Convergent evolution - Lightning striking again and again and again!

There’s a common saying that lightning never strikes twice in the same place.  That’s not literally true.  When people say it, they mean if something improbable happens, it likely won’t happen again.  The odds of anyone winning the lottery, for example, are very small.  The same person winning the lottery two times in a row is virtually impossible.  Such a thing might happen in the realm of theoretical statistics, however most people understand that it wouldn’t happen in the real world.  But then again, since when does evolution operate in the real world?!

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 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! 

Lies evolutionists tell: Abiogenesis is different from spontaneous generation

People who militantly defend evolution (AKA evolutionists) like to look down their noses at the “lay” public and smugly drone on about how science is the key to knowledge, how evolution is the most rigorously tested theory in science, and how they only go where the evidence leads. If that were true, why do they feel the need to tell lies to support their theory? I'm not talking about a mere difference of opinion – like how I believe the earth is around 6,000 years old and they think it's 4 billion years old. I'm talking about continuously repeating things that are objectively false. The sad thing is, many members of the public have heard these lies repeated so often, they assume they are true.  One lie I’ve heard many, many times is that abiogenesis is not the same as spontaneous generation.  

Once upon a time, people believed in a thing called spontaneous generation.  It’s the idea that life could spring up from non-living matter.  They believed, for example, that maggots would spontaneously form in rotting meat.  Over time, however, with much experimentation and observation, it was discovered that every suspected example of spontaneous generation could be attributed to observable causes.  In the case of maggots, they determined the cause was flies laying eggs on the meat.  

Eventually, the spontaneous generation of “complex” animals was disproved.  However, the belief endured that it could still happen in “simple” creatures like single-celled organisms.  If you put a jar of clean water in the sun, for example, after a while, the water would begin to cloud.  If you examined the water under the primitive microscopes available at that time, they could see the water was teeming with bacteria.  They believed these cells were merely gelatinous blobs formed spontaneously by a fortunate arrangement of chemicals already present in the water. 

Louis Pasteur  was a chemist, biologist, and contemporary of Charles Darwin.  He didn’t believe life could arise purely by chance so he devised an experiment to test what was happening.  He discovered that in sterilized, sealed flasks, bacteria would not grow.  If the flasks were left open, bacteria would begin to grow.  So he proved the bacteria was entering the flask from outside and not forming spontaneously in the water.  This was the discovery that led to the process we now call pasteurization and was the final blow to spontaneous generation.  It was replaced by the law of biogenesis - life only comes from life.

This poses a problem for evolutionists.  If life only comes from life, where did the supposed first living cell come from?  They have to believe - somehow and somewhere - that it rose from non-living matter.  In other words, they still believe in spontaneous generation!  I’ve often teased them by saying they’re asking people to believe in a theory that was discarded about the same time as blood-letting!!  [joke copyrighted by RKBentley © if you want use it, send me a quarter] Of course, they claim to not believe in spontaneous generation; instead, they call it abiogenesis.  So what is the difference?  That’s a good question.  I asked Chat GPT to define ‘spontaneous generation.’  Here’s what it said:

Spontaneous generation is an old scientific idea that living organisms could arise from nonliving matter without any parent organisms.  

It went on to talk about the meat/maggots example, the Pasteur experiments, and the Law of Biogenesis.  It concluded its response with these words:

In short

• Spontaneous generation  = life comes from nonliving matter

• Modern science = life comes from preexisting life

OK, that seems straight forward.  It’s pretty much the same thing I’d already understood.   Then I asked it to define ‘abiogenesis’ and here’s what it said:

Abiogenesis is the scientific concept that life arose naturally from non-living matter on early Earth - without any pre-existing life.

Do you see what I see?  These definitions are essentially the same thing - life arose from non-life, except spontaneous generation says it doesn’t happen and abiogenesis says it does!  

Because Chat GPT’s responses seemed contradictory, I asked a less direct question.  I asked, “What do you call the process by which life rises from non-living matter?”  Here’s the response:

The process you’re referring to is called Abiogenesis.

What it means

Abiogenesis is the scientific idea that life arose from nonliving chemical substances - likely on earth Earth billions of years ago.

Key distinction

It’s important not to confuse this with spontaneous generation:

• Abiogenesis -> A gradual, natural process over long periods involving chemistry (accepted area of scientific research)

• Spontaneous generation -> life appearing suddenly and regularly from nonliving matter (now disproven)

Ah, I get it.  Abiogenesis has the magic ingredient: time!!  I mean, life can’t just spring up like maggots from rotting meat, that’s crazy.  But if you wait billions of years, a rock can become alive.  Yeah, that makes perfect sense.  Plus, abiogenesis involves chemistry, you see, and that’s scientific - so there you go.  //RKBentley rolls his eyes//

To be fair, Chat GPT did conclude with this final distinction:

Simple way to think about it

• Abiogenesis = how the first life ever began

• Biogenesis = how life continues today (life comes from life)

Yet even this doesn’t hold any water.  First, if abiogenesis was a singular event, then it is disqualified from scientific investigation.  It would be like trying to scientifically observe the reign of Julias Caesar - it’s something that happened in the past and we weren’t there to see it.  If it never happens again, how could we ever observe how it happened?  And even if we somehow create life in a lab, there’s no way to say that is how it happened in the past!

