I have no idea whether the "fishing lure" has been removed or not. I can't imagine considering this of such major focus/importance, but can see why it might be for the evolutionist. There are so many fossils available to look at, yet a case of mistaken identity in amber is THE one that catches the eye of the evolutionist. This was the same one two other evolutionist members brought up on another thread here also. I'm not sure whether it served the desired outcome of shifting focus from the rest - but certainly I found it very revealing.

To me, it seems rather trivial in comparison with the rest of the abundant examples of fossils displayed on that website. And I dare say probably won't do much to overshadow them

I am not sure whether I have kept up as much as others with the modern/new definitions of evolution. I gave one example of an experiment in one article. I'm sure they are plenty more. I did mention that those who wish to find out more about this Father of Genetics, can surely google and search for themselves.

His experiments appear to show that though there is great potential for variation, even selective breeding has not been able to turn one kind into another. There does appear to be limits, even with the great variety within kinds.