Quote:

No. The top row is Ernest Haeckels fraudulent drawings which Doctor Richardson exposed. Richardson is Englishman and a real buddy of evolution, perhaps you should go out and visit him at the Leiden University right there in Netherlands, ask him yourself about embryo similarities, I am sure he would make time to tell you.



I've actually had a guest lecture about evolution from Michael Richardson once and his story really is more or less the same. He's not even talking about a 'fraudulent' drawing, more so an 'inaccurate' drawing.

Those pictures are rather bad for comparing anyways, not only is ónly the human species featured on both pictures, all in all Haeckels isn't that far off at all considering his 1834-1919 life. You do know that his drawings are from 1874? You do know Haeckels simply cutted species open to look and made drawings (that can get rather messy)? You do know Michael Richardson is from 1963 or so and used a x-ray photography technique for making those pictures? You can hardly call it a fraud (a matter of details), apart from that Haeckel wasn't quite wrong either. 'Early tailbud embryo' is rather unspecified, when you read the article that accompanies it, you'll see that it's not very contradicting at all. It's just a bit more specified and earlier in the stage.

Quote:

At an early stage embryos look similar.This is a matter of fact



Indeed, as other high resolution photos made with the same technique show.

Quote:

Even though Richardson explains that he does not agree with above claim



He does agree, he's just skeptic about morphological features and whether or not that means anything when comparing cross-species... he doesn't disagree with his 'own' pictures,

Cheers

PHeMoX, Innervision Software (c) 1995-2008

For more info visit: Innervision Software