Marine to Land Evolution

How does the evolutionist explain the plethora of seemingly impossible coincidences of evolution called “convergent evolution”?  “Co-opting.”  They explain that somehow the evolution mechanism utilizes pre-existing molecular structures and modifies them to get a different outcome.  The problems with this explanation are manifold:

1. It is a fact that there are multiple similar molecular structures within various creatures, and the “co-opting” hypothesis rests upon this recognition of similar structures across various organisms.  The thought process is, “Since we see similar molecular structures across seemingly not closely related organisms (based on evolutionist phylogenetic studies), and since we know evolution is true and is the only acceptable explanation for how these molecular structures got here, then surely at some point in its evolutionary history the organism in question must have utilized the framework of the molecular structure this other organism possesses as a basis for forming the current molecular structure we see in the organism, and this not only explains the molecular similarity, but how evolution doesn’t have to begin from scratch on each example of convergent evolution.”  Notice the lack of detailed explanation for the exact specific genetic changes needed for such a “co-opting” which would require delicate coordination, allowing intermediate organisms to still be functionally and selectively advantageous.  That there are similar structures across not closely related organisms is not a problem for the Creation explanation as this is just the homology argument; a common designer would tend to utilize the same basic design when accomplishing the same basic function.
2. Where are the experimental examples? Rather than experimental examples demonstrating precisely how this co-opting explanation actually works, we have instead retrospective and comparative analyses which use ad hoc inferences to hand wave; we do not get from these analyses demonstration of novel molecular building of structures which fill in the extraordinary amount of missing genetic and protein-based molecular data which would be necessary to actually show us how a naturalistic process that goes through a highly complex transformations needed to explain, for instance, the creation of the veriform appendix in 32-38 novel, separate instances.
3. No acknowledgment is given that even the already complex “toolkits” involved, the molecular frameworks claimed to be the building blocks of the hypothesized co-opting events, had to have come from somewhere, but how did the framework of these complex “toolkits” arrive in the first place?
4. The co-opting explanation ignores the instances where supposed convergences utilize totally different genetics. I asked Google Gemini to “list any convergent evolution examples that seem to have genetics that do not match and seem to defy a co-opting explanation for their independent origins:”

While many examples of convergent evolution—like the “camera eyes” of humans and octopuses—are often cited as having a shared genetic “toolkit” (such as the Pax-6 gene), there are specific cases where the underlying genetics are fundamentally different. These examples suggest that evolution can find the same functional solution through entirely unique molecular paths, defying the idea that it must always “co-opt” the same ancestral genes.

Here are the most striking examples of convergent evolution where the genetics do not match:

1. Type I Antifreeze Proteins (AFPs) in Fish

Perhaps the most robust example of genetic non-matching occurs in polar fishes. Many different species have evolved Type I Antifreeze Proteins, which are alanine-rich, alpha-helical proteins that prevent ice crystals from growing in the blood.

• The Mismatch: Research has shown that Type I AFPs have evolved independently at least four times from completely different “progenitors.”
• The Genetics: * In the Cunner (a type of wrasse), the AFP gene evolved by duplicating and “sculpting” a portion of a GIMAP gene (normally used in the immune system).
  • In Snailfish, the AFP gene appears to have emerged de novo from “junk” DNA (non-coding repetitive regions and transposons).
• Why it defies co-option: Evolution didn’t just tweak a common “antifreeze-ready” gene. Instead, it built the same protein structure using a functional protein in one lineage and “trash” DNA in another.

2. Bioluminescence (Fireflies vs. Ostracods vs. Bacteria)

Bioluminescence has evolved independently over 90 times across the tree of life. While the phenotype (producing light) is the same, the biochemistry and genetics are often wildly different.

• The Mismatch: To produce light, you need a luciferin (the fuel) and a luciferase (the enzyme). In many lineages, these are entirely non-homologous.
• The Genetics: The luciferases in fireflies, jellyfish, and ostracods (seed shrimp) belong to different protein families and have no common ancestor. Even when they use the same fuel (like the common marine luciferin coelenterazine), the genes coding for the enzymes that process it are unrelated.
• Why it defies co-option: It represents dozens of “bottom-up” inventions rather than a single shared light-producing toolkit.

3. Cyanide Production (Plants vs. Burnet Moths)

Both certain plants (like bird’s-foot trefoil) and certain insects (like the Burnet moth) produce cyanogenic glucosides to ward off predators.

• The Mismatch: Both the plant and the moth arrived at the exact same chemical “poison,” but they use different sets of genes to build it.
• The Genetics: While both use enzymes from the large Cytochrome P450 family, the specific sub-families and the sequence of the metabolic pathway are distinct. The moth’s genes are not the result of horizontal gene transfer from plants; they are a purely independent invention of the same chemical weapon.

