blike Posted December 29, 2002 Share Posted December 29, 2002 How do we distinguish convergent evolution from common ancestry? hows that for short and sweet I'm on vacation right now, as is faf. We'll be back to normal when school kicks back up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blike Posted January 8, 2003 Author Share Posted January 8, 2003 bump. anyone? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sayonara Posted January 8, 2003 Share Posted January 8, 2003 Isn't common ancestry basically another way of saying 'divergence'? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Giles Posted January 9, 2003 Share Posted January 9, 2003 (Molecular) cladistics gives the most parsimonious phylogeny. The odds of molecular convergence (as opposed to conservation) across a lot of characteristics are pretty low. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Eli_Cash Posted November 2, 2003 Share Posted November 2, 2003 Convergence is a similarity that doesn't make sense in terms of a historical relationship that evolutionists find platable. For example, I believe human eyes are more similar to those of the squid than to those of apes, but no one wants to say that we inherited this trait from a squid, so it's dismissed as convergence. (It may be an octopus, but I think it's a squid.) There really is no other reason than agreement with the theory. As such, evolutionists really shouldn't use homology as an evidence for evolution, since they are selective about it according to what they've already decided about the theory. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now