Is convergent evolution evidence against common descent?

randman, Why you think repeatedly pointing out something I already accept is actually going to change my opinion is beyond me. Maybe you should switch from transmit to receive once in a while.That's right, the evidence required a shift within a taxon, the artiodactyls. ALL the evidence point the same way. Once again you can't see the wood for the trees. The wood you are so fastidiously avoiding is that against all odds the data gets much more congruent than incongruent. The cetacea moved within the order, but the rest of the sub-taxa are the same. What a coincidence! How the devil did that happen?But even ignoring the rest of the congruence in the data sets (& you clearly need no help ignoring the fact that both the molecular & morphological data places pigs, peccaries, chevrotains, peccorans, hippopoamti, as well as odonticetes & mysticetes in the same taxon), lets take a look at the bit it allegedly got so unforgivably wrong.The molecular data points to cetaceans being nested within the artiodactyls, the morphological data agrees that the cetacea should be nested in the artiodactyls too (Mesonychids ARE artiodactyls, by the way..), & not the:Perissodactyls, paenungulata, rodentia, chiroptera, primates, carnivora, xenarthra, ameridelphia, australidelphia, multituberculata, docodonta, triconodonta, symmetrodonta, enantiothornes, hesperornithiformes, icthiornithiformes, anseriformes, galliformes, podicepiformes, gaviiformes, sphenisciformes, pelecaniformes, procellariformes, gruiformes, charadriiformes, columbiformes, ciconiiormes, falconiformes, strigiformes, caprimulgiformes, apodiformes, coraciiformes, piciformes, passeriformes, pelycosauria, therapsida, testudines, araeoscelidia, younginiformes, placondontia, nothosauria, plesiosauria, sphenodontia, squamata, prolacertiformes, crocodilia, pterosauria, saurischia, ornithischia, aistopoda, nectridia, microsauria, temnospondyli, gymnophiona, urodela, anura, anthracosauria, seymoriamorpha, diadectomorpha, thelodonti,heterostraci, arandaspida, astraspida, galeaspida, osteostraci, ctenacanthiformes,hybodontiformes, xenacanthiformes, symmoriformes, eugeneodontiformes, petalodontiformes, iniopterygiformes, chongrenchelyformes, ptyctodontida, rhenanida, acanthoraci, petalichthyida, phyllolepida, arthrodira, antiarchi, saurichthyiformes, paleonisciformes, pholidopleuroformes, perleidiformes, peltopleuriformes, pynodontiformes, parasemionontiformes, amiiformes, osteoglossiformes, anguilliformescrossognathiformes, ellimmichthyiformes, clupeiformes, esociformes, gonorhynchiformes, cypriniformes, charachiformes, siluriformes, salmoniformes, stomiiformes, aulopiformes, myctophyformes, polymiciiformes, percopsiformes, ophidiiformes, lophiiformes, gadiformes, atheriniformes, cyprinodontiformes, beloniformes, beryciformes, lampridiformes, zeiformes, gasterosteiformes, dactyliopteriformes, scorpaeniformes, perciformes, pleuronectiformes, tetraodontiformes, diabolepidida, dipnoi, porolepiforms, rhizodontiformes, osteolepiforms, pandericthyida...[That is the list of cladistic taxa ranked as equivalent to artiodactyla; the order. Of course this is just one phyla's list, & there are over 30 others...]Wow? Another fucking coincidence for you to ignore, randman! All the data we have puts cetacea in the same taxon, as well as getting the rest of the taxa in there, too! And you have the bare faced balls to tell me i'm talking bullshit for suggesting an overall congruence? Per-lease!And you seem to take such offence when I accuse you of ignoring the against-all-odds congruences & focus on the incongruence. We have three data sets where the molecular data almost entirely agrees, & the morphological data is also congruent, but gets the detail of cetacean placement within the taxon "wrong", but still manages to place it in the right order, again, against all odds.There are going to be incongruences in most cladogram comparisons. The nature of the data is statistical, & the reasons for incongruence are legion. If common descent were not indicative of reality there would be no congruence between different data sets at all. Yet they exist, & exist in such a way as to represent colossal odds of existing, & what does randman do? Tackle this point head on (post 236, among others)? Don't be silly, he ignores that fact entirely & splits hairs over the incongruences, again. How very intellectually honest. Not.Now, I would like a point by point addressing of post 236, please.MarkThis message has been edited by mark24, 06-10-2005 02:34 PM

---

There are 10 kinds of people in this world; those that understand binary, & those that don't

Read the dang article. The 100 year part was for illustration. They had found bones and studied the animal by the 80s.And your "question" sure sounded rhetorical to me.Why are you guys so resistant to admitting facts, if someone uses them in a manner to argue against your overall point?I see this over and over again, and your post is a perfect example of it. There is no debate over my claim here. By the 80s, they had specimens to study. You are just flat out wrong.But this reminds me of the bogus attempt earlier in the thread by someone else to insist convergency only involves "surface traits" when in fact it involves all traits.

