Why did Haeckel lie about these embryology forgeries claiming they supported evolution?

Why do evolutionist lie to support their theory

because the truth would crumble the theory

Somehow I doubt you've ever picked up a textbook in your life. But here's a clue, gomer...current evolutionary theory does not stand or fall based on what Haeckel published, so just like most creationists, you're barking up the wrong tree. Haeckel's drawings might be found in some textbooks, but mainly as part of the historical sections. Modern textbooks also show the classic old drawing of nested homunculi in sperm, but so what? Such drawings are of historical interest. Haeckel got some details wrong--and he may or may NOT have intended to defraud, but that's beside the point-- the basic similarity of early embryonic forms between species has been repeatedly confirmed since his time. You're pi$ $ing into the wind, pal.

And talk about fraud--your creationist website uses the earliest stage of a fish alongside a much later developmental stage for the other species.

More creationist lies. Haeckel didn't lie, that was his understanding. There was no intention to defraud.

Creationists depend on the ignorance of their intended audience. Sounds like you fit right in. That's why they can pretend those drawings are still taught as fact. No one in the intended audience has ever seen a biology textbook so the creationist liars can say whatever they want.

Looking at your referenced website's sources, I strongly doubt that it is anything close to being objective or accurately relating the facts.

Suffice it to say, Haeckel's drawings are not needed to provide evidence for evolution - there simply is too much more and better evidence that supports it.

"Embryos do reflect the course of evolution, but that course is far more intricate and quirky than Haeckel claimed. Different parts of the same embryo can even evolve in different directions. As a result, the Biogenetic Law was abandoned, and its fall freed scientists to appreciate the full range of embryonic changes that evolution can produce—an appreciation that has yielded spectacular results in recent years as scientists have discovered some of the specific genes that control development."

He was trying to support his own theory of biogenetics...... The biogenetic law is not Darwinism or neo-Darwinism, however. It is not part of any modern evolutionary theory... thanks for the old info bro....Von Baer pointed out those in the 1820's... Adam Sedgwick, 1889, William Garstang, 1922, Gavin de Beer, 1958, William Ballard, 1976, Stephen J. Gould, 1977, Richard Elinson, 1987, Jane Oppenheimer, 1987, Michael Richardson, 1995, Stephen J. Gould, 2000 and hey where not in my texbook by the way....

People have known for ages that Haeckels drawings are fraudulent. Just a matter of grabbing a cheap quick picture for a textbook editor.

Please list all current modern biology textbooks that still present these drawings as factual.

Because over here in reality, SCIENTISTS figured out the inaccuracies in his work a long time ago, and quickly corrected the textbooks. That's how science works, you see. We check each others' work, and then admit to and fix mistakes when they're found. Rather than, for instance, blindly clinging to millenia-old words and refusing to reconsider anything no matter how many contradictory facts emerge. For instance.

Because he did, so what, but the interesting thing is that he was just about perfectly right about everything.

Oh boy, will you all believe everything that is posted on the internet by people who don't understand much?

Evolution is fact, it goes a lot further and a lot more in depth then this.

Please, please I beg of you, educate yourself on the facts, properly.

Why are there plastic skulls in between the ape skull and the human skull in the Smithsonian?