Convergent Evolution vs The Evidence

In his book, Wonderful Life, evolutionary biologist Stephen Jay Gould argues that if the tape of life were re-wound and played back, life would have taken a very different course but others claim this is not correct. Evolution they say relies on conditions of the environment which creates convergent organisms.

When a ‘theory’ such as evolution is considered scientific law, no further thought or scientific evidence is likely to follow but debates do happen in the realm of evolution but its sole purpose is to preserve it at all costs, not to look for alternatives. As you can imagine, evolution is pretty complex, because over many years that includes our present day, it get falsified and stories are added to it. In other words, the data predicts the theory rather than the theory predicting the data.

As a result, there are various parts of the development of evolution, where structure or behavior is said to have evolved in one or more organisms which have a direct common ancestor. In other words, they get their parts from previous generations and in some instances improve upon them. The other is when there is similarity in a structure or behavior which are genetically unrelated with no common ancestor. The path is then determined by “selective pressures” from the environment. In other words, they evolve features based on need.

For example, tuna are more closely related to seahorses than to marlins, which is making the branches on the fish family tree more complicated. Also, fish unaffected by the catastrophe that wiped out the dinosaurs and scientists don’t have an explanation yet on why.

“Now, Wainwright and a team of researchers have pieced together a new family tree for this gigantic brood, with more than 18,000 species living today. Using both genetic tools and fossils, the “phylogeny” reveals unexpected links between some spiny-rayed fish, such as tuna and seahorses. The findings were published July 15 in the journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.”

“There are all these sorts of relationships no one had any inkling of,” Wainwright told LiveScience. “For a fish fanatic like me, these results are sort of life-changing. Until now, we really had no idea how these huge groups of fish were related.

Next there is co-evolution and mimicry.

In the story of co-evolution, mutations create change in the organism so it is suited to another organism. And mimicry is very much similar to co-evolution where one organism mutates to look and or behave like another totally different organism. It then benefits in some way from that relationship. For example, spiders that looked like ants.

How does a non-thinking process which uses random mutations to create new information which then creates new structures based on the needs of the organism in a particular environment? Random change to existing information doesn’t create new information! The fruit fly experiment comes to mind, where many generations were created in a perfect environment but after a period of time became not only resisted to change, but less fit! Mutation experiments have never shown any promise in creating a fit organism by adding more to the genome. Causing something to function is not the same as creating that something to function!

Science has shown DNA, cannot emerge on its own, protein is what builds DNA and information that is understood by the protein comes from DNA rather than the protein itself. When you discover completely unrelated animals or plants displaying the same engineering, it is not science to say, well that’s converge evolution!


2 thoughts on “Convergent Evolution vs The Evidence

  1. . . . . . . . . . .Convergent Evolution vs The Evidence

    Your whole premise is ridiculous.

    Convergent evolution is not a theory; it is a definition. You can’t rebut a definition with evidence.

    Suppose we define a chair as a seating implement having a horizontal surface, legs and a back. You then show me a stool that has no back, and claim the evidence shows that chairs do not necessarily have backs. The stool is not a chair because it doesn’t meet the definition — but evidence of a stool does not falsify the theory of chairs.

  2. No one caught this, but I’ll fix it anyway.

    In the comment above, the portion of the last sentence after the dash should read—:
    but evidence of a stool does not falsify the definition of chairs.

Leave a Reply

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

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

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ 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 )


Connecting to %s