Homology, Convergence, and Evolutionary Mythology

Proponents of descent with modifications evolution have several fundamental beliefs, many of which are comprised of inference, ignoring relevant data, and Making Things Up™. Homology involves studying similar characteristics in living things and insisting that they have common ancestors.

Convergence is another fundamental dogma, asserting that totally different organisms evolved the same traits. Convergent evolution is — face it — a secular miracle. Both convergence and homology rely a great deal on assumptions and imagination. Further, evolution is presupposed to be the only explanation for what is observed.

Astyanax mexicanus, Wikimedia Commons / Citron (CC BY-SA 3.0)

Blind cave fish have lost traits (which for some reason inspires praise to Darwin), and developed adaptations. In addition to various cavefish species, other cave-dwelling critters also have adaptations. To appeal to convergence is a science stopper. Instead, creatures should be investigated for the built-in traits that are expressed because of common design, not because of fact-free evolutionary faith.

Foundational interpretations of Darwinian evolution are built upon two conceptual pillars: homology and convergence. Homology proposes that specific characters—including the genes, cells, body plans, and adaptations of every animal—can be traced through a series of common ancestors. Convergence proposes that characters evolve independently from different ancestors to produce superficially similar traits for a similar purpose.

These concepts directly contradict one another. For instance, conventional science suggests that the bones forming the structure of wings in birds and bats are homologous while the wings themselves are convergent. Really? No! 

To read it all, head on over to "The Myths of Darwinian Homology and Convergence."