You want some evidence that can be used to prove evolutionists throw away evidence that doesn't fit? How about the 'evidence' that the rocks from Mt. St. Helens are 2 million years old? Someone on another forum brought this up and someone replied that the test doesn't work for young dates (something similar to this anyway). If the test is useless for yound dates, what grounds can we have any certainty that it works for longer periods of time? It seems like the younger the rock, the more accurate, not the other way around.
How about the fradulent data Ernst Haeckel decided to make up (with 'proof') about how fetal organisms all go through prior stages in evolution before being born? What he thought was the human fetal gill turned out to be our ear. Do you think this is ever mentioned in a Biology class talking about how we evolved from some other organism? Trust me, it is not. How about another one.
Another example is the peppered moth experiments in England. People try to say that this proves evolution. All it does is show that the moths have alleles for a light body and a dark body. Both alleles were present before the pollution. Both alleles were present after the pollution. Evolutionists start out by describing evolution in this experiment as a change in what alleles are expressed, and then mid-argument switch the meaning of evolution to speciation. The two moths were still one species. Neither moth became a dragonfly. Seems to me changing the definition of a word in the middle of a discussion is the same thing as throwing evidence away.