Convergent Evolution Challenges Common Descent

No matter how much you explain to the evolutionist that his acknowledgment and confirmation of the idea of "convergent evolution" strongly challenges the idea of "common descent," he will often not understand! The problem is that he thinks that what he read in the text books is enough to explain the scientific opinion on the issue, and that any attempt at opposition is necessarily an unscientific, ideological, dogmatic and politically motivated attempt! Dear Evolutionary, since you have just arrived on a planet that opposes evolution, welcome! Let us tell you a few things, first of all, that science is constantly changing, you just have to take a book in the history of science, and it's very separable, and it's a common lesson! Have you ever thought about what biology was like before Darwin? Do you think Darwin, for example, discovered comparative anatomy? In fact, your impressions of the centrality of Darwinian evolution in modern biology are amazing! To be reversed.”(1) Second, opponents of evolution have read, understood, digested, and critiqued your textbooks long ago! It means coming 20 years after the publication of Evolution Icons, which exposes the scientific falsifications in biology textbooks, and you think that what the public needs is just to explain to them what the textbooks say, you have undoubtedly been living on another planet for the past 20 years! At least try to understand that what you are studying as facts has received a lot of opposition from within the scientific community in the past 40 years, at least try to rise to meet this opposition by refuting the appropriate scientific evidence! Thirdly, opponents of evolution oppose you in the validity of the original ideas of the theory, an idea as the idea that similarity is a proof of regression from a common ancestor, an idea rejected for opponents of evolution, the similarity for opponents of evolution cannot be "always" a proof of regression from a common ancestor, and we hope to put a lot of lines down the word "always." So what is the evidence for them? But let's all step back, now we're all equal and we don't have any theoretical commitments and we don't try to prove anything, just we have some data, we have descendants of one ancestor, and there are some similarities, these data are seen by all people every day! No sane person in these cases would question the regression of a common ancestor. Well, let's move on to a harder level, a single species level, and regardless of gender definition, but the best explanation for the similarity within one species framework is to come out of a common ancestor. You say that since the best explanation for similarity within a single species is a regression from a common ancestor, the best explanation for similarity at all taxonomic levels (sex, family, rank, class, division, kingdom, and range) must be a regression from a common ancestor, and here, opponents of evolution release many documented evidence of the error of this unjust generalization. You, when you collide with two fossils that have a striking resemblance to the placental gray wolf and the scabby Tasmanian wolf, are you saying here that the similarity is caused by a regression from a common ancestor? Of course not! This similarity is due to the occurrence of convergent evolution, i.e. both species acquired the same formal features separately, you already know that the ancestors of marsupials and placentas separated about 160 million years ago. So, you believe that there is no way to explain the similarity between organisms except the descent from a common ancestor, and you believe that there is another way to explain the similarity between organisms without the descent from a common ancestor! If you don't understand yet, how convergent evolution challenges the common regression, I don't know how you can understand. — Source: Published on Facebook's "Braheen Center" page https://www.facebook.com/braheen.org/posts/pfbid02TGDHaYKdfU3cC3RSYgRrrXax4sexiYr9S8Ug7SC7BDKyjVNZyLxqbQQsFXUrEXATl