I recently read an April 2015 article by Casey Luskin that claims Haeckel's fradulent embryo drawings were still found in Biology textbooks.
Those "scientists" are never going to give up on Haeckel. His fraud is about all the "proof" they have. In the following segment, Ken Miller, co-author (with Joe Levine) of a popular Biology text book, gives the impression he has not known of Haeckel's fraud for most, if not all of his career, even though it was exposed about a century ago:
Found on Miller's and Levine's web site is this statement:
"This idea has been pushed back into the news recently by the news that Haeckel's drawings of embryonic similarities were not correct. British embryologist Michael Richardson and his colleages published an important paper in the August 1997 issue of Anatomy & Embryology showing that Haeckel had fudged his drawings to make the early stages of embryos appear more alike than they actually are! As it turns out, Haeckel's contemporaries had spotted the fraud during his lifetime, and got him to admit it. However, his drawings nonetheless became the source material for diagrams of comparative embryology in nearly every biology textbook, including ours!" [Miller & Levine, "Haeckel and his Embryos - A Note on Textbooks." 1997]
Is Miller saying that Haeckel's fraudulent drawings would still be in his textbooks if Richardson and colleagues had not pushed Haeckel back into the news? Is he saying he knew Haeckel's drawings were frauds, but he placed them in his text books anyway? Would you buy a used car from that fellow?
Wait, it gets better. This is Miller promoting artist drawings from incomplete fossil skeletons as "whale transition fossils". He is not only promoting it, he is arrogantly trying to make the creation scholars look foolish:
The problem is, even with 1,000 such fossils, in varying degrees of "transition", that would not be proof of macroevolution.
Since Miller's clown show it has been revealed one of the transitions was highly questionable due to improper eye placement, as well as uncertainty about the existence of a blowhole. The digger of another transition had imagined key body parts to make it appear to fit the line [note: these videos are found on the BRT "Age of the Earth" page]:
But, like Haeckel's embryos, fradulent evolution icons are hard to get rid of:
This one has removed Rodhocetus, but retained Ambulocetus:
https://www.amnh.org/exhibitions/whales-giants-of-the-deep/whale-evolutionRev
