Kurieuo wrote:I'm kind of thinking that ...
An excellent post covering the issues, and worthy of a re-read.
Clarifying just a couple points relating to my post ...
Kurieuo wrote:There needs to be an objective, unambiguous method for identifying which similarities truly are homologies rather than analogies.
Yes! Alas, such an "unambiguous method" does not exist in science.
Kurieuo wrote:But, I'm saying it's ultimately a pointless exercise because a whole lot more is needed to prove they are indeed transitional than similarity.
Again, yes. But unfortunately science (via the scientific method) cannot "prove" anything. Anyone waiting for science to prove evolution is going to be disappointed (or here, maybe I should say "happy").
So what good is science?! By accumulating multiple independent lines of supporting evidence, science can only give us increasing levels of confidence in a theory.
My original post showed just one small and very specific piece of evidence, that so far is unacknowledged, maybe as you say, because of confusion about mere supporting evidence vs. definitive statements about proof or theory confirmation.
Kurieuo wrote:Furthermore, the embedded philosophical assumptions rule out other possible explanations such as "similar design" scenarios. ...
Nothing I can say here will change opinions in the slightest, but I have to say this anyway ... science lives by methodological naturalism, not philosophical naturalism. Methodological naturalism is only a provisional assumption that the scientific method is the best approach we currently have. And the hyper-spectacular success of the last 400+ hundred years has justifiably raised confidence in that assumption.
I live with methodological naturalism's annoying practicality. But I love "design" explanations, because science is so much easier when finding inconsistent/invalidating evidence is so much harder. Confirming one rabbit fossil in the pre-Cambrian destroys current evolutionary theory. With "design"? No problem.