Is convergent evolution evidence against common descent?

randman writes:

quote:

---

My point is more on the reliability of how we view the evidence, namely the veracity of underlying principles in which we examine data,

---

And that is always a legitimate issue. That's why science undergoes peer review: It forces you to submit your work to other people who will do everything they can to try and show it to be false. You always question whether or not you've done it right because you might not have.That said, by what basis do you claim that we have got it wrong? The issue of convergent evolution and its relation to common descent has been studied by a great number of people and found not to be in conflict. In fact, their existence has been integrated into the theory.That doesn't mean they're right, but it does mean you need to come up with a reason why they're wrong beyond, "I don't see it."

quote:

---

If we see some fossils, for example, in one strata and consider they are of a certain age, and then another set of fossils not so far with just some differences, and then a third with more differences at a later date, but they share similarities, we put them together in the tree of evolution, as you pointed out, but convergent evolution suggests that we could well be wrong.

---

No, it doesn't. It says that the organisms in question must be evolutionary related and not distinct species who simply had "convergent evolution." Convergent evolution involves the sharing of a small number of traits that are similar only in final effect and not in fundamental structure. Your example, on the other hand, flips that around: The organisms share the vast majority of traits and those similarities are present all the way down to fundamental structure, not simply in superficial effect.Convergent evolution is why sharks and dolphins have flippers. Everything else about sharks and dolphins is pretty much different (they don't even swim the same way), but they share the large-scale shape of a flipper...which if you were to look at the internal structure you would see that they don't share anything in common other than the external shape.

quote:

---

These traits could have emerged all independently

---

No, they couldn't have. Everything else about the organisms tells us they didn't.By your logic, it is reasonable to think that because there are organisms that are 99% different but 1% the same and that the similarity is due to independent origin, this must mean that organisms that are 99% the same but 1% different, then the 99% similarity is also due to completely independent origins.If you have a series of independent events, what is the likelihood that they will all reproduce the same result? That is, suppose I have a coin, a die, a deck of cards, and a roulette wheel. What are the odds that if I flip the coin, roll the die, draw a card, and spin a number, I'll be able to reproduce that exact same sequence of events a second time?Well, there's a 1/2 probability of getting a coin to flip to a certain number, 1/6 for a die, 1/52 for a card, and 1/38 for a roulette wheel (assuming a 00 wheel). Each is independent, so you multiply them together: 1/2 * 1/6 * 1/52 * 1/38 = .00004 or four thousandths of one percent.If we find two organisms sharing so many of the same traits, we necessarily conclude that they are evolutionarily related, not the result of convergent evolution: They're too similar.

---

Rrhain

---

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

randman writes:

quote:

---

I don't want to divert this topic so maybe we should stay away from ID for now, but if there is an Intelligent Force introducing new species into the environment, it might well look just like the data we do have.

---

If so, then why would this "intelligent force" use a method that looks exactly like an evolutionary process? And by what justification would we possibly claim that it wasn't?Suppose I were to take a handful of coins and toss them on the ground. Would you not agree that those coins land the way they do all on their own without any "intelligent force" deliberately, consciously, and purposefully making them land that way?If not, there is no point in continuing. But if you do agree that the coins land where they do all on their own, then suppose I were to then come in with an identical handful of change and were to place them in the identical positions.Would you be able to tell the difference? And by what criteria would you claim that the coins were deliberately placed rather than naturally occurring?If this "intelligent force" is going to use a process that is absolutely identical to a natural process, then how could we possibly be faulted for describing it as a natural process? It looks just like a natural process.And as the saying goes, a difference that makes no difference is no difference. An "intelligent force" that is indistinguishable from a natural process IS a natural process. Natural processes don't allow for willful adjustment of the results. Therefore, an "intelligent force" that produces natural results must also be incapable of allowing willful adjustment of the results...which does away with the "intelligent force" and thus the process is natural.

