Octogeny recapitulating Phylogeny has been discredited for probably over thirty years, now.
Try "ontogeny". You'll have a better chance of seeming like you know what you're talking about if you don't get the basic terminology wrong.
Furthermore, his point does not rest on recapitulation, so you either misunderstood his point, or are engaging in a red herring non sequitur.
Now would you care to engage his actual point, or not?
Ah. The lovely condescending attitude of evolutionists. Yes, the word is ontogeny. Forgive me for not having my biology textbook at hand while writing it up. I assume you got 100% on every paper you ever wrote. I am truly humbled by your greatness.
The original poster's statement was that the tail on a human embryo was proof of macroevolution. That is the PRECISE and EXACT point made by the ontogeny argument; that the stages of embryonic development modeled the evolutionary history of that organism. I did address his argument by pointing out that the science he so boldly proclaims is at the very core of evolution has abandoned that argument.
To turn your argument back on you, I might claim that using valid scientific examples would give him a better chance of seeming like he knows what he's talking about. But that would be rude, so I instead politely pointed out that the theory was discredited.