No Convergence, no Evolution, but lots of Laziness

Some of the hands at the Darwin Ranch were having a party over yonder by Stinking Lake (which is not as bad as it sounds). It seems that they had received good news that their efforts to promote convergent evolution were progressing. Papa Darwin himself would be riding over to visit.

Al Buehterawl noticed that I rolled my eyes and kind of snorted, so he took a deep breath and demanded to know why I had an attitude problem. I explained that convergent evolution is unscientific, based on circular reasoning, assumptions, and consensus.

Charles Darwin as a cowboy on a horse, made with Img2Go

Darwinism itself is an excuse to perform lazy scientific thinking, and convergent evolution ramps it up. Different critters have the same or very similar traits, bones, or whatever, but nothing else in common. They are not biologically related. Therefore, each evolved the same things independently. To be blunt, that is stupid.

Homology is classifying things according to appearance and traits, and it is entirely subjective as well as using circular reasoning. They think homology demonstrates convergent evolution. No, it demonstrates risible logic.

Convergent evolution and homology are convenient. Folks are blinded by pseudoscience because the evolution of one trait under discussion is not demonstrated, so evolutionists claim that it happened many times. People may be so full of awe that they forget to ask for evidence, so victory goes to Darwin. I don't like convergent evolution. No, I don't. But the secular science industry and its crooked pseudoscientists can keep that grant money coming in, you betcha! Just ignore the fact that "evidence" for convergent evolution is actually evidence for common design by the Designer.

To see the article that inspired this post, take a look-see at "Empty Words: Convergent Evolution." Related: "Further Confusion with Convergent Evolution."