---

Rrhain

---

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

randman responds to me:

quote:

---

quote:

---

If so, then why would this "intelligent force" use a method that looks exactly like an evolutionary process?

---

​

Why wouldn't it/He/whatever?

---

Because it wouldn't be an "intelligent force" anymore. It would be a natural process. A difference that makes no difference is no difference and if there is no way to distinguish an "intelligent" outcome from a natural outcome, then the "intelligent" outcome isn't "intelligent" at all but is rather an natural one.

quote:

---

quote:

---

Suppose I were to take a handful of coins and toss them on the ground. Would you not agree that those coins land the way they do all on their own without any "intelligent force" deliberately, consciously, and purposefully making them land that way?

---

​

Actually, I can point to intelligent forces. First, they would not have landed on the ground if you had not thrown them.

---

Irrelevant. Once they left my hand, I was no longer in control of them.Are you saying that everything requires god? Nothing happens on its own?Suppose the coins were in a bottle on a shelf that broke and the coins spilled out. Or are you going to be disingenuous and claim that somebody must have put the coins there...that somebody must have put the shelf there...that somebody must have put the bottle there?

quote:

---

Secondly, assuming someone did create the physical laws of the universe, those forces had a lot to do with the way those coins landed.

---

Irrelevant. The question is, are they they, right here, right now, deliberately, purposefully, and consciously making those coins land the way they do? Or do they land that way all on their own?Is god required for everything or are there things that happen on their own?

quote:

---

If the coins could not land that way on their own, why should we assume the universe can, or that life can spontaneously generate on it's own?

---

But that's just it...the coins DID land on their own. That's why I said that if you are claiming that the coins cannot land the way they do on their own, there is no point in continuing.Are you saying that the coins cannot land the way they do on their own? That god is required for everything? That nothing happens without the deliberate, purposeful, and conscious action of god? Nothing happens on its own?

quote:

---

I think also you are woefully wrong on the natural processes point. Let's just assume all is natural process. What if we discover a different way of producing traits in species without using common ancestry to produce those traits, will that prove ID?

---

No.I leave it to you to explain why. If you understand logic and science, you should be able to figure out why easily:Hint: Does proving that 2 + 2 <> 5 indicate that 2 + 2 = 6?

quote:

---

Already, we have discovered one process that produces similar traits without the mechanism of a mutual ancestor passing those traits along, right?

---

Not in the way you think, no.Convergent evolution is part of evolutionary theory.

quote:

---

quote:

---

Therefore, an "intelligent force" that produces natural results must also be incapable of allowing willful adjustment of the results...which does away with the "intelligent force" and thus the process is natural.

---

​

So when we use genetic engineering, there is no willful adjustment of the results?

---

Incorrect. The entire process of genetic engineering is willful adjustment of the results. What do you think the word "engineering" means except to willfully manipulate the results?

quote:

---

Your post seems illogical to me.

---

Only because you do not understand the subject you are trying to discuss.

quote:

---

We already do have ID through humans manipulating natural processes.

---

Indeed. Artificial selection and direct genetic manipulation is known to exist.What does this have to do with evolution?

quote:

---

Are you claiming we are relying on non-natural means of doing this?

---

Yes. That's why it's called artificial selection. It isn't natural. That's why it's called genetic engineering. It isn't natural.It isn't supernatural, if that's the latest disingenuous comment you're about to come up with, but it isn't natural, either.Remember, science is about things that happen all on their own. Science not only ignores god but also ignores you. That doesn't mean you don't exist or that you are incapable of having an effect. It simply means that you are not part of the processes that science investigates.

---

Rrhain

---

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

randman writes:

quote:

---

The idea among the common descent camp is abiogenesis.

---

Incorrect.Evolution has nothing to do with abiogenesis. That you continually make this error is the reason why you continually fail at proving your point. Evolution doesn't care where life comes from. Evolution is compatible with all forms of origins.

quote:

---

Maybe it happened and happens a lot, and maube it produces a similar "solution" each time? We could well have thousands of separate sources for all of life evolving then.

