[js1138]

For the record, I've asked a dozen times for someone to point out the specific inaccuracies in the drawings and point out how the inaccuracies discredit common descent.

I have photographs I can post if you distrust drawings.

[Tribune7]

Haeckel's drawings. Note the fish is on the far left.

A photo of the embryolic development of a fish from Miller (as in uber evo Ken Miller) and Levine's revised textook in which they attempt to account for Haeckel's falsehood appearing in previous editions.

Haeckel lied. It was known he lied for over a century. Yet textbooks continued to publish his lie as fact for well over a century. (Some might still be doing it, although there is no debate from anyone that they should not be.)

point out how the inaccuracies discredit common descent.

If a textbook author publishes as fact information long (and easily) discredited, one wonders as to motive.

[metmom]

And how is it that something looking similar to something else at an early stage of development *proves* or supports common descent? If a creature has a head and four appendages, it will look similar until it develops it's identifying characteristics but that certainly doesn't mean that it's an indication of a common ancestor as much as an indication of common shape.