Convergent Evolution Is Secular Miracles

As science gets better so does increasing the complexity in evolution! Imagine a blind, aimless process which is able to build a super-sensitive vibrating drum attached to various intricate levers that connect to an piano keyboard frequency analysis system, transducing acoustic energy into mechanical energy and then into fluid energy, increasing sensitivity at each step. If one can imagine evolution producing all that once, now imagine it happening twice!

Did evolution predict this? No! The data tends to predict what evolution does not the other way around because the data does match the evolutionary explanation.  Detecting the hearing mechanism in “katydid” was never possible before until recently…

Science Magazine

“In mammals, hearing is dependent on three canonical processing stages: (i) an eardrum collecting sound, (ii) a middle ear impedance converter, and (iii) a cochlear frequency analyzer. Here, we show that some insects, such as rainforest katydids, possess equivalent biophysical mechanisms for auditory processing. Although katydid ears are among the smallest in all organisms, these ears perform the crucial stage of air-to-liquid impedance conversion and signal amplification, with the use of a distinct tympanal lever system.”

“Further along the chain of hearing, spectral sound analysis is achieved through dispersive wave propagation across a fluid substrate, as in the mammalian cochlea. Thus, two phylogenetically remote organisms, katydids and mammals, have evolved a series of convergent solutions to common biophysical problems, despite their reliance on very different morphological substrates.”

The katydid is a very small creature, about 600 millionths of a meter. As a result, this remarkable discovery about its hearing required an x-ray microtomography along with other state-of-the-art techniques to reveal its structure. Then the authors compared the discovery using a diagram, to three parts of a human ear and katydid ear side by side, showing how analogous the structures are.

But using the term “convergent evolution” doesn’t explain what is going on in nature nor confirms evolution in general. Conclusions often times revolves around circular reasoning. As we seen before in previous falsifications like “divergent evolution,” which starts with speciation first then followed by variations that make the two branches more and more dissimilar over time.  But operational science reveals  “homologous” traits which comes from a different common ancestor so then “convergent evolution” is invoked.

When using circle reasoning one can come up with an answer and if not one is created for future falsifications. Remember, the data predicts what evolution is going to explain. There was no such prediction that would indicated anything like what was discovered. In real science, predictions are either confirmed or falsified through operational science not by historical science.

What these evolutionist fail to see in their research is that nature has a universal genetic code which is contained in all living things, where this same code is used to create complex organisms in hierarchies with similarities across hierarchies and within hierarchies! That my friend is an observable fact and evidence for a Creator!

Advertisements

10 thoughts on “Convergent Evolution Is Secular Miracles

  1. “That my friend is an observable fact and evidence for a Creator!”

    And why would that be evidence for ‘a creator’ ??? This conclusion comes out of thin air, Michael …
    would you care to actually argue for this somehow ?

  2. But using the term “convergent evolution” doesn’t explain what is going on in nature nor confirms [sic] evolution in general. Conclusions often times revolves [sic] around circular reasoning. As we seen before in previous falsifications like [sic] “divergent evolution,” which starts with speciation first then followed by variations that make the two branches more and more dissimilar over time. [sic] But operational science reveals “homologous” traits which comes [sic] from a [sic] different common ancestor so then “convergent evolution” is invoked.

    As foretold, Michael has glommed onto the amazing astounding stunning astonishing katydid ear. Just too juicy to pass up.

    But of course Michael falls into the trap of his ignorance again. Guess, what, Michael: CONVERGENT EVOLUTION IS NOT A MODE OR A MECHANISM OF EVOLUTION. Therefore one cannot “confirm” convergent evolution. Or “falsify” it. Or use it to confirm of falsify evolution in general.

    ————————

    Michael’s attempts at English grammar seems [sic] to decay over time. So, instead of blaming his home schooling, we’ll have to put it down to the mind rot that accompanies creationist thinking.

    Note, for example, that the last sentence in the above quote makes no sense at all: Homologous traits cannot be revealed by experiment (operational science). Homologous traits come from the same ancestor, not from different ancestors. What might a “different common” ancestor refer to, anyway? If convergent evolution is invoked, then by definition the traits are not homologous.

