quote:
You mis-read. The critical point you seem to be missing is that evolution would not be falsified if no atavisims were known, as they could be explained by gene loss, for example (a typical explanatory mechanism).
But atavisms do exist.
This is somewhat like a crime scene. Let's say that the detectives on a murder case have a suspect, a sort of scientific hypothesis. The detectives would not predict that fingerprints would be found at the crime scene, but what they would predict, using their hypothesis, is that if fingerprints are found they will be either the victims or the suspects. If another set of fingerprints are found then their hypothesis is possibly falsified.
Such is the same with atavisms. Evolution does not predict that atavisms will be present, but what evolution does predict is the pattern of atavisms if they DO exist. Atavisms do exist and they exist in a pattern consistent with the theory of evolution, just as fingerprints and other physical evidence can confirm or falsify a suspects involvement in a crime.
™ Version 4.2