---

No, we couldn't. Not the identical solution over and over and over again unless it was the only possible solution available.We know it wasn't.Therefore, the fact that all life shares so much commonality must necessarily be because of common ancestry, not convergence.

---

Rrhain

---

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

randman responds to me:

quote:

---

quote:

---

Convergent evolution involves the sharing of a small number of traits that are similar only in final effect and not in fundamental structure.

---

​

As someone has stated before, "what's to stop it?"

---

Mathematics.Share one trait? Sure. Two? Well, OK. Three? You're pushing it. 99% of the entire morphology? No. That's impossible.

quote:

---

What's to stop it from producing more than a small number of traits?

---

Mathematics.

quote:

---

If it can produce a small number of traits, why can it not produce more than that? Remember we are talking of a very, very long time.

---

Because you're forgetting about environment. The only way they're going to produce the identical trait all the way down to the molecular level as we see is if they exist in the identical environment and if we were capable of reproducing the exact same chemical sequence across literally trillions of reactions.That simply doesn't happen. No two organisms experience the identical environment. Not even two organisms living side by side. No chemical reaction is ever perfect and to attempt to perfectly replicate a chemical sequence is an exercise in futility.Your claim that the trillions upon trillions of organisms that have existed on this planet all managed to independently come up with the same chemical processes is laughable in the extreme.What's to stop it?Mathematics.

quote:

---

By the way, I find your argument, that hey, it's been studied already and they didn't see it that way, to be extremely weak.

---

That's because it isn't my argument. That would be the argument from authority and a logical error.My argument is: What do you know that they don't? You just might know something they don't. After all, nobody is perfect.However, "I don't believe it" is not a sufficient counterargument. That is the argument from incredulity and is also a logical error. You need to come up with evidence to explain yourself.

quote:

---

What's the point of this forum then, if we are going to say, hey, you need to publish in a peer-reviewed journal

---

That isn't what we're saying. What we're saying is that you need to avail yourself of the current state of the science before you start claiming that it's all wrong. Given that we have sent spaceships to the furthest reaches of the solar system, wouldn't you find it rather annoying to find someone who doesn't understand the most basic aspects of kinematics claiming that it was impossible to do so? That we don't understand the process of how to do so?Oh, I'm sure there are plenty of things about kinematics left to discover, but simply saying, "I don't think you've got it right," is insufficient to counteract all the work that has been done.

quote:

---

which probably is controlled by men with a very strong disposition to avoid the topic of criticizing common descent.

---

Hah! The conspiracy theory rises again! Right...no journal would ever want to publish an article that definitively overturns the dominant paradigm of the field. After all, that would lead to a Nobel Prize and we all know how everybody hates winning a Nobel prize.

quote:

---

In fact, if you feel that way, why are you posting here?

---

Because I find it interesting.Why are you posting here?

quote:

---

I am raising a logical point.

---

No, you're not. You're raising a distinctly illogical point. You are incredulous, and therefore we are supposed to take your incredulity seriously. That is illogical. The argument from incredulity is not valid.

quote:

---

Common descenters have insisted all along that similarity proves common descent,

---

Incorrect. If after all this time you don't understand what common descent is and how it is that we CONCLUDE common descent, then you need to leave here for a while, get yourself to a library, and read up on the subject. We'll still be here when you come back.

quote:

---

that there is no other explanation, ad nauseum, and lo and behold, there is another explanation.

---

No, there isn't. Convergence is all about surface, not substance. Evolution is about substance, not surface.

---

Rrhain

---

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

randman responds to me:

quote:

---

quote:

---

Evolution doesn't care where life comes from. Evolution is compatible with all forms of origins.

---

​

LOL. Get real, buddy. So now evolution is compatible with all forms of origins.

