Further, for you to show that 'convergent evolution' is anything more than rhetorical nonsense you have to show, not that species which are totally unrelated have similar features, but that species which are totally unrelated inherited those features. Such you will claim is a non-sensical request, my reply to such an objection has already been given - the concept of convergent evolution is nonsensical therefore any proof of it will have to be nonsensical in itself and not in accordance with scientific fact. You have descended into nonsense. Repeating an assertion is not the same as supporting it.
Convergent evolution is not a problem for mainstream science. Here's a Yahoo! on the term, about 13000 hits.
Many documented cases, clear and non-magical mechanisms. No problem except finding a way to get it into your head.
Shifting gears, you've been dodging me for hundreds of replies now on something that I've been asking repeatedly on this thread. You keep linking this study which shows mtDNA analysis to be statistically unreliable. You offer it up straightforwardly as a refutation of all of modern science with which you disagree, which is practically all of it.
Ignoring your total misreading of the content of the story, the only basis for the frequent goreism "Genetics have disproven the idea that neanderthals are the ancestors of humans" is mtDNA analysis of bone fragments.
Do you accept mtDNA studies as valid or not? You can't use the results of mtDNA studies when you like them while trumpeting their discrediting out of the other side of your mouth. It's a shame I can't get an answer on this. I would be particularly disappointed if, the next time we were discussing the hominid fossil series, you came in once again saying "Genetics have disproven ..." yada yada, conveniently forgetting that that particular baby is gone, thrown out with the Duke study bathwater.
Is it asking to much for you to take a clear and consistent position?
Convergent evolution is not a problem for mainstream science. It is not science if there is no factual evidence for it. You cannot give factual evidence for it in spite of your supposed 13,000 hits on Yahoo. Let's remember that when you had 3,000 hits supposedly showing the observation of gene duplication you were not able to give a single example, nor were other evolutionists who followed your lead. So the truth is that there is a lot of gibberish written by evolutionists with few or no facts to support it scientifically.
As to your attempt to sidetrack this discussion by bringing up Neanderthals, I am not biting.
The issue here is far more important - whether genetic evidence proves or disproves evolution. I have shown with scientific facts in Post# 1861 , Post# 1754 , Post# 1682 , Post# 1593 , Post# 1570 , and Post# 1549 that genetic evidence disproves evolution. You have been totally unable to refute those posts with scientific facts.
The inability of mtDNA to provide an accurate evolutionary tree, the disproven claim that 'ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny' and the nonsensicallity of the claim that 'convergent evolution' occurs without a single iota of scientific substantiation for it, shows quite clearly that evolution is scientifically false.
