Everyone has heard of the kangaroo and its pouch. It is a marsupial—mammals that give birth at a relatively early stage in development, and then carry their young in a pouch. There are a great variety of marsupials that are curiously similar to a cousin placental species. The flying squirrel (a placental) and the flying phalanger (a marsupial) are one such example. Because of their reproductive differences evolutionists must say they are distantly related on the evolutionary tree. Yet they have strikingly similar designs which must have been created independently by random mutations. Every mutation leading to the two different species must, according to evolution, have been random (that is, independent of any need). No, natural selection doesn’t help.
Another example is the human and squid eye designs, which are remarkably similar. Of the myriad vision designs, these two utterly different species share similar designs that must have arisen in completely different environments, on different substrates, to meet different needs. It is, as Darwin often said, utterly inexplicable.
These are but two of a large and growing list of remarkable convergences. Though evolutionists sometimes deny biological convergence, it is a scientific fact. And a paper from this week added yet another example:
In mammals, hearing is dependent on three canonical processing stages: (i) an eardrum collecting sound, (ii) a middle ear impedance converter, and (iii) a cochlear frequency analyzer. Here, we show that some insects, such as rainforest katydids, possess equivalent biophysical mechanisms for auditory processing. Although katydid ears are among the smallest in all organisms, these ears perform the crucial stage of air-to-liquid impedance conversion and signal amplification, with the use of a distinct tympanal lever system. Further along the chain of hearing, spectral sound analysis is achieved through dispersive wave propagation across a fluid substrate, as in the mammalian cochlea. Thus, two phylogenetically remote organisms, katydids and mammals, have evolved a series of convergent solutions to common biophysical problems, despite their reliance on very different morphological substrates.
It is another curious example of biological convergence, so rather than attempt to deny the undeniable, evolutionists now claim it as another confirmation of evolution.
Astonishingly evolutionist Ronald Hoy claims that this new finding provides “evidence for convergent evolution.” That would be quite a discovery. How, according to Hoy, do the amazing similarities in mammal and katydid hearing make for evidence that they are products of so-called convergent evolution?
It makes for a startling headline and once again gives journalists license to proclaim another confirmation of evolution. But down in the details, Hoy’s “evidence” is nothing more than circular reasoning. In a classic example of evolutionary blowback, Hoy reasons that (i) mammals and katydids evolved, (ii) their hearing designs are remarkably similar, so (iii) therefore it is proof of convergent evolution.
Or simply put, evolution is true, so therefore evolution is true.
This is a confirmation not of convergent evolution but of how evolution has corrupted scientific thinking. Fallacious reasoning such as this is, unfortunately, is the rule rather than the exception.
Religion drives science and it matters.
For anyone interested in a coherent account of all this: http://forthesakeofscience.com/2012/11/23/cornelius-hunter-struggles-to-understand-convergent-evolution/
ReplyDeleteMichael Hawkins:
ReplyDeleteNow, remember the crux of Hunter’s opening: Similar morphology is the same thing as intricate design, thus Jesus.
Still amazing. Evolutionists don’t actually respond to what you say. They contrive a strawman out of thin air, ascribe it to you, and then criticize it. Works since most readers won’t do the fact check.
Yet what we see is a man unable to even come remotely close to getting much of anything right about a relatively simple idea.
Then put the blame on you for not getting things right.
"These violations are not rare or occasional anomalies, they are the rule...To explain this evolutionists must say that random mutations just happened to hit upon the same detailed, intricate design at different times, in different parts of the world, in different ecological niches, and so forth."
ReplyDeleteYou then proceed to go on about morphological similarities, ignoring the patterns of descent formed by the geological placement of the fossil record, the evidence from genetic relatedness, and every other area.
So, in other words, you have referred to convergent morphologies as intricate designs. Which is wrong. Moreover, the paper you quoted but apparently failed to read doesn't even support your morphology premise since the phenotypes are only similar in very broad terms; they converged on a common method, not a common 'design'.
You then proceed to go on about morphological similarities, ignoring the patterns of descent formed by the geological placement of the fossil record, the evidence from genetic relatedness, and every other area.
