Homology and Analogy. A Critical Review of the Meanings and Implications of these Concepts in Biology

Publisher Website
Google Scholar
Abstract
The original and necessary concept in homology is essential structural similarity. The secondary meaning for homology of common phylogenetic origin has no place in serial homology and a role of secondary importance in special homology. Since Darwin, biologists have tended to become a cult of ancestor worshippers to the extent that they even define homology as any similarity "due to ancestry" ignoring the fact that all inferences regarding ancestry must be based on the amounts and kinds of essential similarities revealed in their studies. The result of this misplaced emphasis is to divert the attention of biologists from their main task, which is to develop the most objective criteria possible for the classification of organisms based on knowledge of their essential natures. The current inflationary tendency to extend homology to cover physiol. resemblances which are "due to common ancestry" is unfortunate. Homology has implied essential structural similarity for a century and a half. In the absence of fossils, phylogenetic interpretation is impossible to verify, and there are no fossil functions. Obviously intrinsic functional mechanism cannot be the ultimate test of homology in most cases. The mechanisms of serial and special homology are significantly different in their mode of operation and the 2 kinds of homology have a vastly different biological significance. A clear understanding in regard to the meanings, mechanisms and limitations of our knowledge about homology is necessary for further progress in systematic biology.

This publication has 7 references indexed in Scilit: