What is convergent evolution? According to Wikipedia:
- Convergent
evolution describes the independent evolution of similar features in
species of different lineages. Convergent evolution creates analogous
structures that have similar form or function, but were not present in the
last common ancestor of those groups. The wing is a classic example of convergent
evolution in action…The recurrent evolution of flight is a classic example
of convergent evolution. Flying insects, birds, and bats have all evolved
the capacity of flight independently. They have "converged" on
this useful trait.
Never mind that the capacity for flight requires massive
changes in the shape of the body, muscles, respiratory and circulatory systems!
However, some evolutionists, like Simon Conway Morris, believe that the forces
of unguided evolution are so fertile that it was inevitable that the best body
structures would inevitably evolve:
- Convergence
is a dominant force in evolution, and given that the same environmental
and physical constraints are at work, life will inevitably evolve toward
an "optimum" body plan, and at some point, evolution is bound to
stumble upon intelligence, a trait presently identified with at least primates,
corvids, and cetaceans. (Wikipedia)
But could evolution reinvent the same brain structures over
and over again? In this regards, neuroscientist and evolutionist Paul Patton
made an interesting revelation:
- “One of the most common misconceptions
about brain evolution is that it represents a linear process culminating
in amazing cognitive powers of humans, with brains of other modern species
representing previous stages…However research in comparative
neuron-anatomy clearly has shown that complex brains—and sophisticated
cognition—have evolved from simpler brains multiple times independently in
separate lineages.” (Scientific America Mind, “One
World, Many Minds,” Dec 2008/Jan 2009, 72-73)
Patton acknowledged that what had been promoted as the
evolutionary pathway of the brain (from simplicity to complexity), is not so.
Previously, it had been taught that our brains derived from four sequential
evolutionary steps in which the fish brain was overlaid by a reptilian complex
and later repackaged in over-lying paleo- and then neo-mammalian brain
additions:
- “A ‘neural chassis” corresponding to
the brains of fish and amphibians; a reptilian complex, consisting of the
basal ganglia, which were held to dominate the brains of reptiles and
birds; a paleomammalian component, consisting of the brains limbic system,
which supposedly emerged with the origin of mammals and which was
responsible for emotional behavior; and finally a neomammalian component,
consisting of the neocortex, the site of higher cognitive function.”
(75)
What does this say about the “common brain structures” that
had confidently cast fish as our ancestors?
- “In recent decades scientists have cast
aside a linear, sequential view of brain evolution in which the human
brain incorporated components resembling the brains of modern fish,
amphibians, reptiles and birds.” (79)
How then do evolutionists explain not only the similarity in
brain function but also the similarity in structure? Convergent evolution comes
to the rescue – the inevitableness that these analogous structures would
independently evolve! However, the evidence is lacking.
But is natural selection and random mutation (or any other
naturalistic explanation) so generative? Evidently not! If life evolved, it
only happened once, as evidenced by
the universality of the features common to all life.
Besides, the sheer numbers of analogous organs – the so-called
products of “convergent evolution” - strain credulity. In the case of bioluminescence,
the ability to produce light, we are asked to believe that this ability has independently
evolved on at least 40 separate
occasions! Malone and Vett explain this:
- From
single-celled organisms called dinoflagellates to glow worms found in
caves; from deep-sea fish to googly-eyed glass squids; there is a vast
array of creatures with an ability to mix varying forms of luciferin and
luciferase to produce light at will. It turns out that each of these
creatures uses a slightly different variation of the key chemicals to
produce light. One would think that closely-related organisms should have
similar luciferns and liciferases, while creatures further apart on the
evolutionary sequence would have much different versions of such
chemicals. NO SUCH PATTERN EXISTS. Thus according to those who have
extensively studied this subject, “bioluminescence is estimated to have
evolved independently at least 40 times.” (Inspired Evidence
It is difficult enough to believe that this ability to
produce light – with its many necessary structures and complex chemicals –
could have evolved at all. However, evolutionists are forced to insist that
this same ability magically evolved “independently 40 different times.” It is
wildly improbable that any collection of chance mutations could have accounted
for these common features.
There’s another interesting feature about bioluminescence.
Malone and Vett observe,
- A
firefly’s luminescence is 88% efficient while the light produced by the
best luminescence reaction developed by mankind is a mere 23% efficient.
Not bad for a collection of genetic abnormalities – random
mutations!
Whatever we might think about this improbability, these
observations, and many others like them, demonstrate that common structures do
not prove common descent. The evolutionist can’t logically have it both ways.
Either commonalities do prove common descent or they do not prove common
descent, which they admittedly don’t! However, evolutionists have construed it
so that “heads I win; tails you loose.” They’ve even made up a term for when
common features fail to reflect common descent – “convergent evolution.” Sounds
scientific, doesn’t it!
.JPG)
