Convergence or divergence? (Introduction)

by dhw, Tuesday, July 23, 2013, 13:00 (4142 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: Gould always claimed that if the tape of life were rerun we would get diffrent results in evolution. Latest research says no it would be the same:-http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/07/130719104931.htm-That would probably depend on whether the rerun environment would be the same. In my view, this is a totally pointless conjecture!
 
TONY: This is kind of a shot in the foot for evolutionary theory. If the species evolve within a set of tight parameters, as this study shows(and as I have repeatedly predicted they would show), then that really serves to nix the concept of divergence, and by extension speciation via evolution. The fact that they developed nearly identical traits to deal with nearly identical environments(also something I have predicted repeatedly) speaks more in favor of design than evolution. Common solutions to common problems built right into the code, and not deviating from those solutions beyond the pre-programmed parameters.-DAVID: Simon Conway Morris is probably the main champion of convergence. He has a website primarily devoted to it. You are right. It points to design and intellect behind the whole of life's code.-We all know that life must be able to cope with its environment or perish. The fact that similar organisms are found in similar environments is therefore hardly surprising if all life has sprung from a common source. If "the intelligent cell/genome" meets the same problem in Africa as it does in Asia, why would it not come up with the same solution? Convergence makes perfect sense. But that does not exclude divergence! If there are new problems, there must be new solutions ... though I would go one step further: a new environment will allow for new forms of life, and the "intelligent cell/genome" can innovate as well as adapt.
 
"More in favor of design than evolution" suggests that the two are incompatible. They are not. Plenty of people believe in both. Unless you think your God created every single new organ and organism by mumbling some magic formula, or by zillions of acts of psychokinesis, you will surely have to subscribe to the theory that he created a mechanism capable of adapting and innovating without his direct intervention. Atheists can believe in the same mechanism, and claim that it fashioned itself by chance. Either way, evolution through the selfsame mechanism progresses by design (as opposed to Darwin's random mutations). Only the origin of the mechanism is then at issue. If you accept the "intelligent cell/genome" hypothesis, you will get convergence, divergence, and a solution to all the mysteries of evolution with the exception of how it started!