A critical look at the idea of convergent evolution

In this post I want to look at the the fourth of Alister McGrath's lectures on 'The fine tuned Universe'. I especially want to make a few remarks about convergent evolution. (The new saving mechanism for Darwinism.)

Quotes and comments;

Lecture #4. The enigmas of evolutionary biology

p. 6. Teleological mechanisms in living organisms are thus biological adaptations, which have arisen as a result of the process of natural selection. [1.]

- Contra McGrath, I see no evidence for the claim that natural selection can create new information.
- If copying mistakes could create new information, and thus new functional organs, we might expect that any hack writer could produce a masterpiece by copying out Shakespeare incorrectly.

p. 11. 'Conway Morris’ case is based on a remarkable compilation of examples of convergent evolution, in which two or more lineages have independently evolved similar structures and functions. Conway Morris’s examples range from the aerodynamics of hovering moths and hummingbirds to the use of silk by spiders and some insects to capture prey.

- What McGrath sees as evidence of CE others see as evidence against evolutionary theory. These examples only provide evidence for CE if M2M evolution is true.

What's going on is that the need for miracles has multiplied. i.e. if evolution requires a miracle, the idea of CE requires dozens of miracles. The need to create specified information out of thin air has multiplied many times; and if it was impossible even once (in my opinion) how much more impossible is this new requirement?

I keep wondering how much non-confirmation it will take for some of these people to wake up and smell the coffee. They're drowning in evidence against evolutionary theory but they claim they don't see any of it. It's hard to see how more evidence against the theory will help. After a person has rejected a certain amount of evidence they become hardened against any criticism of a theory. They've gone too far down a particular road to turn back.

You might think that these examples disprove Darwin's idea of an evolutionary tree. But nothing is allowed to shed doubt on evolution to people in the liberal camp. What evolves is not 'lineages' but the evolutionary story. It morphs to meet non-confirming data, it changes so it doesn't have to admit refutation.

- CE is based on the certain truth that evolutionary theory is correct. That being said, the data now indicates the evolutionary tree model is wrong. This is taken by people like M. to mean not that E. theory is wrong, but merely that the old Darwinian model is wrong. Therefore (using the best Darwinian logic) CE must be true. Thus we see that the icon of Darwin's tree has been sacrificed to save the larger theory of M2M evolution.

I guess we have to see this as progress; as the willingness to accept at least some non-confirming evidence. Unfortunately all that seems to have happened is that one just so story has been replaced by another.

- First the 'liberals' defended evolution, and now they're defending convergent evolution. (One can only wonder what they'll defend next. Anything I suppose; anything that's au courant.) It might be valid to accuse some creationists of being too critical of E. biology, but it's more the case that liberals aren't nearly critical enough. They seem incapable of looking at E. theory in a critical light. They're willing to look at anything in the bible in a critical light; but not E. theory; that's a taboo subject for them, one that's close to being sacred ground.

p. 12. Examples of convergent evolution are legion. For those not familiar with the idea, two examples may be noted briefly.
1. Photosynthesis. Three mechanisms are known to exist, usually referred to as Crassulacean acid metabolism (CAM), C-3 and C-4. C-4 photosynthesis is known to have evolved independently at least 31 times in 18 different families of flowering plants during the past 8 million years, giving rise to a total of nearly 10,000 species of plants. CAM is also known to have evolved on multiple occasions.

- If you believe that you'll believe anything. Examples of CE aren't legion; what is legion are stories purporting to be CE.
- Photosynthesis hadn't evolved once; let alone 31 times. There is no possible way such an incredibly complex (information dependent) process could have evolved by random chance, but the blind movements of matter. This isn't even remotely possible. [2.]

p. 12. 'Eyes have evolved on multiple independent occasions, taking at least nine distinct forms: pinhole eyes, two kinds of camera-lens eyes (found in vertebrates and octopuses), curved reflector eyes, along with several kinds of compound, multi-lensed eyes. Compound eyes have evolved independently in crustaceans, annelid worms (sabellids), and bivalve molluscs. Camera-like eyes have evolved not only in vertebrates and octopuses, but independently in jumping spiders, some snails, alciopid
polychaete worms, cubozoan jellyfish, and the backward looking eyes of
coral reef shrimp.

- Now you see why Richard Dawkins doesn't mind 'debating' Alister McGrath. Since M. accepts all the nonsense evolutionists dish out, Dawkins reasonably thinks he's won any debate before its begun. And he's right. Here you have a respected Christian figure accepting the wildest evolutionary story out there; namely that the miracle of evolution not only happened once, but happened hundreds of times.

- Contra McGrath, the eye did not evolve, is not the product of matter in motion. Such a thing is impossible. M. seems to accept the materialist idea that life forms are the result of mindless chemical reactions. (The way he talks you'd think he'd never even heard of specified information.) There is no way evolutionists can prove that even one eye evolved; but yet here McGrath is accepting the idea all manner of eyes evolved. One would like to know where the proof is. All the evolutionists give us are just so stories; stories that are hardly an improvement on the vague musings Charles Darwin gave us.

p. 13. 'This leads Conway Morris to make the point that even an essentially random search process will end up identifying stable outcomes in biological space.' [1.]

- And so an all wise creator God has been replaced by a random search process. (Kind of makes you want to get out a pen and write a hymn.)

Notes;
1. The finely tuned universe - Gifford lectures/2009/McGrath/#4
2. Shining light on the evolution of photosynthesis - by Rick Swindell
3. If we compare devolution (with its loss of information) to memory loss; we might say that Adam's children have 'forgotten' who they are.
4. In my opinion McGrath wants an argument for God's existence that's non-falsifiable, and this is why he argues against ID arguments.