Jonathan Wells, a biologist with Ph.Ds from Yale and UC Berkeley, writes about one example of fake evidence here:
Charles Darwin thought that “by far the strongest” evidence that humans and fish are descended from a common ancestor was the striking similarity of their early embryos. According to Darwin, the fact that “the embryos of the most distinct species belonging to the same class are closely similar, but become, when fully developed, widely dissimilar… reveals community of descent.” 2 To illustrate this, German Darwinist Ernst Haeckel made some drawings in the 1860s to show that the embryos of vertebrates (fish, amphibians, reptiles, birds and mammals) look almost identical in their earliest stages.
But Haeckel faked his drawings. Not only do they distort vertebrate embryos by making them appear more similar than they really are (in a way that Stephen Jay Gould wrote “can only be called fraudulent” 3), but they also omit classes and stages that do not fit Darwin’s theory. Most significantly, Haeckel omitted the earliest stages, in which vertebrate embryos are strikingly different from each other. The stage he portrayed as the first is actually midway through development. Yet according to Darwin’s logic, early dis-similarities do not provide evidence for common ancestry.
Haeckel used his faked drawings to support not only Darwinian evolution, but also his own “Biogenetic Law,” which stated that embryos pass through the adult stages of their ancestors in the process of development.
…Haeckel’s drawings were exposed as fakes by his own contemporaries, and his Biogenetic Law was thoroughly discredited by 20th century biologists. It is now generally acknowledged that early embryos never resemble the adults of their supposed ancestors. A modern version of recapitulation claims that early embryos resemble the embryos of their ancestors, but since fossil embryos are extremely rare, this claim is little more than speculation based on the assumption that Darwin’s theory is true.
Now the standard response from Darwinists: no textbooks are still using the fraudulent embryo images.
You can see the actual faked pictures from the modern textbooks here. These textbooks were being produced as late as 2004, even though the fraud was detected in the 1800s! Is this the vaunted self-correction of science, or science being twisted to support social and political goals?
And this excerpt from that article is interesting:
Some Darwinists continue to deny that there has been any misuse of Haeckel in recent times. If that is the case, why did Stephen Jay Gould attack how textbooks use Haeckel in 2000? Gould wrote: “We should… not be surprised that Haeckel’s drawings entered nineteenth-century textbooks. But we do, I think, have the right to be both astonished and ashamed by the century of mindless recycling that has led to the persistence of these drawings in a large number, if not a majority, of modern textbooks!” (emphasis added) Similarly, in 1997, the leading embryologist Michael K. Richardson lamented in the journal Anatomy and Embyology that “Another point to emerge from this study is the considerable inaccuracy of Haeckel’s famous figures. These drawings are still widely reproduced in textbooks and review articles, and continue to exert a significant influence on the development of ideas in this field.” (emphases added)
Here is a link to the peer-reviewed journal Science, where there is an article talking about the fraudulent embryo drawings. Yes – the drawings really are fraudulent.
And finally, Casey Luskin has a new post up at Evolution News that lists all the textbooks that contain the fraudulent drawings. One is dated 2013! The drawings just keep getting recycled over and over as a “proof” of evolution.
WINTERY KNIGHT 
These were one of the largest factors in solidifying my a-theism during my college years.
LikeLike
Yes, I have seen embryonic comparisons used in textbooks that I used in college and in textbooks I taught from in college biology courses. They don’t usually use Haeckel’s faked drawings, but they do have the same comparison between embryos of different vertebrate species and say that similarities in development support common ancestry. So they’re still using the same falsehoods, even though they’ve been thoroughly debunked over and over. In fact, general biology texts use several false claims and also several others that are misleading or that don’t distinguish between creation and evolution frameworks as their primary evidence for evolution. I guess indoctrination wins out over accuracy.
LikeLike
I should also point out that, even if common ancestry were true, there is no reason that one would expect an organism to repeat its evolutionary history during development. If organisms did develop over millions of years by slow, gradual, undirected processes from a common ancestor, there is still no reason that an animal should “remember” that process from its far-removed ancestors. Genetics doesn’t involve remembering history and repeating it. So, really, it’s a stupid premise to begin with. It’s every bit as stupid as Lamarckian evolution where people were thought to have a weak arm if their father broke his arm and so on. But, of course, there was never any good evidence for it either, in spite of the number of people who blindly repeated it (and still do).
LikeLike
This drawing showed up in a biology lecture in a class last year. I laughed out loud when it popped up on the screen.
LikeLike
I laughed out loud at the thought of you laughing out loud. But just be aware that this is an expulsion-worthy offence in most secular schools, because scientific inquiry.
LikeLike
Couldn’t help it. But I was ready to demonstrate the fact that the “drawings” were false, and were known to be false for 150 years.
LikeLike
It’s amazing that people believe this. I think the only way that people could believe this is if they face coercion from the red marking pen. If you take this out of the school and into a debate, nobody would believe it.
LikeLike
For real.
LikeLike
I never seen these in my biology class
LikeLike
As we lose more and more liberties, it occurs to me that one day everything will be illegal except abortion.
LikeLike
And that will be compulsory.
LikeLike
My wife recently checked out a book from the library as an assist for our kids biology studies. First thing I did was look for the vertebrate embryos. Found ’em, too. Book published in 200.
The discussion and diagram are one of the five “Evidences for Evolution” section and the entire “evidence” of comparative embryology is three sentences, along with the drawings.
When you know something is based on a fraud and it is presented as evidence, it makes you wonder about the other evidence as well.
No one can know everything. All of us turn to “experts” (who disagree with other “experts” in their field) to help us formulate what we choose to believe. We all live by faith in “experts” to a huge degree.
This is why it’s important to know your experts as well as the information that your experts are giving you. It’s also why listening to debates can be so helpful. Reading a book by Bart Ehrman will give you a one-sided picture, because he’s not dealing with any real challenges to his ideas in a book (particularly his popular works). He controls the narrative. But like the proverb says, “The first to present his case seems right, until another comes forward to question him.”
LikeLike
What was the date on that book, please (clearly this century)?
LikeLike
Fat fingers. Sorry. The book was published in 2000.
LikeLike