September 2017 Newsletter |
“Divergent evolution” says anatomical or biochemical similarities among life forms show “close common ancestry.” Such “homologies” allegedly prove divergent evolution. But “convergent evolution” says that may not be true.
In “convergent evolution,” “distantly related” life forms may be very similar anatomically or biochemically without “close common ancestors,” because similar characteristics supposedly often evolved separately and independently.
Horseshoe crabs traditionally classified with crustaceans, based on anatomical similarities. Yet due to biochemical similarities, they recently reclassified as more closely-related to spiders, despite anatomical dissimilarities with spiders.
Anatomical and biochemical phylogenies not only frequently contradict each other; one biochemical phylogeny also often clashes with other biochemical phylogenies. “Convergence,” claiming to explain all, in fact explains nothing.
If each mutually-exclusive anatomical and biochemical phylogeny is equally valid, all are equally invalid. “Convergent evolution” cannot tell what really converged or diverged. It equivocates between alternative anathemas.
Evolution needs coherent phylogenies. “Convergence” cannot deliver them. “Convergence” is thus functionally non- or anti-evolutionary. “Convergent evolution” – “non- or anti-evolutionary evolution” – is therefore oxymoronic.