Why Have Birds Never Gotten as Big as T. Rex?

AaronClaricus said:

Not really. There are a few times and places where transitions are sudden. And some people tend to only think about them because they are rather spectacular to study. Most of the ages and sub divisions are based on less spectacular transitions like the species of ammonite.

Click to expand...

I think the mere fact we have such easily discernable layers and transitions is remarkable.

Rock layers in the macro actually appear very similar to what happens in real time to rapidly deposited sediment layers in the micro, which I also find remarkable.

If you ever get the chance, check out the experiments in stratification by Guy Berthault.

AaronClaricus said:

And within the layers we have volcanic sites that produce gem quality minerals that function as precise timers with increments of 10k years. There's a lot of volcanism in 3 million years so we get a number of samples these days. A good example of this is the cretaceous-paleogene extinction event. There's a million years of volcanism going on in that time period. The "sudden" nature of it is distinctly america because we got hit so there's a huge deposit of late cretaceous creatures that all died the same time in a tsunami of mud. Other parts of the world, especially china have evidence of a slower Maastrichtian Age and Danian Age.

The main issue with this is we have absolute dating. We know if things have been 1000s of years or millions-billions.

Click to expand...

There's not much point in me responding to something you claim is already known 'absolutely'.

There is a long history of scientists claiming to have strong data-driven evidence of long ages, such as the age of the earth itself, a date which has deviated by billions of years. I'm sure you believe that it's all figured out now, I just don't share that belief.

AaronClaricus said:

Early scientists having debates is not surprising.

Click to expand...

I wouldn't say it's surprising.

My takeaway from the Missoula controversy is that consensus science can get really attached to a certain idea ("uniformitarianism" in this case) and as a result become blinded from seeing evidence that they're wrong, which is what happened.

The more wrong the consensus could potentially be, the more such an interpretation of the data will be resisted. And likewise, an interpretation that supports the consensus belief will always be leaned towards, like a ratchet effect.

Scientists, and institutions of any kind for that matter, are not dispassionate data-crunchers. They are wholly invested in particular worldviews, and deeply susceptible to groupthink and confirmation bias. Contrary to popular belief, a "peer-review" system can often exacerbate this issue.

AaronClaricus said:

Besides newer evidence supports up to 40 flooding events in that area over a much longer time. Which is more evidence of the original objection. 2500 years of floods every 50 years is rapid but it's still gradualism.

Click to expand...

It is ultimately something that could be accommodated into a general evolutionary deep-time narrative, which is why the evidence could finally be accepted after decades of resistance.

In the big picture, Missoula was not even that much a controversy, since the grand evolutionary narrative was not ever under threat, and yet we still see there was such an emotional reaction to having the consensus view of geologic history challenged.

If there was evidence that the evolutionary narrative was completely wrong, would "Science" be able to see it at all? I very much doubt it...

It would take such a massive revolution in the minds of men to be able to entertain the possibility of being so wrong about something, much less dispassionately examine evidence for it.

AaronClaricus said:

I have some debatable topics in my own book series on natural history. There's even a chapter on holocene flooding.

Click to expand...

sounds interesting!

lifepsyop said:

Scientists, and institutions of any kind for that matter, are not dispassionate data-crunchers. They are wholly invested in particular worldviews

Click to expand...

No we're not. In my place of work we have scientists from a host of different faith and philosophical backgrounds and the only times they ever come up are in casual personal (non-work) conversations. I guess I have to ask, what "particular worldview" do you think I share with my co-workers?

lifepsyop said:

Contrary to popular belief, a "peer-review" system can often exacerbate this issue.

Click to expand...

Not that I've seen. How much direct experience do you have with the peer review process?

River Jordan said:

No we're not. In my place of work we have scientists from a host of different faith and philosophical backgrounds and the only times they ever come up are in casual personal (non-work) conversations. I guess I have to ask, what "particular worldview" do you think I share with my co-workers?

Click to expand...

you share an evolutionary worldview

it's like the diversity of beliefs in 21st century America. You have atheist, buddhist, and Christian, etc. but they are all strong believers in Democracy. All kinds of different players with different beliefs, but Democracy is essentially the 'field' that they play on.

So it is with Evolution. It's just "the way the world is", and to think in non-evolutionary terms would be like Americans deciding democracy doesn't work and to return to Monarchy. Just not gonna happen, save a massive revolutionary event or social upheaval.

River Jordan said:

Not that I've seen. How much direct experience do you have with the peer review process?

Click to expand...

