Undermining long-held paradigms

We also know that the age of dinosaurs was not all large beasts, that there were many many small dinosaurs, so this is another strawman argument sensationalism type news fluff. Oh flubber. This is only a 'theory' in the weakest usage of the term, as a hypothesis and the rest of the assertion is more hyperbole than part of a scientific theory. The size of the mammals has nothing to do with their diet, the diet of the known small mammals was based on their physiology.Sheesh. News.

---

Join the effort to unravel {AIDS/HIV} {Protenes} and {Cancer} with Team EvC! (click)

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand

​

RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

oh no -- don't let randman see that picture ... we'll have another whale tale highjacking.Size might be in the articleThe abstract says
Just a moment... Note "convergent to the modern platypus and many Cenozoic placentals" does NOT mean they were marsupials. Just in case eh?

---

Join the effort to unravel {AIDS/HIV} {Protenes} and {Cancer} with Team EvC! (click)

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand

​

RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

Facts are evidence, theory is based on fact -- it has to explain the existing body of {facts\evidence} first before it can advance to the next stage, predictions. This alone makes scientific theory of a higher standard than mere belief:

quote:

---

be”lief” -noun
1. something believed; an opinion or conviction: a belief that the earth is flat.
2. confidence in the truth or existence of something not immediately susceptible to rigorous proof: a statement unworthy of belief.
3. confidence; faith; trust: a child's belief in his parents.
4. a religious tenet or tenets; religious creed or faith: the Christian belief.

---

Nor do "beliefs" need to be falsifiable.

quote:

---

scientific theory n :
a theory that explains scientific observations; "scientific theories must be falsifiable"

---

Theory is not "belief" that {something} is true, it is the proposition that {something} MAY be true, and that lists ways to TEST whether it is or not.This does not make theory into fact as you seem to be claiming. Not for evolution, not for any science. No matter what you believe.New {facts\evidence} are uncovered all the time -- that is an {ahem} fact of science.Sometimes those facts confirm existing theory, sometimes they don't. Mostly they do, but the ones that make "the news" are the ones that don't confirm existing theory -- when that happens the new {fact\evidence} is not ignored, it is included in the pile of {fact\evidence} that must be explained by a theory before it can advance to the next stage, predictions.This is done by either a new theory or by modification of the old one so that the new {fact\evidence} is included in the explanation of all the existing {fact\evidence}The adjustment is not to the facts but to the theory that explains themYour continued use of the term "belief" when talking about scientific theory is just part of your denial of the validity of the evidence that supports the theory, the part that forms the foundation of the theory.Your strawman is conflating theory with the evidence that supports the theory: What was stated before was theory, not fact. The theory that explained all the previous evidence.All the old facts are still there, still used, we have just added {new information} to the pile.What has changed is the theory, not the facts that are explained by the theory. It is not a new "belief" because theory exceeds the definition of belief, and it is not fact because theory is based on fact - the new plus the old.We still end up with a proposition that {something} MAY be true, and that lists ways to TEST whether it is or not.This is not belief, it is science.Enjoy.

---

Join the effort to unravel {AIDS/HIV} {Protenes} and {Cancer} with Team EvC! (click)

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand

​

RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

More evidence of ecological adaptation to extinction ...From http://astrobiology.arc.nasa.gov/
Reweaving the Food Web (click to read article)

quote:

---

Summary (Aug 27, 2006): The recovery of biodiversity after the end-Cretaceous mass extinction was much more chaotic than previously thought, according to paleontologists. New fossil evidence shows that at certain times and places, plant and insect diversity were severely out of balance, not linked as they are today.

​

"The K-T caused major extinction among North American plants and insects. The Western Interior U.S. was a dead zone for plants and plant-insect food webs," said Dr. Peter Wilf, assistant professor of geosciences and the David and Lucile Packard Fellow. "We know that right after the extinction, for 800,000 years, there was very low insect predation and plant diversity. We know that 9 million years afterwards, there was renewed diversity in both plants and insects. What happened in the 8 million years in between?

​

This decoupling of producer and consumer diversity after mass extinction is a new pattern for the fossil record that researchers can now test for its generality.

​

"Temporally and geographically isolated occurrences of severely unbalanced food webs may be a widespread feature of ecological recovery from mass extinction, resulting from instability, incumbency and opportunism in drastically simplified ecological landscapes," say the authors.

---

Notice the words "a new pattern" and "test for its generality" -- there are those basic scientific concepts again: finding new patterns and testing their generality ... theory.Enjoy.

---

Join the effort to unravel {AIDS/HIV} {Protenes} and {Cancer} with Team EvC! (click)

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand

​

RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.