But there’s an even deeper problem with this idea, namely, who’s to say that it doesn’t happen any more?  They’re saying only the first life formed by abiogenesis, because if it happened again, that would be spontaneous generation.  It’s kind of like the exotic theories atheists invoke to explain the origin of everything from nothing.  How can anyone say that some “miraculous” thing happened naturally in the past but it doesn’t happen any more?  If life arose from chemicals once, why necessarily doesn’t it keep happening?  If the universe poofed out of nothing, why can’t matter/energy poof into existence now?  It sounds like a clever way to say, “An incredible thing happened, it wasn’t a miracle, we don’t have to prove anything, and it’s still scientific.” 

In conclusion I’ll say, my opinion hasn’t changed.  Abiogenesis is Spontaneous Generation 2.0.  It’s a god-of-the-gaps argument being used by unbelievers to plug a big hole in their worldview.  We’ve known for more than a century that life doesn’t rise naturally from chemicals but they still cling with faith-like determination to the idea that it must have happened. 

7 “theories” on the origin of life

And that's how life began on earth!

Whenever creationists ask about the origin of life, evolutionists usually respond by saying, “that's not part of evolution.” I've always thought it was convenient of them to propose a theory where all life has descended from a common ancestor yet excuse themselves from explaining the origin of the common ancestor but never mind that now. Everyone knows what's really going on: evolutionists secretly know that the origin of life is a legitimate question for which they have no answer. So they dodge the question with, “that's not part of the theory,” in hopes of buying enough time to come up with a plausible natural explanation which they will make a part of their theory.

LiveScience is an online science magazine that regularly posts “countdown” lists. One list they have is the top 7 theories on the origin of life.  Each theory received a short description which you can read for yourself but here is an even briefer summary:

Electric Spark: Inspired by the Miller-Urey experiment of 1952, this theory suggests that lightning interacting with methane gas in the earth's atmosphere created amino acids.

Community Clay: This is the idea that mineral crystals in clay helped organize the first living cells.

Deep-Sea Vents: Some people believe life began in the hydrogen-rich environment of submarine, hydrothermal vents.

Chilly Start: Instead of super-hot, hydrothermal vents, some believe life began inside hundreds of feet of ice that supposedly covered the early oceans.

RNA World: Before DNA, some speculate that life began with RNA. Of course, they don't have a conclusive theory on the origin of RNA either.

Simple Beginnings: Instead of developing from complex molecules such as RNA, life might have begun with smaller molecules interacting with each other in cycles of reactions.

Panspermia: This is the idea that life did not begin on earth at all but was brought here from space via comets or meteors. Some extremists who hold this view believe life was intentionally planted here by intelligent aliens but LiveScience didn't mention them in their description of panspermia.

I know these are meant to be thumbnail sketches of the various theories but I believe they say a lot about scientists' ideas about the origin of life.  First off, I noticed the casual use of the word “theory.” Read this from the article:

Science remains undecided and conflicted as to the exact origin of life, also known as abiogenesis…. Although science still seems unsure, here are some of the many different scientific theories on the origin of life on Earth.

Do you see what I mean?  Sometimes, creationists have criticized evolution by saying, “It's just a theory.” This usually brings howls of ridicule from evolutionists explaining how a “theory” is more than just a “guess”; It's supposed to be a well-substantiated, well-supported, well-documented explanation for our observations. Here, though, they just mean “guess,” don't they? “Theories” are only well-substantiated when creationists suggest that evolution is just a guess. When evolutionists use the word, “guesses” are fine. The correct title of the countdown should be “7 Guesses About the Origin of Life.”

Notice too the huge range covered by the various guesses.  Maybe life began in hot vents or maybe it was in ice. Maybe it formed in the sea or maybe in the clay or maybe on another planet. Some of these competing theories... I mean guesses... aren't even close to each other but are mutually exclusive. It's not like scientists have narrowed it down to a range of ideas – they're wild guesses. This isn’t science; it's storytelling.

This brings me to my final point. It's painfully obvious that scientists truly have no real “theory” about abiogenesis. Yet, if they have no idea, then how can they credibly claim that God didn't create life? Do they really mean to say, “I don't know how life began but I KNOW God didn't create it!”? Yes, they really do mean to say that. Even though they have absolutely no idea how life began, they refuse to consider the possibility that God created life. It's disqualified in advance because of their tenet of methodological naturalism. I've written before how there is no scientific reason to reject a supernatural explanation. It's merely their bias.

