I am baffled at the rigidity of darwinists and their inability to deal with their own subject. I started criticizing darwinism in the 90’s and still hadn’t heard of convergence. In the following years when I read of the evidence, the confusion in the darwinist approach was completely obvious. The explanation made no sense: somehow something highly improbable was not really improbable because it had actually occurred more than once???! Without ever having had a course in biology a crude logic that convergence had to be non-darwinian in its realization simply asserted itself as obvious, whatever the complex details. And it wasn’t even close to brilliant: it didn’t require much to make that conclusion as an outsider. But it has been persistently beyond the professionals. Now fifteen years later we are getting some real answers (that may not be the exact history), and they aren’t even going to be mentioned by the mainstream biologists.
Biologists have gone to extraordinary lengths to confuse themselves. A puzzle in itself.
In any case, it is clear that the darwin paradigm is dead. It may be impossible for many to say so in public, but the reality is becoming clear now, finally.
An organism thus has the built-in ability to adapt to a new environment heritably by altering its DNA. These adaptations occur just when they are needed, because they are triggered by an input from the new environment. Since they are triggered by the environment, their occurrence in a population s not rare. They will occur in a large fraction of the population, leading to rapid evolutionary changes — possibly even in one generation! If such adaptive changes had to be achieved by random DNA copying errors (point mutations), they would require long expanses of time, if they could be achieved at all. (p. 49)
Convergent evolution is the Darwinists’ lollapalooza. They made it up to keep their phylogenetic tree from falling apart, but they can’t say how convergence happens. As Joseph Keating (2002) wrote in another context, it is no more than a “pseudo-explanation, and may deceive us into believing we have explained some aspect of biology when in fact we have only labeled our ignorance.” (pp. 87-89, 92; internal citations removed)