EVIL-UTION - Schooling your professor on the facts of evolution

494 Pages·2013·6.547 MB·English

by  Anonymous

TABLE OF CONTENTS:
1. Overview 5
2. What Is Evolution 16
• Inside the Doctrine: 17
• Is Evolution a Religion? 27
3. Gradualism: Slow Change, Lots of Time, Many Generations 33
• Biological / Geological Gradualism 34
> Widespread Rapidly-Deposited Strata 44
> The Theory of Catastrophism 49
- Polystrate fossils 52
- Fossil evidence 54
- The Grand Canyon and Cataclysmic Rapid Formations 56
4. Written in the Rocks 64
• Rocks and Fossils 67
> Determining the Age of Rocks 70
> Alternatives to Rock Dating Methods 79
• Transitional or Intermediary Fossils 86
> “Feathered” Dinos / the Dinosaur to Bird evolution 93
> Tiktaalik roseae 97
> Whales 103
• DNA Comes Back from the Dead 114
• The Cambrian Explosion: the Biological Big Bang 119
5. Remnants: Vestiges, Embryos, and Bad Design 135
• Bird and Whale Vestiges 135
• Human Vestiges 136
> Questions for Evolutionists: Embryology and Homologous Structures 140
• The Appendix 144
• Vestigial Genes, Pseudogenes - commonly referred to as “Junk DNA” 150
• More on Bad Design (further elaborated) 157
> Peppered moths 159
> Other notables include 160
6. The Geography of Life 162
• The Molecular Clock and the Out-of-Africa Population Bottleneck 162
• Continental Drift vs Sprint 173
7. More FRUADS: Horse evolution; Lucy, H. habilus and eructus; Peking, Java, & Nutcracker
Man; Neanderthal; Man vs Chimp; Trace Fossils and OOPA's (Out of place artifacts) 183
• Horse evolution 191
• Lucy, Homo habilus, H. eructus; Nutcracker, Peking & Java Man, and Neanderthal 193
• The Emergence of Homo erectus (in Lucy's backyard) 206
• Nebraska Man, Piltdown Man, Nutcracker Man, Peking Man, and Java Man 214
• The Neanderthalis and Homo erectus Connection 217
> DNA Test Results of Early Man (Neanderthalensis) 219
• Man vs Chimp DNA 223
> The Y-chromosome bombshell 227
> Contamination 228
> Newer Studies 229
- Genetic Recombination and Phenotypic Differences 233
- Other DNA tid-bits or “Loose Fitting Genes” … 235
• Trace Fossils (called Ichnology) and OOPART's 236
> What does this reveal? Dinos and Man really? 239
> Giants or Nephilim 256
8. Breeding, Adaptation, Natural Selection and Speciation 267
• Abiogenesis = Spontaneous Generation 292
> Miller-Urey Experiment 296
> Natural Probabilities 308
> The Levinthal Paradox, Old and New Versions 309
- Exponents Gone Wild 311
- The Conundrum For Early Life 315
• Why Evolution: “will the real theory please stand up?” 320
> “Why should we believe in Macroevolution if Nobody understands it?” 340
• The Lenski E. coli Adaptive Mutation Studies 350
• Understanding The Mutation Process 356
9. By Design: the Science of DNA (simplified) and Thermodynamics 359
• The Laws of Thermodynamics and its Implications 377
> The Implications of the Second Law 381
- Misconceptions About Open Systems 391
- Ilya Prigogine and the Myth of the "Self-Organization of Matter" 395
~ The Difference Between Organized and Ordered Systems 398
~ The Absence of Controlling Mechanisms 402
~ Open or Closed Systems Do Not Matter 406
~ Crystal Formations 409
• The Difference between Matter and Information 412
> What is Information Theory (simplified) 415
- The Essentials of Information Theory and Biological Machines 420
• The Irreducible Complexity of DNA 428
• Entropy, the Mystery Gene, or Mutational Meltdown 440
10. Evolution - the Philosophy of Science, the “Uncaused Cause” and Future Implications: 452
• The Law of Causality 460
> The Causality of Laminin: “The Molecule That Binds Us Together” 462
> Causality of the Universe 463
• “The Uncaused Cause!!” 481
• Future Implications 488
Evolution Answered: (Walking in Faith)
Our Education Centers throughout the world teach Evolution Theory as “fact” but are
the “facts” actually supported by the sciences? Or are these “facts” merely deceits used to
gain fellowship in the fleecing of our children? Today, eight out of ten Christian students loose
their faith by time they graduate from college! Is that education worth your child's eternity?
