Challenge to Biological Evolution: Convergence

Reason to Believe ^ | Oct. 12, 2005 | Fazale Rana

[truthfinder9]

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."

[Ichneumon]

Boy, the level of cognition here is pretty low.

So I've noticed, but that's okay, I'll help you to catch up.

The post isn't saying they are the "Same" in the sense of "identical." They are the "same" in function.

Hard to tell *what* it's saying, since the link doesn't go to any particular article at RTB, so all we're left with is the two-liner at the top of the thread.

And it specifically says "the same outcome". Not "similar outcomes". Not "outcomes that address the same functional requirements albeit in different ways". It says, "the same".

Don't blame us if the original post was written poorly and its link was broken.

The underlying point is that evolution shouldn't be producing identical, unrelated animals (such as gentically unlrelated doplphins, etc)

What are you babbling about here? And now you're back to "identical" instead of "similar". Make up your mind. And what in the heck are "gentically [sic] unlrelated [sic] doplphins [sic]"? What dolphins do you allege are "unrelated" in any way? And if they are, how do you get away with also calling them "identical"? Are you sure you have any idea what you're talking about?

let alone two biochemically different creatures (bats and birds) whom completely by chance converged.

Evolution is not "completely by chance". It has a stochastic component, sure, but you're obviously ignorant of the non-random processes involved in evolution.

Evolution, if it is truly chance based, shouldn't be prodocing so many similar species.

The "because..." part of your post seems to be missing. Try again.

Evolution predicts similarity, not biochemical gulfs and genetically unrelated animals.

Huh? Try to be coherent, and actually explain what you're attempting to say.

Don't you people know anything about science?

Far more than you'll ever know.

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?

Nice ad hominem. Care to actually make a case for your alleged point, presuming you have one?

Bats and birds aren't remotely biochemically similar. The only similarity is they can fly.

Wrong again. They have plenty of other similarities. But even if they didn't, so what? Try to make an actual point instead of just spewing disconnected observations.

The chance of evolution producing one is zero, let alone hundreds of biochemically different animals.

Wrong again. But I see your problem here: The fallacy of begging the question. You *presume* that evolution can't produce even one, therefore you "conclude" that evolution couldn't produce two either. Nice try, but that's childishly fallacious. Try to actually support your premise first. That's how adults do things.

Is this the best public education can do?

Hard to say -- *is* that the best you can do? I hope not.

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."

You have a "gem" of inadquate reading comprehension. There's nothing circular about that at all. People with adequate reasoning skills shouldn't have had any problem understanding my point there, but apparently I overestimated my audience. Here it is again with even the obvious parts spelled out for the obvious-impaired: "Evolution would be epected to produce characteristic patterns of similarities (in some respects) and differences (in others). The specific kinds of differences we see in convergent animals match the kinds of differences which evolutionary processes would be expected to produce, *and* the specific kinds of similarities we see in convergent animals match the kinds of differences which evolutionary processes would be expected to produce. Thus, both the differences and the similarities are explained well by evolution, and provide support for evolutionary origins of those animals."

If you *still* have trouble grasping that, ask your mother to help you with the big words.

[PatrickHenry]

I weep when I consider the energy you waste on such folks. But it makes great reading.

[csense]

"Evolution would be epected to produce characteristic patterns of similarities (in some respects) and differences (in others). The specific kinds of differences we see in convergent animals match the kinds of differences which evolutionary processes would be expected to produce, *and* the specific kinds of similarities we see in convergent animals match the kinds of differences which evolutionary processes would be expected to produce. Thus, both the differences and the similarities are explained well by evolution, and provide support for evolutionary origins of those animals."

It seems to me, that unless you can provide at least one specific example of evolution predicting functional convergence in nature, then you're essentially making the same circular argument, albeit verbose, that truthfinder complains about.

That said, and I could be wrong, but it also seems to me that one hundred fifty years just isn't enough time to establish this operating principle.

[truthfinder9]

Boy, you really have no idea what you are talking about. Just admit it and stop emabrassing yourself with nonsensical, childish commentary. To top it off, you admit you can't find the article you are talking about. Wow, that's kind of like the Darwinian Fundamentalists who say "Yeah, we don't have any empiracal science but evolution is true anyway." No wonder you believe what they tell you.