ReplyDeleteAs I said, “evolutionists sometimes deny biological convergence.” And no, the human and squid eyes, for example, do not form a pattern of descent in the fossil record, or “every other area.” That’s why they’re called convergences, no matter how much evolutionists deny it.
So, in other words, you have referred to convergent morphologies as intricate designs. Which is wrong.
Amazing denialism. So the human and squid eyes are not intricate designs. It would be difficult to imagine a more bizarre assertion. I suppose they cannot be because, after all, they evolved.
Complete manipulation of the science to fit the religious beliefs.
(Does blockquoting work here? If so, do I use UBB or HTML?)
ReplyDeleteYes, you did say evolutionists sometimes deny convergence. Fortunately, I didn't do that. I talked about the fact that convergence is the hitting on of one idea by two means. You don't seem to understand this in the least; you aren't only confused over what the concept of convergence actually is, but you're also confused over simple language.
"And no, the human and squid eyes, for example, do not form a pattern of descent in the fossil record, or “every other area.” That’s why they’re called convergences, no matter how much evolutionists deny it."
Once again, you're lost. You held convergence up as though biologists claim that it is evidence for common descent. Here you confused one concept with morphology. I rightly pointed out, and I'll do it again, that we have a whole host of data we use to demonstrate clear patterns of descent.
"Amazing denialism. So the human and squid eyes are not intricate designs."
That's a pure bait-and-switch. They are not the same intricate designs. They're based upon different substrates, genes, and histories. That they have convergent similarities does not change this.
"Complete manipulation of the science to fit the religious beliefs."
While this has all been an exercise in your misunderstanding of not only what I've written but of convergence itself, I do appreciate your implication that religious beliefs are less valid than scientific evidence and facts.
Yes, you did say evolutionists sometimes deny convergence. Fortunately, I didn't do that.
DeleteYes you did deny convergence, and you continue to deny convergence. Such as here:
That's a pure bait-and-switch. They are not the same intricate designs. They're based upon different substrates, genes, and histories. That they have convergent similarities does not change this.
Not the same intricate designs? That is an incredible assertion. Only an evolutionist could make such a statement. Anyone can go lookup the human and squid eye designs. Are there differences? Sure there are. For example, the human focuses by changing the shape of the lens whereas the squid focuses by changing the location of the lens. The light rays then focus onto the retina where the human’s photocells are inverted whereas the squid photocells are verted.
But the fact that the two species both have complex camera eyes, at all, is a profound similarity. As McGhee puts it: “The independent evolution of complex camera eyes in the chordates (humans and our kin) and in the mollusks (the octopus and their kin) is a classic case of amazing convergent evolution”. [McGhee, Convergent Evolution, MIT, 2011]
But evolutionists often deny this. After all, they are “based upon different substrates, genes, and histories.” Different histories? Of course they are! That is why they are convergent, by definition. And that is why it is so striking. Random mutations must have created the same design, independently.
Different substrates and genes? Again, of course. They are two different species. Of course the substrates are different. The evolutionist tries to use these distinctions as somehow affecting the convergence itself. That fact that the human and squid eyes are based upon different substrates and genes in *no way* changes the similarity and convergence of those eyes.
And then they say the problem is you just don’t understand convergence. Incredible.
I rightly pointed out, and I'll do it again, that we have a whole host of data we use to demonstrate clear patterns of descent.
A whole host of data demonstrating clear patterns of descent? What about the “whole host of data” that contradicts the patterns of descent? Your blatant misrepresentation of science is amazing.
I believe I see the problem here. You're still stuck on your confused understanding of what convergence even is. As I said in my original post, you've noticed that some home builders use cellulose insulation and others use spray foam, but then you've gone and said these are the same intricate design. They aren't. You just haven't fully grasped convergent evolution yet.