Or is it better to outfit them with the genuine FACTS of science and keep them safe? This
manipulation actually begins once our children enter Kindergarten or Grade School but since
they still live at home and go to church with their parents our kids remain moderately
sheltered from harm's way. However college promotes a greater independence, away from
the comforts of home, while subjecting them to far grander deceptions forced upon them by
highly trained and educated professors. Clearly most students of today are unprepared for
such confrontations in our learning centers. [Dr. Kent Hovind]
Falling victim to the misrepresentations and snares accustom to evolution, they become
deluded by its teachings and increasingly doubtful of the truths housed in the Holy scripture.
Eventually succumbing to the menticide of our youth. Most students unwittingly believe the
knowledge gained from education as an absolute truth, even when it amounts to nothing
more than imaginative leaps of faith, disguised as science, and indoctrination into another
religious cult. Instead, we need to equip our loved ones with the knowledge of truth gained
by empirical study to fully understand the deceptions confronting them in their education.
This paper will expose many evolution falsehoods taught to our youth and present the valid
scientific truths hidden from classrooms.
In reality, science literally supports biblical truth, not evolution! Unfortunately great measures
are taken to conceal the actual evidence from textbooks and lecture halls which often leads
to the loss of faith of so many disadvantaged Christians. As Christians, we are commanded to
seek the truth and always compare them to scriptures. If done properly and not merely
relying on false educational doctrines or children's fables, science will confirm the truths
housed in the Holy Bible and not some fantasy created in another's mind. Our beliefs should
not change the facts, but for the rational person, the facts should change their beliefs! It's
the Christians' duty to uncover those Facts. Let the startling evidence in science and its
experts speak for themselves, then you be the judge on where these truths reside. Much of
the material cited in this paper comes from evolution scholars themselves, along with their
expressed motives, and represents only a fraction of the actual evidence available for
research. Please freely share this paper as a testimony to our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.
As we walk in faith, we our to witness for our Creator and be His living testimony! My hope is
that Christians, young and old, may use this information for quick reference in such
encounters. No longer should students be disarmed of scientific truths, but prepared for
confrontations. This material will disrupt most evolution professors' faith and provide an
opportunity for the student to instruct the class and teacher on real science.
All are encouraged to learn the deceits that plague the science community and our learning
or awareness; we must inform the disadvantaged. As such, the offered material may be
somewhat technical at times or simplified in other aspects for better discernment. References
are cited alongside related material and not at the end of the paper for easier researching
and verification.
This is not intended to be a published work but rather an easily referenced tool for those
seeking the truth in science and a quick response to the falsehoods perpetuated in evolution
doctrine. Regardless of one's belief in happenstance or obvious design, this evidence speaks
for itself and shows the improper programming of our youth. One of simply reshaping
children's mindsets and beliefs into another false religious system that is created to control
our lives and methodical behaviors. We must remember “facts” = truth and must always be
true; never changed on whims of fancy or for ulterior motives. That is not science nor should
it be embraced!
To reinforce evolution evangelical teachings and counter the factual evidence and discourse
presented by Creationists, naturalists cling to many fallacies, fabrications and/or “fables”. But
we discover it's not just about science. In defense, they often challenge the Bible's integrity,
historicity and finally, God's authority (religion vs religion) with unsound allegations. Offering
a word to the wise, the Holy Bible is the most scrutinized, accountable and authenticated
work ever published; it's flawless in its teachings. It governs mankind's history, integrity,
morals and virtues, laws and science, well-being and sanitation, love and compassion, right
vs. wrong / good vs. evil, the deceits which plague our world, our redemption / salvation and
etc. The Holy Bible teaches us the humility, meekness, patience and forbearance that
uniquely binds Christians together and helps us walk in the footsteps of Christ Jesus and be
His living testimony to the world.
In response, evolutionists often invoke the “quote mining” fallacy when confronted by quotes
from other evolutionists (some included in this paper) in conflicting positions as an improper
portrait of the authors intentions. However, this is usually a tactic to deny accountability and
gain authority with pretentious accusations (or upper hand by crying foul) when none is
available to avoid defeat. Put into perspective, as defined by Wikipedia (a popular evolutionist
propaganda machine):
The practice of quoting out of context, sometimes referred to as
"contextomy" or "quote mining", is a logical fallacy and a type of false
attribution in which a passage is removed from its surrounding matter in such a
way as to distort its intended meaning. Arguments based on this fallacy
typically take two forms. As a straw man argument, which is frequently found in
politics [or as I note in evolutionary rebuttals], it involves quoting an opponent out
of context in order to misrepresent their position (typically to make it seem more
simplistic or extreme) in order to make it easier to refute. As an appeal to
authority, it involves quoting an authority on the subject out of context, in order to
misrepresent that authority as supporting some position (emp added).
