Charles Darwin is accused of stealing Theory of Evolution from rival naturalist in history's biggest

[Justin-H.S.]

New evidence proves Charles Darwin stole Theory of Evolution from rival naturalist | Daily Mail Online

"Charles Darwin is credited with transforming the understanding of natural history – but a new book claims to have found evidence that he stole his Theory of Evolution.

Written by an experienced criminologist, it argues there are overwhelming similarities between Darwin’s seminal On The Origin Of Species and an earlier work by a naturalist called Patrick Matthew."

Every time something secular turns out to be fake and ghey you have to drink 10 shots.

 

[SilverBear]

New evidence proves Charles Darwin stole Theory of Evolution from rival naturalist | Daily Mail Online

"Charles Darwin is credited with transforming the understanding of natural history – but a new book claims to have found evidence that he stole his Theory of Evolution.

Written by an experienced criminologist, it argues there are overwhelming similarities between Darwin’s seminal On The Origin Of Species and an earlier work by a naturalist called Patrick Matthew."

Every time something secular turns out to be fake and ghey you have to drink 10 shots.

I'd suggest that every time a creationist presents something on Darwin that turns out to be fake and ghey you have to take a shot but consuming that much alcohol would be deadly.

Lets look at this nonsense:
one of the claims is: "While claims that Darwin borrowed from Matthew have been aired before, the book contains new evidence, including that when Matthew confronted him, Darwin claimed no one had heard of Matthew or his theory. In fact, according to Dr Sutton, Matthew’s book had been cited and reviewed by Darwin’s friends, colleagues and even his mentors in 30 leading publications. In his own journals, Darwin admits to having read at least five publications in which Matthew’s work featured."

But leaves out the baskic facts that Matthew's book Naval Timber and Arboriculture which covered the then very important topic of how to grow, harvest and prepare trees for the building of ships. In one of the appendixes of this book there is a brief write up of the idea of natural selection but at two mages it lacked the years documentation and research and the accumulation of data on dozens of species.

Darwin responded to his discovery of Matthew's work: "I freely acknowledge that Mr. Matthew has anticipated by many years the explanation which I have offered of the origin of species, under the name of natural selection. I can do no more than offer my apologies to Mr. Matthew for my entire ignorance of his publication." Darwin also included the entirety of Matthew's two pages and his acknowledgement that Matthews had the idea first in every edition of his book after that

 

[Justin-H.S.]

 

[SuperCow]

Doesn't matter. They were both wrong anyway.

 

[Ligurian]

New evidence proves Charles Darwin stole Theory of Evolution from rival naturalist | Daily Mail Online

"Charles Darwin is credited with transforming the understanding of natural history – but a new book claims to have found evidence that he stole his Theory of Evolution.

Written by an experienced criminologist, it argues there are overwhelming similarities between Darwin’s seminal On The Origin Of Species and an earlier work by a naturalist called Patrick Matthew."

Patrick Matthew

 

[The Barbarian]

I'd suggest that every time a creationist presents something on Darwin that turns out to be fake and ghey you have to take a shot but consuming that much alcohol would be deadly.

Lets look at this nonsense:
one of the claims is: "While claims that Darwin borrowed from Matthew have been aired before, the book contains new evidence, including that when Matthew confronted him, Darwin claimed no one had heard of Matthew or his theory. In fact, according to Dr Sutton, Matthew’s book had been cited and reviewed by Darwin’s friends, colleagues and even his mentors in 30 leading publications. In his own journals, Darwin admits to having read at least five publications in which Matthew’s work featured."

But leaves out the baskic facts that Matthew's book Naval Timber and Arboriculture which covered the then very important topic of how to grow, harvest and prepare trees for the building of ships. In one of the appendixes of this book there is a brief write up of the idea of natural selection but at two mages it lacked the years documentation and research and the accumulation of data on dozens of species.

