I’m talking about the idea of convergent evolution. According to Grokipedia - by the way, I’ve started moving away from the left-leaning Wikipedia - anyway, according to Grokipedia, “Convergent evolution is the process whereby distantly related species independently develop similar traits or characteristics, typically in response to comparable environmental pressures or selective forces.” In a recent post (here), I discussed how koala fingerprints are indistinguishable from human fingerprints. Koalas are marsupials, and according to the theory of evolution, marsupial mammals supposedly diverged from placental mammals more than 150 million years ago. In other words, koalas cannot be “closely related” to humans. So why do both species share this very unusual characteristic? Evolutionists claim it’s an example of convergent evolution. You know, because koalas and humans live in nearly identical environments with all the same selective pressures. Excuse me while I roll my eyes!
The idea of convergent evolution is little more than a rescue device for evolutionists. They love, love, love to point out similarities between, say, chimps and humans, and say their similarities are evidence they share a recent common ancestor. But any similarity between humans and koalas is merely a coincidence - a case of convergent evolution. Evolutionists can’t see the special pleading in their argument. In fact, they’ve become so comfortable with the idea of convergent evolution, they wave it around like an end-of-discussion solution anytime traits don’t follow any predictable pattern on the so-called, “tree of life.”
I’ve discussed the appendix before so let’s start with that. According to evolution, the appendix evolved in some ancestor of humans and once served an important function (or at least it evolved to serve some function). Since we are descended from this supposed ancestor, we have inherited that structure but, over the many generations of mutation and selection leading from the non-human ancestor to us, the appendix has lost its original function. For this reason, it's sometimes called an “evolutionary leftover.”
Humans are not the only creatures with an appendix. Dozens of mammals have appendixes – but not every mammal. According to the theory of common descent, we should be able to trace the appendix along the so-called “nested-hierarchy” where all the animals which have an appendix also share a common ancestor. The problem is, there is no predictable pattern among the mammals with appendixes. The appendix appears in some species of primates, rodents, and even marsupials but is absent from the intermediate groups linking these species. It's not at all what we would expect if evolution were true.
Failed predictions are usually considered evidence against a scientific theory. However, the fact that the presence of the appendix follows no predictable pattern hardly raises an eyebrow among evolutionists. As is often the case, they invent ad hoc theories to explain the failed prediction. Here is a quote from Sciencemag.org:
In a new study, published online... in Comptes Rendus Palevol, the researchers compiled information on the diets of 361 living mammals, including 50 species now considered to have an appendix, and plotted the data on a mammalian evolutionary tree. They found that the 50 species are scattered so widely across the tree that the structure must have evolved independently at least 32 times, and perhaps as many as 38 times. [Bold added]
So let me get this straight: The appendix appears in no discernible pattern on the so-called “tree of life” which calls into question the entire concept of common descent. They try to say it evolved independently in all these different species but why would the selective pressures that drive convergent evolution create a similar organ over and over, when most creatures that have one don't need it?!
Next, let’s talk about the eye. In his infamous book, Darwin said this about the eye (source):
To suppose that the eye, with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest possible degree.
Of course, Darwin still believed the eye was evolved and went on to describe how evolution, by gradual steps, could produce such a remarkably complex organ. However, Richard Dawkins, in his book, River out of Eden, had this to say about the eye:
[T]he time needed for the evolution of the eye... turned out to be too short for geologists to measure! It's a geological blink." And, "it is no wonder the eye has evolved at least forty times independently around the animal kingdom
There are many, many creatures in the animal kingdom that have eyes. I’ve written before (here) about the similarity between human eyes and those of an octopus. Both creatures exist in radically different environments and are not supposed to be closely related according to evolution. They are examples of what Dawkins was talking about, one of dozens of examples where the eye has evolved independently in different creatures. But do you see the shift in tone from Darwin to Dawkins? Darwin claims the eye is so complex it seems a wonder how it could have evolved, to Dawkins saying it’s so easy it happens all the time!
Finally, there is the topic of abiogenesis. The odds of random chemicals coming together to create life are astonishingly small. We’ve never observed it happen. We’ve never been able to create life artificially in a lab, despite decades of trying. However, evolutionists argue that in such a large universe even something very improbable will eventually happen. Carl Sagan once said this:
“... [T]he time available for the origin of life seems to have been short, a few hundred million years at the most. Since life originated on the earth, we have additional evidence that the origin of life has a high probability.”
Convinced that there is a high probability of the origin of life, then it's no great leap to imagine that other life began in space as well. His faith in extra-terrestrial life inspired groups like SETI to search for signs of life beyond our planet. Today, with NASA’s interest in exploring Mars, people speculate that life could have evolved on Mars as well. So even though we’ve NEVER observed abiogenesis, evolutionists suffer under the delusion it happens everywhere.
Evolutionists are somewhat cavalier about what is credible. They waive the term “convergent evolution” around and suddenly the impossible becomes commonplace. A fully functioning eye evolving from a light sensitive spot on the skin? No problem! Life springing from non-living matter? Happens all the time!
As was said at the start of this post, people in the real world, people know the odds of any improbable event happening twice is highly unlikely. Evolutionists, on the other hand, would have us believe that lightning strikes in the area of the improbable like a timpani!