4. C4 Photosynthesis

C4 photosynthesis is a “CO2 pump” that allows plants to thrive in hot, dry climates. It has evolved independently over 60 times in different plant lineages.

+1

• The Mismatch: While C4 plants use the same core enzymes (like PEPC), the regulatory genetics that tell the plant where and when to build the “Kranz anatomy” (the specialized leaf structure) are often unique to each lineage.
• The Genetics: In some lineages, the C4 pathway is controlled by specific ancient genes that were repurposed, but in others, the regulatory logic is built from scratch using different “promoter” sequences in the DNA.

5. Magnetoreception (Iron-based vs. Cryptochromes)

Many animals can sense the Earth’s magnetic field, but they appear to have evolved entirely different genetic and cellular mechanisms to do so.

• The Mismatch: Some animals use a mechanical system based on tiny crystals of magnetite, while others use a quantum system based on light-sensitive proteins.
• The Genetics:
  • Biogenic Magnetite: Requires genes for iron transport and mineralization (similar to building bone).
  • Cryptochromes: Uses blue-light sensitive proteins in the eye (related to circadian rhythm genes).
• Why it defies co-option: These are two fundamentally different physical principles (mechanics vs. quantum chemistry) reaching the same sensory goal.

Summary Table: Convergent Traits with Divergent Genetics

| Trait | Organisms | Genetic Mechanism |

| :— | :— | :— |

| Antifreeze | Cunner vs. Snailfish | GIMAP Protein vs. Non-coding DNA |

| Light Production | Fireflies vs. Ostracods | Distinct non-homologous Luciferases |

| Cyanide Defense | Plants vs. Moths | Different P450 enzyme lineages |

| Magnetosensing | Salmon vs. Robins | Iron mineralization vs. Light-sensitive proteins|

Sources:

Note that there are no examples of random mutations that de facto create truly novel functional information to the genome of any plant, animal, or human.  Without this, molecules to man evolution is dead in the water. Hypothetically, if a claim was made that a mutation or series of mutations were to seemingly add a new function, this would be because of a designed framework whereby the mutations are actually designed results of environmental changes, such that the final effect is not actually some truly novel one built by Darwinian evolution, but is a designed feature only made possible by the created genetic framework in which that mutation happened.  For instance, so far as we can tell, all bears descended from other bears.  Certain characteristics of polar bears almost certainly involved mutations from the proto-bear, but it cannot be said that these mutations were random; the created genetic framework was designed to allow for such changes to be triggered by the environment. Limited variation within a created kind is observed.  Changes from one kind of organism to another are never observed: A polar bear remains a bear.  The vast majority of mutations we observe are simply errors in the code.  These errors deteriorate the genetic code causing the genetics to crumble with time, not improve.  This is because the genetic code is just that, a code, and codes convey information, and in this case, programming instructions.  For more information, please see here.

Getting back to the article in question, it states:

We found that most transitions to land were accompanied by a large gene turnover, with many gene gains and reductions happening at the same time. The ability of genomes to gain and lose genes played a key role in animal adaptation to new habitats.

So in other words, it was noticed that there was a big difference between the genetics of the sea creatures and the genetics of the land creatures.  This finding should surprise no one.  Inference was then used to determine that many genes were “lost” and many were “gained” in each supposed transition from sea creature to land creature.  The study authors then went on to determine that land animals have in common certain functions coded by certain genes which the article claims were “gained” and sea creatures have in common certain functions coded by certain genes that the article claims were “lost” in the land animals. We are not told in any precise terms to what degree there is similarity in the genetics of the various functions supposedly gained or lost.

The article says land-based animals had evolutions that were “specialized” and had “distinct traits which reveal unique evolutionary histories[…].”  This seems to be an acknowledgement that the genetics behind the supposed land evolutions/adaptations must have involved many instances of the evolutionist’s infamous rescue mechanism, “convergent evolution.”

The article goes on to say how they grouped the organisms they looked at into various groups that made various transitions to land and concluded with the following:

This study offers a glimpse into what might happen if we could replay the tape of life: some genetic changes seem inevitable, appearing again and again, as life adapts to land, while others are rare. Our research shows how evolution continuously finds new solutions to the challenges of life on Earth.

Notice in this conclusion how the author cannot help but describe “evolution” as if it is an intelligible entity that is almost omniscient, omnipotent, and omnipresent:  Evolution is so knowledgeable that it can “continuously find” not only solutions, but “new solutions,” it is so powerful that it can handle all “the challenges of life” and it is so ubiquitous that it is everywhere present “on Earth.”  What conclusion can the reader come to other than given enough time, since Evolution has no age limit, Evolution can accomplish anything; indeed, to Evolution, nothing is impossible?

For the weapons of our warfare are not carnal, but mighty to God unto the pulling down of fortifications, destroying counsels, And every height that exalteth itself against the knowledge of God, and bringing into captivity every understanding unto the obedience of Christ.

2 Corinthians 10:4-5