Is Convergent Evolution Proof of Evolution ‎or ID?‎

What is Convergent Evolution?

According to ScienceDirect, it is “the independent evolution of similar traits in different lineages resulting from strong selective pressures” [1]

The Natural History Museum gave a stunning and clear example of Convergence: “Bats and birds are very different creatures – a bat’s wing is more like a human arm than a bird’s wing. Yet both have evolved the remarkable ability to fly. A shared ability like this with independent origins is an example of convergent evolution.” [2]

The Earth is filled with surprising examples of similar designs among unrelated creatures. ‎Some people claim this is evidence of the power of evolution and natural selection. Still, from a different ‎perspective, the astonishing similarity of designs among unrelated creatures is powerful ‎evidence of a Common Designer.‎

Things get very interesting when we ask “Why?” Why should unrelated creatures look and ‎sometimes act almost exactly the same? How did this come about? The puzzle is made so ‎much more complicated by the fact that biologists are discovering this trend at nearly ‎every level of biology. When taking a closer look, they find these “similar but different” ‎designs in the tiny molecules that make up unrelated cells, even those separated into ‎different kingdoms, such as animals and plants. They also find similar complex organs and ‎organ systems within unrelated animals, which fall into different classes completely.‎

Charles Darwin expected natural selection to produce “endless forms,” but now the ‎evidence points to a limited range of very similar forms appearing repeatedly in many ‎unrelated creatures. So, what does this consistent sameness reveal about our world?‎

Evolutionists are calling this phenomenon convergent evolution. Proponents of ID call this phenomenon Intelligent Design.

A growing number of ‎evolutionists, such as Conway Morris, propose that evolutionary pathways are limited, so ‎evolution continually produces similar solutions to problems at every level. They may ‎presume that the rules of our universe constrain what’s possible for physical development ‎and functions; some yet-undefined rules produce similar designs over and over, and yet ‎Evolutionists are still trying to work out what these rules of “convergent evolution” might ‎be—the details about how natural selection could produce these patterns and why this ‎should happen.‎

In short, this means they don’t have an answer, and their hypothesis is not even fully defined.‎

Here are two examples to show the phenomenon clearly for sight and flight:‎

‎1. Eyes‎

An article was published in the famous online journal Nature.com: Eye-like ocelloids are ‎built from different endosymbiotically acquired components [3]

‎The University of British Columbia wrote a review of this article: ‎

‎“The work sheds new light on how very different organisms—in this case, warnowiids and ‎animals—can evolve similar traits in response to their environments, a process known as ‎convergent evolution… When we see such similar structural complexity at fundamentally ‎different levels of organisation in lineages that are very distantly related, then you get a ‎much deeper understanding of convergence, said UBC zoologist Brian Leander, senior ‎author on the paper.” [4]

What he meant by this last statement is that, regardless of how improbable (or illogical) ‎this concept seems, we will marvel even more at the ‘miracle’ of convergence. Or in other words, the fact ‎that this concept makes no sense is exactly why it allows you to better understand ‎convergence evolution. How is this logical? Scientific?‎

We have questions: ‎

How do organisms without eyes know they are blind and so, need eyes to see? ‎
What type of environment would convince an organism’s DNA that it needs to see ‎in order to put pressure on it to make the change (randomly mutate) or die? ‎
Where would the organism get the physical components inside its current form ‎that will enable it to see? ‎
How will this organism create offspring that will begin to inherit these components ‎that will lead to eyes being formed over millions of years? ‎
Why do different organisms have radically different eyes; some with 8 eyes, some ‎with 2, some with 1, some are colour blind, and others have composite eyes? ‎
Why don’t plants have eyes?‎

A more specific question: why do the Nautilus cephalopods have completely different [far ‎less complex] eyes than those of every other cephalopod? These creatures are all ‎related biologically (in the same class, Cephalopoda), and yet ‘evolved’ completely ‎different eyes. And, that’s not all that is different – read more about the Nautilus here in an article on the Australian Museum’s website. [5]

2. Wings‎

Flight occurs in many groups of creatures: (a) birds; (b) insects—flies, bees, wasps, ‎butterflies, moths; (c) mammals—bats; (d) reptiles—the extinct pterosaurs (e.g., pterodactyls ‎and Pteranodons). In each case, the wings are substantially different, and there is no ‎evidence whatsoever of any connection between the supposed evolutionary development ‎of any of these creatures.

The evolutionist faces not just one impossible hurdle—‎that some reptiles grew feathers and began to fly—but two other hurdles. These are that ‎flight evolved again when some rodents (mice? shrews?) developed a skin-like surface on their front legs ‎and developed into bats. Also, quite separately, some insects grew very thin scales to ‎become flies, bees, and butterflies. So here we have feathers, membranes, scales, and ‎even hairs that allow all these different creatures to fly. Why?‎ How? If evolution from a common ancestor is random and unguided, how is this outcome logical?