A question for the biologists . . . Received wisdom goes something like this: Circa 1860 Darwin had just proposed his theory of natural selection to an unsuspecting world. But the big honchos of the day (Lord Kelvin et al) put a damper on the proceedings by insisting that the Earth is only 20 million years old or something. Everyone shrugged and said "Darwin, you're fooked. Twenty millions years isn't nearly enough time for natural selection to produce the biological diversity we see before us. Go stand in the corner". Then we found out the Earth was a lot older, all was well, and Darwin smiled for the first time in his life. My question is: How exactly did they determine that twenty million years isn't enough? A lot can happen in twenty million years.
By reading tea leaves of course. Since they scoffed at Darwin's ideas, they sure didn't have an idea how long it would take.
I don't know. Who are "they"? Got any direct quotes? It's hard to examine historical events unless you have some references to the historical record itself.
no No, they didn't. The age of the earth wasn't part of the controversy at all. The conflict was between --- ta-dah! --- science and religion.
Y Yeah. Think Russian history. Nothing, nothing, nothing.... Vikings! assimilation... nothing, nothing, nothing ...Christianization!.... nothing, nothing, nothing,... MONGOLS! occupation.... nothing, nothing, nothing.. IvanIII, national identity restored.... nothing, Ivan the terrible.... misery and nothing..... ROMANOVS..... progress, expansion, European influence, routine misery.... Crimean War... lots more misery, half-assed reform....BOLSHEVIK REVOLUTION..... That's how things work. Nothing much happens until something pivotal changes, and then everything happens very fast, until things settle down again.
No, the conflict was mere socio-political. Darwinism permit to say that the "best" are the one who rule the world. Saying that if the "lords" are ruling over the poors, it is because they have "some merit" due to superior genetic (fitness). https://www.history.com/topics/early-20th-century-us/social-darwinism
Why Lord Kelvin failed to give the correct age of the earth : https://www.americanscientist.org/article/kelvin-perry-and-the-age-of-the-earth
You're misunderstanding the meaning of "fitness". It has nothing to do with "best" or "ruling". It means fit to survive.
Yes indeed. Or, even more precisely, fit to reproduce. It's an evolutionary strategy in many organisms (plants and animals) to die after reproducing (semelparity).
