Revisiting convergence: a new view (Introduction)

by dhw, Saturday, September 16, 2017, 13:07 (2624 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: Real convergence does occur but why are there 'one-offs'?
http://nautil.us/issue/52/the-hive/why-hasnt-evolution-made-another-platypus?utm_source...

DAVID’s comment: The author makes an interesting point. Convergence exists, but it is not just a response to environmental challenges, and many look-alikes are not convergent. The process of evolution is very inventive as this illustrates.

dhw: It’s amazing how words take on a life and identity of their own. It’s not evolution or convergence that invents different solutions – it’s organisms (unless you think your God preprogrammes or dabbles each and every one). I just can’t see the problem, I’m afraid, other than the author’s difficulty in deciding what does and doesn’t constitute convergence. “One-offs” are just that. Some organisms think differently. Some organisms think alike. But each one copes with its environment in its own way, and so there are lots of variations even where there is convergence, but also where there is non-convergence among look-alikes. I can’t see any mystery once one accepts common descent and the fact that change comes from organisms themselves, and they are all individuals. (Of course that idea does not in any way exclude your God, who would have given them the intelligence to evolve in their own way.)

DAVID: What do you mean by stating that 'organisms think'? They think and adapt?

Yes. We know that large organisms think in the sense that they are sentient, process information, take decisions, use reason to solve problems etc. – all of which are attributes of “thought”. Some scientists believe that small organisms do the same. And yes, I am suggesting that the cell communities that combine to form every organism, large or small, are responsible for working out how to adapt. Bacteria do it all the time, although you seem to believe your God preprogrammed all their adaptations 3.8 billion years ago.