You silly creationist. Don't you know what the definition of a homology is? Let me enlighten you with my superior scientific knowledge.
"Structures that are shared by species on the basis of decent from a common ancestor are called homologies. Homologies alone are reliable indicators of evolutionary relationship."
Yes you read that right, a homology is only a homology if it is due to common ancestry which then becomes proof of common ancestry. You probably can't even understand this superior scientific logic because you are a creationist.
[[”Structures that are shared by species on the basis of decent from a common ancestor are called homologies. Homologies alone are reliable indicators of evolutionary relationship.”]]
You silly Creation denier- don’t you know that it isn’t a scientific term because common descent isn’t a scientific reality and hterefore it could not possibly be connected to common descent? Yes- you read that right- Common descent is only a fairy tale you read about in science classes- not an established scientific fact-
You just defeated your own arument by hte way- let me point it out to you- Similiar structures shared by species BUT which arise from completely different means IS the very reason why homologies can NOT be argued for a defense for macroevolution- Many species ‘share’ common structures (Pssst- it’s called COMMON DESIGN btw), even species that evos tell us are commonly descended one from hte other- soooo, since they ‘share’ common structures, BUT these structures arise in completely different ways- then the whole ‘homology argument is bunk.
“Second, however, the evolutionists’ argument works only if certain portions of the data on homology are presented. If all the available data are allowed full exposure, then the evidence from homology fails. Many years ago, T.H. Morgan of Columbia University, himself a committed evolutionist, candidly admitted what many evolutionists do not want to become common knowledge: “If, then, it can be established beyond dispute that similarity or even identity of the same character in different species is not always to be interpreted that both have arisen from a common ancestor, the whole argument from comparative anatomy seems to tumble in ruins” (1923, p. 246). Or, as Wysong wrote: “If the law of similarity can be used to show evolutionary relationships, then dissimilarities can be used to show a lack of relationship” (1976, pp. 393-394).
Evolution is a complete cosmogony. It must explain both similarities and differences within its own framework. It is not the similarities that present the problem; it is the numerous differences. As Sir Alistair Hardy, former professor of zoology at Oxford University, wrote: “The concept of homology is fundamental to what we are talking about when we speak of evolution, yet in truth we cannot explain it all in terms of present-day biological theory” (1965, p. 211). What did Dr. Hardy mean when he said, more than thirty-five years ago, that “we cannot explain it all in terms of present-day biological theory”? He meant simply this: only when evolutionists are allowed to “pick and choose” similarities that fit their theory, can the argument from homology be made to work. When evolutionists are forced to use all the data—including those documenting dissimilarity—the argument from homology utterly fails.
His point is well taken—even today. It is a documented fact that evolutionists are guilty of filtering the data to make it appear as if homology supports evolutionary theory. Now, however, that “picking and choosing” method has been exposed, as Lester and Bohlin have observed.
Another problem is that from the raw data alone, not one single phylogeny emerges, but several. The one that agrees most closely with the traditional phylogeny is assumed to be the most “correct.” This hardly demonstrates the independent confirmation of evolutionary relationships. The combining of several phylogenies from different proteins combines not only strengths but also weaknesses (1984, p. 173, emp. in orig.).”
http://www.trueorigin.org/ng_ap01.asp