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallacy_of_quoting_out_of_context]
In regards to the fallacy argument, all sciences, teachings, learning or any other quality or
state of being true (defined as truth), the Truth must = truth with no exceptions. A truthful
statement applied incorrectly turns truth into a falsehood, whether in Biblical or evolutionary
doctrine. If taken out of context or applied to the wrong target group, the truth becomes a
Lie, deceit or (at best) error. Respectively, the supplied quotes match the author's content
and apparent reasoning. They remain truthful by properly conveying its intended message,
interpretations or expressions relating to the topic.
The referenced material is in strict concordance to the authors' stated positions. Simply
beseeching the “quote mine” fallacy does not subvert its meaning. The authors' quotes are
clear and concise and their explanations are easily discerned in the confines of the quotes. No
alteration, fabrication, or ulterior conceptualization is used to imply anything abstruse or
deviate from its original content. Though some text is highlighted for better emphasis in
meaning. They are stand alone quotes and state what they mean on their own accord in
harmony with the author's expressed meaning without deviation from the original context.
The quotations are not intended to characterize an ant-evolutionary position of the authors
(a defense often portrayed by evolutionists), merely relay their dismay in regards to the topic
at hand as expressed in the quotes.
As indicated, they simply disclose the dilemmas confronting evolution theory. However for
some evolutionists, the truth hurts. For them, it's simply easier to accept a lie and deny the
opposition, rather than upset their personal reality or indoctrination. Surely those of sound
mind and conscious will agree that the quotes do not deviate. Afterward, we will be more
educated and prepared to weigh the legitimacy of extra discourse offered by evolutionists in
the promotion of the theory.
The choice is yours, so choose wisely. As for me, the facts are obvious. All point to a common
supernatural designer outside our realm or state of being. If we are honest, both evolution or
Creation rely on this very phenomena whether one likes it or not. In turn, we must
deprogram, then re-educate ourselves of the one reality which governs our lives and I hope
this material helps you along your journey. For those who disagree with these statements,
please read the paper in its entirety then review the comments again to insure you can
honestly continue in support of your position. Good luck to all.
Overview:
Most college professors and textbooks surmise the (Darwinian) theory of evolution as an
organisms' gradual change over time that subsequently gives rise to new “species”. The slow
and gradual processes necessary for biological evolution include the following mechanisms:
1. Gradualism = slow change over long time among many generations broken into:
a. Geological = uniformitarianism; as contrasted to catastrophism
b. Biological = slow evolutionary change over long periods of stability called stasis
2. Speciation = the splitting of one species in two; also concerns different groups that
interbreed to exchange genes. Often viewed as an uncommon and slow process in
which new biological species arise via mutation, genetic drift, etc. [Notably, this never
results in new kinds of animals. No new information is ever added; only relates to new
varieties from breeding, natural selection, adaptation or deformation.]
3. Common Ancestry/Descent = all life has common ancestry from ages ago.
Breeding is an often used example. [Ironic that breeding populations may only
interbreed with varieties of the species in contrast to evolution.]
4. Natural Selection = a process whereby organisms better adapted to their
environment tend to survive and produce more offspring.
5. Non-selective mechanisms of evolutionary change = changes in only small,
confined populations by chance fluctuations in gene frequencies, e.g., genetic drift.
A major point of interest often revealed in evolution descriptions, interpretations and
illustrations is the use of hyperbole or false rhetoric to depict imaginative features, processes
or associations as though it were “fact”. These represent a red-flag to the reader, who should
always be attentive for vivid attempts to convey such misleading messages in writings.
Additionally, many cited references in this review are linked to websites that include pictures,
videos or other material that may help the reader gain a better perspective.
Students today are only shown a single lopsided theory of the origin life, called evolution.
Most modern textbooks exclaim evolution theory is "fact", and offer extravagant rhetoric to
substantiate their claims. Many may ask whether these interpretations explaining the various
features and processes are validated by science or are they merely executed subterfuge
concealed by leaps of faith and biased presuppositions contrary to the actual evidence? Both
evolution and creation use preconceived ideas to build their theories, but how they are
determined, verified and conveyed provides far greater insight into its validity and motives.
