Does Similarity Imply Common Ancestry?
According to evolution the species arose as a consequence of random events, such as mutations. Yet the biological world is full of repeated designs. These so-called convergences are ubiquitous. And while a fundamental tenet of evolutionary theory is that similarity implies common ancestry, convergences are similarities found in more distant species—they cannot have arisen from a common ancestor. This falsifies the fundamental tenet that similarity implies common ancestry. This tension can be further amplified by complexity and multiplicity. Similarities in different species which are highly complex can be difficult to explain how they evolved once, let alone twice in independent lineages. Add to this similarities which are found not twice, but a multiplicity of times, and you have what the
press release of a
new study out of Germany on the evolution of jawed vertebrates called “astonishing examples of repeated evolution.”
Don't worry. The dirt worshippers have already invented horizontal gene transfer mechanisms that allow genes to be easily and magically transferred between distant species. They don't need falsifiability as in other fields of science. They are above that petty nonsense. They just need a narrative.
ReplyDeleteAmen. you have dealt with this on many occasions.
ReplyDeleteSimilarity equaling evidence for common descent nullify's similarity as evidence WHEN other mechanisms are invoked for its occurrence.
Convergent evolutionism is revoking the evidence for common descent!!!
Very important creationist criticism.
they will always, as they do better research, be forced to say , as out germany now, that 'repeated" evolution must be the norm.
All of common descent is based on comparing traits.
Nothing more sophisticated then that. at anatomical or genetic levels .(in the fossil record too).
Its just a line of reasoning. True or not. its not biological evidence for common descent.
Likeness and sameness is all they find. THEN they PRESU<E its from common descent.
However it would be this way from common design(including in the design common reaction to need).
Its so unlikely that a evolutionary mechanism would come up with the same answers, yes complex ones, for like needs in creatures/biology unrelated.
Its just another great point about how evolution is against common sense.
I predict they will more and more find REPEATED EVOLUTION RESULTS everywhere. It will need to be dealyt with more then at present. Invoking convergent evolution is invoking a falsification of similarity as a guide to origin.
Possibly I'm repeating here. Convergent posting!!
However i think its a exciting killer good criticism.
The error of evolutionism is imploding in our time.
Similarity equaling evidence for common descent nullify's similarity as evidence WHEN other mechanisms are invoked for its occurrence.
DeleteConvergent evolutionism is revoking the evidence for common descent!!!
This is an excellent point.
Thanks. By George I think we've got them!
DeleteEvolutionism really is all about grouping traits, like historic clarification, and then they conclude about common descent from these groupings.
It really is just that. They convince themselves.
However I seee a bigger problem also with classification.
Saying there are mammals, reptiles, dinosaurs, i see also as false. i don't see God creating these divisions. Just kinds with like traits for good reasons.
This correction would help a lot but whatever.
I've been on the idea of convergence disproving evolution for years. Every since I read the bioluminescence supposedly evolved independently dozens of times.
ReplyDeleteWait, who I am kidding? Nothing disproves or discredits evolution. As long as they can use their imagination to create fantastical escape mechanisms evolution will never be falsified.
I have also thought about this a long time.
DeleteYet in this case I think evolutionists are stressed to maintain their laws.
They see the results. They see likeness where there should not be. (Remember they would desire a diversity proving separate mutation selectionism and go aha to creationists) and so they must invoke convergent evolution in a remarkable way.
While all the time undercutting the great presumption behind classification systems in biology(centuries now) and the common descent idea.
They have no evidence for common descent except similarity and that is a flop.
Common design does a better job.
"This falsifies the fundamental tenet that similarity implies common ancestry."
ReplyDeleteOne of the biggest flaws of human nature is judging by mere outward appearances because it provides a justification for our belief. Digging deeper into a matter can better hlp us get to the truth of that matter, but most are lazy and the truth is often inconvenient to a preconceived notion. The International Children's Bible beautifully illustrates the point on how often flawed human outward perception on a matter really is, ! Samuel 16:6-7
"When they arrived, Samuel saw Eliab. Samuel thought, “Surely the Lord has appointed this person standing here before him.”
"But the Lord said to Samuel, “Don’t look at how handsome Eliab is. Don’t look at how tall he is. I have not chosen him. God does not see the same way people see. People look at the outside of a person, but the Lord looks at the heart.”
Scientists have made this mistake over and over time and again. If Science really was as neutral & truth revealing as it's religious believers adamantly claim, this judging by mere outward appearance without deeper searching would never have been an issue.