Same, But Different

Convergent Evolution, Coaching, and the Case for Asking Better Questions

“Same But Different” by Therese Cook

Currently I'm reading Are We Smart Enough to Know How Smart Animals Are? by Frans de Waal. In it, he makes a brilliant and compelling case for how limited human insight really is when it comes to asking the right questions about the origins of behavior in other species with whom we share the planet.

One particular idea he hones in on is the concept of convergent evolution. The animal kingdom is full of unexpected solutions to common problems. Wings, fins, and eyes have all appeared more than once in evolutionary history—not because they were inherited from a shared ancestor, but because they worked. Convergent evolution happens when two species solve the same environmental problem in similar ways—without being closely related.

Some easy examples:

Bat and bird wings. Both evolved the ability to fly, but bats have wing structures that are homologous to human hands, while birds evolved their wings independently with different skeletal arrangements.

Similarly, octopuses have eyes—as do humans. But we are most definitely not mollusks. Our eyes are an example of a convergent neurological development.

---

Why It Happens

On the most foundational level, all organisms must solve functional problems within the confines of whatever environment they operate in. As such, structural changes emerge that reflect that reality. If environmental constraints are consistent over generations, organisms morph genetically to favor those who solve those problems best.

Even without a direct genetic link, organisms in similar environments may converge on the same solution. Evolutionary biology calls this analogy—different origin, similar output.

And it doesn’t just show up in biology.

Taking a closer look at homology, analogy, and convergent evolution can help you better understand how your own body—or the bodies of those in your charge (coaches! physios!)—solve problems, and therefore better tailor the intervention, training, or strategy to their actual needs rather than surface-level similarities.

Let’s break it down from three perspectives.

---

Coach

Just because two athletes behave in a similar way, it doesn't mean that behavior has the same origin. I'm speaking in terms of general behavior here—it could refer to movement behavior, but also mindset and coping strategies.

For example, two athletes may appear psychologically resilient:
One may have superior emotional suppression or dissociative capacity.
Another may have cultivated a healthy mindset through mentorship and self-reflection.

Another example in movement: Two athletes may both favor a narrow stance when squatting. One does so because of naturally shallow hip sockets that promote this position biomechanically. The other does so to avoid discomfort from chronic hip impingement. Same shape, totally different root causes—and likely, different downstream effects.

---

Clinician

Not every compensation is a problem. Clinical shortsightedness can overlook convergent solutions and mistake nonconformity for dysfunction.

Clinicians must be cautious not to let normative standards become rigid dogma. Just because a movement or structure deviates from "normal" doesn’t mean it needs fixing.

For example, navicular drop (when the medial arch flattens during load) is often treated as a dysfunction that leads to power leaks or joint instability. For some people, it is. But others exhibit this trait with no pain, no instability, and no movement deficit.

Another good example: scapular winging. In some athletes, it’s a red flag for neuromuscular imbalance or prior injury. In others—particularly swimmers or those with hypermobility—it may be a completely benign structural variant with no impact on performance or health.

---

Athlete

Just because a peer does something that works doesn’t mean copying it will work for you.

This is one of the most common thought viruses in sport—assuming outcome replication equals outcome creation.

Two athletes might converge on a similar movement solution, but only because their unique histories and environmental demands shaped them in parallel—not identically. If you want to grow, don’t mimic the move. Study the intent behind it.

---

Convergence

As a teacher or athlete, your job isn’t to copy what works—it’s to understand why it works.

That’s how we avoid becoming mechanical. Or worse—blindly adaptive in the wrong direction.

• Coaches must avoid assuming that two people using the same strategy are doing so for the same reason.

• Clinicians must look deeper than what’s visible—to avoid mislabeling compensation as dysfunction.

• Athletes must understand: just because something looks right, doesn’t mean it’s right for them.

---

Final Thought

To anyone reading this not as a coach or clinician but as someone trying to live a healthier life: this applies to you too.

Just because your friend's HRV is low due to overtraining doesn’t mean yours is—even if your numbers look the same.

Think through to the next layer.
Pause. Assess. Ask better questions.
Don’t just mimic.

Thanks for reading,

Rob

---

If you found this helpful, share it with someone who moves.
Or better yet, someone who teaches people how to.

Want to go deeper into the principles behind human performance?
Subscribe for more insights from Check Engine Light—a system for tuning body and mind.