History of Evolution

[J_B_]

Without an understanding of deep time, I'm not sure Darwin would have made sense of evolution as he did.

It does seem the history of biology & geology are linked in a way no other 2 sciences are. The question that came to my mind might be a bit too provocative for a forum that tends to degrade into mean-spiritedness.

 

[Job 33:6]

It does seem the history of biology & geology are linked in a way no other 2 sciences are. The question that came to my mind might be a bit too provocative for a forum that tends to degrade into mean-spiritedness.

The question in your OP or did you have another question in mind?

 

[Estrid]

It does seem the history of biology & geology are linked in a way no other 2 sciences are. The question that came to my mind might be a bit too provocative for a forum that tends to degrade into mean-spiritedness.

Go for it.

 

[J_B_]

The question in your OP or did you have another question in mind?

A different question.

Go for it.

I'm tempted. I almost have to now that I've mentioned it, don't I? Even if it's against my better judgement? We seem to have a cooperative spirit going here; hopefully I don't ruin it.

Given biology and geology study different objects, would you say they should be able to stand independently of each other? If the answer is yes, would you say they actually have stood independently throughout their history, or was one dependent on the other?

 

[renniks]

No, I fully see it as a warning against spending time writing and reading.

But again, all it is from you is just post hoc logic. You have shown nothing that says that Solomon knew about evolution.

You obviously didn't read the verse in context. Solomon wasn't against learning, he was making a point about everything being temporary. And that anything we do is ultimately pointless without God. Like arguing on the internet. In the long run, what does it matter?

 

[Estrid]

A different question.



I'm tempted. I almost have to now that I've mentioned it, don't I? Even if it's against my better judgement? We seem to have a cooperative spirit going here; hopefully I don't ruin it.

Given biology and geology study different objects, would you say they should be able to stand independently of each other? If the answer is yes, would you say they actually have stood independently throughout their history, or was one dependent on the other?

Just ignore trolls.

Science is all so interrelated that you can't say
anything is independent.
Physics and chemistry!
Geology without physics and chemistry would
be impossible.
Bio w/o chemistry. Astronomy w /o Physics.
Evolution without deep time that depends on...

 

[AV1611VET]

Just ignore trolls.

Then who would respond to your posts?

 

[J_B_]

Science is all so interrelated that you can't say
anything is independent.

A valid point, but I meant my statement in a different way.

Geology without physics and chemistry would be impossible.
Bio w/o chemistry. Astronomy w /o Physics.
Evolution without deep time that depends on...

I understand you're using some hyperbole, but I'll start from here to clarify what I meant.

Geology and physics have not developed at the same pace. Therefore, if geology without physics is impossible, then the geology done prior to having a mature physics would be invalid - something I'm sure you disagree with. As such, geology actually can be done without physics.

If you want the extreme example, consider Harty Fields' book Science Without Numbers.

What did I mean, then? Consider the following example: The fossil record is often used as evidence for evolution. While geology & paleontology may be used to support evolution, what they show is the result, not the mechanism or the cause. Therefore, at a time when the mechanisms and causes were unknown, evolution could not stand without that support, though it is fair to expect that at some point it should stand without that support. If the mechanism of evolution were never to be found, how could it be considered valid?

In that sense, wasn't it valid to criticize those gaps in evolution? Of course there is a difference between mercenary criticism and criticism meant to move science in a better direction. But judging between those two becomes a subjective exercise. After all, the criticism could remain valid to the point of bringing the science under question to an end. Aren't we better off that phlogiston, impetus, and the ether are gone?

In the case of evolution and geology, the results are complementary. But what if they were not? As in the case of quantum physics and relativity.

Before this begins to seem like an attack on evolution, let me bring it back to show why this is a question of historical interest. Why do people continue to push a hypothesis that cannot support itself? That conflicts with other areas of science? They may feel justified in doing this when the hypothesis is later demonstrated and becomes accepted theory, but does that really justify what they did? Just as many times these ideas fail (or at least I know many of my ideas have failed).

That is a question of historical interest: Why did they keep going at a time when the hypothesis had no support? When the attacks went beyond the academic and became vicious.

I couldn't find the exact quote, but once when Einstein was asked what it was like to be celebrated by his peers, he replied with something like: Celebrated? All I remember is how they enjoyed criticizing me.