    In the second sentence, where is “circular reasoning” involved? (Hint: Michael doesn’t know what “circular reasoning is. But it sounds good, so he tosses it in, hoping his readers are too dumb to notice.) In what way could a conclusion possibly “revolve around” circular reasoning?.

  3. Cosmologist Sir Fred Hoyle (1915–2001) said the probability of the formation of just one of the many proteins on which life depends is comparable to that of the solar system packed full of blind people randomly shuffling Rubik’s cubes all arriving at the solution at the same time.

  4. Did evolution predict this? No! The data tends to predict what evolution does not [sic] the other way around [sic] because the data does match the evolutionary explanation.

    Can anyone else make any sense out of this, or am I the only one who can’t?

    Thank you, however, Michael, for saying that the data does match the evolutionary explanation. Now all we have to do is figure out what the evolutionary explanation is, because the Science article never mentioned one! [1]

    The katydid is a very small creature, about 600 millionths of a meter. As a result, this remarkable discovery about its hearing required an x-ray microtomography along with other state-of-the-art techniques to reveal its structure. Then the authors compared the discovery using a diagram, to three parts of a human ear and katydid ear side by side, showing how analogous the structures are.

    Here, as usual, Michael misunderstands the terminology. In biology, an analog is “An organ or structure that is similar in function to one in another kind of organism but is of dissimilar evolutionary origin. The wings of birds and the wings of insects are analogs.”[2]

    ———————————————
    Let’s analyze this example, which is frequently given as a paradigm. Why are the wings of birds and insects analogous? Because they have the same overall functions: flight through the air. Does this mean they have the same structure? Only insofar as every mechanism for flight needs certain elements, such as an airfoil and a power source. The airfoil of a bird employs an internal skeleton having a small number of bones, covered by skin and dense feathers. The airfoil of an insect has two layers of chitinous cuticle, stiffened by a network of veins. Although muscles provide the power for both birds and insects, wing muscles in birds extend from the body into the wing, and do not appreciably change the shape of the body. Insect flight muscles, on the other hand, are located entirely within the insect’s body, and can move the wings only by changing the shape of parts of the body.

    Bird and insect wings have only two structures in common: an airfoil, and a muscular power system. Almost everything else is different. The bird and insect wings are not “homologous,” because they evolved in different ways from different ancestral forms; bird wings from the forelimbs of a vertebrate, insect wings from abdominal breathing organs of an arthropod. This is why they are called “convergent”—ancestral structures for entirely different functions have changed so as to perform the same function.
    ———————————————-

    All kinds of insects have “ears.” That is, they can sense sound waves in the air. These ears use air passages, which insects have all over their bodies, and nerves to sense vibrations in them.[3] Some of these areas have become specialized to become more efficient at detecting sounds, with drum-like membranes and nerves. Some also have hair-like organs and fluid-filled cavities to detect specific frequencies.[4]

    The simplified model in the Science paper has three components, each of which has an analog in a mammalian ear: a taut membrane for collecting sound, an impedance converter, and a frequency analyzer. Other insect ears studied heretofore have the first and third of these components, but lacked the second—an impedance converter. So Michael’s supposedly vastly complex structure actually adds only one major component to the mix of previous insect hearing organs. And that component is structurally simple—much simpler than the corresponding middle ear of a mammal, in fact.

    Earlier, I claimed that Michel had no idea what he is talking about here, and offered a challenge So here it is again: Michael, explain the function of an impedance converter. What does such a converter do, in general, and why? What is the structure of the katydid converter, and how does it work? What variables does it modify? If Michael can’t answer this question, then he has not the slightest idea why the discovery in the Science paper is significant, or what it means.

    One of Michael’s other failings is that he takes all analogies literally, without any regard for the underlying point.[5]. Michael claims that the katydid eardrum is attached to “various intricate levers that connect to an piano keyboard frequency analysis system.”[6] OK, Michael, here comes another one: What part of the katydid ear corresponds to a “key” on a piano keyboard?

