As requested by Taq in Message 147 of
Biological classification vs 'Kind', this thread is for the examination of case studies in convergent evolution to demonstrate the validity (or lack thereof) of the independent evolution of similar structures.
My assertion: Convergent evolution is a convenient way for darwinists to explain exceptions to the supposed nested hierarchy that forms the phylogenetic tree. When similar structures are detected in different clades darwinists rationalize it away as convergent evolution - instead of making the more reasonable conclusion that not all life fits into a neatly nested hierarchy of traits.
As an initial case study for discussion, consider echolocation in bats and dolphins. According to
this January 2010 Science Daily article both bats and dolphins share almost identical genes for echolocation. The statistical odds of the exact same mutations being selected in both species to form a working echolocating sense is nearly impossible - yet according to this research this seems to be the case. Wouldn't a much more reasonable conclusion be a common Designer re-using a created feature?
I don't see anyone claiming recent common ancestry between bats and dolphins - yet genetic similarities of the same sort are used to show common ancestry between humans and chimpanzees. Why draw a conclusion of common ancestry for one case but not the other? Or is the data simply inconvenient because it doesn't fit the darwinian model?
Edited by BobTHJ, : fix tag error
™ Version 4.2