 

[essentialsaltes]

Let's look to a particular person. Say English geologist John Phillips, who scolded Darwin over some geological calculations. As a fellow scientist, he was not an enemy of Darwin, but "while Phillips was no biblical literalist, he was no evolutionist either." So we can take him as a conservative scientist of the old guard -- not yet persuaded as Huxley and others were on the topic of biological evolution as Darwin proposed it.

In 1865 [~5 years after "On the Origin"], Phillips was the President of the British Association for the Advancement of Science and gave the annual address. Starting in the middle of page 21 through 23, he outlines a great deal of the geology and the changing kinds of life on earth, until "in the fulness of time it pleased the Giver of all good to place Man upon the Earth"

Starting around p 31, he mentions Darwin's "elegant treatise". And like his discussion of geology, his discussion of the difference of living things over time seems to coincide very much with our modern understanding. But he stops short of endorsing Darwinism. Citing not enough evidence.

"Specific questions of this kind must be answered, before the general proposition, that the forms of life are indefinitely variable with time and circumstance, can be even examined by the light of adequate evidence. That such evidence will be gathered and rightly interpreted, I for one neither doubt nor fear; nor will any be too hasty in adopting extreme opinions or be too fearful of the final result, whi remember how often that which is true has been found very different from that which was plausible"

In the end, that's just what happened. Further evidence was gathered, and as the preponderance of evidence was gathered, acceptance of Darwin's theory went from a few people, to a minority position, to a majority position, to a fundamental theory of modern biology. Everyone's burden of proof may be set at a different level, but as the evidence piled up, acceptance within the scientific community became universal.

 

[J_B_]

Let's look to a particular person. Say English geologist John Phillips, who scolded Darwin over some geological calculations. As a fellow scientist, he was not an enemy of Darwin, but "while Phillips was no biblical literalist, he was no evolutionist either." So we can take him as a conservative scientist of the old guard -- not yet persuaded as Huxley and others were on the topic of biological evolution as Darwin proposed it.

In 1865 [~5 years after "On the Origin"], Phillips was the President of the British Association for the Advancement of Science and gave the annual address. Starting in the middle of page 21 through 23, he outlines a great deal of the geology and the changing kinds of life on earth, until "in the fulness of time it pleased the Giver of all good to place Man upon the Earth"

Starting around p 31, he mentions Darwin's "elegant treatise". And like his discussion of geology, his discussion of the difference of living things over time seems to coincide very much with our modern understanding. But he stops short of endorsing Darwinism. Citing not enough evidence.

"Specific questions of this kind must be answered, before the general proposition, that the forms of life are indefinitely variable with time and circumstance, can be even examined by the light of adequate evidence. That such evidence will be gathered and rightly interpreted, I for one neither doubt nor fear; nor will any be too hasty in adopting extreme opinions or be too fearful of the final result, whi remember how often that which is true has been found very different from that which was plausible"

In the end, that's just what happened. Further evidence was gathered, and as the preponderance of evidence was gathered, acceptance of Darwin's theory went from a few people, to a minority position, to a majority position, to a fundamental theory of modern biology. Everyone's burden of proof may be set at a different level, but as the evidence piled up, acceptance within the scientific community became universal.

You seem to say Phillips' doubt (or is skepticism a better word?) was reasonable for the time. Would you agree more evidence was needed at that time? If so, is Huxley's acceptance reasonable? And if that is so, what do you make of the coexistence of reasonable, yet opposite positions? What do you make of the people who held them?

 

[essentialsaltes]

You seem to say Phillips' doubt (or is skepticism a better word?) was reasonable for the time.

It was not unreasonable.

Would you agree more evidence was needed at that time?

I can't really put myself in the headspace of biologists of 1860. I don't know.

If so, is Huxley's acceptance reasonable?

I think so. I have the benefit of a lot of hindsight, and I am not a biologist by training. But I've read On the Origin of Species and find it really a convincing work. As others have already noted, there was a lot of evidence floating around that demanded some sort of explanation. Darwin (and Wallace) provided a convincing and novel one.

And if that is so, what do you make of the coexistence of reasonable, yet opposite positions?

That's what lots of scholarship is like. My spouse is a historian, and there are many issues where there is not enough evidence to divide some competing theories.

This is not the case with evolution and biology.

What do you make of the people who held them?

It's inevitable when a new theory supplants another or fills a void. As I said, people have different mental burdens of proof to get them to switch sides. When the matter is balanced on edge, reasonable sincere educated people can fall on both sides.

