JohnRay
quote:
"Evolution does not predict that atavisms will be present, but what evolution does predict is the pattern of atavisms if they DO exist."
Actually evolution does not predict a pattern. There could be zero, one, or many atavisms according to evolution. I think what you are trying to say is that there are some non existent atavisms that evolution predicts will not occur (eg, wings). We don't observe wings on people, and evolution predicts that we should not observe wings on people. This is hardly a meaningful prediction.
Evolution theory does not predict that atavisms will occur, or how many. What it does predict is the
type or pattern of atavism that can occur. The prediction is that an atavism can only appear if it is of a feature carried by an ancestor species. You are trying to make the argument sound circular, which it is not.
quote:
On the other hand, development is not conserved but this is never counted against evolution by the prediction pundits. So it's funny how these "predictions" get tallied up. If I didn't know better I'd think there might be some bias in the counting.
What do you mean by "development is not conserved"?
For Whigs admit no force but argument.
™ Version 4.2
