Warden_of_the_Storm
Well-Known Member
- Oct 16, 2015
- 15,147
- 7,478
- 31
- Country
- United Kingdom
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Deist
- Marital Status
- Single
Upvote
0
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
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?
You took votes in the military?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.
I don't. Comparatively. I don't know how the people that write basically term papers on every subject on here do it.
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.
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'.
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).
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.
You seem btw to be suggesting that without a complete data set no theory is valid.
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.
I don't. Comparatively. I don't know how the people that write basically term papers on every subject on here do it.
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?
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?
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?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?
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 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?
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.
Do you want to ask a proper question?
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.
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.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.
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?
Oh, hello again J_B. Once more I didn't even notice it was you. Sorry!I take it your answer to the question is no.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?