so there was fraud and deceit, but we now chose to call it “adjusting”. And I’m not sure why, if the similarities are as obvious as you claim them to be, this would not be an incredible argument for design. To continuously, as evolutionist do, claim accidents, random events, improbabilities, impossibilities, apparent but not real design, coincidental similarities, offer “scientific” proof of evolution when nothing about it is empirical or “scientific” continues to astound me. It’s like Dawkins said, microbiologists have to constantly remind themselves “It’s not designed. It’s not designed”, in spite of the obvious conclusion to the contrary. Perhaps one day all biologists, Dawkins included, will go missing, only to all being found standing in their driveways, staring at their cars saying “It won’t drive. It won’t drive”. Amazing where facts and logic halt, and fantasy begins. And again I say, it only shows the dearth of current scientific evidences for evolution when science is busily dusting off old disproven claims, or trying to salvage discredited examples, and representing them as something new, or a discovery decades ahead of it’s time. Strikes me as vacuous and banal, but hey, desperate times call for desperate measures.