First: Do you not consider it interesting that a given effect can be already observed in earlier development stages? Second: Why do you argue against a made-up

First: Do you not consider it interesting that a given effect can be already observed in earlier development stages? Second: Why do you argue against a made-up straw man "replication crisis worrier"? The crisis is based on a large percentage of studies, including foundational ones, being not yielding the same results when done again. This is not a notion you can throw out by reciting a single counter example (whose existence no one even denies?!)...