Convergent Evolution - Reasonable conclusion? or convenient excuse?

If separate creation were true then the exceptions should be the rule. They aren't. What we see with the prestin gene in bats and toothed cetaceans is 10-14 common derived amino acid substitutions out of hundreds. Given the importance of the prestin gene in audition (knock out mice have a >100-fold decrease in hearing, source), it is not too surprising that amino acid substitions are highly constrained and would be strongly selected for. False. They share 10-14 of the same derived amino acid substitions. You can go to NCBI and search for the genes themselves. A search for "prestin bat" or "presting dolphin" will give you the results you need. You will find that the genes are not identical. In fact, there are fewer differences between dolphins than there are between dolphins and bats. They are far from identical. It's a bit tough to show these comparisons on internet forums, but if you want I can try to figure something out (or someone else with better http skills can give it a try). Let's see the math. Since when is magical poofing reasonable? Are you saying that if two species share a common ancestor that they would NOT share common genes?Edited by Taq, : No reason given.

For all mutations occuring at once in a single individual, yes. But that isn't how it happened. These mutations occurred separately among millions of individuals over millions of generations. Using your view of statistics no one should ever win the lotto since the odds are against them, and yet someone always seems to win on a regular basis.What you need in order to do the statistics is the population sizes, mutation rate, time period in which these mutations occurred, and the percent increase in fitness conferred by each mutation. Highly doubtful. You yourself carry between 75 and 150 mutations. Most of these occur in non-coding DNA so have little to no effect. Of the mutations that change the amino acid sequence (about 3% if memory serves) I wouldn't be surprised if 70% are slightly deleterious. However, this leaves 30% that are either neutral or beneficial.

You look for the signal that sticks out above the noise. When you listen to the radio do you tap your foot to the beat of the music or the popping of the static?Phylogenetic trees will always have noise. It is expected. However, if creationism is true then there is no reason that we should observe a phylogenetic signal at all, but we do. We observe a very strong one. As others have mentioned, it was creationists like Linnaeus who constructed the first phylogenies based on shared characteristics. And again, we are looking at superficial resemblance. One of the better examples is the duck and the platypus. From the outside their bills do resemble one another. However, when you examine the underlying skeletal structure they are not alike at all. The platypus has a mammalian jaw complete with a single lower dentary bone and even cusped cheek teeth. The duck has a very standard bird jaw with multiple lower jaw bones and no cusped teeth. If you want to argue that a designer is reusing designs then why do we see a similar structure derived from such different sources?

Why is that a problem? Because their survival is not as dependent on their sense of hearing. Do you wonder why humans don't have a blowhole on top of their head since it is vital to dolphins? Are wolves able to take down elk without echolocation?

My viewpoint is that anyone who claims it is statistically improbable to the point of impossible is full of shit.

So if we found examples of non-convergence this would be evidence against a common designer?

Statements like this are usually followed by the evidence that you claim exists. Your argument is that a common designer will reuse designs. So how can we conclude a common designer when an obvious chance to reuse design is not taken? Your conclusion is unreasonable because any evidence whatsoever conforms to your model. If a conclusion can explain anything it explains nothing.

There are significant dissimilarity between the light bulb and the phonograph. Does this mean that they were not created by the same person, Thomas Edison?Also, there is significant dissimilarity between the cephalopod eye and the vertebrate eye. Does this mean that they were not created by a common designer? There is also significant dissimilarity between the bat wing and the bird wing. Is this evidence against a common designer as well?

So the tasmanian wolf and the grey wolf should have genomes closer to each other than a grey wolf and a lion? Is that your prediction?

Echolocation is a behavior. The morphological structures used by dolphins and bats is quite different. For example, in the dolphin there is a structure called the melon. It is a fatty bulge in front of the skull that is used to focus sound waves which then allows for echolocation. No homologous structure is found in bats. The actual morphological adaptations for echolocation in bats and dolphins is different, therefore falsifying common design (right?). The only thing they do share is 10-14 amino acid substitutions in the prestin gene which is involved in sound sensitivity in all mammals.Edited by Taq, : No reason given.

Fish and squid share the same exact environment, and their eyes serve the same exact function. Their eyes are significantly different in their design. Remember what you said earlier?"Of course - if organisms lacked significant similarity to each other then you would have evidence against common design."--BobTHJThis is exactly the case for cephalopod eyes and vertebrate eyes. They serve the same function in the same environment, and yet they are significantly dissimilar.

Someone who meticulously arranges their clothes so that it perfectly mimics a tornado going through their room. That is what we have with life, the exact pattern of shared similarities that we would expect to see without a common designer. Not if all life shares a single common ancestor. Then we would expect a nested hierarchy which is exactly what we see. Or are you saying that without a common designer that you and your siblings should not share the same building blocks? Spiritual evidence is an oxymoron. What evidence? All you have put forth so far is "spiritual evidence" which is synonymous with "religious faith", the very opposite of evidence.

Not so fast. My single example has already falsified your hypothesis. Designs made by the same designer are significantly dissimilar. It doesn't matter how many white swans you point at. All it takes is a single black swan to falsify the hypothesis that all swans are white. With life, the signature is a nested hierarchy, and descent with modification, the signature of evolution. Can you please explain what observations we should observe if the ontological model is true and the evolutionary model is false? Why would a common designer design two completely different eyes for two creatures that share the same environment? You keep talking about "common design/common designer" and yet completely ignore cases of uncommon design. This is one of these cases. And if you think that the eye is the only thing that is dissimilar between cephalopods and vertebrate fish, think again.

For arguments sake, if these were separately created organisms then you could also have the following list:

1. FDDCEBG
2. XXYYYYYY
3. 1244434
4. URRWWVR
5. and so on, with no shared genetic systems

Not only that, but this same deteriotation has to occur in all animals that have a backbone during the same time period.