Haeckel's Lie (APRIL FOOLS!)

Ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny. Possibly the most famous phrase ever to be heard as an argument for evolution, Ernst Haeckel's statement has been proven to be flawed. Jonathan Wells, a former science teacher, argued against Haeckel's biogenetic law stating that first of all, the drawings are flawed and second of all, the developmental stages of the human embryo that "mimic the order of our ancestors (fish to amphibian to reptile to animal)" don't actually mimic anything (77 Coyle). According to Wells, "the chick embryo is a disk 3 to 4 millimeters in diameter which sits on top of a large yolk; while the human embryo is only about 0.05 millimeters in diameter" and "the earliest cell divisions in zebrafish, frog and chick embryos are similar except for the fact that they are unable to penetrate the yolk in fish and bird eggs; but the earliest cell divisions in humans (and all other mammals) are completely different from the other three, since one of the second cleavage planes is rotated 90° relative to the other". Further more, the cell movement during gastrulation is also quite different in humans, fish, and reptiles because "in zebrafish the cells migrate down the outside of the yolk; in frogs they migrate through a pore into the inner cavity; and in chicks and humans they move through a furrow into the hollow interior of the embryonic disk" (http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/filesDB-download.php?command=download&id=629) This only proves that the development of human embryos does not, in fact, recapitulate phylogeny as Haeckel and Coyne believe. This said, what is the actual use of the transitory embryonic kidneys if not for a record of our evolutionary history? Is it possible that these kidneys do, in fact, serve a purpose that we have not found yet? How does this discovery connect to our understanding of evolution?