What relevance does a 100 year old controversy, long since resolved, have on the current article?
The fact that you can't describe the errors in Haeckel's drawings, as compared to photograps, indicates the errors are rather small.
Creationists aren't interested at all in the 100 year old scientific dispute. They don't want the drawings displayed because they support common descent. The problem is, that when the drawings are corrected, they still suport common descent.
It's obvious they've made up their minds that ontogeny IS Haeckel.
I answered your question in post #54:
I have no quarrel with the general theory of evolution, but I think it's worth noting that the "ontology recapitulates phylogeny" theory has been supported with a whole lot of wishful thinking as well as willful fraud. I cannot help but wonder if the present "study" has included one or the other.You know, I'm very sorry I wandered onto your turf. Just keep harassing and ridiculing people who raise the very slightest questions about what you're saying. After a while (a hundred more years, maybe), you'll have browbeaten everyone into submission.