Did you read the discussion to see what the authors said could be cause of this disparity? They’re all more plausible than “evolution isn’t true”.
again: this is the probelm- anything can fit with evolution.
of course. evolution will never be in a problem.
I refer you back to my previous comment, which you apparently didn’t understand the first time:
so how we can falsify evolution then?
How would we go about falsifying the claim “there is a positive correlation between variable X and variable Y”?
And subsequent studies have improved the “match” using more sophisticated analyses:
We generated a new time tree for modern birds that revealed striking
patterns of their evolutionary history. We found that modern birds
originated in the early Late Cretaceous in Western Gondwanan continents
but did not diversify much until the K-Pg transition. This,
combined with the poor overall quality of the Late Cretaceous avian
fossil record (96), explains in part the scarcity of fossils of modern
birds in the Cretaceous, thus partially resolving the “clocks versus
By demonstrating that there is a lack of a statistically significant correlation between phylogenies based on DNA sequence and a phylogeny based on morphological characteristics.
actually in this case we can argue for convergent evolution in a massvie scale, or different mutation rate.
Now you are just making excuses to avoid the evidence.
Watch your attributions.
This supports my belief that you don’t know what the paper says.
What do you mean? EDIT: never mind, I see what you mean. That’s what I get for trying to quote a quote. I’ll fix it.
He said “naturalism” and you responded as if he had said “methodological naturalism.” Then he said “blind faith” and you responded as if he had said merely “faith.” Conversations that proceed in that manner are not very productive.
He said “scientists” which necessarily means “methodological naturalism”.
The criticism works with either “faith” or “blind faith”. It is fascinating that people of faith would try to denigrate an idea because they claim it requires faith. Have you ever heard of people who accept evolution trying to downplay creationism by saying that it is scientific?
It seems to me there is a perfectly good reason why you would at least generally expect a molecular estimate to be somewhat older than a fossil estimate. Fosslization is relatively rare, so chances are when new species evolve, they will not instantly leave fossils that can exactly date speciation or transitionary events.
As newly formed species persist over time so will the odds of some fossilization increase. That alone would go some way towards explaining why molecular estimates produce older dates than fossils.
No, we couldn’t. There’s this entire field of mathematics called statistics. Have you looked into it? That’s why evograd is trying to get you to deal with his example showing a positive correlation between variables.