 

[J_B_]

I can't really put myself in the headspace of biologists of 1860. I don't know.

OK. It's a frequent exercise for historians, and an intellectual exercise I think would be valuable for everyone. But ... OK.

 

[Subduction Zone]

A different question.



I'm tempted. I almost have to now that I've mentioned it, don't I? Even if it's against my better judgement? We seem to have a cooperative spirit going here; hopefully I don't ruin it.

Given biology and geology study different objects, would you say they should be able to stand independently of each other? If the answer is yes, would you say they actually have stood independently throughout their history, or was one dependent on the other?

Earth's past life is explored through paleontology. A firm grasp of geology is necessary for that. It is in fact a blend of biology and geology. Geologists did show that the Earth was very old independent of biology. That long time period made evolution possible. Aside from that when evolution was first proposed there was very little paleontology evidence. That science was in its infancy.

Today most lay people seem to think that all of the evidence for evolution does come from paleontology. That is only the most obvious evidence to lay people. It is more than enough to support the science, but it is not eve nthe strongest evidence for evolution, let alone the only evidence.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

You seem to say Phillips' doubt (or is skepticism a better word?) was reasonable for the time. Would you agree more evidence was needed at that time? If so, is Huxley's acceptance reasonable? And if that is so, what do you make of the coexistence of reasonable, yet opposite positions? What do you make of the people who held them?

As I understand it, Darwin gained the insights behind his theory mainly from his observations of living creatures and selective breeding. He expected that the fossil record would support his theory, but lamented that the sparse fossil record of the time provided little support. Nevertheless, even without the extensive support we see from the fossil record today, his theory impressed and eventually convinced the conservative Royal Society, many of whom were advocates of 'special creation'.

 

[Job 33:6]

A different question.



I'm tempted. I almost have to now that I've mentioned it, don't I? Even if it's against my better judgement? We seem to have a cooperative spirit going here; hopefully I don't ruin it.

Given biology and geology study different objects, would you say they should be able to stand independently of each other? If the answer is yes, would you say they actually have stood independently throughout their history, or was one dependent on the other?

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).

 

[Estrid]

A valid point, but I meant my statement in a different way.



I understand you're using some hyperbole, but I'll start from here to clarify what I meant.

Geology and physics have not developed at the same pace. Therefore, if geology without physics is impossible, then the geology done prior to having a mature physics would be invalid - something I'm sure you disagree with. As such, geology actually can be done without physics.

If you want the extreme example, consider Harty Fields' book Science Without Numbers.

What did I mean, then? Consider the following example: The fossil record is often used as evidence for evolution. While geology & paleontology may be used to support evolution, what they show is the result, not the mechanism or the cause. Therefore, at a time when the mechanisms and causes were unknown, evolution could not stand without that support, though it is fair to expect that at some point it should stand without that support. If the mechanism of evolution were never to be found, how could it be considered valid?

In that sense, wasn't it valid to criticize those gaps in evolution? Of course there is a difference between mercenary criticism and criticism meant to move science in a better direction. But judging between those two becomes a subjective exercise. After all, the criticism could remain valid to the point of bringing the science under question to an end. Aren't we better off that phlogiston, impetus, and the ether are gone?

In the case of evolution and geology, the results are complementary. But what if they were not? As in the case of quantum physics and relativity.

Before this begins to seem like an attack on evolution, let me bring it back to show why this is a question of historical interest. Why do people continue to push a hypothesis that cannot support itself? That conflicts with other areas of science? They may feel justified in doing this when the hypothesis is later demonstrated and becomes accepted theory, but does that really justify what they did? Just as many times these ideas fail (or at least I know many of my ideas have failed).

That is a question of historical interest: Why did they keep going at a time when the hypothesis had no support? When the attacks went beyond the academic and became vicious.

I couldn't find the exact quote, but once when Einstein was asked what it was like to be celebrated by his peers, he replied with something like: Celebrated? All I remember is how they enjoyed criticizing me.

Not that I agree with much of the above but..

`Why push a hypothesis

Some have the courage of their convictions. See psycho,ogy.

"that cannot support itself / conflicts with
other areas of science"



I am unaware of any example of pushing an
unsupportable hypothesis in science, still less
of any situation of "conflict", meaning, what?
Contrary data?
As a rule contrary data, is disproof, game over.
So what researcher would make a fool of himself?
Our yec friends carry in so but then that's hardly science.

Plezee provide examples of people behaving as you suggest.

