Well Bob, let me say again, though to you for the first time I think, that my intention was not even to comment on the actual veracity of any of the issues I brought up. It was to point out error, whatever the intent, and the hesitancy to admit it. Thus Haeckels embryos were used (and perhaps still are) for over a century after the realization that they did not represent reality, at least none outside of Haeckel’s own head. Whether he did so with malice or juuuuuussssssttttttt a bit too much artistic license no one knows. And you know, if he had put a disclaimer there saying “artist has used some license here in the reconstruction”, well then, I have no problem, Perhaps the fact that he, and the others who immediately latched onto it, did so because they believed it validated Darwins theory. We now know (or shame on us if we don’t) that homology is not the best trail to travel if scientific validity for Darwinism is what you seek. It’s not that the community (evolutionary) didn’t catch on quickly, because they did. It’s just that no one seemed to think it significant enough to remove it from textbooks. Seeing as how it was offered as a mainstay of evolutionary argument and explanation for so long, one can only wonder how far some are willing to go down that road. Isn’t “truth” relevant in the sciences? Honesty? Or do the ends justify the means. I’m just asking. Thanks for your kind post.