Is convergent evolution evidence against common descent?

What leads us to conclude that convergent evolution is responsible for some similarities and common ancestry is responsible for others is a kind of "inside-outside" problem.In situations of convergence we find that, while the exterior function and purpose of some system may be the same as another, when you look below the surface, you find two totally different ways of doing the same thing. This would be like finding two cars of identical function and discovering that one was electric and the other gasoline.That's not what it looks like when organisms share ancestry; the insides match, not just the outsides. In the case of human-chimp similarity, the similarity extends to stretches of DNA that have nothing to do with morphology and therefore, cannot be explained by convergent evolution. Common ancestry is the only scientific explanation for these similarities. First off, Chevy and Ford SUV's do share a common ancestor: the Jeep. Now, if we wanted to ascertain which features of these two SUV's were a result of their common ancestry (wide wheelbase, powerful engine, high driver position) and which were the result of convergent evolution (Chevy sound systems vs. Ford sound systems) we would need to examine both their exterior function and their interior structure.Convergence isn't inconsistent with common ancestry. When you get right down to it it really isn't that hard to tell the difference between them. edit: AdminTL added a "not" to the were in the comment about sound systems

​

edit: Crashfrog rewrote the phrase in question to what he originally meant to say. Thanks to AdminTL.This message has been edited by AdminTL, 06-04-2005 11:37 AMThis message has been edited by crashfrog, 06-04-2005 01:08 PM

What we're not accepting the possibility of is of convergence resulting in similar non-expressed, non-functional pseudogenetic sequences, because these sequences are not exposed to selection by environment. These are the sequences that we use to infer common ancestry, since because they have no function, they cannot be a result of convergent evolution. Not in regards to the sequences we're using to infer ancestry. They do not interact with the environment, thus, they cannot be a result of evolutionary convergence.

So what? Now we're into it. So what? Now we have the genetic evidence. Why don't you start by looking up "wolf" and "Tazmanian wolf."

Huh? The table lists number of differences; lower numbers means more genetic similarity. The mouse is, indeed, more closely related to Homo sapiens than the kangaroo.

Correct. The mouse is more similar to a human than the kangaroo is.What part of that did you have trouble understanding? We don't know that to be the case because the number of differences between the mouse and the kangaroo is not mentioned. For instance, consider that the distance from St. Louis to New York is 957 miles, and the difference from St. Louis to Salt Lake City is 1320 miles. Now, the difference between 1320 and 957 is 363 miles, which is less than 957, but only someone who had never seen a map would argue that New York is closer to Salt Lake City than to St. Louis.

Isn't that exactly what I just said?

Oh, naturally. And Salt Lake City really is only 300 miles from New York.Can we get real, now?This message has been edited by crashfrog, 06-07-2005 07:52 AM

He's asking you to cut and paste into websites. Did you even try? Can we really conclude that you're truly engaged in this debate and not simply taking potshots at a theory that you don't understand? Apparently not. The genome consists of nucleotide sequences, not amino acids, which are the components from which proteins are made.