[Virginia-American]

No, Haeckel said that at some point, mammal embryos really are reptilian, albeit adapted to the womb.

Compare his hypothesis with von Baer's laws.

This latest research is showing that some parts of the embryo resemble some parts of a reptile (or fish, etc)

As I've said above, there are some really interesting phenomena here, such as the marsupian egg shells and teeth.

The fact that Haeckel's theory is false doesn't make these facts go away, and any theory of biological development has to explain them. The ToE does so, creationism and ID, as usual, have nothing of substance to add.

[tallhappy]

No, Haeckel said that at some point, mammal embryos really are reptilian, albeit adapted to the womb. Compare his hypothesis with von Baer's laws. This latest research is showing that some parts of the embryo resemble some parts of a reptile (or fish, etc)

It seems you are saying this is Haeckelism without the weird mysticism.

And, on the other topic,

The ToE does so

How does the ToE explain them?