"Ontogeny Recapitulates Phylogeny"(ORP) - Is It True ??

Some people claim "the Biogenetic Principle" is invalid.    
They cite such "evidence" as Haekel's well known    
illustrations of animals at the embryo and fetal stages..    
He doctored them to make the embryos of reptiles,birds, mammals    
look more alike (almost the same thing) than they really are.    
   
Then there's some process of development which originally went a,b,c,    
But in gestation the sequence of the the three layers goes a,c,b,    
But is that really enuff to negate all the evidence in favor of ORP ??    
   
Our English alphabet comes from the Greek and Roman alphabets    
Which in turn evolved from the Phoenician or Hebrew originals..    
The fact that in the Hebrew alphabet the V and the Z come before the K,L,M,N, etc    
(While in the present-day English alphabet they (V and Z) follow them)  
Does not invalidate the truth that English alphabet derives from the Hebrew.  
   
Likewise the reversal in gestation of the sequence of development
of the 3 layers that occurred during evolution (mentioned above)  
Doesn't by itself amount to a real threat to the validity/authority of ORP,
Which serves as such a glorious, living, breathing proof that Evolution is true --
THEISTIC Evolution, of course, not the godless, naturalistic counterfeit.  
   
 Why should human gestation mimic phylogenetic development,  
changes going all the way back to almost the very beginning ??  
What can we compare it (Ontogeny Recapitulates Phylogeny) to ?  
Suppose the second edition of a book contains a lot of revisions of the text.  
You could print the (almost) original version with the revised sections    
Being put at the back of the book under the heading "addenda."  
Where the words "she has" have been replaced by "they have,"  
The initials s. and h. could used instead of the original words.  
You might say, Why not just get rid of the words being replaced?  
Why keep them around in terms of their initials ?  
 Is it a labor-saving device, perhaps?
 
The gill slits of an embryonic/fetal fish form in the neck  
of a human embryo but then change over to other functions.
That reminds me that male fetuses start out as females  
For the male gene doesn't kick in right away.
When it, for some reason, remains unexpressed,
The body stays on course and a woman is the result.
 
Could it be that if the gene that reverses/diverts the development of gill slits in humans
stays, for some reason, unexpressed that the human embryo or fetus would  
continue on course and so the gill slits of an adult fish would become manifest ?
Would that deformity result in "spontaneous abortion" (which is quite common)?
Dear reader, please comment and tell me - if you know this stuff. Thanx.