still an adolescent, so to speak, and apparently had not yet reached its maximum size! One particular extant shark, the Greenland shark, Somniosus microcephalus, is also very long-lived, with lifespans of 250-400 (and perhaps 500) years. This longevity is generally thought to be due to a very slow metabolism resulting from the cold waters in which it lives (Nielsen et al. 2016, O’Conner 2017). The Greenland shark is also one of the largest extant sharks and is thought to take 150 years to reach maturity. Both its large size and stretched-out growth interval are consistent with the trends noted in Section VB linking greater longevity in extant animals to greater adult size and longer growth periods. However, cold temperatures seem inadequate to explain the apparent great longevity of these fossil sharks. Evolutionists think the Cretaceous climate was warm, and some creationists (Whitcomb and Morris 1991) have long suggested that the pre-Flood world was generally warmer than today’s world, with presumably warmer oceans. Moreover, Cretaceous strata were deposited during the Flood, with much warmer oceans due to intense volcanism (Oard 1990) and rapid seafloor spreading (Baumgardner 1990). So both creationists and evolutionists would agree that the oceans in which these sharks swam were warm, albeit for different reasons. Moreover, evolutionists think megalodons lived in temperate-tropical waters (Shimada 2021), and creationists (at least those holding to a “high” Flood/postFlood boundary) would argue that Miocene strata were also deposited during the Flood. Hence Miocene oceans should have been warm, as well. Yet despite living in temperate-to-warm waters, these fossil sharks demonstrate characteristics indicative of extreme longevity. D.What about dinosaurs? Of course, one cannot help but wonder about the largest of all land animals, the sauropod dinosaurs (Figure 12). Could their very large sizes be clues of great longevity, as suggested by Clarey (2018) and others? Paleontologists have used dinosaur osteo-histological data to construct growth curves for sauropods, as well as for other dinosaurs. However, as dinosaurs are extinct, ontogenetic growth curves for extant dinosaurs are rather difficult to come by! Hence, it is not possible to make a direct comparison of pre-Flood and post-Flood dinosaur growth rates and sizes. However, given that large-mass animal kinds tend to live longer than lower-mass animal kinds, one would expect pre-Flood sauropod dinosaurs to have very long life spans and slow growth rates. However, most dinosaurian growth curves suggest that sauropod dinosaurs grew very rapidly (Sander 2000), with a peak Apatosaurus growth rate of 5,000 kg/year (Erickson et al. 2001). Such a high rate implies that Apatosaurus would have been a full-grown adult in just 15 years, contrary to expectations if its large size is indicative of slow growth and great longevity. However, in an extensive survey Myhrvold (2013) made astute criticisms of nearly all such constructed dinosaur growth curves, citing methodological and statistical fallacies or an inability to replicate the results. The only sauropod dinosaur growth curves he did not criticize were those of Woodward (2005) and Lehman and Woodward (2008), which implied much more modest peak sauropod growth rates of 520 kg/year for the Apatosaurus and 1,000 kg/year for Alamosaurus. With these lower rates, an Apatosaurus would need 70 years to reach maturity, as opposed to the 15 years estimated by Erickson et al. Alamosaurus would have needed 45 years to reach full size. However, Myhrvold cautioned that, even in those cases, the largest sauropod dinosaur was only 37% of its estimated adult size. Hence, in the case of sauropod dinosaurs, firm conclusions about total time to skeletal maturity and/or growth rate are probably as of yet unwarranted. VI.CONLUDING REMARKS Living things are vastly more complicated than imagined by Darwin. Hence it makes perfect sense that optimization methods such as Lagrange multipliers and impedance matching would be required to understand them. Although the WBE theory is probably not the final word in this area, it is a great starting point for those hoping to construct a creation-based theory of biological design, and it or a similar theory, such as that of Escala (2022), may help shed light on giantism and longevity in the pre-Flood worlds. This paper included some paleontological speculation. Paleontology is outside my area of expertise, and I recognize my need for assistance in this area. However, creationists do not yet have a robust defense of the great longevity experienced by pre-Flood humans. Sadly, even many “evangelical” seminary professors are openly doubting the Bible’s claims in this matter (Olson 2017, Olson ND, and discussion in Smith 2022). The possibility that paleontological data could help confirm that this longevity was shared by at least some pre-Flood animals is exciting, and I felt an urgent need to present it here at least as a possibility. For this reason, I appeal to creationist paleontologists, biologists, and statisticians to begin an aggressive and rigorous study of sclerochronological and paleo-osteo-histological data to see if a strong case can be made that pre-Flood animals were indeed attaining great ages compared to their extant counterparts. REFERENCES Abele, D., J. Strahl, T. Brey, and E. Philipp. 2008. Imperceptible senescence: ageing in the ocean quahog Arctica islandica. Free Radical Research 42, no. 5:474-480. DOI: 10.1080/10715760802108849. Anonymous. Giant ‘teenager’ shark from the dinosaur era identified Figure 12. Since reptiles have (apparently) indeterminate growth, could the large sizes of some sauropod dinosaurs be evidence of extreme longevity in the pre-Flood animal kingdom? Image credit: Video capture from Uncovering the Truth About Dinosaurs, Institute for Creation Research, Dallas, Texas. Used with permission. HEBERT Allometric and metabolic scaling 2023 ICC 219
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MTM4ODY=