Disclaimer: While I think I'm pretty well educated in math and the physical sciences, I'm pretty much a moron in biology. Be nice to me. I read the following statement from one George Olshevsky, responding to a Creationist argument: He was responding to the claim that evolution is not a "scientific" theory because one cannot directly observe the origin of life or the processes of evolution by stating that one can use the theory to make predictions which can be confirmed. He's right, of course, but in reading this, my first thought was that the theory of evolution did not make the particular prediction he cites but was rather crafted to explain the observed progression in the fossil record. My smugness was quickly interrupted by my wondering if, in fact, that was the case. Was the fossil record well enough known when evolution was being developed that the fin/foot/arm/wing progression (to use a specific example) was a factor in its development, or was it developed to the point of making that prediction before that progression was observed? Historians of science: to your marks!