Instead of presenting accurate observations of scientific discoveries, many textbooks and
scholars alike, are guilty of misrepresenting, bending and/or fabricating "facts" in order to
manipulate the public into believing erroneous theories hidden in a religious doctrine. In
truth, textbooks and science journals contain numerous falsehoods promoted by the "biased
proselytizers of the faith" (as noted by evolutionist Storrs Olsen) which are used to
indoctrinate others in evolution theory. As we expose the dishonesty garnishing textbooks,
news and media, we will present another more reasonable and scientifically verifiable view to
origins. Both rely on mysticism or faith in the supernatural; however only one is truly
corroborated in science while the other revolves around the menticidal enticement of our
youth. Once various societal pressures that reinforce evolution manipulate the minds of our
children, it becomes hard to reverse unless the individual maintains the integrity to admit the
truth once it's encountered.
Darwinian evolution is commonly accepted in textbooks as the scientific model for biological
evolution. Widely accredited to Charles Darwin, it is often misconstrued due to its revised
definition of “allele frequencies in populations change over time.” Nobody disputes the fact
that changes in allele frequencies of populations (mutations) occur or that different organisms
have lived on the planet at different intervals. However the empirical sciences show this never
gives rise to a new species and will be covered in geater detail in the Breeding section. Most
are unaware of that concept of “Natural Selection” and mutational variation was first created
by a Creationist and zoologist named Edward Blyth decades before Darwin. In the 1830's,
Blyth devised the theory of Natural Selection as a “Mechanism” for [micro] evolution,
described in modern terms as mutations, adaptations, genetic drift, and etc. to depict the
Varieties or “Kinds” of plants and animals observed in breeding practices and expressed in
biological changes over time. But as we will learn, these genetic mutations are incapable of
creating a new species. They only result in new varieties of species that express different
traits already existing in the genome and usually with a loss of genetic material!
More so, many remain unaware of Darwin's plagiarism found in much of his writings,
including “Origins of Species.” He not only plagiarized Edward Blyth's theory for micro-
evolution but perverts it to include macro-evolution (which is “impossible”) and establish the
new evolutionary model. He also plagiarized the works from many other individuals including
Alfred Wallace (a European scientist outcast due to occult, black magic and spiritualism
affiliations) and his own personal relatives, among many others. Apparently, this is an
inherent trait among many evolutionists, even today, as they fabricate evidences and conceal
discoveries in conflict to the theory. [Dr. G Thomas Sharp, "Evolutionism - The Greatest
Deception of All Time," available for viewing at: http://www.youtube.com/watch?
v=jMr278CMAIA].
However I recently found much of this information is becoming censored on the Internet with
websites or links being blocked, deleted or revised and library resources removed. So for
those interested in researching this aspect, I suggest doing that quickly and thoroughly. For
instance, Wikipedia used to affirm the depiction of Alfred Wallace, but recently revamped its
link and completely erased information pertaining to the aforementioned. While other
websites are simply no longer available.
Although some evolutionists attempt to downplay Darwin's plagiarism but according to the
documentary evidence, it merely amounts to another ill-informed bid to whitewash Darwin's
(and Wallace's) reputation. This is important and we need to comprehend its implications.
Briefly identifying some key discoveries observed in Edward Blyth's 1835-6 peer-reviewed
articles and Darwin's distortion of them later in 1859 will help us outline some of the
disreputable tactics used by Darwin to establish his new theory which continues today. Before
reading Blyth's writings, Darwin strictly held to the per saltum hypothesis (i.e. by sudden
leaps) until after his return to England in 1836. Only after learning of Blyth's work was Darwin
able to make the transition from empirical science to an unscientific revision of modern
evolution theory. [Andrew Bradbury, "Part 7 - The Missing Link", (includes many of Blyth's
papers), retrieved from: http://www.bradburyac.mistral.co.uk/dar7.html.]
Early in his scientific pursuits with inadequate training or schooling, Darwin revealed his
arrogance and culpability in what later became known as the Glen Roy incident. Nestled in
the Highlands of Scotland, Darwin announced his preeminent authority while studying the
'Parallel Roads', great horizontal lines along the sides of the glen. After only eight days of
investigation, Darwin concluded the glen was formed as an arm of the sea. However this was
soon disproved by a real geologist and after a decade of intense but inadequate defense,
Darwin was finally forced into submission as referenced by the following statements to
Scottish geologist, T.F. Jamieson and his friend Charles Lyell:
“Your arguments seem to me conclusive ... My paper is one long blunder ...”
