Listen up, you stupid shit. I didn't say DeBeer's research was irrelevant.(You just can't resist lying about what others say, can you? Some sort of personality defect. I imagine). I said that his opinion on homology was out of date. A lot has happened since 1971. We were barely scratching the surface in DNA understanding back then. Science has since refined the definition.<quoted text>
If you think De Beer's research is irrelevant today, then state specifically what has been done to disprove it. Broadly stating that all research dating back to 1971 should be discounted is stupid. His research has withstood 40+ years of scrutiny, and he commands a great deal of respect as an embryologist.
All that has been done is re-defining terminology. Homologous structures produced by non-homologous genes are now designated "analogous". Inventing new words doesn't erase any obstacles to evolution.
This is yet another failed prediction of Darwinism. You can imagine that the flipper of a dolphin is homologous to the hand of a man. Genetic studies disprove your intuitions. Naive hunches must capitulate to science.
That's what pisses you off, isn't it? That science gets closer and closer to understand everything around us. Pushing your god of genesis further and further into a corner. Tough cookies that you have to live with such fear.
And where is this genetic study you referred to? Or was that just one more of your lies?