Why Lie? (Re: Evolution frauds and hoaxes)

I think the evo side is fully conceding that Haeckel's drawings and theories were wrong, and that the drawings (and theories?) persisted in textbooks far longer than they should have.But in the total scheme of biological evolutionary theory, Haeckel's input was nothing more than a speck. Are you trying to push the thinking that "If part of the theory has been shown to be wrong, how can we trust any of the theory?"Moose

From your souce:

quote:

---

Based on this single tooth, reconstructions of Nebraska man's head and body were drawn.

---

Was it the scientists that were doing these reconstructions? I don't think so. As pointed out up-thread, it was some non-scientist illustrator that did it. You and your source are blowing these illustrations WAY out of their real significance.If some science fiction writer take a valid scientific concept and then goes off on some wild speculation about it that turns out to have no connection to reality, are you going to blame the originators of the valid original concept for this disconnection from reality? I certainly hope not. But that seems to be what your source and you are doing with "Nebraska Man".Hope I'm not part of a great redundancy in replying to your message.Moose