Re: Convergence leaves the evolutionist completely dumbfounded
- From: eroot@xxxxxxxx
- Date: 18 Sep 2005 19:50:47 -0700
Kant wrote:
> Since both the creation and evolutionary frameworks attempt to explain
> biological convergence, an analysis of this feature of nature can be used to
> evaluate the two paradigms. When critically assessed, the evolutionary
> paradigm is found to be woefully inadequate when accounting for all the
> facets of biological convergence. On the other hand, biological convergence
> is readily explained by an origins model that evokes a single Creator.
The big flaw with single creator model as well as the multiple creator
model, is that it could be used to explain anything, and when
pro-science people point this out, the anti-scientists such as yourself
and your masters never have an answer. Why is that?
>
> One of the challenges that convergence creates for the evolutionary paradigm
> is the frequency with which it occurs throughout life's history. Convergence
> is a common characteristic of life.
So what?
> This commonness makes little sense in
> light of evolutionary theory.
It makes all sorts of sense, as Steven J. points out, so you are wrong.
> If evolution is indeed responsible for the
> diversity of life, one would expect convergence to be extremely rare.
I don't expect that. You-hoo, does anybody here expect convergence to
be rare? ......Looks like you are wrong on that one, too.
> The
> mechanism that drives the evolutionary process consists of a large number of
> unpredictable, chance events that occur one after another.
plus a larger number of non-random events that winnow the results of
the chance events. Why do you leave that out? Conveniently playing
dumb, are you?
> Given this
> mechanism and the complexity and fine-tuning of biological systems, it seems
> improbable that disparate evolutionary pathways would ever lead to the same
> biological feature.4
:You left out the effect of natural selection, which does the fine
tuning. No wonder you mistakenly
think that convergence would be a problem for evolution. Next time you
come around, why don't you bring something that is _actually_ a problem
for evolution. You will have to find it yourself, because everything
written on a creationist web site is long-refuted horse droppings.
>
> Two remarkable examples of complex biological features recently recognized
> as being convergent are bat echolocation (the ability of an organism to
> orient itself based on perceiving reflections of sound it emits) and parrot,
> songbird, and hummingbird forebrain structure. A recent DNA sequence
> analysis has just confirmed two earlier studies that, from an evolutionary
> perspective, requires echolocation in bats to have evolved independently in
> two separate groups (microchiroptera and megachiroptera).5, 6, 7 This
> study, along with previous analyses also indicate that the strikingly
> similar limb structures of bats and flying lemurs used for flying, likewise,
> must have evolved independently,
Well, no duh!
> when the data is interpreted from an
> evolutionary perspective.
Does the phrase, "so what?" have any meaning for you?
>
> Another recent study, employing behavioral differences in gene expression in
> brain tissue, has demonstrated that the brain structure of hummingbirds,
> songbirds, and parrots responsible for vocal learning (the ability to
> "learn" vocalizations by imitation rather than by instinct) is essentially
> identical.8, 9 This is surprising, since these three birds are unrelated to
> one another.
Just because something is surprising to people who make hatred of
science a way of life, doesn't mean its surprising to scientists.
> That is, the seven distinct structures in the forebrain of
> these three groups of birds that are responsible for vocal learning are
> convergent. From an evolutionary perspective, these structures must have
> evolved independently of one another on three separate occasions.
>
If so, so what?
(snip link to apologetics web site).
Eric Root
.
- References:
- Prev by Date: Re: Antony Flew anyone?
- Next by Date: Re: Claim CE380: Spiral Galaxies Staying Spiral
- Previous by thread: Re: Convergence leaves the evolutionist completely dumbfounded
- Next by thread: Re: Convergence leaves the evolutionist completely dumbfounded
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
Loading
