Convergent Evolution Shows God's Creativity

[Gxg (G²)]

I think Convergent Evolution makes sense and it's difficult for me to see why it is a hard concept to accept.

Part of me was reminded of amazing creatures such as Pangolins, also known as scaly anteaters; due to the scales they posses (and being the only real mammals with scales). With the Pangolin, I had seen such creatures before in books - but never looked much into it after that. Studying them more in action, I was like "God is amazing in how much he can create ." When you look at them, they look like they're in chainmail worn by knights. Mini-soldiers ready for battle. .....

​

San Diego Zoo Kids - Roly Poly Pangolins​

Attenborough's Pangolin (Natural World, BBC1 9 Nov '12)​

Mammal versions of Rollie Pollie bugs/pillbugs/cellarbugs (with those bugs being what my cousins and I used to play with for hours rolling them ) - and it's a trip that a mammal can have the same features as bugs ..or really crustaceans (as creatures such as pillbugs are terrestial crustaceans and are more closely related to lobsters, shrimp and crayfish ). Of course, for me, it's also amazing to see some of the aspects from Theistic Evolution that come into view when seeing convergent evolution and how certain species - differing as they are - will still share similar traits even in completely differing environments.....evolutionary convergence being the observation that some unrelated groups of animals or plants have, though natural selection, converged on similar ; when they find themselves in similar environments. The classic examples are the placental and marsupial mammals (both, for example, have evolved mole-like forms), the vertebrate and cephalopod eyes, the fusiform shape of dolphins, fish, and ichthyosaurs. And to see similarities in species like Pillbugs and Pangolins is no different than seeing how some animals do things others only expect with others - like how in some ways, monotremes are very primitive for mammals because, like reptiles and birds, they lay eggs rather than having live birth....the only examples being the duck-billed platypus and four species of echidna (also known as spiny anteaters) - with it being the case that pangolins are related to the echidna :

​

​

Even in knowing what an actual enchinda was, it is amazing when seeing the differences between them and pangolins - and yet the pangolin in its design is a parallel image of itself.


With Convergent Evolution, although Charles Darwin famously concluded On the Origin of Species with a vision of "endless forms most beautiful" continually evolving, more than 150 years later many evolutionary biologists see not endless forms but the same, or very similar, forms evolving repeatedly in many independent species lineages. For example, a porpoise's fishlike fins are not inherited from fish ancestors but are independently derived convergent traits. ...and the same applies for the Pangolin.

• A Real-Life Example of “Convergent Evolution” | Proslogion
• Convergent Evolution: Limited Forms Most Beautiful - Page 142 -
• Dolphins and Porpoises and...Bats? Oh My! Evolution's Convergence Problem - Christian Apologetics UK
• A Theology of Purpose: Creation, Evolution and the Understanding of Purpose - Science and Christian Belief

To be clear, I am not one who is 100% for anything and everything done in the name of Theistic Evolution or Evolutionary theory - as my views have tended to go toward Progressive Creationism (from the larger system of Old Earth Creationism) - and one can get basic information on the issue if choosing to go to Old-Earth Creation - Progressive Creation & Evolutionary Creationism (Theistic Evolution ) - Similarities and Differences between Old-Earth Views or Progressive Creation: An Overview - Evidence for God from Science
That said, there are still aspects within Theistic Evolution that I can see having a lot of merit - and so long as Intelligent Design is present, there are many other things I don't have a problem with ultimately. For myself, seeing Pangolins is just a testament to the fact that either evolutionary theory is true ...with it being GOD who's behind spontaneous developments that seem "random" to us when they're in fact planned...or it's the case that God sometimes does things for the sake of humor and to throw us off so we'd not think categories could fully capture his genius. Like some animals he made were done specifically because he said " I think I'll take pillbug and mix it with mammal - just because I can!!"

​

​

 

[-57]

Instead of convergent evolutionism I would consider it as design by a common creator.

Evolutionism...descent with modification...is impossible to begin with. So-called beneficial mutations are considered as rare, extremely rare.....then they must occur in a precise portion of an animals DNA...folding the proteins in exact details...as to enhance the fitness of a species. Then this process must occur again and again many, many times until a novel trend is recognized...THEN you expect me to believe the random process of evolutionism did the same thing in a species not even remotely related to the other?

What you have done is presented evidence for Intelligent Design.

 

[Papias]

I think Convergent Evolution makes sense and it's difficult for me to see why it is a hard concept to accept.

Well, in many cases, some people think that their own interpretation of Genesis is the only one they want allowed, and hence they deny any evidence that contradicts their own pet interpretation. We can see that in the reply you have gotten so far. I too am sad that some people have these problems. I mean, it's obvious to biologists (and anyone familiar with their biology) that these examples are descents of very, very different creatures.

With Convergent Evolution, ....., a porpoise's fishlike fins are not inherited from fish ancestors but are independently derived convergent traits. ...and the same applies for the Pangolin.

Yep. Thanks for the many great examples you gave. For God to create this much richness and variety by the same process of evolution is really cool. I don't see why any Christian would want to deny the glory this gives to God - as if creating using evolution is somehow less than creation by poofing things into existence.

In Christ-

Papias

 

[Gxg (G²)]

Thanks for the many great examples you gave. For God to create this much richness and variety by the same process of evolution is really cool. I don't see why any Christian would want to deny the glory this gives to God - as if creating using evolution is somehow less than creation by poofing things into existence.

In Christ-

Papias

Thank you for sharing as you did, as it makes a world of difference...
d

 

[dmmesdale]

These convoluted arguments are wasted on general audiences. An easy to understand argument is current population trends do not support homo sapiens in existence for 200,000 years with a seed population of 10,000. According to this, the overall population was 1 bil in 1804. World Population by Year - Worldometers

Here are some stats.

1804 1 Bil
1927 2 Bil 123 years
1975 4 Bil 48 years. Factors in birth over death including WW2.
2019 8 Bil 44 years. Estimate since current is 7.5 bil.

In 215 years the population doubles exponentially three times. That is an overall doubling of every 71.6 years or rounded off to 72 years. If we start out with 10 k 200,000 years ago and double every 72 years then numbers become astronomical. Even if the overall growth is at .1% it doubles every 700 years according to the rule of 70. Current overall trends indicate the population is growing at around .97%. 1% being a doubling every 70 years. ^^

We are taking what we do know and extrapolating back. Inferring an overall modest growth rate say .1% based on population trends in the present, actual evidence, not storytelling. Population growth indicates humans have not been around for 200,000 years. There is zero evidential basis to assume human population flatlined for 190,000 years. That is no different than flat Earth. If they are into storytelling they are not into science. Throwing a 95 mph fastball does no good on a tennis court and storytelling does no good with actual science method in historical investigation where the present infers to the past.

Also, major growth is booming in population in places like Africa where medicine is a minimal factor. These are some of the most primitive cultures relative to ours they are in the stone age. There is no reason to suppose ancient cultures had flatline growth for 190,000 years based on present known information. Humans would have gone extinct. It is made up with no supporting evidence.

The whole supposed history of humans for 190,000 is all fabrication chasing after crumbs. We are to believe the population flatlined for 190,000 years. Also, it took humans 190,000 years to invent the wheel, domesticate animals and use seed. Why ride an animal when they can walk?