ReplyDeleteYou seem to admit that everything I've said is true in regards to the vastly different origins of convergent traits, but you can't quite get past this idea about intricacy. I believe the problem is ulterior: If you claim that evolution predicts that similar morphologies must mean common descent, then you get to point out that that isn't always the case. Moreover, you get to then imply that entirely different pathways that lead to similar traits must have been designed. It's a neat trick, but it isn't working. Morphology is one method by which common descent can be inferred, but evolution never predicts that similar traits *must* have a common ancestor. Furthermore, the fact that we see entirely different pathways leading to similar conclusions is proof in and of itself that the intricacy of these given traits are, fundamentally, not the same. But perhaps you believe a bicycle and a car have the same intricate design because they both use wheels.
What about the “whole host of data” that contradicts the patterns of descent?
I would ask you to present some of this, but I get the feeling you're just going to say something about convergent evolution and intricate designs.
I believe the problem is ulterior: If you claim that evolution predicts that similar morphologies must mean common descent, then you get to point out that that isn't always the case. Moreover, you get to then imply that entirely different pathways that lead to similar traits must have been designed. It's a neat trick, but it isn't working.
ReplyDeleteExcept that is not what I said. What I said is:
Astonishingly evolutionist Ronald Hoy claims that this new finding provides “evidence for convergent evolution.” That would be quite a discovery. How, according to Hoy, do the amazing similarities in mammal and katydid hearing make for evidence that they are products of so-called convergent evolution?
It makes for a startling headline and once again gives journalists license to proclaim another confirmation of evolution. But down in the details, Hoy’s “evidence” is nothing more than circular reasoning. In a classic example of evolutionary blowback, Hoy reasons that (i) mammals and katydids evolved, (ii) their hearing designs are remarkably similar, so (iii) therefore it is proof of convergent evolution.
Next you said:
Morphology is one method by which common descent can be inferred, but evolution never predicts that similar traits *must* have a common ancestor.
Nor did I ever say otherwise. What I did say is:
random mutations just happened to hit upon the same detailed, intricate design at different times, in different parts of the world, in different ecological niches, and so forth. The idea that the most complex designs we know of would spontaneously arise by themselves is, itself, not scientifically motivated and a real stretch of the imagination. But for the same intricate designs to arise independently by chance is even more of a stretch.
Your response was that this is not a stretch because the different, converged, designs are based upon different substrates, genes and histories. Of course that does nothing to address the point, as I discussed in my earlier comment.
Furthermore, the fact that we see entirely different pathways leading to similar conclusions is proof in and of itself that the intricacy of these given traits are, fundamentally, not the same. But perhaps you believe a bicycle and a car have the same intricate design because they both use wheels.
Your argument is not with me per se, it is with any serious biologist. You are, again, denying convergence. Your analogy of a bicycle and a car says it all. To say that the flying squirrel and flying phalanger, or the squid and human eye, or myriad other examples, are analogous to a bicycle and a car is simply way off base. You are blatantly misrepresenting the science, as you are driven by your ideology.
CH: What about the “whole host of data” that contradicts the patterns of descent?
ReplyDeleteMH: I would ask you to present some of this, but I get the feeling you're just going to say something about convergent evolution and intricate designs.
Unfortunately this is altogether typical. Evolutionists are deeply in denial of the science. Because evolutionists are religiously driven and their theory must be a fact, then all evidences, no matter how contradictory, are explained in terms of evolution. This requires just-so stories, but so be it.
So then evolutionists believe there are no problems with their theory. After all, it explains everything. So after having a long list of their predictions turn out false, they nonetheless ask incredulously, “What contradictory evidence could you possibly be referring to?”
For example, evolution predicts similar genomes in similar species, but what we find are all kinds of differences, such as ORFans, novel and unique genes, etc. Here is a recent example:
http://darwins-god.blogspot.com/2012/12/bigelowiella-natans-evolution-damage.html
But evolutionists do not miss a beat, for they have explained all that. There is accelerated evolution after all. And there is horizontal gene transfer. And who knows what else. Never mind that none of these explanations actually work. But one thing is certain, all the evidence supports the theory.
Except that is not what I said. What I said is:
ReplyDeleteI think you missed the point. Again. I was merely questioning your motives. As an addendum: You may also just genuinely misunderstand what convergence even is.