---

Yes, of course. So long as life does not replicate perfectly from generation to generation, evolution is satisfied.

quote:

---

Is it compatible with aliens seeding life and intervening?

---

Yes. So long as the life that was seeded does not replicate perfectly from generation to generation, then evolution is satisfied.

quote:

---

Is it compatible with special creation, or multiple special creation events? How about Intelligent Design?

---

Yes. So long as the life that god created does not replicate perfectly from generation to generation, then evolution is satisfied.Are you saying god cannot make life that evolves?

quote:

---

How about multiple origins?

---

Yes. So long as the life that arises does not replicate perfectly from generation to generation, then evolution is satisfied.

quote:

---

Hogwash, buddy.

---

Then why is the official position of the Catholic church, which most definitely advocates special creation, that evolution is the only valid explanation we have for the diversification of life on this planet.If the Catholics can understand that evolution is perfectly compatible with god, why can't you?

quote:

---

TOE we are talking about is the theory of universal common descent from a single source, period.

---

Well, the "single source" is only because everything is so fundamentally the same with regard to life. That doesn't necessarily mean that there was a single individual from which we are all descended, but it does mean that the population of individuals that started it all off were pretty much the same.But notice, you yourself send "single source." It doesn't matter where that source came from.Tell us: When you need a quarter for the vending machine, does it matter if the quarter you use was minted in Denver or Philadelphia?

quote:

---

If you are just talking evolution in a general sense, YECers are evolutionists too!

---

Incorrect. Evolution isn't about creating a toy poodle (though that is an evolutionary process). It's grander than that and you know it.

---

Rrhain

---

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

randman responds to NosyNed:

quote:

---

1. common environment (biological and eco-system)

---

No two organisms share the same common environment. Not even two organisms living side by side. Ergo, this cannot be the reason.

quote:

---

2. common environment (common material make-up, common elements and common physical laws)

---

This is common descent.

quote:

---

3. common authorship (creationism and ID)

---

Unfalsifiable.

quote:

---

4. common descent

---

We've already said this one.So we've got one answer, one unfalsifiable statement, and one impossible claim.We're left with NosyNed's original question: If not common descent, then what? A chance happening?Over and over and over again?

---

Rrhain

---

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

randman responds to me:

quote:

---

quote:

---

Because it wouldn't be an "intelligent force" anymore. It would be a natural process. A difference that makes no difference is no difference and if there is no way to distinguish an "intelligent" outcome from a natural outcome, then the "intelligent" outcome isn't "intelligent" at all but is rather an natural one.

---

​

I am sorry, but I am not going to bother reading the rest of your posts if you are going argue semantics.

---

But that's your entire argument. If you don't like your argument being exposed, then perhaps you should rethink your argument.

quote:

---

It doesn't matter what label you put on a process.

---

(*blink!*)You did not just say that, did you?There is no difference between a natural process and an artificial process? No difference between a natural process and a supernatural process?

quote:

---

If it occurs, it occurs.

---

Of course. But we're interested in how it occurs.

quote:

---

Your claim would make human genetic engineering of plants either not natural or not intelligent, and that is patently absurd.

---

Incorrect. Human engineering of plants is not natural. It is not a process that occurs on its own. It is artificial. That is why it is called "engineering."What do you think the word "engineering" means?

quote:

---

Something can be willful, intelligent, and natural at the same time.

---

No, it can't. The first two terms preclude the third by definition.

---

Rrhain

---

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

randman responds to me:

quote:

---

Uh, once again, did not bother with your whole post. Is that what you want?

---

If you refuse to read the entire post, what makes you think you have anything of value to say?Have you considered the possibility that the reason you don't know about the subject you are attempting to discuss is because you "did not bother" to make yourself knowledgeable about it?

quote:

---

First, the math comment was wrong because there are similar forces acting, not pure chance.