Some evolutionists would rather continue in ignorance rather than consider a plausible, supernatural explanation for the origin of life. Still others would rather believe we are martians, planted here by aliens rather than believe we are created by God. It's their presupposed naturalism which blinds them to how silly they're being.

Have scientists figured out the origin of life?

I just read on yahoo!news, Scientists Say They May Have Just Figured Out the Origin of Life.  Here’s a quote from the story:

How did the building blocks of life come together to spawn the first organisms? It's one of the most longstanding questions in biology — and scientists just got a major clue.

A couple of things jumped out at me as I read the article.  First, why do we have this continuous flip flop over the question of abiogenesis?  I mean, is it part of the theory or not?  One self described “theistic evolutionist,” Tyler Franke, has this to say about abiogenesis:

[You don't understand evolution if] you think it has anything to do with the origin of life, let alone the origins of the universe.... This is like the king of all straw men, and it’s extremely common. It involves something like the thoroughly debunked theory of spontaneous generation (the idea that life can come from non-life under normal circumstances) being used as evidence against the theory of evolution. Hear me on this, guys: Evolution has nothing to do with the origin of life.

Creationists usually always hear a response similar to Franke’s whenever the subject of the origin of life is raised.  I’ve written about this before (here).  The reason they want to divorce the origin of life from the rest of their theory is because they have no plausible explanation about how life began.  They want to posit a theory that all life has descended from a common ancestor, but when asked the reasonable question, “where did this first ancestor come from?,” they suddenly want to change the subject.  Their objection is nothing more than a red herring - a distraction from the embarrassing fact that they don't have an answer.

But in the yahoo!news article, we see the truth.  Evolutionists are keenly interested in knowing how life began.  They just admitted, “It's one of the most longstanding questions in biology.”  Why else are they continuing to do research into this area?  Why else would they still include the failed Miller-Urey experiment in biology text books after 75 years?  Creationists have known all along this is an important question so evolutionists need to stop with the dodges and denials.

Which brings me to my next point: If evolutionists want to hide from this subject and only ponder it secretly, amongst themselves, then why do they publish headlines like this one?  The answer is simple: when they think they’ve made a break-through on the subject, they trumpet it in hopes of squelching the criticism.  They’re hoping they will finally have an answer they can give to the Christians who keep pestering them about it.

But have scientists really made a break-though this time?  The short answer is no.  The headline, as usual, overstates the claim.  Remember, the headline says scientists, “may have just figured out the origin of life.” When you read the article, though, that’s not what’s happened at all.  Using quotes from the article, what was discovered is that, using “very simple chemistry… that could have occurred on early earth,” amino acids can link together.  “The results… show how RNA might have first come to control protein synthesis.” 

Notice the words I’ve made bold.  This so-called probiotic soup “could” have existed.  Amino acids linking randomly “might” have led to the first proteins.  It doesn’t sound to me like they’ve figured out anything for sure.

Online sites, magazines, and newspapers are trying to earn clicks.  They use hype to draw views so they can sell ads.  They’re just trying to put a little sizzle on the steak as the saying goes.  But what is happening is they’re reporting fake news.  I’m fairly confident that most of the eager readers of the sensational headlines, never went on to read and “peer-reviewed” scientific papers about what was actually found.

I’ve written before about how pop-science articles work (here).   It seems like nearly every day, there’s another sensational headline written about some major discovery that “proves” something about evolution.  Fans of the theory hoot and holler and thump their chests, doubling down on their complaints that creationists are just science deniers who don’t even understand evolution.  It’s been my experience, though, that most of these headlines age like milk.  I’m pretty sure that, in about 5 years, no one will remember this article and the scientific community will have moved on to making some other guesses about how life began.  There have been many of these pop-science stories written  just like this one - all of them being  just as sensational but also just as forgettable.

In this case, the authors of this article seem to already be hedging their bets.  Near the end of the story you can read this:

The catch is that as far as we can tell, the pantetheine crucial to making this all happen wouldn't have been found in high enough concentrations in the Earth's primordial oceans, where many scientists believe life may have originated….  Nick Lane, an origin of life chemist at UCL who wasn't involved in the study, further cautioned to Science that the amino acid chains being produced are random and chaotic, unlike the orderly arrangements produced by ribosomes.  

So the very article that suggests scientists may have figured out the origin of life, cautions readers that what was found probably couldn’t lead to life!  Why then are we even talking about it?  Well, like I’ve said, evolutionists are desperate to answer the question they claim isn’t even part of their theory.  This find is just another piece of information they can hang their hopes on until something more plausible comes along.  I love the closing line of the article:

But give these chemicals billions of years to bounce around, and anything can happen.

Ah, yes, it’s the “billions of years” solution.  Time is the hero of the evolutionary fairy tale.  It doesn’t matter that what we can observe happening right now doesn’t amount to anything - just give it “billions of years” and the frog becomes a prince!