no one’s claiming no similarity. The point was the similarity was significantly exaggerated, often by altering the drawings. This is no longer disputed, nor is it disputed that homology no longer carries the weight it once did and never should have. Similarity does not prove descent or necessary linkage. Again, the points being made, in response to posters’ comment about artistic license and consistency, that the sciences are often quite slow (and in this case, a century slow) acknowledging error or fraud, at least in a public sense. I understand the embarrassment hoaxes and fraud can bring, so I am sympathetic. The point at hand was the ark exhibit made it clear that artistic license was involved. Seemed trite to me to then make big issue of it’s usage. Thus the insinuation that one should remove the log from one’s own eye before making a big issue of a splinter in someone elses.