was really a triumph for Darwinian evolution.
So what you have here, homoplasy being a fancy jargon term for convergent evolution which failed evolutionary predictions at first, but then it was later invoked into the framework to claim future and past predictions. “See” some say, “evolution predicts it” in other words they are claiming evolution predicted it all along, they just were not aware of it at first. This is how a story which has been falsified by the evidence numerous times leads itself to confirmations in science.
When mistakes happen in evolution, often times the theories are not abandoned by the falsifications. Fossils are a prime example of this and seem to always make huge headlines. Back in 2004, reported in Science and Scientific American, was the latest claim of a human fossil from Africa considered to be the oldest ever found that was originally discovered in 2001.
The fossil consisted of a mere six fragments of teeth from Ethiopia, by the team of Haile-Selassie. Not all were convinced. David Begun says…
“It is tempting to see evidence of anagenesis (unilinear evolution) in the late Miocene hominin record in part because continuity is suggested by claims for some evidence of bipedalism in all known taxa. The evidence from Orrorin is ambiguous … whereas that from Sahelanthropus is indirect, based only on the position of the foramen magnum.”
“The region is severely distorted in the only cranial specimen of Sahelanthropus, and even the describers recognize the uncertainty. A. kadabba is interpreted as a biped on the basis of a single toe bone, a foot proximal phalanx, with a dorsally oriented proximal joint surface, as in more recent hominins.”
“However, the same joint configuration occurs in the definitely nonbipedal late Miocene hominid Sivapithecus, and the length and curvature of this bone closely resembles those of a chimpanzee or bonobo. In addition, the specimen is 400,000 to 600,000 years younger than the rest of the A. kadabba sample, 800,000 years older than A. ramidus, and from a locality that is geographically much closer to Aramis than to Asa Koma. It may or may not be from a biped, and if it is, which biped?”
His paper contains more questions than answers, words like “far from established”, and “unclear.” Then he concludes…
“Why the different interpretations? Evidence is scarce and fragmentary, and uncertainty predominates. Interpretations rely especially heavily on past experience to make sense of incomplete evidence. Haile-Selassie and colleagues interpret diversity in fossil hominids in terms of variability and gradual evolutionary change in an evolving lineage. Others see cladistic diversity as opposed to ancestor-descendant relations….
Ancestor-descendant relations must exist , but adaptive radiation and cladogenesis also must exist , or organic diversity would be the same today as it was at the beginning of biological evolution. Rather than a single lineage, the late Miocene hominin fossil record may sample an adaptive radiation , from a source either in Eurasia or yet undiscovered in Africa, the first of several radiations during the course of human evolution…. Regardless, the level of uncertainty in the available direct evidence at this time renders irreconcilable differences of opinion inevitable. The solution is in the mantra of all paleontologists: We need more fossils!
This is one of the most damaging and blunt honest assessments concerning the story of human evolution that you will ever read in a secular science journal. Once you get by all the jargon produced in the paper, all that have is debate, uncertainty, and lack of evidence. Noticed how David Begun believes that evidence for both descent and diversity must exist, “or organic diversity would be the same today as it was at the beginning of biological evolution.” He basically wants it both ways: evidence of diversity, but also evidence of descent, and yet he has neither!
So what ever happened to the fossil containing 6 fragments considered to be the oldest human ancestor? It appears it wasn’t so human after all, earlier this month, Bernard Wood and Terry Harrison rebuked fellow paleoanthropologists for their jumping to conclusions saying that, “to simply assume that anything found in that time range has to be a human ancestor is naïve.”
This should always be keep in mind on what evolutionists consider to be evidence especially when it comes to articles like “Prehuman Lucy on a Walking Path” to humanity, or “Lucy Was No Swinger, Walked Like Us, Fossil Suggests” in places like Live Science or National Geographic. So what was considered to be the oldest human fossil that turned out to be something different, did it damage the story of evolution? Here is how this falsification was turned around into a confirmation by evolutionists…
“Skepticism regarding these famous primate fossil finds seems to call into question the rigor of the scientific process within the field of paleoanthropology. Wood’s and Harrison’s paper certainly makes one wonder: Are these isolated incidents of misinterpretation followed by media hype, or does the problem pervade the whole branch of science? Is the human evolutionary fossil record a crapshoot? “No,“ said Harrison. There are reasons why this branch of science may seem messier than most, he said, but all things considered, it is doing extremely well.”
Evolutionists appear very adept at turning criticism into praise in order to rescue the ‘theory’ in which they believe is true and are getting paid good money for to research. Whether this neat trick or rescue tactic justifies evolution as a scientific theory is a different question. The question here is, does it really lead to a deeper understanding of evolution, or is it sophistry?