Darwin responded to his discovery of Matthew's work: "I freely acknowledge that Mr. Matthew has anticipated by many years the explanation which I have offered of the origin of species, under the name of natural selection. I can do no more than offer my apologies to Mr. Matthew for my entire ignorance of his publication." Darwin also included the entirety of Matthew's two pages and his acknowledgement that Matthews had the idea first in every edition of his book after that

In fact, the conjecture had been kicked around for years before Darwin (and independently, Wallace) actually formulated testable hypotheses and then went out and checked the evidence to see if they were correct. Darwin's own grandfather had some ideas about it. But Darwin and Wallace turned that conjecture into a well-documented theory. So they get the credit.

 

[SilverBear]

Doesn't matter. They were both wrong anyway.

“E pur si muove."― Galileo Galilei

 

[Gottservant]

Stealing isn't wrong, if you leave room for the interpretation to benefit the one you have stolen from.

 

[Ligurian]

Stealing isn't wrong, if you leave room for the interpretation to benefit the one you have stolen from.

Seriously. If a tribe steals the history of another people, how does that benifit the victims?

 

[Ligurian]

Doesn't matter. They were both wrong anyway.

Since when does Identity theft not matter?

 

[lismore]

Stealing is only wrong if Darwin was wrong. Otherwise stealing is good. Survival of the fittest. God Bless

 

[jamiec]

“E pur si muove."― Galileo Galilei

Apparently that saying too is apocryphal, being unattested until a century after Galileo's trial in 1633, when it was supposedly uttered - perhaps in the form "Eppur si muove".

 

[Dale]

New evidence proves Charles Darwin stole Theory of Evolution from rival naturalist | Daily Mail Online

"Charles Darwin is credited with transforming the understanding of natural history – but a new book claims to have found evidence that he stole his Theory of Evolution.

Written by an experienced criminologist, it argues there are overwhelming similarities between Darwin’s seminal On The Origin Of Species and an earlier work by a naturalist called Patrick Matthew."

Every time something secular turns out to be fake and ghey you have to drink 10 shots.

Charles Darwin spent his entire life working on the Theory of Evolution. To say that he stole it is ridiculous. Darwin spent thousands of hours looking at barnacles with a magnifying glass and so became an expert on barnacles. Perhaps he was the greatest living expert on that subject. It was his use of evidence gathered from his study of barnacles that convinced the Royal Society that evolution wasn't just a philosophical conjecture but something backed by evidence.

 

[The Barbarian]

Stealing is only wrong if Darwin was wrong. Otherwise stealing is good. Survival of the fittest.

You're confusing nature with morality. Nature has no morals. Fortunately, most people do. Scientists will tell you that nature is a very bad place to get your morals.

Charles Darwin spent his entire life working on the Theory of Evolution. To say that he stole it is ridiculous. Darwin spent thousands of hours looking at barnacles with a magnifying glass and so became an expert on barnacles. Perhaps he was the greatest living expert on that subject. It was his use of evidence gathered from his study of barnacles that convinced the Royal Society that evolution wasn't just a philosophical conjecture but something backed by evidence.

By the time Darwin was a adult, many scientists were aware that some kind of evolution had to have happened. Darwin's great discovery was the way it works.

 

[lismore]

You're confusing nature with morality. Nature has no morals. Fortunately, most people do. Scientists will tell you that nature is a very bad place to get your morals.

Then they'd be the ones trying to ride two horses going in opposite directions, not me. God Bless

 

[The Barbarian]

Then they'd be the ones trying to ride two horses going in opposite directions,

Natural man would say that. To a natural man, Jesus was a sucker and a loser. Scientists realize that we are not bound by nature unless we let it be so:

The surgeon may harden himself whilst performing an operation, for he knows that he is acting for the good of his patient; but if we were intentionally to neglect the weak and helpless, it could only be for a contingent benefit, with an overwhelming present evil.
Charles Darwin The Descent of Man

That is how a scientist would see it.

not me. God Bless

Fortunately, not very many.

 

[Dale]

Stealing is only wrong if Darwin was wrong. Otherwise stealing is good. Survival of the fittest. God Bless

You're putting words in Darwin's mouth that he never said.
I assume that you know that Charles Darwin was a Church of England minister.