    He doesn’t know, because this analogy is misleading. The “inner ear” part is not like a piano keyboard at all. It is more like a vocoder. But since few people are on a first-name basis with vocoders, let’s say that the katydid inner ear, like the mammalian cochlea, is like a thousand radios all tuned to different stations. Each picks up only its own station, and sends the signal to one of a thousand different listeners, but only when that station is on the air.[7]

    In short, the newly discovered katydid ear adds a single component to an otherwise garden-variety insect ear, and thereby makes it significantly more efficient. This extra component is not some complex arrangement of parts that had never occurred together—it is only a single stiff lever, made of that universal insect building material, chitin.

    The discovery is significant. But not for the reasons Michael imagines. Hey, he doesn’t even know how it works. And it is not all that complicated.

    =================

    [1] Remember that “convergent evolution,” as noted above is not a mode of evolution, nor is it an explanation. If Michael could remember the difference between an :analog” and a “homolog,” he might not have to strep into this pile of crap all the time.

    [2] From The Free Dictionary. Many other online and hard-copy dictionaries use identical words, or nearly so.

    [3] Antennae are also considered to be ears, but they work in a different way, and detect only near-field vibrations.

    [4] The hairs with nerves didn’t appear just for hearing. They can detect limb and body position and orientation. This is why so many insect ears are located on their legs.

    [5] Rather like the donkey in Shrek. Viz—
    Shrek: Ogres are like onions.
    Donkey: They stink?
    Shrek: Yes. No!
    Donkey: They make you cry?
    Shrek: No!
    Donkey: You leave them out in the sun, they get all brown, start sprouting little white hairs.
    Shrek: No! Layers! Onions have layers!

    [6] This is factually wrong. There is only a single piece. Michael struggles to find complexity where there is none.

    [7] Mathematically, the inner ear performs a Fourier transform that converts a signal in the time domain to a thousand different signals in the frequency domain..

  5. Cosmologist Sir Fred Hoyle (1915–2001) said the probability of the formation of just one of the many proteins on which life depends is comparable to that of the solar system packed full of blind people randomly shuffling Rubik’s cubes all arriving at the solution at the same time.

    One has to wonder what is the relevance of this to katydid ears.

    But Hoyle is absolutely right. In the absence of evolution, building one protein from individual atoms would be an impossibility. Fortunately, the laws of chemistry are sufficient to form the building blocks of proteins. And evolution fosters the assembly of ever-larger units from smaller ones, a factor that Hoyle did not account for.

    Even so, new proteins are not easy to come by. many evolutionary biologists opine that there are oly about a dozen really different proteins in the entire 4-billion-year history of life. All the others derive from duplications, mutations, or neofunctionalizations of previous proteins. (And these are very easy to do.)

    ———————————

    Michael of course gives no source for the Hoyle quotation, so we can presume it was taken out of context. It is from an article in the popular press, “The Big Bang in Astronomy,” New Scientist 92(1280):527 in 1981, that quotes Hoyle’s earlier book, “Evolution from Space” (Touchstone), which is considered a fringe-science book promoting his theory of panspermia—that life originated in outer space.

    That is, Hoyle never intended this quotation to advocate intelligent or supernatural design of life.

    Sorry, Michael.

  6. Olorin,

    Here is another example of the data predicting evolution’s explanation (by invoking convergent), two identically-looking poisonous sea snakes (one known as the doppelganger) but are genetically unrelated…

    In Phyorg

    “Associate Professor Fry said the finding was an example of a situation where two species evolved separately but ended up looking similar, known as the convergent phenotypic evolution phenomenon.”

    When your telling a story, and that story increases with so much complexity, that is because the data is not agreeing with it. The theory of gravity which evolution is often compared to, doesn’t increase with complexity!

  7. Here is another example of the data predicting evolution’s explanation (by invoking convergent), [sic] two identically-looking poisonous sea snakes (one known as the doppelganger) [0] but [sic] are genetically unrelated…

    The problem is, Michael, that the above statement makes no sense. “Data” cannot logically predict an “explanation.” Data does not predict anything—data merely exists. And “explanations” cannot be “predicted”—they are constructed by a person who interprets the data. And a single set of data could have multiple valid explanations.

