And thus Lamarck correctly described the method of passing on traits to future generations. And we know it is impossible for two different molecules to have the same number of the same atoms.
Actually Lamarck was quite wrong (and not above falisfying data), and as to the latter I don't know who held to that idea for long. However that may be, you declared that
most of the ideas held in the 19thCE were wrong, and plucking out a well-known example or two doesn't back that up. Kepler wasn't always right either, but he often was.
It continued into the 20th c. where it was clear the center of the sun was not hot enough for fusion to occur. But later it was shown that the statistical distribution of temperatures caused a small fraction of protons to be hot enough.
Not one I'm familiar with, but there was a
problem with the then-current state of knowledge, prompting further work which resuted in a solution. This is how science progresses.
Speaking of stars the discovery of galaxies and that we are in only one of them was in the early 20th c. -- meaning one should not quote 19th c. astronomers about those patches light might be.
That rather depends on which nebulae you're interested in. They weren't
all galaxies.
Just this week the estimated amount of stars in the universe at least tripled which means the universe is only about half dark matter rather than some 80% of it or maybe it was the low estimate a light matter than leads to the foolish idea of dark matter.
You assume that all stars are the same mass and that all visible matter (that is, detectable by radiation) is contained in stars. Trebling the number of red dwarf stars (there's a clue in "dwarf") does not treble the amount of mass contained in stars. Such thinking is definitely
not the way that science progresses.
Are you quite convinced that dark matter is a foolish idea?
But the 19th c. has spoken and science is never wrong so stones really do not fall from the sky.
Science is often right. Hoping that, since some science is wrong, any science you don't like
might be wrong and can be ignored is foolish, in my opinion
It is false to cherry pick ideas from the old days without verifying they are still considered correct today.
And equally false to cherry-pick some well-known errors and use them to characterise 19thCE science.
There is an embarrassingly huge number of one time truths once held by scientists which are simply not true. The good news is these misinterpretations are commonly corrected by the person who first promoted the misinterpretation.
That's good science. Science isn't embarrassed at all by errors.
You have named some from the 19th c.
Have I? I don't recall that, but no doubt you have evidence.
This just in, completely melting the Greenland glaciers will result in the level of the sea around Greenland falling.
Where did you get that from? It sounds pretty unlikely to me, but give me your source and I'm open to persuasion.
You
may be mis-remembering a report that loss of the
Antarctic ice-cap would result in a re-distribution of water in the oceans, since its mass currently draws ocean water towards it. The science behind that seems sound, but it's hardly an urgent matter.
Gotta love how the real world doesn't respond by supporting political sound agendas.
Do try to keep politics out of it. That's what led some Marxists to cling to Lamarckianism (it suited their political agenda), and leads some to deny AGW now.You don't want to end up looking as foolish as them, do you?
Just whose political agenda revolves around Greenland's shores is a mystery to me, and I'm quite comfortable having it remain so.
