History of Evolution

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

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?

So why do you spend so much time arguing on the internet then?

 

[renniks]

So why do you spend so much time arguing on the internet then?

I don't. Comparatively. I don't know how the people that write basically term papers on every subject on here do it.

 

[Ponderous Curmudgeon]

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.

You took votes in the military?

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

I don't. Comparatively. I don't know how the people that write basically term papers on every subject on here do it.

Have to agree with that one. Like, a paragraph or two is something I could manage, but when it's a 3+ paragraph post, along with other posts afterwards too of similar length... man.

 

[J_B_]

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.

I know there are other motivations for geology - finding oil and so forth. Plus there's simple curiosity.

But, historically speaking, are you aware of projects motivated by a desire to support evolution? Probably paleontology more so than geology. IOW, did paleontology see significant development because of a push for evolution?

 

[J_B_]

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'.

OK. I'm trying to ask the deeper question. Why did it impress them?

 

[J_B_]

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).

OK, but no thanks. The current state of these sciences is not my purpose here, but rather their state in the mid-19th century and their path of development.

 

[J_B_]

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.

I already did. QM deals most often with the very tiny over short distances, relativity most often with the very massive over large distances. However, where they overlap, they contradict each other. It's a well known issue, yet both remain active areas of study.

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

I'm not. As my purpose is historical, no statement I've made pertains to whether a theory is valid. In a scientific sense, I would choose different words, speaking of whether it is has been falsified rather than whether it is valid.

Regardless, my question aimed at asking people whether criticism of Darwin in his lifetime was valid. Depending on whether they answer yes or no, I'm then curious to see how they interpret the criticisms that were made of Darwin. What do they take them to mean with respect to the path evolution followed in its development?

 

[J_B_]

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.

OK. How did Darwin (and others who supported evolution) react to criticism? Did he accept it as fair - or think some was fair and some was not? Did the criticism motivate him to do things he might not have otherwise?

 

[J_B_]

I don't. Comparatively. I don't know how the people that write basically term papers on every subject on here do it.

I used to be one of those. In many cases it's not a healthy thing.

 

[Estrid]

I already did. QM deals most often with the very tiny over short distances, relativity most often with the very massive over large distances. However, where they overlap, they contradict each other. It's a well known issue, yet both remain active areas of study.



I'm not. As my purpose is historical, no statement I've made pertains to whether a theory is valid. In a scientific sense, I would choose different words, speaking of whether it is has been falsified rather than whether it is valid.

Regardless, my question aimed at asking people whether criticism of Darwin in his lifetime was valid. Depending on whether they answer yes or no, I'm then curious to see how they interpret the criticisms that were made of Darwin. What do they take them to mean with respect to the path evolution followed in its development?

Since the topic is evolution I thought you were saying
something contradicted that. One time I said disprove,
to avoid redundancy I said valid next time.

A data set can be consistent with more than one interpretation.
The creos are big on that, with " SETI" - same evidence, different

In your advanced theoretical physics example there is a shortage
of data, hardly a surprise there would be various explanations
offered. Of COURSE it's an active area of study and like as not everyone is wrong
If people get passionate well those are people.

In the event you spoke of "hypotheses that cannot support themselves"
and "conflict with other areas of science" and supplied examples of neither.



.

 

[Estrid]

I know there are other motivations for geology - finding oil and so forth. Plus there's simple curiosity.

But, historically speaking, are you aware of projects motivated by a desire to support evolution? Probably paleontology more so than geology. IOW, did paleontology see significant development because of a push for evolution?

A "push for evolution". What an odd sounding idea.
What does it mean?

 

[Ophiolite]

OK. How did Darwin (and others who supported evolution) react to criticism? Did he accept it as fair - or think some was fair and some was not? Did the criticism motivate him to do things he might not have otherwise?

Seriously? You do realise even a condensed answer to that question could fill three or four books of 1,000+ pages each. I could summarise the response, but it would be an ineffectual generalisation. Do you want to ask a proper question?

Edit: corrected three egregious typographical errors

 

[Ophiolite]

I know there are other motivations for geology - finding oil and so forth. Plus there's simple curiosity.

But, historically speaking, are you aware of projects motivated by a desire to support evolution? Probably paleontology more so than geology. IOW, did paleontology see significant development because of a push for evolution?

I think you have it backward. The fossil record was an important reason that, first evolution was suspected, second evolution was supported and thus Darwin and Wallace hypothesised. Subsequently investigators gathered more data, both to support and to challenge the hypothesis. The challenges proved ineffective; the support progressively strengthened. In other words, typical development of a scientific hypothesis/theory.

 

[essentialsaltes]

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.

An excellent example of real human behavior that has nothing to do with the scientific method or science or scientists.

 

[J_B_]

Do you want to ask a proper question?

You liked one of my prior questions, and were going to spend some time looking into it. Let's stick with that rather me trying to reformulate a post to please you.

 

[J_B_]

I think you have it backward. The fossil record was an important reason that, first evolution was suspected, second evolution was supported and thus Darwin and Wallace hypothesised. Subsequently investigators gathered more data, both to support and to challenge the hypothesis. The challenges proved ineffective; the support progressively strengthened. In other words, typical development of a scientific hypothesis/theory.

I take it your answer to the question is no.

 

[Ophiolite]

You liked one of my prior questions, and were going to spend some time looking into it. Let's stick with that rather me trying to reformulate a post to please you.

Hi J_B I've had a busy day, dealing with an opportunity to move partially out of retirement for a medium term consulting role. So I came on the forum to relax a little. I replied to the post, but didn't even notice it was from you. I have a habit of responding to content rather than the individual. It's a probably a bad habit, but it is what it is. Rest assured I am working on the answer to your initial question. Cheers.

 

[essentialsaltes]

OK. How did Darwin (and others who supported evolution) react to criticism? Did he accept it as fair - or think some was fair and some was not? Did the criticism motivate him to do things he might not have otherwise?

Here's an illustrative example. At first Mivart's criticism of Origin was taken as fair by Darwin and treated seriously, and directly responded to in a following edition. Later on, Darwin literally said Mivart's review of Descent of Man was unfair.

Mivart was someone Darwin took seriously; Darwin prepared a point-by-point refutation which appeared in the sixth edition of Origin of Species.

Mivart's hostile review of the Descent of Man in the Quarterly Review aroused fury from his former intimates, including Darwin himself, who described it as "grossly unfair".

 

[Ophiolite]

I take it your answer to the question is no.

Oh, hello again J_B. Once more I didn't even notice it was you. Sorry!

My answer is not exactly no. Those who had accepted or leaned towards accepting Darwin's theory would be researching fossils in the expectation they would support that theory, but - much more important - that they would provide better detail of the fossil record, of the relationships between fossils, of palaeogeography and palaeoecology, etc. But, if they were good scientists they would always be alert to the possibility of contrary data, such as Haldane's (?) rabbits in the Cambrian. Those seeking to falsify evolution (although that concept was not so named for another century) would be expecting to do so, but, if they were good scientists they would be alert to the possibility the data they found would support Darwin. Apologies for not being clearer the first time.