and yes, that was my point. If that was key point re homology, then all things creatures would be descendants of ALL creatures. I hope we can agree at least that that is not the case. And are you so insecure that you must stick somewhere in your answers that whoever you are answering must not be “as intelligent as you are” (cursory reading). Seriously, first try to understand what someone says. Then remember that no matter how stupid they may be, that doesn’t make your answer any more intelligent. As to homology, I am quite familiar with it and it’s involvement in cladistics and phylogenetic trees, and the inherent weakness of it. Cladistics cannot do what some claim it can, explain the absence of ancestors, primarily because it presupposes the very thing it attempts to prove. Also, if cladistics analysis is interpreted as a series of historical events, then evolutionary biologists are forced to draw lengthy lines of ancestry (those gaps and lines I referred to in an earlier post) that are then “ghost lineages”, which, rather than solving why fossils are missing simply creates more fossils that need to be found. Plus, any given group of scientist may use competing histories of life, some of which are bound to conform to one of the various cladograms. Therefore cladistics cannot establish, in principle, any particular evolutionary history.