What about 'convergent evolution' on the DNA level?
OK, please provide some evidence for this. If you had actually read the research rather than taking a headline from a creationist propaganda site on faith you would have found out that the vast majority of the evidence relates to the amino acid sequence being convergent, not the DNA.
In fact when the DNA sequences are used the tree does not have the anomalous placement of the dolphin in with the echolocating bats (Liu et al., 2010).
Similarly when the researchers included data from a wider range of cetaceans, such as sperm whales the trees return to their expected configurations. There is perhaps a weak convergence if you look solely at nucleotide mutations underlying the non-synonymous changes at specific amino acids which is one of the supplementary analyses form the Li paper referenced in your cut and paste, without re-performing the analysis ourselves it is unclear how extensive the convergence is however or how many of the 14 convergent sites, which is an aggregate for the many species involved as no individual bat shares 14 convergent sites with the bottlenose dolphin, are actually convergent at the DNA level.
So in fact this is more a demonstration of the typical lack of rigour on the part of ID/creationist scholarship than of "'convergent evolution' on the DNA level".