[Sonny M]

Here ya go.

http://www.jodkowski.pl/ip/LWitham002.html

http://www.newphys.se/elektromagnum/physics/LudwigPlutonium/File068.html

http://www.pathlights.com/ce_encyclopedia/10mut10.htm

http://www.arn.org/docs/wells/jw_iconoclast0201.htm

http://www.lns.cornell.edu/spr/2002-10/msg0044846.html

[PatrickHenry]

I read the first of those sites. It says *nothing* about Darwin faking his data. I assume the remainder of your sites are equally worthless.

[js1138]

Thereafter, each chapter looks at an icon of biological education. Two icons - evolving peppered moths and "Haeckel's embryos," which look alike - are fakes used to teach evolutionary concepts, he argues. The other icons, he says, are cynically used despite heated debate over their validity in specialized fields. These icons are: the 1953 Miller-Urey experiment, Darwin's tree of life, homology in vertebrate limbs, the Archaeopteryx fossil, Darwin's finches, the four-winged fruit fly, fossil horses, and the "ultimate icon" - human evolution.

"There is a pattern here that demands an explanation," Mr. Wells says.

There most certainly is. ;^)

[Sonny M]

By the way, another Freeper, knows what I am talking about and clarified it in post 221, and I gave back what I thought in 231, that should clarify.