SOME THOUGHTS ON CONVERGENT EVOLUTION;

 (Biologists call duplication of shapes, morphology and behaviors in evolutionarily undenyable unrelated species, "convergent evolution" (Refer to paragraph 7 in the foregoing URL site.))

First of all, there is no doubt that evolution of species (change over time) does occur.  The question is; "does the Darwinian mechanism explain all of evolution or only the micro part (changes in bird beaks, color patterns, etc., but not true novelty?)

If Darwinian evolution is in truth the sole source of evolutionary changes (which we believe is at least open to serious questioning), why is it that Darwinists frequently have to resort to the label convergent evolution as a supposed, explanation for why two species often share some determinate and major morphology when they clearly cannot be ancestrally related.  (One of the classic cases of this are the marsupial equivalents to placental mammals.)

The problem for macro evolutionists (Darwinists) is having to explain such convergent evolution while at the same time they insist that evolution is essentially a blind process.  Darwinists like to say that if evolution were run again it would produce species essentially different from all or the vast majority of species inhabiting the world.  Darwinists believe (not all do though, see the reference below to the statement by the Nobel prize winner which is different that Darwinian dogma) that life is fully explained by a very long series of random small accumulating steps and if that were true, it would be extremely improbable that any evolution sequence would follow more than a tiny part of the path of any other species.  Convergent evolution implies, we believe, that evolution is not truly random in the overall sense but instead is somehow given specific directions.  There clearly seems to be an overall superimposed interrelated harmony with other life forms and the environment.

In fact convergent evolution looks a lot like chaotic (nonlinear feedback) systems which have attractors.  Although very dependent in individual situations on the initial conditions of the system, such systems have a predictable final form (system state or states) which will occur.  Those states are called attractors.  The attractors in a feedback system (which virtually all types of life is dependent on) are the system states that will eventually be reached and the starting/initial conditions essentially just determine when and where the attractor will be reached.  This appears to be the case with convergent evolution in that when and where are very sensitive to starting conditions, but the forms of life at least appear (and we believe actually are) determinate in major features (primary attractors of the overall living system.)  There is scientific data (admittedly quite limited at this time) which shows that life shows evidence of attractors in biological evolution.  Darwinism can offer no explanation for the existence of attractors, other than to make vague comments about the environment.

We do not believe that Darwinism (to whatever degree/part it is an explanation of evolution) is nothing but selection from random molecular changes.  Refer to what we believe about evolution.  We believe that convergent evolution is just one of many examples of evolution showing a direction component and if evolution were rerun it would follow very similar paths.  We believe that there is some undiscovered mechanism which directs evolution,  PBS program "Unlocking the Mysteries of Life" where other scientists are questioning Darwinism as the full explanation for evolution..   Darwinists often question the credentials of those who question Darwinism as the full answer to life.  In this program, one of the scientists questioning evolution is the author of one of the main textbooks about evolution; "Biochemical Predestination".  His credentials are on a par or superior with proponents of Darwinian macro evolution and after extensive research he no longer believes that in reductionistic naturalistic explanations as sufficient to explain the complexities of life.

Even leading scientist are beginning to make statements which contradict atheistic interpretations of evolution.  (Reference the book; "Life Evolving; Molecules, Mind and Meaning" by C. deDuve (Nobel Prize winning scientist) on page 183 speaking about convergent evolution; "there is written into the very structure of genomes, more inevitability in vertical (macro) than in horizontal (micro) evolution, and that the degree of inevitability increases with the progression of vertical evolution.)  Mr. deDuve the distinguished biologist goes on to say on page 185 about the evolution of life; ""Rerunning the tape" ---, in any case---no doubt would not produce exactly the same script but might well come sufficiently near the original story to make it perfectly recognizable.")  This statement contradicts Darwinists pronouncements that evolution if rerun would turn out almost entirely differently.

Also refer to the book "Primal Bias" (a Pulitzer nominated book) for some interesting reading.  Our beliefs are quite different from this book but we agree with the basic title that the universe is clearly set up for life and that life is no accident.  We believe that the bias in evolution has many possible aspects which are not Darwinian.

Follow this link to a recent finding on convergent evolution.

Separate evolution of weakly electrical fish.

When Evolution Creates the Same Design Again and Again

Evidence for Widespread Convergent Evolution around Human Microsatellites

SIMILARITIES AND DIVERGENCE