Yes, the only what's missing is a comma.

Since the early work of Fischer, porphyrin chemistry has evolved dramatically allowing many exotic macrocycles to be synthesised.

P.S. You can add as well another comma

Since the early work of Fischer, porphyrin chemistry has evolved dramatically, allowing many exotic macrocycles to be synthesised.

but that depends what "allowing many exotic macrocycles to be synthesised" is from you point of view: additional information ("dramatically, allowing") or crucial information ("dramatically allowing").

I'll focus on the first comma. [The second comma I mentioned is not needed (you can added the second one in case the condition mentioned above is met).]

So the first comma I want to discuss is here

Since the early work of Fischer (,) porphyrin chemistry has evolved dramatically allowing many exotic macrocycles to be synthesised.

Grammatically this sentence came from

Porphyrin chemistry has evolved dramatically since the early work of Fischer. It has allowed many exotic macrocycles to be synthesised.

Now we made inversion Since the early work of Fischer, porphyrin chemistry has evolved dramatically... From purely grammatical point of view the inversion of regular order like this one asks for an (optional) comma. (Since the early work of Fischer is an essential part of the sentence and it does not just add information to it.) One of the things to consider is the length of the group of words you added. Since the early work of Fischer is in my opinion long enough to be separated by a comma. That fact plus the fact that it came from an inversion adds in my head = a comma wouldn't be bad here.

Though the sentence is not incorrect without a comma it is definitely better with it.

Of course, that's just me.

However that was not the question. The question was whether "since" is correct. "Since" is a very good choice from many points of view: meaning, style... you shouldn't bother yourself about that "since" at all.