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!

What Happens When “Divergent Evolution” Gets Falsified?

Classification is very important in evolution for explaining new discoveries which do not match up with its explanation as we shall see in a moment. Darwin’s original tree diagram described “divergent evolution,” which starts with speciation first then followed by variations that make the two branches more and more dissimilar over time. “Homologous” traits, are found on animals on the same branch according to Darwinian evolution because it comes from the same common ancestor.

But what happens when two animals that are discovered on different branches which have “homologous” traits that comes from a different common ancestor? What could be the cause of this falsification of divergent evolution? Many evolutionists would respond, those similar traits are coming from “convergent evolution.”  

So here we see a classification scheme within the framework of evolution using circular reasoning.  If the traits are homologous, that is evidence for evolution,  if they are not similar, that is also considered evidence for evolution. There have been some recent discoveries being published that use this classification scheme of  “convergent evolution.”

Natures News claims that muscles have two origins…

“Jellyfish move using a set of muscles that look remarkably similar to striated muscles in vertebrates. However, new data show that the two muscle types contain different molecules, implying that they evolved independently.”

Increasing complexity to the situation is the fact that comb jellies, on a different branch, also have striated muscles, while most other invertebrates do not! Then the claims escalate to new heights…

“These results suggest that, despite their remarkable physical resemblance, the striated muscles of jellyfish and humans are constructed using a vastly different set of genes. Steinmetz and colleagues have revealed an extraordinary instance of convergent evolution — the evolution of highly similar traits in distantly related organisms.

It gets better, after having a problem trying to get subgenera on the same branch  PLoS ONE discovered “convergent evolution” in twelve subgenera of Appalachian crayfish because of their similarities. Confounding the work of taxonomists who try to figure out what is related to what and what is not related, the paper makes an astonishing  claim that “convergent evolution” is all over the place!

When you discover similarities between, invertebrate animals, plants and vertebrate animals, the evolutionist has a real conundrum going on.  Because all three unrelated groups show similar signaling pathways in their innate immune systems!

In Nature Immunology (which should be a free publication open to all since the taxpayers pay for this research)…

“It is commonly reported that these similarities in innate immunity represent a process of divergent evolution from an ancient unicellular eukaryote that pre-dated the divergence of the plant and animal kingdoms. However, at present, data suggest that the seemingly analogous regulatory modules used in plant and animal innate immunity are a consequence of convergent evolution and reflect inherent constraints on how an innate immune system can be constructed.”

Look at how Ausubel invented an explanatory device to come up with an explanation on why traits on vastly unrelated organisms end up being similar, “nature imposes constraints on how systems can be constructed.”  So if an elephant wants to walk, according to Ausubel, nature will have it grow some legs.  What is wrong with that picture?  A constraint can no more evolve a trait than a keyboard having the ability to create your computer.  An “engineering specification” can no more cause a system to emerge than water creating a boat.

Basically, evolutionists are now trying to force a mindless process with no foresight,   that would cause organisms into the engineering department! The reason why organisms have such an incredible ability to adapt is because it’s “designed”  into the organism by a Creator (namely God) who has advanced knowledge about engineering.  Yet we see evolutionists point to new discoveries where their faith requires them to believe that very complex traits evolved two, three, or more than a dozen times independently!  “Convergent evolution” is a classification scheme used only when “Divergent Evolution” gets falsified! Reclassifying things doesn’t verify a theory, nor explain how nature functions!

In a book, “The Biotic Message” by Walter ReMine, talkes about the universal genetic code in all living things (which is an observable fact), where this same code is used to create complex organisms in hierarchies with similarities across hierarchies and within hierarchies! That my friend is evidence for a Creator!

Blind Cave Fish Across The World

Did similar-looking blind cave fish swim across the world or did they evolve separately or was it something else? Two hypotheticals that deal with “what if” were being presented to the public as explanations.

In the BBC, they report…

“A study in PLoS One showed Madagascan and Australian cave fish inherited their blindness from a common ancestor. Their forebears probably lived in caves on the prehistoric southern super-continent Gondwanaland. Then continental drift tore this family apart – transporting them to their current locations.”

Did the study really show that they fish inherited their blindness from a common ancestor? If it did, then what is this…

“One possibility was that the cave fishes had evolved independently, from terrestrial counterparts. Species adapt to environmental challenges and opportunities and – through a process of natural selection – only the fittest survive (click here). When separate species are exposed to the same selective pressures they often come up with the same solutions – a process known as convergent evolution.”

The previous post discussed “only the fittest survive” with another study on how a creature went unchanged for a supposed 500 million years in the evolutionary time frame and survived while a much more fancy creature with better traits went extinct. But the question remains, if the study “showed” inheritance through a common ancestor to explain why blind cave fish have similar characteristics but are 4000 miles apart then why are they including other speculation? Maybe it was shown after all!

Convergent evolution was also considered, “When separate species are exposed to the same selective pressures they often come up with the same solutions — a process known as convergent evolution.”

Here is what the researchers came up with in their explanation. They believe  two lands split 60 million years ago, leaving the two species of cave-dwellers 4,000 miles apart, no longer able to share a common gene pool.  But where is the evidence of two lands splitting 60 million years ago to separate the species?   Two lands splitting is a major phenomena, one of which cannot rest its evidence on two types of blind cave fish that are 4,000 miles apart!

Their explanation defies logic, first of all, blindness is degeneration (a loss of a trait) rather than evolution (new information gained).  In the creationist model, variations within a species is acceptable and observable without adding new genetic information that evolution requires in this case.

Unlike the BBC press release, the authors admitted in their study that evolutionary theory is not confident in the seat of scientific explanation here:

“A major issue plaguing our understanding regarding the evolution of cave animals has been a lack of basic information regarding the assembly of these biotas, including mechanisms of speciation and phylogenetic origin.” 

Just basic information regarding assembly along with mechanisms of speciation and phylogenetic origin is not understood in the story of evolution, then why are you trying to explain it then? Another thing that is illogical about their story, it doesn’t take 60 million years to go blind. A generation or two could do that! 60 million years is more time than the major transitions they claimed to have happened with mammals!

Also why would these blind cave fish go unchanged and remain in the same location for 60 million years being on opposite sides of the ocean looking more similar between each other than other gobies? Does that register as logic to you? The best explanation comes from the Biblical account where a global flood happened which is where creationists believe the flood had broke up the continents and spread them apart rapidly. Only pockets of fish populations would have survived which is why they were discovered where they are now rather than in places like India!

How Falsifications Lead To Confirmations In Evolution

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?