All that and still ignoring the point.Why not admit openly that DNA evidence has caused shifts in the way we think things evolved?You have to try to continually divert the OP topic because you don't want to deal with the evidence.What you fail to realize is empirical analysis should mean one analyizes the details and assumptions on how data is viewed so that we can see if the conclusions, which you are so fond of posting, are correct.That's the thread topic here, to look at the details of the assumptions on how data is viewed.You are simply trying to dodge the facts and making factual errors in the process.I will respond to the ear evolutuon question on a separate post.

I read the dang article.So what was the 100 year part meant to illustrate? Are you saying that because they had more data in the 80s (before the genetic test), they already knew that marsupial moles were more closely related to wombats than placental moles?So what else does the article say? It says that an anatomist couldn't classify an animal because he couldn't find a bone (Having looked around, I think he found it the following year, but I could be wrong).
It also says that

quote:

---

On the basis that marsupial moles have some characteristics in common with almost all other marsupials, they were eventually classified as an entirely separate order

---

It then says the 1980s genetic test said that the marsupial mole branched off from other marsupials about 50million years ago, so the anatomists who thought the mole should be in a seperate order were right, according to the 1980s genetic study. Did you intend to show me how the anatomists and the genetic classification correlated?Let's go through this once again.

quote:

---

For many years their place within the Marsupials was hotly debated, some workers regarding it as an offshoot of the Diprotodontia (the order to which most living marsupials belong)

​

...

​

On the basis that marsupial moles have some characteristics in common with almost all other marsupials, they were eventually classified as an entirely separate order: the Notoryctemorphia

---

It was decided that they were a seperate order to the order Diprotodontia. Based on the characteristics they share with almost all other marsupials, they put them in a seperate order. Later a genetic test revealed they were indeed a seperate order from most other marsupials, having diverged from them 50 million years ago. I know you aren't trying to tell me that taxonomy agreed with the genetic test, so one of us is missing something. That's fine, you can take it as rhetorical if you want. I'll transform this question into a claim:"An anatomist, who has not seen the genetic data, would, after examining the necessary bones, consider the marsupial mole closer related to the wombat than it is to a placental mole"This still sounds nothing like the claim you said I was making. Huh? Are you even paying attention to what I am saying? I just accepted what was said in the article:

quote:

---

I'm quite happy to accept that fact for the time being.

---

Flat out wrong about what? What is your claim? I thought your claim was that convergent evolution is evidence against common descent. That claim is debated...Of course, by the 80s they had specimens to study, which allowed them classify the marsupial mole more accurately. What has this got to do with people who didn't have the necessary data over a 100 years ago? What am I attempting to do here? I'll tell you, I'm trying to figure out where you are going with this article. Is this bogus?This message has been edited by Modulous, Fri, 10-June-2005 08:38 PM

randman, I HAVE NEVER DENIED THE POINT!!!!!! In post 236 I explicitly stated I accept it. Why try to convince me of something I am not in denial of? What you utterly & completely fail to see is the overall congruence. How many timess have I laboured the point? It's like telling a five year old its bedtime & they just don't want to hear you.Because of the statistical nature of the evidence, we go with the bulk of it. In the case of whales more evidence amassed that required a relatively small change in placement. What YOU ignore is that rest of the artiodactyl data is congruent. You also fail to explain why.The POINT, is that there is a significant correlation in cladograms of differing datasets, & you refuse to acknowledge or address this.
That there are incongruences does not alter the fact that the congruences exist at extreme odds of existing. The congruence requires an explanation. That explanation is common descent, & nothing you have mentioned has altered that. Don't be an idiot. Congruences against vast odds of occurring are in evidence, in spite of incongruences. Now who's not dealing with the evidence? YAY!!! So will you be explaining 18 billion to one odds of three cladograms being congruent anytime soon? I have made no factual errors. Artiodactyl phylogenies ARE congruent above what we should expect, & so are most of the others, the only fact dodger is you, mate. The reasons for incongruence are legion, it is no surprise it occurs, & focussing on it at the expence of the real phenomena that requires explanation yields nothing. & yet congruence occurs time & again, & in some cases at extreme odds.This is the evidence of common descent, cladistic & phylogenetic congruence, you have never explained why this should occur. It is hypocrisy to assert I have dodged the issue whilst portraying yourself as the only one dealing with the evidence, when it is you that have repeatedly failed to address the evidence of descent..I repeat, congruence is in evidence. For once in this thread, deal with it.MarkThis message has been edited by mark24, 06-10-2005 03:46 PM

