ADKO

darw5

4 min read

Here’s a summary of the text, with the requested elements marked:

This article, “The Theft” by Miles Mathis, published on March 15, 2024, argues that Charles Darwin stole precedence from Alfred Russel Wallace regarding the theory of evolution by natural selection. The author suggests that while Darwin’s alleged faked trip around the world was a significant fraud, the theft of precedence from wallace is a well-documented, even admitted, second fraud. The author contends that mainstream science and sources like Wikipedia downplay this theft to protect darwin’s legacy, comparing him to figures like Heisenberg, Oppenheimer, and Turing who are upheld for the sake of established theories.

wallace published two papers on evolution in 1855 and 1858, predating darwin’s On the Origin of Species in 1859. darwin was aware of wallace’s work by 1856, reportedly through Charles Lyell and Blyth. The author questions the validity of Darwin’s claims of priority, emphasizing that publication, not private discussions, establishes precedence.

The narrative details a joint reading of papers at the Linnean Society in 1858, where wallace’s paper was presented alongside excerpts from darwin’s earlier work. The author claims Lyell and Joseph Hooker manipulated this event to favor darwin, even though Thomas Bell, the president of the society, initially downplayed any significant discoveries. The article asserts that darwin’s contributions were based on an older, abandoned essay, not a draft of Origin of Species, and that wallace was the true originator of the concept of natural selection as a mechanism for evolution. The author suggests wallace’s idea was influenced by Malthus and Blyth.

The article criticizes the concept of “natural selection” as presented by darwin and wallace, arguing it lacks a real mechanism and acts as a “fudge factor” that only applies when needed. The author posits that a real mechanism exists through the charge field, which allows for communication between organisms and their environment, influencing genetic code through enzymes.

The text also scrutinizes Charles Lyell, presenting him as a peer and a “Stuart” who primarily popularized the ideas of others, such as James Hutton and John Playfair, regarding Uniformitarianism. Lyell’s book Principles of Geology was published by John Murray, who is linked to the Horner family, Lyell’s in-laws. The author notes Lyell’s aristocratic background and numerous accolades, contrasting him with the overshadowed Hutton, the true originator of key geological concepts.

Furthermore, the article argues that Lyell initially rejected the transmutation of species and evolution, directly opposing darwin’s later work, and that Lamarck preceded both of them with theories of acquired characteristics. The author highlights the resurgence of interest in neo-Lamarckism and epigenetics, suggesting that environmental factors play a crucial role in heritable traits, a concept supported by the charge field theory. The author concludes by asserting that mainstream science, lacking a real mechanics, relies on “bluster and fudge,” and that theories like Evolution and Natural Selection are empty claims without demonstrable mechanisms.

Subjects, Names, References, Locations, Companies, etc.:

Graph View