...and it doesn't. Instead, it produces *SIMILAR* outcomes repeatedly. Not "the same".
Thank you for confirming that the predictions of evolutionary biology do indeed match what is found in nature.
For example, birds, bats, and pteradons all have wings with many *similar* features (driven by the demands of function), BUT they are fundamentally different in their particulars. They are in no way "the same" structurally or in detail.
Different bones are used in significantly different roles in all three wings, for example. In birds, the bones are used only at the leading edge of the wing (and that not even for its entire length), whereas in bats four long "fingers" are used to stretch separate flaps of skin through the spread of the wing (and even the back legs are involved in forming the wing), whereas in pteradons one long, stout finger is extended in an arc out to the end of the wing in order to support one continuous flap of skin, rather like a strung bow.
For another, birds use feathers as their aerodynamic surface, bats and pteradons use stretched skin. The muscular arrangement powering the wings are different, as are the skeletal attachment points and joints. And so on. For some excellent graphics on the significant differences in the three wing types, see: Vertebrate Flight: The three solutions to flight
And of course, the wings of flying insects and flying fish are even more diffrent still.
For another example, the "bills" of the duck and the platypus look superficially quite similar -- but they are EXTREMELY different in all their details and structure. Similar functional requirements (mucking through shallow pond bottoms for food) led to similar form, albeit in *different* ways.
The same goes for various biochemical solutions to similar biological requirements.
Again and again this pattern is repeated -- evolution produces SIMILAR structures or biochemical solutions for the same (or sufficiently similar) functional needs. But not the SAME. And the manner in which similar (convergent) evolutionary solutions differ can be traced to the configuration of each lineages ancestors. In other words, *how* they differ is explained well by evolution as well as the manner in which they are similar.
You're right -- evolution would *not* be expected to produce the exact *same* results in separate lineages. And indeed, THIS IS EXACTLY WHAT WE FIND IN NATURE. Different lineages do *NOT* have the exact same independently acquired systems. When they do have similar systems, they are implement *differently*. Thank you for confirming the predictions of evolution.
Evolution 1, anti-evolution 0. Actually it's more like evolution 38,972,382, anti-evolution 0, because there are countless examples of evolutionary confirmation of this sort (like thousands of good examples of similar-but-different convergence, as well as vast numbers of other findings consistent with evolutionary predictions), in opposition to the repeated failures of the anti-evolutionists to produce an actual "problem" for evolution.
[Thunderous applause!]
Boy, the level of cognition here is pretty low. The post isn't saying they are the "Same" in the sense of "identical." They are the "same" in function. The underlying point is that evolution shouldn't be producing identical, unrelated animals (such as gentically unlrelated doplphins, etc) let alone two biochemically different creatures (bats and birds) whom completely by chance converged.
Evolution, if it is truly chance based, shouldn't be prodocing so many similar species. Evolution predicts similarity, not biochemical gulfs and genetically unrelated animals.
Don't you people know anything about science? There's no inkling you guys know anything about this subject. I've never seen such inchoherent, contradictory explanations of convergence. No grasp of basic logic. You really have no idea what the RTB post was saying, do you? Bats and birds aren't remotely biochemically similar. The only similarity is they can fly. The chance of evolution producing one is zero, let alone hundreds of biochemically different animals.
Is this the best public education can do?
And here's a gem of circular reasoning: " In other words, *how* they differ is explained well by evolution as well as the manner in which they are similar."