what don’t you get about the fact that i do not write for that publication? I NEVER said human and octopus eyes are homologous- again-
The site is making the point, (which you failed to bold) that evolutionists have bastardized the term homology in order to fit conflicting evidences into their failed hypothesis of evolution. The classical definition of homology was simply structures that were similar are homologous- Darwin came along and arbitrarily changed the definition because he couldn’t explain common ancestry between wholly dissimilar species- But simply changing the definition doesn’t jive with scientific fact, and his new definition had several serious flaws in it- which you can read for yourself in the following link:
https://trueorigin.org/homology.php
Yes, I do "get" that you posted a quote, not your own words.
But I still see no place where you've disagreed with those words, and if you do disagree, why even post them?
So in that context, those words appear to be your opinion, even if you didn't yourself write it.
Bob434: "The classical definition of homology was simply structures that were similar are homologous-
Darwin came along and arbitrarily changed the definition because he couldn’t explain common ancestry between wholly dissimilar species-"
Once again, as I see it, the distinctions between "homologous" and "analogous" are, simply, the degree to which two similar looking biological organs are, in fact, similar.
For example, in closely related mammals many organs are homologous if not outright identical.
By contrast, the eyes of octopus and humans, while remarkably similar in appearance, are actually quite different, especially at DNA levels.
So they are analogous.
I also "get" that you think some kind of... well, misdeed is being committed against true science by Darwin & Co., but precisely what that "misdeed" might be I'm still as clueless now as on my first response to you above.