"I am smashed to atoms about Glen Roy."
[Quoted by Sir Gavin De Beer in Some Unpublished Letters of Charles Darwin, Royal Society
Records:1959. Vol. 14, pp.12-66.]; [More Letters of Charles Darwin, Frances Darwin and
A.C. Seward (eds.). John Murray, London:1903. Vol. 2. p.188.]; [ibid]
Unbeknownst to many, Darwin was neither a geologist, botanist, or biologist. He had no
science degree whatsoever but lacking a formal education in the science fields did not
prevent his meddling. Later, this is reflected aboard the HMS Beagle's trip to the Galapagos
Islands with Darwin's brief land incursions and subsequent experiments that are inaccurately
characterized in textbooks today.
The Beagle remained for about five weeks in the Galapagos Islands, during which
time Darwin did indeed collect all sorts of specimens, but not in any kind of order.
As Sir Nigel Calder observed, it was only when a Mr. Lawson, Vice-Governor of the
islands, commented that he could tell which particular island a given Galapagos
tortoise came from that Darwin began to realize that there were any observable
differences between the plant and animal populations of the different islands. By
this time it was too late to make a detailed study of the famous bird specimens
from the various islands for "he had hopelessly muddled most of his specimens of
the finches that were to make the Galapagos and himself jointly famous." [The Life
Game: Evolution and the New Biology, Nigel Calder:1973. pp.45-46.]; [ibid]
Porter and Graham describe the situation with admirable candor in their anthology The
Portable Darwin:
In the 1930s and 1940s the Galapagos finches, now called 'Darwin's finches,' were
found by the English ornithologist David Lack to be an excellent example of
adaptive radiation - that is, the evolution of a number of closely related species
occupying different ecological niches from a single ancestral species. Scientists
assumed that Darwin had recognised the significance of the finches he collected,
and thus that the Galapagos finches had played a major role in the development of
his evolutionary ideas. But in spite of its presence in many biology texts, this
account is largely inaccurate. Unfortunately, Darwin had not paid enough attention
to where he had collected the individual finches, and in most cases he was never
able to determine the island of origin. The Galapagos Islands were important to
Darwin's understanding of how evolution takes place, but in fact it was not the
island finches but mockingbirds and tortoises that provided him with examples.
[The Portable Darwin, D.M. Porter and P.W. Graham, 1993, p.1.]; [ibid]
Maybe best explained by one of Darwin's grandsons, Professor Richard Keynes, who explains:
One immediate mistake made by Charles was to assume ... that the blackness of
the individuals was an important feature, for in fact it merely varies with age.
Moreover, he was slow to appreciate that the vital distinguishing characteristic of
the different members of the family would be the size and shapes of their beaks,
so that like the shapes of the tortoises mentioned to him by Mr. Lawson, the
appearance of the birds varied significantly between the different islands. He
consequently got himself into serious trouble when he failed for once to label all
his specimens properly with the name of the island where they had been shot, and
had to appeal to Fitzroy and others for some of their hopefully better labelled
birds. [Fossils, Finches and Fuegians, Richard Keynes. HarperCollins,
London:2002. pp.324-5.]; [ibid]
Darwin's initial response to this information was far from an epiphany in favor of the
transmutation of species, as shown by his contemporary comments:
... when I see [the Galapagos islands] in sight of each other and possessed of but
a scanty stock of animals, tenanted by these birds but slightly differing in structure
and filling the same place in Nature, I must suspect they are only varieties. The
only fact of a similar kind of which I am aware is the constantly asserted difference
between the wolf-like fox of East and West Falkland Islands. If there is the
slightest foundation for these remarks, the Zoology of Archipelagoes will be well
worth examining; for such facts would undermine the stability of species (emp.
added). [Charles Darwin: Evolution by Natural Selection, Sir Gavin De Beer.
Nelson, Edinburgh:1963. p. 82.]; [ibid]
Taken at face value, Darwin seemed to be saying that his collection of finches did not, in his
opinion, constitute evidence that would "undermine the stability of species". This has always
fit the creation model but is contrary to evolutionary beliefs giving rise to “new species”; “as
Darwin suspected, they simply belonged to different varieties of the SAME species.” His initial
beliefs were later revised, however, after receiving an epiphany to exploit Blyth's work. In
postulation and promotion of his new theory, Darwin not only plagiarized but perverted much
of Blyth's novel discoveries. Refusing to acknowledge Blyth and his work as the true pioneer
in this field of study, Darwin's plagiarism and betrayal of science survives in textbooks today.
