So what you're telling me is that you have no proof.
Thinking that homology implies common ancestry is not established, showing that again you are making theory-laden observations
. Common structures can also imply common design, and indeed this is how it was understood in the past. Even according to evolutionists' theories, we can see them admitting that similar structures are not necessarily due to common ancestry, such as with the extra 'thumb' of both giant pandas and red pandas. Or the structure of an octopuses' eye and the eye of a human, which are apparently very similar in some ways, but they are not thought to be related by even mainstream scientists. They've even resorted to a circular argument to use homology as an argument for their theories. Ernst Mayr, an architect of Neo-Darwinism, is a good example, who said:
<After 1859 there has been only one definition of homologous that makes biological sense... Attributes of two organisms are homologous when they are derived from an equivalent characteristic of the common ancestor.
Ernst Mayr The Growth of Biological Thought
(Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1932)
An evolutionist who wants to determine whether some parts of a vertebrate are homologous must first determine whether they are derived from a common ancestor under this definition. There must be evidence of a common ancestry before limbs can be called homologous. But then to turn around and argue that homologous limbs point to common ancestry creates a vicious circle: common ancestry establishes homology, which in turn establishes common ancestry.
Ronald Brady has spoke on this:
<By making our explanation into the definition of the condition to be explained, we express not scientific hypothesis but belief. We are so convinced that our explanation is true that we no longer see any need to distinguish it from the situation we are trying to explain. Dogmatic endeavors of this kind must eventually leave the realm of science
Ronald H. Brady, "On the Independence of Systematics," Cladistics
Since you are doing cute little tables over time, we must also bring up biologist Tim Berra's blunder in his 1990 book Evolution and the Myth of Creationism
where he compared the fossil record to a series of Corvette models, saying that if you compare a 1953 and a 1954 Corvette, side by side, and then a 1954 and a 1955 model, and so on, the descent with modification is overwhelmingly obvious. What is hilarious about this example from an evolutionist is of course that the increase of complexity and somewhat common features of his model are a product not of blind natural forces and an unguided Darwinian process, but conscious design
that has resulted in a series of models with common features.
So in short:
>homology does not prove common descent or evolution
>appeals to homology are circular arguments under current definitions
>homology is wrought with theory-laden observations
>the fossil record doesn't support the theory
>evolutionists still try to bend reality to their theory