Funny how you slip fact right out of your argument, perhaps it’s an issue of your deliberate ignorance
Please show any “genuine” documentation (not creation.com fabrication and BS) to show his drawings were produced to convince anyone that early embryos looked virtually identical
As it happens mammalian embryos do tend to look similar. In general terms aquatic, even amphibian embryos have a marked similarity to mammalian embryos, the key word is similar.
similar to a human embryo
Note these are photographs, not sketches.
Please show where, on improving his knowledge the drawings were not edited, really, does this advancing information retrieval constitute fraud? Or are you just a hate filled liar who has found something to latch on to and is a little short of facts?
There is no one continuing to publish those drawings in relation to biology or evolutional education, the drawing are in older books, or hyped to hell on creationist websites. Where they are published in modern books it is to show the difference in understanding between early biological sciences and modern biological sciences
Just because you are unwilling to invest in modern education is no ones fault but your own, and of course it shows in you posts.
What reasons do I have to accept your denials, lies and hatred on peer review when you are not even able to defend a 4000 years old un peer reviewed godbook of mythology and pseudo science that hypes the worlds biggest fraud and is incapable of peer review?
You are unwilling to even accept the existence of documented facts that I have shown you TWICE where evolutionary biology articles can most often (there are other sources) be found peer reviewed. You seem to be happy to lie in the face of fact by ignoring the evidence.
I am not defending the drawings, as I have already agreed they are inaccurate by today’s standards of hi resolution medical photography and 3D imaging, this is fact as shown by evolutionary scientists and modern technology/understanding, not as you claim by creatards. However for the standards of 140 years ago those drawings were acceptable. Time is the thing, the thing that creatards can never seem to get a handle on. 13.7 billion years, 4.5 billion years, 140 years, it all gets jumbled in the last 6000 years to them because facts screw up their objections
I have no tolerance for liars and the evidence shows categorically that there was no fraud. Therefore you are lying. Does lying for your belief make you hard? Does it give you an erection? Does it help you masturbate? These and deliberate ignorance are the only reasons to lie for you god.
You can always tell when a creatard is lying they always prefix there lies with either “clearly” or “obvious” meaning that they don’t actually have any evidence so need to rely on what is to them alone is clear and obvious faith.
In terms of "fraud" there is a lot of similarity between his work and the works of Schiaparelli, Burton and Percival Lowell in their sketches of the canals on Mars.
Telescope quality was still poor then by today's standards and the same goes for microscopes. And the worst those guys were accused of was being a bit too imaginative and not accounting for optical distortions.