Comparative anatomy also becomes a non-issue today as an argument in favor of Darwinian evolution.
This issue only has relevance if we start with the materialistic program of small-step, continuous biological development, one new and different cell-type at a time.
Once we admit into the discussion the evidence of forward leaps in nature that produce end-point fit and function at the first introduction of new architectural body-plans and lifestyle habits, this requires blocks of new and different cell-types in grouped clusters that in practical terms transcends above materialistic causations.
That Darwin would propose the comparative anatomy of similar features as an argument for gradual continuity reveals a mindset limited to the factors of distance traveled in terms of beneficial features, divided by measurable time within our four-dimensional reality.
This approach will not allow for the possibility of blocks of cell-types in grouped clusters as the explanation for the vast diversity of life, because this entertains the input of information by a timeless Mind/Being who can only be identified through circumstantial evidence, curiously being the same type of evidence used by Darwin.
Adding blocks of cell-types in grouped clusters still maintains true relationships, just not according to the worldview of naturalistic materialism.
As has been said elsewhere in this book, adding new genetic information in blocks of grouped clusters to effectuate fit and function, is entirely consistent with common descent.
The accurately generous thing to say about Darwin’s use of comparative anatomy as an argument in favor of macroevolution is that it was close but still off-target.
The same can be said for many scientific hypotheses at their inception.
Today we can save ourselves a lot of time by side-stepping all of the arguments put forward in the last 160-plus years of Darwinism regarding the importance of comparative anatomy…either confirming or not confirming the small-step, gradual continuity of common descent.
Agatha Christie may type her book Murder on the Orient Express one letter at a time, but her daily writing output of 500-1,000 words or more is created as a block of grouped story-telling information.
In tract housing construction, the first-floor wall framing proceeds one 2×4 stud at a time, but daily progress is evaluated on the number of houses having the first-floor wall framing completed as a grouped output.
When we look at the natural living world, why would we not recognize the same presence of intelligent designing agency in a functioning elephant that we acknowledge to exist within an automobile driving past us down the road?
The comparative anatomy of similarly common features has nothing to say whether common descent was achieved one new cell-type at a time, or by blocks of new and different cell-types introduced in grouped clusters.
What if Darwinism is wrong?
The idea of a vast amount of time for chance to produce biological diversity, is the opposite of a timeless God of the Bible downloading or switching-on the release of blocks of genetic information in width-less durations of zero time.
In terms of the Cambrian Explosion, what is the difference between biological development spread-out over ten-million years starting at 535-million years ago, or the instant introduction of new creatures fit and functional for survival in a moment of time?
I can envision new creatures initially immerging into existence at the prototype level of being 98 or 99 percent complete for fit and function, but like Darwin’s finches having the genetic capacity for mutation/selection to adapt more perfectly to changing environments.
The God of the Bible producing new creatures all at 50 to 75 percent capacity, with the remaining process of development left up to chance, does not make much sense to me.
What is not compatible in biology is not God versus science, but the materialism that requires small-step, incremental progression one cell-type at a time, versus blocks of new and different cell-types introduced in grouped clusters to produce instant fit and function within complex biodiversity and ecosystems.
If Darwinism is wrong, it could not be more wrong.
At the fundamental level of a skeletal explanatory framework, Darwinian evolution in 1859 could not be more inaccurate and misleading.
If the fossil record is one of sudden appearance, the longevity of unchanging stasis, and again the sudden disappearance of extinction, then the concept of gradually increasing complexity using the accumulation of functional features to produce the diversity of life we see today, is not factually evident.
Why can’t an elephant or a finch-bird be derived from an amoeba through chance spread-out over even an eternity of time?
This requires a coordinated series of complex, specified, and coherently integrated blocks of genetic informational inputs, that mesh somehow within the counter-productive realities of sudden appearance, the unchanging longevity of stasis, and the sudden disappearance through extinction.
These are two dichotomies that are irreconcilable in a materialistic program, but easily understood within the program of a free-will thinking, divine Creator introducing and then removing life-forms according to His will, while maintaining ever-increasing complexity through the gradual incline of new and different cell-types to support new architectural body-plans and their accompanying lifestyle habits.