[BroJoeK]

TruthInThoughtWordAndDeed: "The major evolutionary blunder is believing in evolution."

Of course, if you don't accept the science in evolution, then anything like "convergent evolution" would make no sense.

"Convergent evolution is the independent evolution of similar features in species of different lineages.
Convergent evolution creates analogous structures that have similar form or function but were not present in the last common ancestor of those groups."

A point to remember here is that years ago the degree to which different species were related was not really known for sure.
Today, however, DNA analyses show exactly how closely or distantly different species are related and provide answers for questions like, "when did certain features first arise?"
So, if distantly related species share similar features, DNA analysis can reveal which features were present in their last common ancestor.

Similar features not present in a common ancestor can be said to result from "convergent evolution".

Of course, you are free to reject its assumptions, but the science is consistent and confirmed innumerable times.

[lasereye]

DNA analysis can reveal which features were present in their last common ancestor.

They can't analyze the DNA of their last common ancestor unless they already know what their last common ancestor is (and have a living organism to analyze). This assumes evolution in the first place (as we ll as assuming what their last common ancestor is). In other words you once again assume evolution as your starting point. Having "determined" that their "last common ancestor" lacks the shared trait, "convergent evolution" is now the necessary assumption, which somehow becomes "science".

Assumptions are not science at all, which is basically the point of the whole article.

Similar features not present in a common ancestor can be said to result from "convergent evolution". Of course, you are free to reject its assumptions, but the science is consistent and confirmed innumerable times.

All you're doing is repeating the definition of convergent evolution, not providing evidence for it. What you're calling "the science" is, once again, assuming everything is the product of evolution. Therefore the "evidence" for convergent evolution is a direct result of circular reasoning.

You're perfectly illustrating Lee Spetner's statement.

If you draw a phylogenetic [relationship] tree of bats, whales, and a few other mammals based on similarities in the prestin [a hearing gene] sequence alone, the echolocating bats and whales come out together rather than with their rightful evolutionary cousins.11

Addressing this specific contradiction, Lee Spetner perceptively observes:

Convergent evolution is…an invention. It was invented solely to avoid addressing the failure of the phylogenetic tree to support Common Descent. There is no theoretical support for convergence, and whatever evidence has been given for it is the product of a circular argument.12