I've read studies that critically examine the process:



Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine

Peer review: a flawed process at the heart of science and journals​

Richard Smith

"But does peer review `work' at all? A systematic review of all the available evidence on peer review concluded that `the practice of peer review is based on faith in its effects, rather than on facts'.
....
So we have little evidence on the effectiveness of peer review, but we have considerable evidence on its defects. In addition to being poor at detecting gross defects and almost useless for detecting fraud it is slow, expensive, profligate of academic time, highly subjective, something of a lottery, prone to bias, and easily abused.
...
People have a great many fantasies about peer review, and one of the most powerful is that it is a highly objective, reliable, and consistent process.
...
The editorial peer review process has been strongly biased against `negative studies', i.e. studies that find an intervention does not work.
...
Conclusions:
So peer review is a flawed process, full of easily identified defects with little evidence that it works. Nevertheless, it is likely to remain central to science and journals because there is no obvious alternative, and scientists and editors have a continuing belief in peer review. How odd that science should be rooted in belief."





on the other hand, as far as I can tell, the belief in peer-review to find truth is almost entirely a faith practice

lifepsyop said:

There's not much point in me responding to something you claim is already known 'absolutely'.

There is a long history of scientists claiming to have strong data-driven evidence of long ages, such as the age of the earth itself, a date which has deviated by billions of years. I'm sure you believe that it's all figured out now, I just don't share that belief.

Click to expand...

There's absolute dating and relative dating. Absolute dating is based on physics. Radioactive elements decay. In the case of volcanics, it's usually uranium 235 and 233 into specific isotopes of lead. They decay at different rates providing two calculations which serve as physical/natural clocks.

The old issues with the age of the earth are long over. And they knew of the weaknesses when they published. Back then the sample size was quite large, much larger than a single zircon. And zircons have a property that allows them to grow extra layers. These day sample size is a single zircon and they only select high quality samples so the age is know to within 10,000 years. The age of the earth has hardly changed in 75 years, and within the estimated range of the first high quality experiments using meteorites. Which were all formed in a 3 million year long period at the very beginning of the solar system. Less the materials that were ejected from planets during collisions. These days we have earth rocks that are almost that old. With more discoveries likely in the future.

AaronClaricus said:

There's absolute dating and relative dating. Absolute dating is based on physics.

Click to expand...

Okay, so you believe that with this methodology you are gaining absolute knowledge about the age of the Earth. Good for you!

lifepsyop said:

you share an evolutionary worldview

it's like the diversity of beliefs in 21st century America. You have atheist, buddhist, and Christian, etc. but they are all strong believers in Democracy. All kinds of different players with different beliefs, but Democracy is essentially the 'field' that they play on.

So it is with Evolution. It's just "the way the world is", and to think in non-evolutionary terms would be like Americans deciding democracy doesn't work and to return to Monarchy. Just not gonna happen, save a massive revolutionary event or social upheaval.




I've read studies that critically examine the process:



Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine

Peer review: a flawed process at the heart of science and journals​

Richard Smith

"But does peer review `work' at all? A systematic review of all the available evidence on peer review concluded that `the practice of peer review is based on faith in its effects, rather than on facts'.
....
So we have little evidence on the effectiveness of peer review, but we have considerable evidence on its defects. In addition to being poor at detecting gross defects and almost useless for detecting fraud it is slow, expensive, profligate of academic time, highly subjective, something of a lottery, prone to bias, and easily abused.
...
People have a great many fantasies about peer review, and one of the most powerful is that it is a highly objective, reliable, and consistent process.
...
The editorial peer review process has been strongly biased against `negative studies', i.e. studies that find an intervention does not work.
...
Conclusions:
So peer review is a flawed process, full of easily identified defects with little evidence that it works. Nevertheless, it is likely to remain central to science and journals because there is no obvious alternative, and scientists and editors have a continuing belief in peer review. How odd that science should be rooted in belief."

Peer review: a flawed process at the heart of science and journals - PMC

pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

on the other hand, as far as I can tell, the belief in peer-review to find truth is almost entirely a faith practice

Click to expand...

I think that part of the issue with the anti-evolution proposition, is that no one has offered a better alternative. The fossil record makes sense in light of evolution. And it doesn't make sense in light of a global flood. So what is our third option?

Job 33:6 said:

I think that part of the issue with the anti-evolution proposition, is that no one has offered a better alternative.

Click to expand...

well I guess one would have to be open to an alternative that cannot be reduced to natural processes, i.e. miraculous creation.

but that really isn't allowed in modern institutions. even when things seem like there really is no natural explanation (such as abiogenesis) the answer is always "nature did it, we're just still figuring out how"

Job 33:6 said:

The fossil record makes sense in light of evolution.

Click to expand...

that's not really that impressive though. evolution basically says that whatever fossils are found is when that creature evolved.

as a simple example, just imagine an alternate universe where the earth's fossil record had shown mammal fossils appearing in layers below dinosaurs,

the evolutionary story would just have been that mammals evolved before dinosaurs.

evolution is a story that can conform to a countless number of contrasting sets of data.

Job 33:6 said:

And it doesn't make sense in light of a global flood.

Click to expand...

i've always found it strange when evolutionists say this, when the most defining feature of the fossil record is that of catastrophic burial.

Job 33:6 said:

So what is our third option?

Click to expand...

God did it... miracles... special creation... you know, crazy anti-science stuff.