RaphielDrake, I was going to use that exact same quote from Darwin, but you beat me to it! Darwin later removed it from later editions of On the Origin of Species because even back then, people caricatured what he said and were using the quote to spread misinformation.
Oh, and Alter2Ego:
Gordon Elliott and Burt Humburg on Wells' Discussion of Homology
One more thing on the whole homology thing, Alter2Ego. Not only do Humans and Chimpanzees share very similar physiology and anatomy, but they share very similar behaviours and share over 98% of their DNA. It isn't just random homology that is evidence of common descent, it's the patterns of homology in evolutionary lineages. Humans and other apes share much more homology with each other than they do with other animals, and it's not just homology they have in common, but also DNA and behaviour. The ancestors of humans have clear patterns of homology consistent with an evolutionary timeline which shows a clear picture of how anatomically modern humans evolved from a common ancestor with the other apes. Using homology to define a fossil's relationship with modern animals isn't just spotting random things in common and just assuming for example that fish must be closely related to whales or bats are birds. Rather, each fossil is a jigsaw piece and we must work out where each jigsaw piece fits to complete as much of the jigsaw puzzle that is the evolutionary tree as possible. The jigsaw piece of Ambulocetus clearly cannot fit anywhere else except in the evolutinary lineage of whales, where it is completely consistent with the patterns of whale fossils. Oh, you might want to check your understanding of homology, too.
Why would a supreme intelligence use similar homology between animals, anyway? Did this intelligent designer run out of ideas?
Oh, and Alter2Ego:
Quote:Homology as defined is not the evidence for
evolution itself. Rather, it is the specific patterns of descent in ancient
and modern organisms and how they fit the relationship of homology
that is the evidence for evolution. Moreover, the existence of
nonfunctional similarities in specific patterns of descent is
overwhelming evidence in favor of evolution and essentially makes
useless Wells’ appeal to the actions of an Intelligent Designer.
Gordon Elliott and Burt Humburg on Wells' Discussion of Homology
One more thing on the whole homology thing, Alter2Ego. Not only do Humans and Chimpanzees share very similar physiology and anatomy, but they share very similar behaviours and share over 98% of their DNA. It isn't just random homology that is evidence of common descent, it's the patterns of homology in evolutionary lineages. Humans and other apes share much more homology with each other than they do with other animals, and it's not just homology they have in common, but also DNA and behaviour. The ancestors of humans have clear patterns of homology consistent with an evolutionary timeline which shows a clear picture of how anatomically modern humans evolved from a common ancestor with the other apes. Using homology to define a fossil's relationship with modern animals isn't just spotting random things in common and just assuming for example that fish must be closely related to whales or bats are birds. Rather, each fossil is a jigsaw piece and we must work out where each jigsaw piece fits to complete as much of the jigsaw puzzle that is the evolutionary tree as possible. The jigsaw piece of Ambulocetus clearly cannot fit anywhere else except in the evolutinary lineage of whales, where it is completely consistent with the patterns of whale fossils. Oh, you might want to check your understanding of homology, too.
Why would a supreme intelligence use similar homology between animals, anyway? Did this intelligent designer run out of ideas?
