Title is a mistake.
LACK of evidence doesn't prove anything, other than the current lack of evidence.
It'd be like me saying, I woke up this morning and the ground was dry, so that must prove that it doesn't rain around here.
All it means is that there are things here going on that they don't understand...more puzzles to puzzle out....
It'd be like me saying, I woke up this morning and the ground was dry, so that must prove that it doesn't rain around here.
Not quite. The shadowing is a verifiable prediction of theory. Failure to find it would casts doubt on the theory. A simple analogy is Eddington's expedition to detect the deflection of starlight during a solar eclipse. Failure to detect it would have thrown serious doubt on General Relativity. Unless a mechanism can be found to account for the lack of shadowing that is consistent with the Big Bang, then the theory must be modified or abandoned.
A better analogy would be if the weather report said it rained heavily in your town last night, but when you go outside in the morning, the ground and everything else is bone dry. You would begin to doubt the weatherman.