---

There are 10 kinds of people in this world; those that understand binary, & those that don't

I am glad you responded to the ear comment because it deals with the OP and at last someone wants to get into the specifics of that. But you are mistaken here. The current idea is that the 3 bones did not evolve prior to the divergence. PLEASE! Learn how to insert links. Just a reminder from your still friendly AdminThere is some additional discussion below that may be helpful. This refutes, by the way, the idea on another thread and this one as well, that surface traits such as a streamlined body for fish are what convergency can account for, but not such interiour forms that presumably are subject to less selective pressure. http://www.ccebh.umd.edu/comparativehearing.asp So here we have strong evidence, that based on common descent assumptions, that even tiny ear bones can evolve indepedently. I think this one piece of evidence alone calls for seriously looking at assumptions of what convergent evolution can account for, and also whether there are other commonalities to explain the seemingly very improbable event of something like the ear bones emerging independently. That to me suggests that there be other mechanisms at work besides random natural selection.Moreover, it suggests that details between creatures such as the hypthesized and famous reptile and mammal transitions are probably overstating the fossil evidence by claiming similarities point to common ancestry when that clearly is not the only answer.Ear-splitting discovery rocks mammal identity | NatureThis message has been edited by randman, 06-10-2005 03:51 PMThis message has been edited by AdminJar, 06-10-2005 03:03 PM

Let's test your statistical analysis claims. You wrote: Based on your methodology, what would be the statistical likelihood of the 3 ear bones independently evolving in the different mammal groups? Please consider as if we do not already know the answer.Imo, this ia good test for your claims. I suspect that you would have argued that it was statistically nearly impossible for the 3 ear drums to independently evolve.I would agree with you if that was the case, which suggests to me a rethinking of the process, either of the methods producing evolution, or the actual form of evolution itself.Do you think that's an unreasonable idea?This message has been edited by randman, 06-10-2005 03:57 PM

This is the problem. You guys are trying to make this thread about the concept of common descent overall whereas I am restricting it to a narrow focus which how should the discoveries of convergent evolution affect common descent models, and yes, the data supporting the theory overall.Specifically, there is often for example statistical analysis thrown out based on an assumption of randomness along with a ton of other assumptions.I would submit that adopting these assumptions makes such events like the convergent evolution of the ear bones in mammals to be a near statistical impossibility.So either it did not happen that way, or some of the assumptions are wrong, imo. I am open to a myriad of possibilities.Some could be that common descent occurred but that it is not random, that there is evidence of some sort of guidance going on to cause such improbabilities. If you restrict the discussion to mammals, it seems like this is a strong argument.Another possibility is we are misreading the data by always trying to assume universal common descent.My point is our assumptions whereby we view the data seem to be incorrect, and by determing what those assumptions are, whether some are likely to be wrong, etc,....could help better understand what really happened instead of what I see is somewhat artificially imposed arguments to dismiss all commonalities besides common descent.I think it is fruitless to argue for one hypothesis for how it happened over another until we determine and analyze the underlying assumptions on how we view the data.Let's take an assumption of one, single linear progression of events through time. Seems logical, but in physics, there are some that seriously contend that reality consists of a multi-verse and our version of reality is just one "verse" so to speak. Well, and this is just for illustration not to debate here, but what if there is some bleedover in the multiverse so that parts of one universe get mixed in with another. That would explain some of this fairly well, imo, but then again, it is far too speculative to know the answer on that.But we should know that our assumption by which we view the evidence is based on a linear presumption of a single universe, and that the present and future do not have a causal effect on the past.This message has been edited by randman, 06-10-2005 04:11 PM

