I would say, without question, they strongly stand independently of one another. Which is why the conclusions they independently derive are so compelling. This is the reason, above all, that the theory of evolution is so widely accepted.
One of their main cross sections (between geology and biology) is the fossil record. And really the fossil record is, at it's most simple state, is the geologic record with bones. The geologic record exists completely independently of biology (google things like geologic superposition and the principal or law of faunal succession to understand why), as does the fossil record by association.
Simultaneously, in biology, biologists can look at things like cytochrome C or sarich and Wilson's proteins, or ERVs, or phylogenies based on mutations etc., And with these, biologists derive their own phylogenetic trees completely independently of geologists with our fossil record.
Very independent fields of studies, and yet, our conclusions are precisely identical. As if both fields of study were to construct million piece puzzles and we've come to find that piece for piece, our puzzles match.
And it goes further to the extent that biologists can predict where fossils will be found in the earth and have done so with greater precision than paleontologists at times (such as the above noted sarich and wilson molecular clock case), but also, as geologists, without knowing anything about the genomes of families of life, I'm sure that I could predict genetic relatedness quite easily without ever looking at a single sequenced genome in my life.
Simply based on where fossils are in the earth, I could tell you if a horse is more related to a salamander than say...a rabbit.
And actually I have tested this out by googling animal genomes and biological estimated timings of evolutionary splits to see if they match up with the fossil record and they do.
If you would like to test this right now, we can. I can walk you through the process (well maybe not this exact second but today sometime or tomorrow).