Chrypt

I agree...But an octopus eye and a human eye have a different design. Evolution from a common ancestor predicts such thing. On the other hand, the thylacine and dog have exactly the same skull (same design) and yet.... Thylacine are more closely related to a kangaroo (kangaroo's skull is so much different than a Thylacine......Creationists claim that even if we have found a bird with mammal glands evolutionary biologits will hide behind the "convergent evolution theory" which makes evolution unfalsifiable. When should we consider a similar trait a homology and when should we consider it a convergent evolution.... What if someone claimed that a thylacine is just a dog that had developed a marsupial pouch? And wasn't the other way around? Maybe I sound funny... I do accept evolution... But I guess sometimes it needs so much intelligence to reveal creationist's fallacies...

Hello everyone, I was reading the article +29 evidence for macroevolution on talkorigins.org and I've found that a potential falsification of the theory of common ancestor is to find an organism that have some common trait that evolved independently on two different clades.... Some examples would be : a mammal with wings, a bird with mammal glands etc.... Some creationists claim that this is already the case.... And scientists calls it 'convergent evolution'...they give many examples for some placental mammals and marsupial mammals taht they look so much alike more than the other species of the clade where they belong to. A thylacine, for instance its skull looks exactly like a dog's skull.. And yet, scientists consider thylacine to be more related to a kangaroo than to a dog. Is that really a falsification of the nested hierarchies that are predicted by evolution from common ancestors?