For thousands of years, biologists/naturalists have classified

1. For thousands of years, biologists/naturalists have classified animals and plants on the basis of homologies even without recognizing the evolutionary significance. Provide two examples of such groupings and provide a list of the homologies used to support each group membership. Some biologists have proposed that classification based on homology is the only way to create valid animal groups. Argue both for and against this stance

2. Identify an example of an attack on homology as a support for evolutionary theory. Is there scientifically verifiable support of the criticism? If so explain it, if not indicate how the criticism falls short.

3. Consider the flipper of a manatee and the fin of tiktaalik. Are these structure homologous, analogous, or both? Explain.

4. Are there non-scientific explanations of what appear to be homologies? Describe at least one and indicate what distinguishes it from a scientific approach.

5. Provide an example of a structure that was one thought to be homologous but is now understood to be analogous. Should this erode confidence in evolutionary theory or build it or neither? Support your answer.

6. Provide two examples of homology that were not discussed in the lecture or in your readings. What support is provided that indicates these are examples of Descent with Modification?