Originally Posted by CTD
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8478566.stm
Quote
Scientists have found a striking similarity in the DNA that enables some bats and dolphins to echolocate.

A key gene that gives their ears the ability to detect high-frequency sound has produced the exact same amino acid changes over time in both creatures.

...

Two studies published this week in Current Biology find that this gene in bats and dolphins has picked up the same mutations over time.

"We've found a whole suite of amino acid changes that are common to these two groups that have evolved in parallel, convergently," Dr Rossiter said.

People will say anything. Amazing...
A little more detail can be found, as one would expect.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/01/100125123219.htm

Quote
"The natural world is full of examples of species that have evolved similar characteristics independently, such as the tusks of elephants and walruses," said Stephen Rossiter of the University of London, an author on one of the studies. "However, it is generally assumed that most of these so-called convergent traits have arisen by different genes or different mutations. Our study shows that a complex trait -- echolocation -- has in fact evolved by identical genetic changes in bats and dolphins."

A hearing gene known as prestin in both bats and dolphins (a toothed whale) has picked up many of the same mutations over time, the studies show. As a result, if you draw a phylogenetic tree of bats, whales, and a few other mammals based on similarities in the prestin sequence alone, the echolocating bats and whales come out together rather than with their rightful evolutionary cousins.


And for a little more on the topic in general, you can't go wrong visiting

http://www.evidentcreation.com/TRM-Converg.html

[Linked Image]

Quote
Crabs are believed to have evolved at least 5 times based on gene sequences.

[Linked Image]

They're very good, but a little soft, at least on one point:
Quote
Convergent and parallel evolution would not in themselves falsify evolution, if it were not for the vast number of occurrences found in nature.

Any "convergence / parallel evolution" at all renders the issue of "homology" useless for the evo-pusher at best. If you posit a rule that looking alike makes things related, you have to stick to that rule. You're not allowed to make exceptions - not in science. Any exception forces abandonment of the rule or abandonment of scientific principles, even if it were only one. Special pleading is special pleading - period.

But check it out. They only touch the very tip of the iceberg, of course, but they list quite a few examples of things some would sweep under the rug.

I know we don't have a lot of participation at the moment, but here's a challenge for any reader: try and posit a hard-and-fast rule of "homology" that isn't circular - or one that matches reality even if it is circular.

What do I mean by 'circular'? These things look alike because they're related because they look alike because they're related because they look alike because they're related because... - see, just going in circles.

Dark Matter + Dark Energy = Dark Truth

"We find that such evidence demonstrates that the ID argument is dependent upon setting a scientifically unreasonable burden of proof for the theory of evolution." - Judge Jones Kitzmiller case
http://www.talkreason.org/articles/Falsify.cfm

"To Compel A Man To Furnish Funds For The Propagation Of Ideas He Disbelieves And Abhors Is Sinful And Tyrannical." - Thomas Jefferson

"And can the liberties of a nation be thought secure when we have removed their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are the gift of God? That they are not to be violated but with his wrath?" - Thomas Jefferson