"Convergent evolution" is a hypothesis / theory strongly confirmed by innumerable observations of extant species, the fossil record and DNA analyses. The convergent evolution hypothesis is confirmed by innumerable observations, making it a scientific theory.
It is not confirmed by anything. What you are calling "confirmation" is the thing the theory is supposed to explain. The thing a theory explains cannot also be the thing that confirms the theory. That's circular reasoning, which is what evolutionists continually insist on using.
For example, if I propose a theory that trees came about from huge giants vomiting them out and then taking root, a good question would be "What's the evidence that confirms that remarkable theory?". If people took vidoes of giants doing that, it would be evidence. Using evolutionary "logic", I could reply "All those trees are powerful confirmation of the theory!".
Of course, as the name says, its based on evolution, and it attempts to explain how distantly related populations can have similar features. As such, it will make no sense to anybody who rejects evolution theory.
Actually evolution doesn't make sense, not just convergent evolution. But I understand perfectly what the claim is and why the claim is made. Any species is ASSUMED to be the result of evolution. The original evolution theory cannot account for things that they observe. Convergent Evolution accounts for it. Therefore Convergent Evolution is true. QED. There's literally nothing more to it than that. It's what's known as an ad hoc hypotheses. Evolution theory is almost entirely ad hoc.
In science and philosophy, an ad hoc hypothesis is a hypothesis added to a theory in order to save it from being falsified. Often, ad hoc hypothesizing is employed to compensate for anomalies not anticipated by the theory in its unmodified form. Scientists are often skeptical of theories that rely on frequent, unsupported adjustments to sustain them. This is because, if a theorist so chooses, there is no limit to the number of ad hoc hypotheses that they could add. Thus the theory becomes more and more complex, but is never falsified. This is often at a cost to the theory's predictive power, however.[1] Ad hoc hypotheses are often characteristic of pseudoscientific subjects.
Convergent Evolution is an absolutely perfect example of what this essay, "Protection of a theory" talks about.
Something that has lots of evidence is the resurrection of Jesus Christ. A number of people who set out to research the resurrection claim (and other parts of the New Testament) in order to refute it, concluded it was true and became Christians. Some wrote books about it.
This being Easter Sunday:
For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, and that he appeared to Cephas, and then to the Twelve. After that, he appeared to more than five hundred of the brothers and sisters at the same time, most of whom are still living, though some have fallen asleep. Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles, and last of all he appeared to me also, as to one abnormally born.
1 Corinthians 15
On the first day of the week, very early in the morning, the women took the spices they had prepared and went to the tomb. They found the stone rolled away from the tomb, but when they entered, they did not find the body of the Lord Jesus. While they were wondering about this, suddenly two men in clothes that gleamed like lightning stood beside them. In their fright the women bowed down with their faces to the ground, but the men said to them, “Why do you look for the living among the dead? He is not here; he has risen! Remember how he told you, while he was still with you in Galilee: ‘The Son of Man must be delivered over to the hands of sinners, be crucified and on the third day be raised again.’” Then they remembered his words. When they came back from the tomb, they told all these things to the Eleven and to all the others. It was Mary Magdalene, Joanna, Mary the mother of James, and the others with them who told this to the apostles. But they did not believe the women, because their words seemed to them like nonsense. Peter, however, got up and ran to the tomb. Bending over, he saw the strips of linen lying by themselves, and he went away, wondering to himself what had happened.
. . .
While they were still talking about this, Jesus himself stood among them and said to them, “Peace be with you.”
They were startled and frightened, thinking they saw a ghost. He said to them, “Why are you troubled, and why do doubts rise in your minds? Look at my hands and my feet. It is I myself! Touch me and see; a ghost does not have flesh and bones, as you see I have.”
When he had said this, he showed them his hands and feet. And while they still did not believe it because of joy and amazement, he asked them, “Do you have anything here to eat?” They gave him a piece of broiled fish, and he took it and ate it in their presence.
He said to them, “This is what I told you while I was still with you: Everything must be fulfilled that is written about me in the Law of Moses, the Prophets and the Psalms.”
Luke 24
lasereye:
"It is not confirmed by anything.
What you are calling "confirmation" is the thing the theory is supposed to explain.
The thing a theory explains cannot also be the thing that confirms the theory.
That's circular reasoning, which is what evolutionists continually insist on using." From your words it sounds like you don't really understand what the term "convergent evolution" means.
Post #20 above shows some obvious examples -- mammal and marsupial species which while only distantly related appear very similar.
The evolution which brings them to that state is perfectly ordinary evolution (descent with modifications, natural selection).
The results are said to "converge" only because they look similar.
So, how is the evolution hypothesis (convergent or not) confirmed to make it a theory?
Thanks for asking.
Scientific hypotheses are confirmed, making them theories, by observing results a hypothesis predicted.
In the case of basic evolution, here is a partial list of confirmations which go back to Darwin.
But the total list of confirmations is much longer since evolution theories & timelines are built into our understandings of every physical science from A-astronomy to Z-zoology and most everything in between.
For one example, astronomical timelines correspond to geological timelines based on radiometric dating.
As for "convergent evolution", one more time: it simply means similar looking species with obviously different natural histories.
If you don't accept evolution theory, then you might call it "convergent creation" and still understand what's meant.
lasereye: "if I propose a theory that trees came about from huge giants vomiting them out and then taking root, a good question would be 'What's the evidence that confirms that remarkable theory?'....
...Using evolutionary "logic", I could reply 'All those trees are powerful confirmation of the theory!'. "
Of course that's just silly.
lasereye: "Actually evolution doesn't make sense, not just convergent evolution.
But I understand perfectly what the claim is and why the claim is made.
Any species is ASSUMED to be the result of evolution.
The original evolution theory cannot account for things that they observe.
Convergent Evolution accounts for it.
Therefore Convergent Evolution is true. QED.
There's literally nothing more to it than that.
It's what's known as an ad hoc hypotheses.
Evolution theory is almost entirely ad hoc."
All those words are worse than silly, they're total mischaracterization and amount to nothing more than mocking, scoffing & scorning what you find inconvenient to other beliefs.
lasereye: "Convergent Evolution is an absolutely perfect example of what this essay, "Protection of a theory" talks about."
Nonsense, "convergent evolution" is simply the natural explanation for why species can look similar while obviously different.
See the examples in my post #20 above.
But also consider something called Japanese samurai crabs, called such because some look like angry samurai.
It's said that fishermen who catch those quickly throw them back and over centuries they appear more & more frequently.
So we might call that "convergent evolution" or even "convergent man-creation" between samurai and crabs, and we would not be totally wrong! ;-)
lasereye: "This being Easter Sunday: "
Happy Easter to you too!