[ibid]
As previously noted, Darwin originally believed in the feasibility of changes in species by a per
saltum process (i.e. by sudden leaps) at the time of Edward Blyth's discoveries. However the
following two quotes, the first from Blyth (1835) and the next from Darwin's Origin of Species
(1859) convey the reversal of Darwin's beliefs:
“True Varieties” ... what are, in fact, a kind of deformities, or monstrous births ...
would very rarely, if ever, be perpetuated in a state of nature ...
It may be doubted whether sudden and considerable deviations of structure such
as we see in our domestic productions ... are ever permanently propagated in a
state of nature.
Now would any evolutionist, or maybe one in a thousand, know the difference? “For what real
difference is there? The quote from Darwin could so easily be a simple paraphrase of Blyth's
original observation. ...And more intriguingly, don't both comments leave room for the
possibility that such changes might actually survive from time to time?” [ibid]
In his first paper published in 1835, “Blyth not only torpedoed the per saltum hypothesis, he
also explained why it was wrong by referring to the process of sexual selection, the 'struggle
for existence' (Blyth actually used that phrase), to natural selection and to the effects of
differential reproduction" and added classifications to the kinds of varieties he observed.
While "it should be noted that the full significance of differential reproduction was only
recognized in the early 1900s after Mendel's work on genetics became widely known. Up until
that time natural selection was primarily defined in terms of differential mortality, the feature
which Darwin had placed most emphasis upon.” However as Blyth determined, natural
selection only adds to the survival of the varieties of species, and not to the development
any new species. [Edward Blyth, “...The Varieties of Animals" - Parts 1 and 2," The Magazine
of Natural History, Vol. 8, No. 1., January, 1835. pp.40-53.]; [ibid]
"In Blyth's second and third papers (jointly reproduced as a single paper in Eiseley's book,
and on this site, under the title Seasonal and Other Changes in Birds, published in 1836), he
deals with adaptation and extinction, comparative anatomy (often referred to nowadays as
homology), the difference between species and varieties, the spread of species by 'indefinite
radiation', the difference between specialised and unspecialised life forms, and the concept
of the ecological niche.” With instincts being a feature concept of analogy, and also the
central topic of Blyth's fourth paper: Psychological Distinctions Between Man and Other
Animals (1837). Blyth's pioneering studies were the first to use such key nomenclature and
characterizations in describing species relationships. This becomes more evident in 1838 from
Darwin's writings telling his friend Charles Lyell that:
... new views ... have been coming in thickly and steadily, - on the classification
and affinities and instincts of animals - bearing on the question of species (emp
added). [The Life and Letters of Charles Darwin, Frances Darwin (ed.).Vol. 1.
p.298.]; [Edward Blyth, "Seasonal and Other Changes in Birds," The Magazine of
Natural History, Vol. 9. 1836]; [ibid]
It was also in this last paper that Blyth really paved the way for Darwin to subvert his views
in service to evolutionism. “In what may have been, for science at least, the most important
paragraph written in the whole of the 19th century, Blyth posed one very simple but profound
question:
... as man, by removing species from their appropriate haunts, superinduces
changes on their physical constitution and adaptations, to what extent may not the
same take place in wild nature, so that, in many generations, distinctive characters
may be acquired, such as are recognised as indicative of specific diversity? ... May
not then, a large proportion of what are considered species have descended from
a common parentage?” [Edward Blyth,"Psychological Distinctions Between Man
and Other Animals," The Magazine of Natural History, Vol.10.1837]; [ibid]
"The paramount importance of those few lines may be gauged, in part, by the fact that many
modern evolutionists, if they acknowledge this passage at all, carefully excise that final
sentence. Not really surprising I suppose, especially if we compare Blyth's words with this
passage from the chapter in The Origin of Species which deals with natural selection:
Under domestication ... [man] unintentionally exposes organic beings to new and
changing conditions of life and variability ensues; but similar changes of conditions
might and do occur under nature." [ibid]
Darwin's plagiarism was so evident that renown evolutionist Ernst Mayr felt compelled to offer
another explanation in the hopes of lessening its implications.
Eiseley (1959) vigorously promoted the thesis that Edward Blyth had established
the theory of evolution by natural selection in 1835 and that Darwin surely had
read his paper and quite likely had derived a major inspiration from it without ever