Nor did I ever say otherwise. What I did say is:
In the part of your own paragraph that you didn't quote-mine, you said that species "should form an evolutionary tree" but that they "do not form such an evolutionary tree pattern". You then went so far as to say that it is the rule that such a tree pattern isn't formed. This was your post's very introduction to convergent evolution; I've merely paraphrased you. So, to put a bow on this point, you said that evolution states that a tree pattern of descent should be formed on the basis that species which are highly similar share a relatively recent common ancestor. You then said that it often happens that this isn't how evolution actually works.
But let me tie that bow a little tighter. You have said that "evolution states that the species arose spontaneously" and as a result "[t]his means the species should form an evolutionary tree, where species that share a recent common ancestor, such as two frog species, are highly similar, and species that share a distant common ancestor, such as humans and squids, are very different." You then go on to state that "species do not form such an evolutionary tree pattern". That is, it it your position that a key component of evolution is that species which are morphologically similar should have a relatively recent common ancestor. You then use the fact of convergence to attempt to undermine this key component; if convergence is true, that means a prediction of evolution is false - in your view, and your view alone. However, the correct understanding here is that evolution does not, as you have said and as I have amply demonstrated you said, predict that similar morphologies automatically mean common descent from a recent ancestor.
Your response was that this is not a stretch because the different, converged, designs are based upon different substrates, genes and histories. Of course that does nothing to address the point, as I discussed in my earlier comment.
My response was that what you claim are the same, detailed intricate designs are not, in fact, the same in detail. A large piece of your premise here is that it would be tremendously unlikely for two species to have remarkably similar traits. Here's the problem with that: It isn't inherently unlikely for two species to happen upon a similar phenotypic solution. What would be unlikely is if two species had come to the same solution through the mutation and maintenance of the exact same genes.
You are, again, denying convergence. Your analogy of a bicycle and a car says it all.
You seem dead-set on avoiding a defense of your statements. Let's focus: You have described convergence as the hitting on of the same intricate designs, yet time and again we see that the similarities end at mere morphology. That isn't intricacy. That isn't detail. A membrane of skin that allows two species to stay in the air for a long period of time is not some highly involved labyrinth. The intricacy of the genotypes of two species with convergent traits are always different. You keep avoiding this fact. You ought to respond to it. And, again, respond to it. And another time, respond to it. Maybe address this topic? And stop avoiding it? And, oh, hey, Cornelius Hunter, you should respond to the fact that species with convergent traits have vastly different genotypes, pathways, substrates, and histories. How is any of that intricate? (By the way, could you respond to this?)
"After all, it explains everything. So after having a long list of their predictions turn out false..."
So, hang on. Would one of those predictions, according to you, be that species with similar traits must have a recent common ancestor?
I think you missed the point. Again. I was merely questioning your motives.
DeleteAnd you did that earlier as well. This is a standard argument. Evolution is a religious theory that manipulates science, and when you point out the scientific problems they say “Oh, well you have ulterior motives.” Remember, you’re the one with the ulterior motives, not me.
That is, it is your position that a key component of evolution is that species which are morphologically similar should have a relatively recent common ancestor.
No, not quite. Again you have imported meaning that isn’t there. I was making the general observation that allied species as well as distant species do not meet with evolutionary expectations. In the former, striking differences are found. In the latter, striking similarities are found. These contradictions are of many types and shouldn’t be lumped into a single big category.
As for the convergent designs, again they are of many different types, requiring a variety of just-so stories, some more heroic than others. At the one extreme, there is the high conservation of unconstrained DNA sequences, such as in the UCEs. That requires the heroic just-so story of: “Well there must be an unknown constraint” or equivalently: “We’ll figure that out in the future.”
There are plenty of other examples of convergent DNA sequences with lesser degrees of similarity. And to be sure, in some cases it might be feasible that the similarity is just by chance.
One could make similar observations about the convergences of morphological designs. It is more difficult to quantify though because we don’t understand the design space so well. But there is no question that there are striking morphological convergences that were very much surprising to evolutionists.
My response was that what you claim are the same, detailed intricate designs are not, in fact, the same in detail. A large piece of your premise here is that it would be tremendously unlikely for two species to have remarkably similar traits. Here's the problem with that: It isn't inherently unlikely for two species to happen upon a similar phenotypic solution. What would be unlikely is if two species had come to the same solution through the mutation and maintenance of the exact same genes.