    When your [sic] telling a story, and that story increases with so much complexity, that is [sic] because the data is [sic] not agreeing with it.

    This makes no sense either. Are you trying for 100% nonsense? If by “story,” you meant to say “theory,” then it makes no sense to say that increasing the complexity of a theory causes the data not to agree with it.

    Would you like to start over?

    The theory of gravity which evolution is often compared to, doesn’t increase with complexity!

    Apparently you don’t know anything about the theory of gravity either. The theory of gravity becomes so complex when more than two bodies are involved that NO ONE HAS EVER FOUND ANY SOLUTIONS FOR THE MATHEMATICAL EQUATIONS IN 3 1/2 CENTURIES OF TRYING.

    Ignorant, Michael, très ignorant.

    ===========================

    [0] Michael do you have any idea what a doppelgänger is??? It is most definitely not a type of snake.

  8. How about it, Michael? Are you going to tell us what an impedance converter does, or can we secure in concluding that YOU HAVE NO IDEA WHAT YOU’RE TALKING ABOUT?

  9. Chirp … chirp … chirp … chirp …

    Still no response. Michael simply cuts and pastes his creationist sources, without a glimmer of understanding.

    One would think that Michael would realize by now that creationist sources lie to him constantly. We might pardon Michael his ignorance, but the sources he quotes know better. They are deliberately lying.

  10. Obviously, Michael is not going to tell us anything about the only novel component in the katydid insect ear Because he doesn’t have any idea what he’s talking about. All he can do is to parrot the nonsense put out by his creationist sources—Michael himself swallows them whole with no critical thought whatever.

    But back to impedance converters (ICs), the novel component in the bug’s ear. An IC is a device that changes the ratio of two variables that describe a system, while leaving their product the same. The importance of an IC is that it matches an energy source to its load, thus maximizing the transfer of energy. WHAAA??

    Try putting your head underwater and listening for sounds in the air above the water. Hard to do—because airborne sound has a high amplitude, but a low pressure, while sound in water has a low amplitude but a higher pressure. Result? Little sound transfer to your ear. But ICs occur in many settings. The wall-wart that charges your cell phone is an IC, turning a small current at high voltage into a low voltage at higher current. The transmission of your car converts high engine speed at relatively low torque into a lower speed but higher torque at the wheels. The bell of a trumpet converts a high-pressure, low-volume air stream into low-pressure, high-volume waves for our ears. A see-saw can balance a heavy adult against a light child—but the child must move farther then the adult on the see-saw.

    The last example is important, because it works in exactly the same way as the katydid ear. And it is extremely simple—very much simpler than the 3 bones of the mammalian ear.

    Suppose we have a 150 pound adult on one end of a see-saw, and a 15 pound child on the other end. To balance, the child must sit 10 times farther from the fulcrum of the see-saw than the adult. On the other hand, the child must move 10 times as far as the adult to make the see-saw go up and down. The diagram below represents distance vertically and weight (force) horizontally. The see-saw is supported at the “0”.
    |
    |
    |
    |
    |____________________0__||||||||||
    |
    |
    |
    |
    |
    So the left end carries 1/10 the weight, but must move 10 times as far as the right end. The impedance of the system—the ratio of force to distance— is changed by a factor of 100 (10/1 –> 1/10), while the product remains the same: 1×10=10×1.

    This see-saw has exactly the same form as the katydid impedance converter—a simple level anchored much nearer one end than the other. The left end connects to the tympanic membrane (“ear drum”), and the right end is coupled to the fluid-filled chamber having the sound-detection hairs. This lever is anchored to the bug’s leg much nearer one end than the other, for converting weak high-amplitude sound waves in air to strong—but low-amplitude—waves in a fluid. The katydid can hear much better, because much more of the energy iin the sound is coupled to the detecting hairs, instead of being reflected uselessly back into the air.

    No complex levers, no huge design challenge, no need for magic.

    Michael will never understand it. He NEEDS magic. If it ain’t magic, he won’t believe it.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s