What is geology and evolution were not complementary?
What if the sky was yellow and the grass was blue?

Your whatif involves overturning the nature of reality,
but to bring the question into a general
statement- contrary data disproves a theory.
And-
We all know that.
I don't see your point in bringing it up.

If anyone has data to prove ToE is false, terrif;
otherwise is just the province of nattering nabobs
of negativitism.



You seem btw to be suggesting that without a
complete data set no theory is valid.

 

[AV1611VET]

As a rule contrary data, is disproof, game over.
So what researcher would make a fool of himself?

Suppose I was an engineer who theorized that a certain manned space flight shouldn't take place because of temperature concerns? what should be done?

 

[Job 33:6]

A valid point, but I meant my statement in a different way.

I understand you're using some hyperbole, but I'll start from here to clarify what I meant.

Geology and physics have not developed at the same pace. Therefore, if geology without physics is impossible, then the geology done prior to having a mature physics would be invalid - something I'm sure you disagree with. As such, geology actually can be done without physics.

If you want the extreme example, consider Harty Fields' book Science Without Numbers.

What did I mean, then? Consider the following example: The fossil record is often used as evidence for evolution. While geology & paleontology may be used to support evolution, what they show is the result, not the mechanism or the cause. Therefore, at a time when the mechanisms and causes were unknown, evolution could not stand without that support, though it is fair to expect that at some point it should stand without that support. If the mechanism of evolution were never to be found, how could it be considered valid?

In that sense, wasn't it valid to criticize those gaps in evolution? Of course there is a difference between mercenary criticism and criticism meant to move science in a better direction. But judging between those two becomes a subjective exercise. After all, the criticism could remain valid to the point of bringing the science under question to an end. Aren't we better off that phlogiston, impetus, and the ether are gone?

In the case of evolution and geology, the results are complementary. But what if they were not? As in the case of quantum physics and relativity.

Before this begins to seem like an attack on evolution, let me bring it back to show why this is a question of historical interest. Why do people continue to push a hypothesis that cannot support itself? That conflicts with other areas of science? They may feel justified in doing this when the hypothesis is later demonstrated and becomes accepted theory, but does that really justify what they did? Just as many times these ideas fail (or at least I know many of my ideas have failed).

That is a question of historical interest: Why did they keep going at a time when the hypothesis had no support? When the attacks went beyond the academic and became vicious.

I couldn't find the exact quote, but once when Einstein was asked what it was like to be celebrated by his peers, he replied with something like: Celebrated? All I remember is how they enjoyed criticizing me.

I think it was absolutely fair for other scientists to critique Darwin's then hypothesis of evolution, prior to people establishing a fossil record and prior to us discovering DNA.

Your question is like asking why Christians suffered prosecution for Jesus. People believe in things. And people tend to stand up for what they believe in.

It just so happens that Darwin was right right.

 

[Ponderous Curmudgeon]

Suppose I was an engineer who theorized that a certain manned space flight shouldn't take place because of temperature concerns? what should be done?

Another of your hobby-horses demonstrating your lack of understanding.

This is not a question of a scientific theory being disproved but an oversight of application of a well known theory of thermal expansion in materials and already existing confirmatory data.

What would be hoped for in this situation, is that the engineer who recognized that the expected response in the material would not be appropriate in the circumstances at hand would be able to bring his concern to appropriate people and they would recognize his evidence and logic and proceed appropriately. You were in the military, you know this does not always happen. Not for lack of knowledge and not because any well established principles were wrong, but because people don't always get things right.

These "gotchas" of yours only serve to remind us of the weakness of your arguments, but then I remember that Alfred is always smiling.

 

[AV1611VET]

Not for lack of knowledge and not because any well established principles were wrong, but because people don't always get things right.

LOL -- not because the principles were wrong, but because we didn't get it right.

Are you a lawyer?

Joe: I think we should postpone the launch.
Larry: Why?
Joe: I think it got too cold out last night.
Curly: So? the temperature is back up now, and within acceptable launch perimeters.
Joe: Still, something tells me something isn't right.
Moe: Such as?
Joe: Well, not all the individual parts on the launch pad have had time to acclimate to the warmer temperature yet.
Larry: Fine, let's take a vote.
Joe: But ...
Larry: All in favor of launch, say "aye".
Larry: Aye.
Curly: Aye.
Moe: Aye.
Joe: But ...
Larry: It's settled, chief. Drop it.