---

Incorrect. It is precisely pure chance. "Similar forces," not identical. Do you know anything about chaotic systems? They are extremely sensitive to initial conditions. Being different even to one part in a million is sufficient to cause tremendous differences in outcome.If convergence is going to happen to cause two traits to be identical down to the gene, then every single chemical reaction that is used must be identical. Not merely similar, IDENTICAL.And that simply doesn't happen. Random chance will guarantee that it won't.

quote:

---

But then I got to the part about my claim that all life, the trillions of species you mentioned (highly suspect but whatever),

---

See, this is the problem with not reading posts fully. You find that you make whoppers of mistakes. I didn't say this. I said, "trillions upon trillions of organisms that have existed on this planet." You do understand the difference between an organism and a species, yes?

quote:

---

Come back when you are ready to discuss the area in the OP.

---

I've got a better idea. Why don't you come back when you are ready to read the responses people give you and when you understand the terms you are spouting. This is precisely about the original post.You don't understand the difference between convergence and common descent and why it is that CONCLUDE that certain things are the result of convergence and other things are the result of common descent.

---

Rrhain

---

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

randman responds to me:

quote:

---

I am not arguing semantics.

---

Yes, you are.You are saying that the traits that make us conclude common descent are the very same traits that would make us conclude convergence, therefore convergence and common descent cannot be distinguished and are equivalent.But they're not. We have tried to explain to you the difference. That convergence is all about surfaces while descent is about structure, but you keep coming back to claim that convergence is about something more.Until you understand the terms, you will never be able to make a sound argument.

---

Rrhain

---

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

randman responds to me:

quote:

---

quote:

---

No two organisms share the same common environment. Not even two organisms living side by side. Ergo, this cannot be the reason.

---

​

Wrong. Common environmental factors are what helps to created convergency, according to standard evolutionary theory.

---

But convergence is about surface traits. You're talking about genes.A shark and a dolphin both have tails that help them swim through the water. This is because they're living in water and thus need to be able to swim.But that's just surface. Look deeper and you see that sharks swim by undulating horizontally. Dolphins swim by undulating vertically. This is because dolphins are descended not from sharks but from land mammals whose spines undulate vertically, not horizontally.Similar environments lead to similar SURFACE traits, not similar FOUNDATIONAL traits. That's how you can tell the difference between convergence and descent. If the trait is only similar on the surface but shares none of the foundational aspects that lead to morphology (different number of limbs, different orientation, different developmental timing in the embryo, etc.), then the trait is a convergent trait.But if the trait is similar all the way down to the genes that express it, then the trait cannot be convergent. It must necessarily be descent. Common environments can give similar SURFACE traits, but they cannot give similar FOUNDATIONAL traits. That because to get all the way down to the gene, you need to have not just an identical environment but an identical chemical reaction and no environment can provide that perfectly every single time.No chemical reaction is perfect.

quote:

---

In fact, no 2 individuals within a species share a common environment and neither does anything by your definition

---

Precisely. That's why even identical twins cannot be expected to have equal chances of reproduction. Environmental causes are never identical for any two organisms. Every molecule of oxygen you breathe in is a molecule of oxygen that I cannot. I shall have to find my oxygen elsewhere.If you get exposed to a mutagen and I don't, your genome will change and mine won't.

quote:

---

but clearly common environment does not refer to absolute 100% commonality since nothing is like that, for the most part.

---

But that is your argument: That there is no way to determine the difference between convergence and descent because environment can cause a 100% commonality.And it can't.

quote:

---

But tell me again how something cannot be natural and intelligent at the same time.

---

Intelligence implies will. Natural implies no will. Therefore, an act can be either natural or intelligent, but not both. Intelligent actions are artificial in nature. When I place the coins deliberately, consciously, and purposefully, they are there because of my direct action upon them, not because they naturally fell that way.I can then reproduce that effect perfectly over and over and over again.Natural processes can't do that.

---

Rrhain

---

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

randman responds to me:

quote:

---

So we should never expect DNA sequencing patterns to be convergent, since convergency ONLY applies to "surface" traits?

