The principles of stratigraphy are quite a bit more rigorously determined. One doesnt extract any fossils until the stratigrphy is at least isolated. But I believe thats over yer head, since Im sure you had some earth science class as a kid in which you were exposed to what geo-chronometry is about and the many methods available.
You can clean your butt with those principles.
The main question is if those fossils were found in the same area, the latter ones over the older ones, so you compared them that way.
If the answer from you is that you collected fossils from different areas and different level of layers of dirt, your "atavism" calendar is pure crap.
Look at our present time.
The greyhound is a dog breed in UK. It is said that comes from Saluki, the breed found in Egypt.
That is not a big issue, we have two different breeds of dogs living in our current time. Both breeds are very similar (of course if we buy the story that one is the "original" one and the another a descendant with different characteristics).
Lets go to one of the structures which are not similar at all.
The greyhound has the scapula spine bone which attaches the spine with the shoulder bones.
On the other hand, the Saluki is similar to a cheetah, because lacks of bone-to-bone attachments of the shoulder with the rest of the bone structure, and the attachment is found to be just by ligaments and muscles.
The point I am giving you, is that 100,000 years from now the greyhound breed survived in a changed world where upheavals turned down many islands and lands and cause the rising up of new lands.
Layers from earth after UK was under ground 20,000 years before Egypt 50,000 years before the digging, the archeologist will assume "evolutionary steps" where this breed of dog found under ground in UK had a bone to bone attachment, that was lost later on according to the digging in Egypt, but thousands of years later, at the time of the digging, the same breed has "recovered again" the bone to bone attachment.
Reality in this example is that Greyhound and Saluki are physically very similar, this is with bone structure with the exception of the way of attachment to the spine.
There weren't any losing and gaining of characteristics on the same species or breed, just two different breeds with very similar bone structure, living at the same time but getting extincted in different eras.
As you can see, no evolutionary steps happened, and less the ridiculous idea of losing and regaining characteristics like fur first , later hair, later no hair, later hair again... or dark and light color peppermint months...
Your evolutionary studies suck.
You are lots of theoretical stuff but no reasoning at all.
Your brain is just a recorder machine repeating and repeating what others told you.
I don't see any review from your part but repetition of what you have learned without asking questions to your teacher.