Ad hominems are always a last ditch cry of desperation when the facts are against you.
As for your stories of embryos, none of that changes the fact that embryos are not most similar in their earliest stages so there is no ontogenic recapitulation of phylogeny after all.
Haeckel was charged with fraud at his own university.Why did Haeckel invent the story? Because he desperately wanted to find evidence to support Darwin.Darwin was utterly impressed with the fraud too.
You tell me why that nonsense has been used to fool people into becoming believers in evolution for more than a century if there's so much evidence out there?
Man, you certainly can't read.
Ad hominems are not always invalid logical arguments. We're not dealing with formal logic here, but evidence. And the credibility of evidence depends upon the credibility of the person. So if you are a shady person, your evidence is going to be taken at a much lower face value than someone else. Wells, Meyer, and the whole clan are shady people. They have consistently gotten the theory of evolution wrong or are simply out to attack it without following the rules of science (prefering to publish their "work" in mass-publication books, getting nebulous, incomplete, and wrong 'theories' into the classroom, etc).
Now then, if I had used an ad hominem towards you, insulted you or whatnot, then you might have a point. Further, I did it as a way to try and get you to look at other places aside from creationist wankery, as in, maybe something from real research centers.
Recapitulation theory has been dead since the beginning of the 1900s, disproved by scientists. Every textbook I've come across says this. They don't use the pictures to show that recapitulationis right, either.
Further, his 'evidence' was to try and support Lamarckianism, a different, falsified view of evolution. It works like this: If I work at getting strong, my offspring will be naturally strong. If giraffe stretches his neck to eat that highest leaf and gets a longer neck, she will pass that on. It's called "soft inheritance" and ever since Mendel and Darwin it's been discredited (though various people have attempted to revise it, most notably the Soviet Union in agriculture).
Now then, since you're the one making the claim that Darwin was impressed with Haeckel's recapitulation theory, why don't you find some evidence to back it up?
Fraudulent nonsense does not exist for very long in real science, and while it may be used by interested parties for their own aims (such as convincing the world that man originated in England of all places), the hoaxes are cut down very quickly and mentioned in passing.
™ Version 4.2