I take it you concede the article is arguing against your position, not for it? I'm fairly sure we are talking about both convergent evolution (by comparing marsupial moles to placental moles) and common descent. You wanted to discuss. You brought this up a few times, notably in Message 79 when you said Then in Message 100 you said: So, we provided some good evidence for our side. I believe we have shown that to be not true. You offered a test, a prediction. I believe we have shown that your prediction has not borne out.Later you made the prediction of: You complained: You then demanded evidence: The evidence was given to you, and we have been discussing this evidence ever since.Now, do you concede that your predictions that similar morphological creatures (eg dunnarts/mice ) would have similar DNA has been tested, and seems to have been falsified.If you do concede that, then that's great. We can continue to discuss any other issue you wish to bring up. The thread is near closure, so perhaps you can begin working on a clearly worded follow up thread which we can discuss any other issues you feel you wanted to bring up, that weren't or were not resolved to your satisfaction.This is pretty much going to be a sum up post here - due to the impending Admin closure. It was posited by randman that convergent evolution is evidence against common descent "because it shows similarities, including morphology, traits, behaviour, etc,...can develop not from mutual common descent, but independently."I believe it has been shown that niches and environments are what drives evolutionary change, and that where two seperate creatures find themselves occupying similar environments their evolution is bound to converge. It has been shown that whilst traits are superficially similar, they frequently, if not always, have fundamental differences.Those fundamental differences help show us possible lines of common descent. The dolphin and the whale may have converged evolutionarily speaking but the differences in the converged traits are major. The backbone of the dolphin was ineherited from land animals and so the dolphin and the whale swim by moving their tail up and down rather than side to side that the sharks do.We have seen marsupial moles and placental moles, how they are different in so many ways, yet share many commonalities with their family, both at the genetic level and at the structural level.This doesn't say that common descent is a universal truth, but when the fossil record is compared to genetic taxonomy and anatomical taxonomy they match up (with a minority of anomolies), as if they had commonly descended. The very simple fact that similar environments demand similar evolutionary responses, negates the claim of the OP.A better case against common ancestry would be "why do so many different organisms (morphologically) freqeuntly occupy the same environment?". And that would also be a weak position. I look forward to a potential spin off post, so that we may discuss any unresolved issues later on.If the post gets closed before we can talk again - take care randman!

---

Eternity is in love with the productions of time.
The busy bee has no time for sorrow.
The hours of folly are measur'd by the clock; but of wisdom, no clock can measure.

This is so typical of overstatements in your camp, that it is good indication of what I am talking about. I could just as easily claim that the independent appearance of the 3 ear bones falsifies the theory of common descent, completely, and be just as correct.1. We have not done, nor seen, comprehensive genetic exams to prove one way or another. As I stated, it only takes one example, one anamoly, to verify my prediction.2. But even if there is not one, it still does nothing to alter the concepts of the OP. It clarifies that similar forms may not be the result of DNA. That's a good thing, although that is not a proven yet. You fail to realize that some clarification here does nothing to disprove the overall point. It helps my case in some respects, but may prove my hunch wrong as far as the genetic sequencing issue goes.3. Btw, I am glad we went over this evidence, but I said repeatedly, that either way the evidence came out on this, it was still problematic for common descent anlysis, and I stick by that. In fact, if the current theory of evolution for marsupials and mammals is 100% true, it still verifies the point I am making. I don't think you realize that. It has not been shown at all that niches and environments are the sole means of driving evolutionary change. You guys have merely asserted that, but offered no proof. In fact, convergent DNA indicates that you are wrong. In fact, we see convergency with non-coding DNA when there is by definition no exteriour environmental pressure or niche at play whatsoever.If anything, the genetic evidence we have gone over thus far proves my point. It shows convergency is a powerful factor in creating similarities.Moreover, no one has shown convergent evolution only creates superficial similarities.Can you name how the ear bones are superficial?Are they superficial in function, form, or exactly what?You are just 100% wrong here. Not sure what you refer to here. If you refer to the dolphin that can mate with the false killer whale, you do realize that is considered evidence of common ancestry not convergent evolution?This message has been edited by randman, 06-10-2005 05:07 PMThis message has been edited by randman, 06-10-2005 05:33 PM

