Is homology due to common descent or common design? Is descent with modification overwhelmingly obvious? The standard definition of homology is the similarity of the structure, physiology, or development of different species of organisms based upon their descent from a common evolutionary ancestor- the structural identity of parts in distinct species such as the human hand, the wing of a bird, and the flipper of a seal. But is this really the case?
The answer: “Homology can’t be used as evidence for evolution because it assumes the very thing it’s trying to prove.” In other words, Homology therefore evolution, evolution therefore homology. “And when biologists try to fix this by pointing to DNA or other areas it only further undermines the case.”
For more on this topic read “In Just Eight Minutes, New Video Punctures Evolution’s Circular “Homology” Argument” at https://evolutionnews.org/2020/01/in-… . “Long Story Short,” is a new occasional video series that compresses key points in the debate between Darwinism and intelligent design into a very welcome format: concise, accessible, and funny. As the narrator explains, “One of the main arguments Darwin used for his theory was that of homology, these odd similarities between very different animals. Why would they be so similar unless they were related?”