Your argument holds only if you know that for all these various convergences there are a large number of ways to produce the morphological design in question. In other words, the complex camera eye is just something that is bound to arise from time to time. It’s just pretty easy and likely to evolve.
Let's focus: You have described convergence as the hitting on the same intricate designs, yet time and again we see that the similarities end at mere morphology. That isn't intricacy. That isn't detail.
ReplyDeleteYes it is intricacy. Try building something. I realize you don’t want to acknowledge the challenge of morphological convergences, but at least be aware that evolutionists who have studied and published on this very much acknowledge the issue.
A membrane of skin that allows two species to stay in the air for a long period of time is not some highly involved labyrinth.
Again, as with your bicycle analogy, you oversimplify. We’re not talking about a membrane of skin, we’re talking about things like complex camera eyes, with all that is entailed (lens, optics, muscles, nerves, arrangement of photocells, signal processing, etc.). All of these are immensely complex and detailed.
The intricacy of the genotypes of two species with convergent traits are always different. You keep avoiding this fact.
Hmm, where to begin. First of all, it is not a fact. There are DNA convergences as well (such as the UCEs I mentioned). Second, I didn’t avoid this issue, I explained that DNA differences do not render a morphological convergence any less meaningful. Third, there are genetic homologies as well that cause problems. In the eye example, there is Pax-6 for instance, at work in the development. So it must have evolved in the common ancestor, where there was no vision. I know, I know, it was co-opted, or whatever. The serendipity is astonishing. Evolution just creates wonders that just happen to work wonderfully eons later in far more complex organisms. Nice work if you can get it.
I was making the general observation that allied species as well as distant species do not meet with evolutionary expectations.
ReplyDeleteThen I can only assume that as I continue reading, I will come across you admitting that you earlier argued that evolution predicts equals a recent common ancestor between species.
As for the convergent designs
You haven't done an admirable job to this point of acting impartial, but it's overwhelmingly obvious that you want to come across that way. Step one will be to stop intentionally assuming design in your language.
again they are of many different types, requiring a variety of just-so stories, some more heroic than others. At the one extreme, there is the high conservation of unconstrained DNA sequences, such as in the UCEs.
Are you trying to argue that conserved DNA has anything to do with the matter at hand here?
Your argument holds only if you know that for all these various convergences there are a large number of ways to produce the morphological design in question.Yes it is intricacy. Try building something. I realize you don’t want to acknowledge the challenge of morphological convergences, but at least be aware that evolutionists who have studied and published on this very much acknowledge the issue.
So it's your position that different genotypes, different histories, different substrates, and different biochemical pathways are intricate because...you say so?
Again, as with your bicycle analogy, you oversimplify. We’re not talking about a membrane of skin, we’re talking about things like complex camera eyes, with all that is entailed (lens, optics, muscles, nerves, arrangement of photocells, signal processing, etc.). All of these are immensely complex and detailed.
First, I refer you to the very picture you used for your post. Second, the nerve fibers, retina, muscles, genes, and photoreceptors are all arranged differently between cephalapods and humans.
Hmm, where to begin. First of all, it is not a fact. There are DNA convergences as well (such as the UCEs I mentioned).
I can tell if you're confusing convergence with conserved DNA now or if you're being intentionally vague in referencing upstream control regions which converge on GC or AT richness.
Second, I didn’t avoid this issue, I explained that DNA differences do not render a morphological convergence any less meaningful.
Your whole gambit is the coincidental complexity of it. Not only is much of the morphological convergence actually markedly different (such as in the very paper you cited in your original post), but we never see two distantly related species with even relatively similar genomes.
Third, there are genetic homologies as well that cause problems. In the eye example, there is Pax-6 for instance, at work in the development. So it must have evolved in the common ancestor, where there was no vision. I know, I know, it was co-opted, or whatever.
The hand-waving is strong with you. Have you considered that Pax-6 could be evidence of a common ancestor with rudimentary vision? It's almost like science changes with the evidence.
