I never said convergence makes phylogenies *impossible* to construct, nor have I ever stated they falsify evolution.
Good, we can start at the same point then.
I said convergence thwarts efforts to construct phylogenies. Thwart can also mean baffle. That is exactly what convergence does, and is a major stumbling block to phylogeny construction. Do you at least agree with the last sentence, that convergence offers a major stumbling block to phylogeny construction?
Good, lets start again with baffle instead of thwart.
I do not agree that convergence offers a major stumbling block. As in previous posts, convergence is usually superficial and many times only pertains to one function, not overall morphology. For instance, both vampire bats and leeches use an anti-coagulent to keep a hosts blood flowing. I would claim that scientists have no problem classifying these two animals far from each other in a phylo tree. I agree with previous posts that the largest problem would be at the genus/species/subspecies level. I can't think an example where convergence poses a large problem at the family or order level. Maybe you can suggest one example.
Convergence doesn’t falsify evolution because evolution accommodates convergence. Evolution accommodates everything! This is what we expect to see from bogus theories. It is no better than a low-grade hypothesis.
Evolution doesn't accomodate mammalian fossils in Cambrian rock, flowering plants before the first gymnosperm, reptillian fossils before the first fish fossil, etc. What does the creationist model predict of the fossil record? From what I can tell it requires all of the above to be possible and or true. It would require that fossils should not be positioned the way they are if creation "theory" is true.
* Evolution presumed/predicted phylogeny — severely clouded by over-abundance of convergence in nature
False, already discussed.
* Evolution presumed/predicted simple to complex — WRONG
Simple to complex: As a generalization, true, specifically in all cases, false. Evolution is change due to random mutation and natural selection. How does the previous sentence predict simple to complex in every case? It doesn't.
* Evolution presumed/predicted common ancestors — MISSING IN ACTION
Read around this site a little. Horse evolution, aquatic mammal evolution, archeopteryx, just to name a few. God producing organisms: Missing In Action. We have species produced in the lab and nature and zero that have popped out of thin air.
* Evolution presumed/predicted accumulation of genetic information — MISSING IN ACTION
Again, read around. I know you will rant till you're blue in the face about the nylC gene (nylong digestion) but this simple reading frame mutation refutes what you just stated, even if you want to argue that information can not increase. Also, we have talked about hemC as well. Gene duplications also come to mind.
* Evolution predicted inheritance of traits (Lamarckism) — WRONG (though some evos still cling to it)
STRAWMAN. Evolution did not predict acquired inheritance in a Larmarckian sense, just inheritance. Mendel correctly observed the phenomena which was non-Lamarckian. Mendel only helped solidify ToE by defining the framework of inheritance. Sorry, nice try. And by the way, no evo's today cling to Lamarckian inheritance. Name me one.
Evolution presumed/predicted no out-of-place fossils — WRONG (though evolutionists deny them and make excuses for them, ie overthrusts, abundance of C-14 in coal and natural gas due to contamination or other decay, etc)
Fossils discussed above. If the fossil record is so "out-of-place" why aren't the supposed numerous fossils plastered on every creationist site? As for radiometric dating, why aren't there any nuclides with a half-life under 50 million years that aren't an intermediate of longer decays or produced by readily measured processes (C14 from nitrogen in the upper atmosphere)? Did God have a special preference for nuclides with long half lives?
* Evolution is a fairytale — RIGHT!
Believe what you want to believe, it's a free country. Just don't expect to get any respect from the scientific community until you have EVIDENCE that refutes evolution or EVIDENCE that supports creation. In fact, evo's are nice enough to offer evidence in support of evolution. Why don't creationists offer evidence that supports creation outside of the realm of refuting evolution? It would be a step in the right direction.
[This message has been edited by Loudmouth, 09-26-2003]