Quote
I don't think it is "creationist foolishness" at all. If Häckel & co. claim the baby becomes successively different animals, how does one reconcile the failure of these animals to turn up when pregnancies go wrong? Not just human pregnancies - all mammals were thought to pass through stages. But no dog's ever produced a fish. How obvious is that!?
But Hackel's hypothesis didn't say that. It was about the similarities between the embryos of different species and how they diverged from each other during development. Hackel's mistake was that he hypothesized that the similarities were indicators of actual evolution going on in the embryonic development. Additionally, he "fudged" the drawings of early stage embryos to support the theory and over-emphasize similarities.

Quote
Did this just "slip by" without notice, or did people "let it slide" due to a desire to believe the untrue? Or is it a case of "everything's okay now that we know better"? A blunder like that is inexcusable. It's not okay. If it was accepted, it could only be accepted by idiots and liars.
Have you evidence that says otherwise?
See evidence above and at: Wikipedia

Since your understanding of Hackel's hypothesis is incorrect, any subsequent accusation of stupidity and gullibility on the part of evolutionists is invalid.

I find it increasingly difficult to believe that you can continually make mistakes in understanding of this magnitude. A simple google search resulted in the correct information displayed right in front of me. I had to really dig deep to find that one physics student's artwork and poetic description of the development of the human fetus.
This is another indicator to me that you are purposefully providing any information no matter how obscure in order to make creationists look bad. Have you no shame?

A faith that connot survive collision with the truth is not worth many regrets. -- Arthur C. Clarke