Evolutionists acknowledge that common structures among the various
life-forms do not always imply common ancestry.
Rather, they admit that many common traits/structures had evolved
independently without common ancestry, often times from very different genes
and in different ways. They term this “convergent evolution” – evolution reinventing
similar structures but in independent and radically different ways. What is the
probability of this happening?
Let’s take the case of bioluminescence, “reinvented” perhaps
over 60 times in bugs, bacteria, fungi, and fish. Citing the findings of Oakley
and Pankey, Laszlo Bencze observes that convergent evolution is statistically
impossible:
·
This convergent evolution is so astonishingly
unlikely that we would never expect it to occur via the evolutionary mechanism
of random mutation and natural selection. But because we know that evolution by
this process is a fact, we must now admit that statistically impossible things
regularly occur in evolution because…well we don’t really know why but it’s
clear that evolution has received a special dispensation from the laws of
probability. Not once does it occur to him to doubt the evolutionary mechanism.
If convergent evolution is statistically impossible, why
does the evolution establishment continue to promote it as an established fact?
Jonathan Wells suggests that the status-quo might continue “until Darwinism is
no longer an implicit requirement for tenure.”
No comments:
Post a Comment