​

Is that what you are claiming?

---

No.

quote:

---

quote:

---

Intelligence implies will. Natural implies no will. Therefore, an act can be either natural or intelligent, but not both. Intelligent actions are artificial in nature.

---

​

So by definition then, you are saying breeding dogs, plants, and the use of genetic engineering by people is not "natural", eh?

---

No, it is not natural. It is artificial. That is why it is called "artificial selection." That is why it is called genetic "engineering." The actions are not natural but are aritificial. You will note that I am not claiming they are supernatural or violate physics. I am saying that the actions are not natural.This makes at least twice I have told you this directly. When will you remember it?Or are you about to equivocate the dichotomy of natural/artificial with the dichotomy of natural/supernatural? For someone who claims he doesn't want to argue semantics, you do a hell of a job of making semantic arguments.

quote:

---

Just want to get your definition of what constitutes "natural."

---

Again, this makes at least twice I have given this direct definition to you. When will you remember it?

quote:

---

quote:

---

If so, then why would this "intelligent force" use a method that looks exactly like an evolutionary process?

---

​

Why do we use processes to create new dog breeds that "look exactly like an evolutionary process"?

---

But it doesn't. No natural evolutionary process would produce a Chihuahua. An artificial selection process would, however. There are plenty of breeds out there which, because of the unnatural, artifical selection process, have crippling defects within their genomes such that they could never survive without the artificial supports put in place. Giant breeds such as Great Danes are prone to hip displasia. More than one breed is prone to deafness.There's a reason why wild dogs don't look anything like purebreds.Wild dogs are the product of natural selection. Purebreds are the result of artificial selection.

quote:

---

quote:

---

Natural processes don't allow for willful adjustment of the results. Therefore, an "intelligent force" that produces natural results must also be incapable of allowing willful adjustment of the results...which does away with the "intelligent force" and thus the process is natural.

---

​

But dog breeds are natural, right?

---

Wrong.They are artificial.

quote:

---

Dog breeds are the result of a "willful adjustment of a natural process by an intelligent force", the human dog breeder, and yet you are claiming by definition that somehow, since dogs appear to be natural, that this does away with the intelligent force.

---

Incorect. Dog breeds do not look at all natural. They look artificial. Therefore, since they contain no signs of natural processes, they cannot be the result of natural processes.And, indeed, they aren't. They are the result of artificial processes.

quote:

---

quote:

---

But if the trait is similar all the way down to the genes that express it, then the trait cannot be convergent. It must necessarily be descent. Common environments can give similar SURFACE traits, but they cannot give similar FOUNDATIONAL traits.

---

​

So if someone can show you where a convergent trait is similar all the way down to the genes that express it, are you willing to accept this as evidence against common descent? Is this something that falsifies universal common descent?

---

Unless and until you give a more specific example, I cannot answer your question. I will not play gotcha.So be careful. Remember that in order for this to happen, you have to start with completely distinct genes and have them converge to the same ultimate product. You cannot start with identical genes and have them mutate in the same way.This is the point you keep missing: Convergence works from the outside. You start with completely distinct and different foundations and by applying pressure on the outside, make them adapt to the same external morphology. Because they have different internal structures, it will be extremely unlikely that they would adapt toward a common internal structure. Evolution does not have a guiding force telling it how to achieve a solution. It simply makes do with what it has, putting out variations and seeing which one manages to make it through the selection process.If you have a structure that is large and needs to be reduced, the solution will most likely be quite different from a structure that is small and needs to be enlarged. In the former, you might simply take the current structure and make each component smaller. In the latter, there are other options...rather than simply make things bigger, you can duplicate the internals so that you have a bunch of little things rather than a single big thing.

quote:

---

In layman's terms, if we can see something besides surface traits evolve convergently, would you be willing to go on record that this would disprove common descent, or not?