randman, No idea, do you know, based on the historical & developmental constraints of the "starting" organisms? I couldn't access all of your links, but if that's what the evidence suggests, then that's what I'll go with. Thanks for the heads up.I'll paraphrase from post 236, since you couldn't manage to remember to respond to any of the salient points I have been forced to repeat countless times without any success of getting them adressed...The odds of congruence in cladistics explodes as you increase the number of taxa under study. An eight taxa cladogram has 135,135 possible trees, a ten taxa tree has over 43,000,000. So getting two trees that are "only" 50% congruent is actually extremely significant. The reasons for potential incongruence are legion, & we expect noise to mask signal in many cases. Yet a test of the assumption of common descent is that phylogenies will be congruent in a manner that is statistically significant.I have shown you two eight taxa phylogenies (cytochrome c, & NADH) that are 100% congruent against 135,135:1 odds. They are both identical to the morphological expectation, which bring the odds up to 18,261,468,225:1. If this is not due to common descent, then I think us silly-old-evolutionists-who-are-ignoring-the-evidence are owed an explanation as to why the data produces congruency?Trees that are not entirely 100% congruent still beg the same question. There is still a significant correlation, plus the expected "noise" that everyone expects anyway. The Artiodactyl/cetacean phylogeny fits this scenario perfectly. Certainly, the cetacea have moved within artiodactyla, no denying it. But the rest is congruent, again, against some fairly long odds. Again, If this is not due to common descent, then I think us silly-old-evolutionists-who-are-ignoring-the-evidence are owed an explanation as to why the data produces statistically significant congruency?Just to head you off at the pass, cytochrome c & NADH have completely unrelated metabolic functions, & both are uninvolved with morphology. Although cytochrome c may potentially converge with another organisms cytochrome c, there is no reason whatsoever why a cladograms cyt c pattern should should be the same as the NADH’s cladogram pattern, or the morphologically derived tree pattern for that matter.Whales are most similar morphologically & genetically to artiodactyls. Why doesn't one genetic study point to a whale fish affinity? Another canines, another ursids, another sharks? Seals, & sealions, anyone? Surely the environment that a whale finds itself under should force similarities with organisms sharing similar niches in order to force convergence? But whales don't, the evidence consistently points to an artiodactyl ancestry, not a shark ancestry, not a sealion ancestry, not a canine ancestry, not a primate ancestry, an artiodactyl ancestry. There is no reason why the patterns observed in the cladograms & phylogenies should have any congruence whatsoever if common descent is not indicative of reality.The evident correlation is data. Waving your hands & pointing to the incongruence is impressing no-one, neither is your painfully obvious refusal to address the fact of evident congruence against long odds. I again am forced to make the point that the evidence is statistical in nature, & focussing on the incongruence at the expense of the significant congruence is like concluding smoking is good for you because my great grandmother smoked like a trooper & lived to the ripe old age of 93, whilst ignoring the larger body of evidence that contradicts my conclusion.I put it to you that there is no plausible explanation for the evident statistically significant congruence other than common descent. If you wish to show otherwise, you have to do more than provide an if, if, if style argument.Mark

---

There are 10 kinds of people in this world; those that understand binary, & those that don't

