How? If the same phenomena occured in two species that are not believed to have shared a recent common ancestor then it could just as easily be chalked up to homoplasy. Common ancestry accommodates either phenomena but it certainly does not predict them and therefore cannot be falsified by their absence or confirmed by their presence. There is nothing wrong with a theory that can accomodate widely different results, but one can't turn around then and claim that one of those results is evidence for the theory.
Cordially,
If the same phenomena occured in two species that are not believed to have shared a recent common ancestor then it could just as easily be chalked up to homoplasy.Easily? Even if the 14 insertions shown in the diagram were present in a bird (that itself unlikely), it would still be akin to a 1 in 10^117 chance that they were placed correctly. As it's science we're talking about, we don't have too much use for absolutes, but those odds come close :)
There is nothing wrong with a theory that can accomodate widely different results, but one can't turn around then and claim that one of those results is evidence for the theoryFair enough. But the "different" results, in this case, are nowhere to be found, so the evidence holds.