I will try to address this Haeckel issue in such a way that it remains on topic. Unfortunately I am repeating the answers to this that have been brought up over and over again. I am teaching a class on evolution this semester, so I printed out and read in detail the Richardson paper you keep bringing up.
First of all, have you read this paper? Because your summaries of it do not bear out the conclusions you keep mentioning. YES it is true that Haeckel exaggerated those characters most similar to support his recapitulation theory. And he was caught for it. By researchers at that time. But at no time has his 'fraud' been used in textbooks over and over again for 130 years. The science of embryology has been used. But they are NOT the same thing. Do you understand this? You are using every depiction of similar embryonic stages between taxa (which do exist) as evidence that 'evos' are perpetuating a fraud. No textbook is preaching recapitulation today or for 130 years. And if there is one they are seriously in error. They are teaching that there are homologies in embryonic development.
The Richardson paper is showing that there is great flexibility in embryonic morphology. That even though there are highly conserved developmental phases (such as development of somites, development of pharyngeal pouches) that these do not follow a strict phylogenetic pattern between craniate classes. It is not the purpose of the paper to discredit the science of embryonic homology. In fact it strongly supports this idea within classes. That is mammals do have a strongly conserved phylotype in the embryo, but that it differs from the like in fish, reptiles, etc.
You are confusing several completely different points:
1) Haeckel exaggerated the similarities between embryos (BAD on his part)
2) Haeckel advocated a recapitulation theory dependent upon a phylotypic phase (wrong, but good science and shown to be wrong by his peers as it should be)
3) Comparison of embryos of craniates show remarkable similarity. Texbooks may have used Haeckel's drawings because they were available but most did not. Those that did were in the wrong BUT Haeckel's drawings were not so far off as to be misleading. The texbook we use for our intro has photographs of the same assemblages and the conclusions students draw is the same. Have you looked at those?
4) All craniates go through similar developmental phases, and those are tied to gene homologies. What differs is that those phases express different genes at different times and those traits may be linked to morphological characters of the adults. What is important is that ALL craniates have seven pharyngeal pounches. The first pair of those pouches grow into the jaws of most craniates (but not the lampreys and hagfish). The posterior pairs become the gills arches of most fishes and the earbones and other structures in tetrapods.
5) (And this is most important to you Randman) Recapitulation is not the same as embryonic homology. Haeckel's theory, Haeckel's 'fraud' has not been presented as fact for 130 years. Haeckel's work makes him the father of embryology even though we can say "shame" for the biased drawings. Recapitulation was falsified in Haeckel's time, the science of embryology and the concept of a phylotypic phase remained as a valid topic of discussion.
Now to insure this is on topic. I find it very amusing Randman that you are so quick to slam all 'evo' papers as propaganda and fraud as in the OP. But you cite (at least the closing paragraphs, I still am unsure if you read it or if you did if you understood it) the Richardson paper as if it is some kind of Gospel. This paper is very intriguing, and very supportive of the idea that embryology supports evolution. It is suggesting only that selective factors of later ontological phases may be reflected in embryos. Do you see the difference?
™ Version 4.2
