Jul 132006

Allen MacNeill posted this comment over at Uncommon Descent.

Thompson himself did not present hypotheses that were empirically testable (sound familiar?)

The same concept is applied to the parallel evolution of marsupial and placental mammals: similar environments and subsistence patterns place similar selective constraints on marsupial and placental mammals in different locations, resulting in strikingly similar anatomical and physiological adaptations, despite relatively non-homologous ancestry.

Unfortunately there is absolutely not a single shred of empirical evidence to support this story. (sound familiar?) What evidence do you have that the environments were similar at the time that these putative mutations were taking place? The comparison is sometimes made between the savannas of Australia to the Great Plains of North America, where the Thylacine and Gray Wolf are found. However, this is only after the fact of convergence, it tells us nothing about the environment under the putative selective constraints that directed the morphological similarities.

Another fact the Darwinists overlooked with this superficial and similar-environment story is that convergence also occurs in different environments. Convergent features common to the sandlance and chameleon.

• Camouflage: cryptic eye and body coloration.
• Rapid, accurate strikes at small, mobile prey.
• Specialised feeding apparatus.
• Independent switching pattern of eye movements.
• Extreme ocular mobility.
• Lens with reduced power.*
• Cornea with increased power.*
• Corneal accommodation.*
• Monocular range-finding (accommodative cues shown in the chameleon, inferred in the sandlance).
• Deep convexiclivate fovea in the retina.
• Nodal point and axis of rotation of eye well-separated.*
• Large image magnification.
• Monocular movement parallax possible without eye translation.*

*Features not known in other fish or lizards.

The entire Darwinian convergent evolution story just doesn’t have any scientific merit at all.

0 0 votes
Article Rating
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
John A. Davison
John A. Davison
15 years ago

Allen MacNeill spouts pure Darwinian pablum. Natural selection never had
anything to do with creative evolution. For an entirely different interpretation
of the marsupial/placental similarities I refer you to my Prescribed Evolutionary
Hypothesis paper and the sources I cite there.

“A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution is undemonstrable.”
John A. Davison

15 years ago

Is this what you have in mind John?

Only a Prescribed Darwinian mind 👿 can conclude that environmental factors can drive these enormous similarities. 🙄

John A. Davison
John A. Davison
15 years ago

Your description of the Darwinian mind as “prescribed” is not to be taken lightly. Consider this from Einstein:

“Our actions should be based on the ever-present awareness that human beings in their thinking, feeling, and acting are not free but are just as causally bound as the stars in their motion.”
Statement to the Spinoza Society of America, September 22, 1932

Solid evidence for his observation has since come from studies on separated monozygotic twins and is summarized in William Wright’s book “Born That Way.” I recommend it for all students of human behavior,as well as those interested in organic evlolution.

Einstein also said:

“Everything is determined… by forces over which we have no control.”

I regard “determined” as synonomous with “prescribed.” Ergo – The Prescribed Evolutionary Hypothesis.

We are all victims in a determined universe. Some of us have been luckier than others. I consider myself one of the lucky ones

“A past evolution is undeeniable, a present evolution unndemonstrable.”
John A. Davison

John A. Davison
John A. Davison
15 years ago

To avoid repeating myself, feel free to reprint here my comments at “brainstorms.” My fingers are cramping again.


“A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable.”
John A. Davison