[VadeRetro]

So Sarfati's I-Want-to-be-a-Sock-Puppet-for-creationism service doesn't like evolutionary developmental biology, or "evo-devo." It's a hot area whether the YEC crowd thinks it's Haeckel Redux or not.

You have not shown that Futyma's college-level textbook is misrepresenting Haeckel's drawings, only that they "DO" appear there. Many sources on Haeckel do not accuse him of fraud. Creationists can be relied upon to do so, but creationists are lousy sources for history or science. It is very hard to prove intent even when someone consistently distorts. I often wonder how many creationists know better (i.e, are dishonest), versus how many are just nuts.

[Jael]

They are still using the fraud Haeckel drawings and you think that is just fine and dandy. What a laugh riot. No science there.

[Con X-Poser]

<< You have not shown that Futyma's college-level textbook is misrepresenting Haeckel's drawings, only that they "DO" appear there. >>

That was my claim in the first place - which you said was wrong.

*** *** ***

X: In 2003 – believe it or not – Haeckel’s drawings still appear in many high school and college textbooks. Among them are: "Evolutionary Biology", Douglas J. Futuyma (Third Edition, Sunderland, MA: Sinauer Associates, 1998).

V: Regarding the Futuyma book, I was immediately suspicious since Futuyma is too much the leading light to be so out of touch. So I Yahoo!ed around and it didn't take long.

The charge seems to have have a lot of life in creationist publications. Jonathan Wells said it prominently in Icons of Evolution, and that was wrong.

X: YOU were wrong. It IS in the book.

<< Many sources on Haeckel do not accuse him of fraud. >>

Do you?

They certainly SHOULD accuse him of fraud if they are honest.