Are you trying to argue that conserved DNA has anything to do with the matter at hand here?
DeleteOne of the problems with discussing evolution with evolutionists is that they often dodge problems. For example, if you explain that the evolution of some molecular machine is unlikely, they say it occurred in the origin of life which isn’t part of evolution.
In this case, we’re discussing similar designs in otherwise distant species and one example are UCEs, similar DNA sequences in many species. With such strong conservation across species evolution would expect the UCEs to be very important. But this was not found in the many tests performed. Thus evolution has no good explanation for these DNA sequences which contradict the expected common descent pattern. Now the evolutionist says the UCEs aren’t relevant to our discussion. Perhaps he interprets them as evolutionarily conserved (homologies) rather than convergent (homoplasies). Sigh.
the nerve fibers, retina, muscles, genes, and photoreceptors are all arranged differently between cephalapods and humans.
Yes and I suppose you could say the parts in a Ford and a Chevy are “all arranged differently.” Again, your argument isn’t with me. If you won’t even listen to evolutionists then you’re certainly not going to listen to me.
Your whole gambit is the coincidental complexity of it. Not only is much of the morphological convergence actually markedly different (such as in the very paper you cited in your original post), …
Again, you’re simply in denial of morphological convergence, something that is not even controversial. You’re argument is not with me. In fact, what is unfortunate is that in your dogma you are turning a blind eye to an enormous, and fascinating, area. I’ve only mentioned the tip of the iceberg. Homoplasies are rampant, and they come in many different flavors.
but we never see two distantly related species with even relatively similar genomes
Again, genetic differences do not detract from a morphological convergence. But furthermore, if you think there are no genomic homoplasies then you simply are not familiar with the science. Again, what is unfortunate is how evolution seems to have put blinders on you. I invite you to read these posts:
Recurrent Evolution
http://darwins-god.blogspot.com/2012/04/heres-latest-just-so-story-recurrent.html
kangaroo-human
http://darwins-god.blogspot.com/2010/05/compass-that-is-never-right.html
Trypanosoma brucei
http://darwins-god.blogspot.com/2012/04/you-wont-believe-this-one-even.html
http://darwins-god.blogspot.com/2012/04/evolution-falsified-yet-again-they-are.html
http://darwins-god.blogspot.com/2012/04/getting-crushed-evolutionists-are-now.html
With such strong conservation across species evolution would expect the UCEs to be very important. But this was not found in the many tests performed. Thus evolution has no good explanation for these DNA sequences which contradict the expected common descent pattern.
ReplyDeleteI'm not accepting your argument; I would like you to actually cite some papers since you are clearly unqualified to assess scientific literature. However, I do want to point out that "The evidence doesn't support the positive conclusion, therefore it supports this negative conclusion" ought to be an argument that embarrasses you to make.
Yes and I suppose you could say the parts in a Ford and a Chevy are “all arranged differently.”
Yet you whine about my analogies.
Again, your argument isn’t with me. If you won’t even listen to evolutionists then you’re certainly not going to listen to me.
Whereas you're the one calling vastly different structures, genotypes, arrangements, morphologies, and other things "intricate" because they're so similar (despite you admitting to virtually every example of the differences), I do believe the problem is with you, not the biologists you wouldn't be qualified to so much as assist.
Again, you’re simply in denial of morphological convergence, something that is not even controversial.
Allow me to remind you: Thus, two phylogenetically remote organisms, katydids and mammals, have evolved a series of convergent solutions to common biophysical problems, despite their reliance on very different morphological substrates.
Again, genetic differences do not detract from a morphological convergence.
No, the paper you cited - ya know, the one that directly contradicts you - did that.
I'm not accepting your argument; I would like you to actually cite some papers since you are clearly unqualified to assess scientific literature.
ReplyDeleteI blogged on it here:
http://darwins-god.blogspot.com/2012/12/uces-see-somethingsay-something.html
However, I do want to point out that "The evidence doesn't support the positive conclusion, therefore it supports this negative conclusion" ought to be an argument that embarrasses you to make.
Where did I make that argument?