creationist tried to tell me embrology doesn't support evolution.

[Angrboda]

She's most likely referring to the "fraudulent" use of Ernst Haeckel's drawings of the embryological development of various species, showing remarkable similarity at certain stages, which was consonant with a view at the time that embryological development "recapitulated" or replayed the evolutionary stages of development of the species during embryological development. A few things. First, Haeckel's drawings which attracted the primary charges of fraud were those of 1868 (see Wikipedia article), not the 1874 drawings which creationists typically cite as being fraudulently repeated in modern textbooks. (The latter drawings attracted some similar controversy, but less according to substance. If you compare the 1874 drawings to modern drawings or photographs, they hold up quite well. The fact of the matter is that species do go through a stage of development in which their embryos are remarkably similar, this stage being known as the pharyngula stage, also known as the bottleneck of embryological development.) Second, the degree to which even the 1874 drawings have been represented as good science in textbooks has repeatedly been exaggerated by creationists. Of course, creationists care nothing of this, they just want to smear the integrity and credibility of evolutionary biology with any scandal they can lay their hands upon.