The early embryonic similarities that supposedly demonstrate the common ancestry of the vertebrates turn out to be non-existant, while embryos of other phyla are even less similar.
So vertebrate embryos aren't similar, but embryos from other phyla are less similar? Doesn't that mean in fact that vertebrate embryos are more similar? Just making vacuous claims doesn't do anything, where is the counter evidence rebutting the mounds of embryonic developmental data showing conservation in developmental systems?
The problem is that Wells - who is not a biologist - explains it wrong.
I'm in no way suggesting Wells is right about anything but he has been a practising developmental biologist, to the extent that he got a Ph.D. on a developmental topic. Admittedly he was steered into it by the Moonies and doesn't seem to have published any actual research since then but he did do relevant research at one time.