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.