Is talkorigins.org a propoganda site?

In summary, evolution has produced a number of changes in the embryonic stages of vertebrates including:
1. Differences in body size
2. Differences in body plan (for example, the presence or
absence of paired limb buds)
3. Changes in the number of units in repeating series
such as the somites and pharyngeal arches
4. Changes in the pattern of growth of different fields
(allometry)
5. Changes in the timing of development of different
fields (heterochrony)
These modifications of embryonic development are difficult to reconcile with the idea that most or all vertebrate clades pass through an embryonic stage that is highly resistant to evolutionary change. This idea is implicit in Haeckel’s drawings, which have been used to substantiate two quite distinct claims. First, that differences between species typically become more apparent at late stages. Second, that vertebrate embryos are virtually identical at earlier stages. This first claim is clearly true. Our survey, however, does not support the second claim, and instead reveals considerable variability - and evolutionary lability - of the tailbud stage, the purported phylotypic stage of vertebrates. We suggest that not all developmental mechanisms are highly constrained by conserved developmental mechanisms such as the zootype. Embryonic stages may be key targets for macro evolutionary change

Modern theories of development and evolution propose something that fits the observations, and that Wells cannot easily dismiss. Genes can be modified to act at virtually any point in development, so the theoretical constraint imposed by Haeckel is nonexistent. Variations between species at the earliest stages were a problem for Haeckel, but are not incompatible at all with modern developmental biology. There isn't even a requirement for absolute morphological identity at the phylotypic stage. As Wells points out, Michael Richardson has been identifying variation within that stage between species.