I have to dissent starting from the first sentence. Scientists haven't "discovered" examples of covergent evolution. They have "constructed" examples of covergent evolution.
I love a story that goes "first this had to happen, then this had to happen, then a final thing had to happen..., etc".
No evidence that it actually happened, of course.
Just a presupposition that because the frogs are there, and evolution is the only allowable explanation for it, then it must have happend by covergent evolution.
Sorry, not convincing.
I am assuming that you have an alternative explanation (since you are so thoroughly dismissive of the explanation in the article). Care to share it?
Ribbett. Ribbett.
Just because something looks obvious, doesn't means it looks obvious. Like maybe 2 plus 2 equals 4 is merely an illusion.
Not just 'no evidence,' but strong logical and statistical evidence that it didn't happen that way. This is good anecdotal support for the book "Tornado in a Junkyard."
"Just a presupposition that because the frogs are there, and evolution is the only allowable explanation for it, then it must have happend by covergent evolution."
Exactly! Stephen Gould, in his book "Wonderful Life" essentially demolished the idea of evolution, but went on to support it anyway because he admitted that the alternative was "unthinkable."
"Sorry, not convincing."
Not science, either!