This is the wonderful thing about evolutionists - if something descended from another, it proves evolution. If it did not, it also proves evolution. If it is homologous it proves evolution. However, if it is homologous but does not show descent, then it is analogous and also proves evolution.
This is the "wonderful thing" about creationists -- if they can't beat you on the facts, they'll just make stuff up about you.
To correct your many errors, no, descent does not "prove" evolution, nor do evolutionists claim it does. Ditto for lack of descent. Nor does homology alone. Nor does "homology without descent", which is not only used as proof of evolution, it doesn't even make any bloody sense -- it's an oxymoron. Nor do analogous structures prove evolution.
Gore, you're batting 0.000 here. If you'd like to try to salvage anything of your dignity, you could always try to provide *examples* of evolutionists doing what you (falsely) allege they do. This ought to be amusing. Be careful, though -- make sure you understand what point someone is really trying to make before you present your examples...
In other words, heads you win, tails everyone else loses.
In other words, Gore shoots himself in the foot again.
Shows quite well that evolution is rhetoric, not science.
It might if you were actually accurately describing what evolutionary scientists say, but since it's not, all I have to say is...:
"How about a little fire, Straw Man! *cackle*"
One thing about analogous though. Analogous proves descent.
No, actually, it doesn't. You're really striking out tonight. Compare, for example, bird wings and bat wings. Analagous, but *not* the result of common descent from a winged ancestor of both birds and mammals -- which explains why despite superficial similarities, they are *very* different structurally.
It is extremely unlikely that following an evolutionary biological path creatures as far apart as fish and mammals would have similar structures.
What analogous-but-not-homologous structures do you see between fishes and mammals that you find "extremely unlikely"?
This is proof of an intelligent designer reusing parts which have been successful in other creatures which need it.
"Proof", eh? "You keep using that word. I don't think it means what you think it means." -- Inigo Montoya.
If He "reused parts", then why is the shark placenta so different from the mammalian one? Why base them on different structures, for example? And why not give all the sharks placentas, instead of just a small number of closely related ones?
Instead, that looks like things hobbled together by evolution from different building blocks.
I think the example of the sharks, so closely related to each other shows design not evolution when creatures which arose at a similar time were able to develop such different reproductive systems.
You're welcome to think whatever you like.