Maybe you clarify a little for me? Odds against what? Are you claiming the odds of these matching for any other reason than common descent via random mutation and natural selection is 135,135:1? Why should we accept these odds here? It says nothing about the mechanisms involved, even if the cladistic are accurate. I don't see it. These are odds based on the assumption of randomness. Imo, that's a false assumption.Take the ear example to illustrate my point. Common descent/ancestry predicted that as well, and it has been claimed that such depth of identical traits has to be common descent, that there is no other explanation, etc, etc, etc,...But now, we see, whoa, there is another explanation, and that is convergent evolution can create the appearance of common descent in extremely detailed functional, non-surface traits.The fact cladistics may be supported, as you claim, for mammals, with significant adjustments as I have pointed out, does not negate the point that when we look at fossil evidence without such detailed genetic data, that we could be interpreting the evidence wrong.To leap from common ancestry for mammals to universal common descent is an overstatement. Moreover, there is considerable continuing research on the genetics. Showing 8 phyologenies, etc,..as was shown here is not near enough to even validate the claim on the mammals.Your claim that the odds of the taxa lining up are such and such, at least as far as I can tell, do not come with the necessary corresponding analysis of what else could explain similar genetic details, and the fact that taxa could be correct, in linking groups of animals together, does not prove the evolution from one taxa to another.Keep in mind that one thing being more likely than another is not conclusive evidence it happened. If that were the case, the ear bones could not have evolved independently. Well now, I didn't realize that. You've opened a door big enough to drive a truck through. If these are not related to morphological functions, are they the result of selective pressure? I suspect matebolic functions are subject to selective pressure.If so, then such similarities can be explained via convergent evolution.If not, they can be explained via convergent DNA.Either way, common descent is not the only answer. Why not? Moreover, it is not exactly the same as the morphologically derived tree. You want to dispute that, but the fact molecular studies change the trees which were once just based on anatomy proves my case.What if the mechanisms for causing convergence in the DNA, that you say is not related to morphology, also affects morphology and creates similarity there?First, I am not convinced that your claim that these play no role in morphology is true. Maybe you are right, but it could well be there presence helps to give certain DNA sequences a predisposition towards certain forms, and if that is the case,then we see inherent within the chemical properties a design mechanism that helps create a duplication in forms, which incidentally matches the evidence.I am not convinced that the duplication in designs is the result of only random mutations and natural selection since that suggests these forms are the best solution since they tend to come up over and over again, but as many point out, there are flaws in these solutions.What you are claiming suggests that the only reason the ear evolved independently is because that's the only effective solution there could be. I don't but that.That to me is obvious evidence of some other mechanism besides mere random mutation and environmental pressures, especially since even the niche and similar environment claims are unproven and contrary at times to the evidence. One can always imagine a way around it, and that's what it takes, a whole lot of imagination for extremely implausible scenarios.

randman,Please explain why cetacean milk caseins, long & short interspersed elements, & morphology must mutate/evolve is such a way as to place them in the artiodactyl order, since it seems so inevitable to you?Please explain what it is about cytochrome c's primary structure, NADH's primary structure, & morphology that makes the 8 taxa phylogeny cited return identical cladograms.Please be specific.MarkThis message has been edited by mark24, 06-10-2005 07:27 PM

---

There are 10 kinds of people in this world; those that understand binary, & those that don't

Sure Mark, after you calculate the odds as I asked you, of the chances of the ear bones independently evolving from chance, mutations and natural selection.Please be specific.

No you wouldn't because I didn't say that your prediction was falsified completely. I said:

quote:

---

Now, do you concede that your predictions that similar morphological creatures (eg dunnarts/mice ) would have similar DNA has been tested, and seems to have been falsified.

---

I didn't say otherwise. I simply stated that you gave us a test, we did some ourselves, and the early indications were that we were right. You provided us with a genetic test which put the marsupial moles in a seperate order than Diprotodontia, confirming the anatomists' assesment. Clearly this is not a 'comprehensive genetic exam' in your eyes, but I think it demonstrates that convergent evolution, in the example you have chosen, isn't a big problem to the idea of common descent. I know - you basically made a prediction which said "Whatever the results of the test, it is a problem for common descent". It all seems rather pointless. This is why I suggested you compose a New Topic so that we can continue discussing all the issues we didn't get to cover whilst we were discussing the topics we did do. I am yet to see anything compelling from yourself to demonstrate the OP other than assertions. All the evidence we have looked at does not actually help the OP in any tangible way that you have discussed, I would like to continue this discussion so you can expand on your idea, and show us in more depth what the problem is. Yes I realize that, but it pushes back the common ancestor further and further back. If you come to the conclusion that all mammals have a common ancestor perhaps one day you'll say that all land creatures have a common ancestor. You never know. Where do you get off adding words to what I am saying? I never said 'sole means', and I am quite offended that you would imply otherwise. You really need to actually show your working. Are you suggesting that the marsupial mole became mole like before it starting to live in the environment it does? What about dolphins, did they become marine animals before getting into the environment. Clearly not. So, what DNA has converged, in what case, and what does it demonstrate? If that was your point we needn't have been discussing this for the past 19 pages. Everyone agrees that convergency creates similarities - that's what convergent evolution is. If the genetic evidence proves your point, it proves everyone elses to the same degree. I think you just equivocated to a really bad degree here. I have not been discussing ear bones so I don't know what you are talking about. However, it seem that you are saying that our side of the argument is saying that convergent evolution only produces superficial similarities, am I right? You then go on to equivocate that this means that convergent evolution only creates superficial traits.I'm sorry, but that's not a fair representation of your opponent is it? No, I was talking about the superficial similarities a dolphin shares with a shark. I seem to have missed shark out from the original sentence, but I mention it later, sorry for the confusion.