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.<quoted text>
Cowardly dodge, huh? You cite a 40+ year old publication as if it were still germane today. If you knew what you were talking about and understood the modern definition of homology, you wouldn't make such a foolish mistake.
But continue to act like a jackass, Dr Phony.
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.