---

Until you give me a more specific example of what you're talking about, I shall withhold any comment. You've already been equivocating on this thread multiple times. I will not allow you to equivocate so easily again.

quote:

---

Also, define SURFACE traits and FOUNDATION traits so we can see if your assertion is true.

---

I already have. I have even given you examples. Please go back and read the thread. Remember the distinction between sharks and dolphins?

---

Rrhain

---

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

randman responds to me:

quote:

---

So now, genetic engineering is not even science because "science is about things that happen all on their own."

---

Well, no. Engineering isn't science. It's based upon science, certainly, and you can't possibly do engineering without understanding a fair amount of the underlying science, but it isn't science in and of itself. Engineering is the application of scientific principles in artifical ways.Mathematics is on the other end of the scale. Mathematics isn't science. Science is based upon mathematics, certainly, and you can't possibly do science without understanding a fair amount of the underlying mathematics, but it isn't science in and of itself. Science is the application of mathematical principles in specific rather than abstract ways.As the old cliche goes, engineering is applied physics and physics is applied math.

quote:

---

Science is not just about "things that happen all on their own."

---

Yes, it is. Science relies upon repeatable, testable phenomena. If you cannot repeat it because there is a capricious, willful variable in the process, then there is no way to get a repeatable, testable result. You will note that this is different from a random variable.

quote:

---

Furthermore, and this is a typical problem in your camp, you are confusing 2 different uses of the word "natural".

---

(*chuckle*)How interesting that you are trying to palm off your equivocation onto others.

quote:

---

When people speak of a non-natural arena outside of the purview of science, they are speaking of "natural" in the sense of real.

---

And this is is a perfect example of the equivocation you are making that I am talking about.When evolution talks about "natural selection," it is not referring to the sense of "real." It is a logical error to behave as if it is.

quote:

---

But your contention that science cannot address or be involved with anything artificial is just insanity.

---

Right. So if I take a beaker of water, put it on my lab table, and leave the room, I should think that it is just a natural occurrence to return and find that it has been transformed into petri dish filled with agar. If it happens every time I leave the room, then it's just a "natural" occurrence and it should never cross my mind that perhaps my lab assistant is doing something when my back is turned? And when he decides to replace it not with an agar-filled petri dish but with a pile of salt, well, that's just another example of the "natural" process.The actions of my lab assistant are capricious and arbitrary and are beyond the scope of scientific inquiry.

quote:

---

Moreover, intelligence and intelligent action is part of evolution

---

Not quite. There is a difference between artificial and natural selection.

---

Rrhain

---

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

randman responds to me:

quote:

---

quote:

---

Convergent evolution involves the sharing of a small number of traits that are similar only in final effect and not in fundamental structure.

---

​

Could you explain to me how marsupials and placental mammals only share a small number of traits with their seeming counterparts?

---

Because you are still looking at the surface. You do not understand what "small number of traits" means.Question: Just how many traits does an organism such as a wolf or Tasmanian wolf have?

quote:

---

Also, can you show that how they are "similar only in final effect and not in fundamental structure"?

---

The article you referenced already did. Do you not know the differences between marsupial and placental mammals?[ad hominem commentary deleted for space]

---

Rrhain

---

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

randman responds to me:

quote:

---

Is the molecular level SURFACE or FOUNDATIONAL?

---

Depends. Are we talking about the function of the molecule or the structure? If it's the function, that's surface. If it's the structure, that's foundational.Do you not understand the implication arrows involved? Two items that are structurally the same will have functional equivalency. But just because two items have the same function doesn't mean they are structurally the same. All squares are rectangles. Not all rectangles are squares.The examples you give are surface examples: They have similar effect but different internal structure. Your example even says so, directly.What do you think "has an entirely different primary structure" means? What do you think "its three-dimensional structure (tertiary) structure is different" means? Even though the effect of the two molecules is the same, they look nothing alike an arose from completely different genetic origins.

---

Rrhain

---

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.