Is convergent evolution evidence against common descent?

I think you're missing the difference between common ancestor at some distant point, as derived through classic cladistics or genetics or whatever, with apparent similarity at a later date.this is like saying that two leaves on a tree are closely {related\positioned} because they are near each other, when two leaves can come from the same twig OR be from branches as basic as the first divide in the tree trunkbirds and bats share a common ancestor, just not one with wings, so the characteristics that they show in common from that ancestor have nothing to do with flight.convergent evolution does not refute common ancestry, rather it is just another example of evolution able to select organisms that adapt to similar situations, and when situations repeat, solutions are also likely to repeat.there are many examples of convergent evolution and they all fit the overall pattern of common ancestry at a basic level.hope that helps.

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

the difference is a branch where the common descent features are strong and consistent: humans and chimpanzees share 98% of the DNA sequences, down to and including minor variations in sequences that seem to have no purpose, but have accumulated over time (excess repeats).there is no reason for such consistent matching errors in uneccessary sections to be shared by two species except by common descent from a single ancestor.on the other hand we share apparent bareness with the chijuajua, pigs and a cat, but the common descent branches that connect us to those species do not involve this bareness feature: it has occured by a convergent pattern, and not by a common descent pattern.the whole pattern of convergent evolution is superficial appearance of similarities rather than real subsurface similarities. the skin of humans chijuajuas, pigs and cats is different, even though they may appear similar.your argument is similar to noting that there is a painted like coloration of red and black on the back of a Chrysemys picta and that this is also true for a Myioborus pictus (note the similarity in the names), so therefor the Chrysemys picta cannot have evolved from turtles, in spite of the wealth of information on the evolution of turtles.see the difference?

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

Pardon the time taken to respond. I lost my internet service at home and it has taken a while to replace it. There are a number of sources, and some disagreement on the actual percentage, but all pretty much agree that it is between 97% and 99%.A quick google will find several resources for this information, including a link to a popular (meaning written for general audience) book called What It Means to Be 98 Percent Chimpanzee: Apes, People, and Their Genes (click for amazon link)this is a pdf paper:
Page Not Found | University of Chicago
that I have a little trouble with (another paper asserts chimps are closer to gorillas than to humans), and they make a distinction about "functional" DNA rather than all DNA (which would include junk sections that would still have similar mutations from a common ancestry)but even that other paper lists the commonality between humans and chimps at 98%:
http://www.newsroom.ucr.edu/cgi-bin/display.cgi?id=875
it just says that: this site:
http://www.cnpt.embrapa.br/redbiobr/nov_1020.htm
gives some further background for comparing human chimp gorilla and orangutan DNAThere are also some known mutations (like the loss of vitamin C making ability) that are shared by chimps and humans.

Thanks. What about data on specific mutations common to both chimps and humans (and gorillas) that are in unused portions and thus have no reason to be the same except by common ancestry? I know that ecrine glands are on the body areas of these three apes versus palms and feet of other apes, but that also has to do with sexual pheromones I believe.I had started with 96% from memory but changed that to 97% from the googled data spread. The interesting thing for me on that 2nd to last paper was the number of differences between humans and chimps (h-c) was greater than the differences between chimps and gorillas (c-g) even though there was less time since divergence of (h-c) than (c-g).This implies a selection process operating on human evolution that was more active than the one operating on chimps and gorillas.And given that humans are homogeneous within 0.25% or so (+/- 0.1%?) even after tremendous dispersal of humans by several different routes to cover the globe, that would imply that the human genome was pretty well fixed before Homo sapiens walked out of Africa, including not just such known features as bipedalism, large brain, small jaw and the like, but the apparent skin bareness, long head hair, enlarged buttocks, female breasts and sexual readiness, and enlarged male penis.Runaway sexual selection offers an obvious additional mechanism for incorporation of mutations within the genome at such an increased rate, and many of these features would also fit the scenario of sexually selected features, but this is at best circumstantial evidence, and there was certainly some natural selection going on at the same time.A large part of it could be just mental development and a threshold of awareness also leading to conscious selection feedback.

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}