DARWIN

Part V
The Theft

by Miles Mathis

First published March 15, 2024

In part IV we had gotten Darwin up to the publication of On the Origin of Species, but we skipped over him stealing precedence from Wallace. So we will hit that here.

You might assume that what we discovered in parts I and II about Darwin faking his trip around world would be the biggest fraud in his life, but it has serious competition. It reminds me of Lindbergh, where we found the kidnapping of his baby was faked. In the lives of most people, that would be impossible to top, but Lindbergh did top it easily, as we saw. And the thing about Darwin is, the mainstream admits this second fraud. They don't admit the first one, but they go to very little effort to hide this second one.

I am actually not the first one to point this out. Several books have been written about it, and Wikipedia even references a couple of them before telling you they are wrong and that  “most scientists” agree Darwin was the first to have the modern idea of Evolution via Natural Selection.  But as usual that just means that most scientists have been paid off or threatened to go along with the party line here, and that Wikipedia has, too.  Darwin is too big a name to lose now, so even though I am sure a lot of scientists will agree with me here, they can't make trouble this late in history. Like Heisenberg, Oppenheimer, Turing, and the rest of these folks, Darwin has to be kept propped up for the sake of mainstream science “theory”.  He is part of the modern propaganda package, so you aren't supposed to

look too closely at any of this. You are supposed to just drink it down with a Big Gulp and go on as before.

Alfred Russel Wallace actually beat Darwin into print with two big papers, one in 1855 and one in 1858. Darwin's book was 1859. Wallace first wrote and published “On the Law which has Regulated the Introduction of New Species" in 1855. That law is Evolution, of course, though they now try to claim that because it doesn't mention possible mechanisms for Evolution, it doesn't count. Pathetic. We know Darwin read the paper by 1856 since it was sent to him by both Lyell and Blyth. We are told that Darwin had already shown his theory to Joseph Hooker, but there is no proof of that one way or the other.  At any rate, you don't establish priority by showing your theory to a cousin, you do it by publishing. Publication is the record of your writing, proving its existence so that we don't have to take your cousin's word for it. You don't have to publish with a major publisher, there simply has to be something in writing, and a record that you released it into the world, with a traceable date and place of release. Darwin could have printed up just a few copies and placed them in a couple of libraries, and if the libraries had a record of when that happened it would count. In France in the 19th century you could establish priority by sending a single dated copy of your paper to the French Academy, and they were required to confirm the date of receipt. We saw that happening in my paper on Edison, although there were ways to cheat even that system.

We don't know what Darwin showed Hooker, but we do know he didn't start writing up his “species sketch” until May of 1856, and then only because Lyell pressed him to do so to establish priority over Wallace. Since Wallace had already published in 1855, I don't see how they thought Darwin would establish priority, but as we know they had things up their sleeves. The rules don't apply to Stuarts.

Due to that confidence, Darwin and his team dawdled for another two years, writing and publishing nothing. So they were shocked when Wallace sent his new paper of February 1858  "On the Tendency  of Varieties to Depart Indefinitely From the Original Type”, directly to Darwin, asking for his opinion on publication. The Darwin team could see that they were in a pickle, with Darwin as usual pulling a Neil Armstrong and calling in sick. They still explain Darwin's absence in this period as due to the illness of his baby son, which again sounds like desperation. The child had been sick since birth, two years earlier.  Besides, since Darwin was the centerpiece of this reading, they should have postponed. It made no sense to do this without Darwin there. So all this is highly suspicious, as usual. Lyell and Hooker jumped in to represent the team, publishing Wallace's new paper via a reading at their own Linnean Society, in conjunction with a previously unpublished essay and letter excerpts from Darwin. Somehow they then claimed priority for Darwin from that. Also suspicious is that the President of the Society, Thomas Bell, commenting on the previous year's proceedings in May 1859, notoriously claimed no big discoveries had been seen. So it now looks like he was paid to downplay the importance of Wallace's paper, which everyone was busy burying to make way for Darwin's big book six months later.

From reading the glosses of this at Wikipedia and Brittanica and the various Darwin biographies, you would think Hooker read from the notes for the upcoming Origin of Species. That is what is always implied. But that isn't the case, as you can read about here.

First the error: Darwin’s contributions to the meeting were not of his Origin theory, but from his largely abandoned 1844 Essay theory, somewhat updated with a major new idea (divergence) tagged on in a separate document. Natural selection, the innovative mechanism for modifcation by descent, was presented at the meeting. But a theory of evolution requires much more than a theory of how organic change can happen; otherwise, Blyth has to be

credited with frst proposing a theory of evolution by means of natural selection. In 1835, he outlined natural selection as a purely conservative mechanism, a ‘law, therefore, which was intended by Providence to keep up the typical qualities of a species’.

You see the knots these “scientists” and “historians” tie themselves up into. This is a 2022 article by Derek Partridge, and he is obviously trying to hit Wallace, but Wallace ducks and Partridge ends up knocking Darwin cold. Origin of Species should have been way beyond a first draft by then, so we don't understand why Hooker was reading from abandoned essay from 14 years earlier. Or, we do now understand: Darwin didn't have squat in the summer of 1858, and everything we have been told is a lie. This is why Wikipedia and all the other sources go to such lengths making you think the Linnean 1858 reading was from an early draft of Origin of Species: by all rights it should have been. You don't write a 500-page science book in a few months.

But even if the reading had been from a draft of Origin of Species, none of the rest of this makes any sense. You can't just steal priority like this. If that happened today it would never fly. Not one scientist worldwide would except it. Darwin, Lyell, and Hooker would be laughed off the podium and forced to retreat in utter embarrassment. Never before or since had anyone stolen credit in such a hamhanded and transparent manner. As we have seen recently with Edison and Bell, these steals are very common, but normally they hide them a bit better than that. There is a big payoff and a somewhat believable story is concocted, one that doesn't just admit the fraud right out in the open. This is what we are told today at Wikipedia:

Communication with Wallace in the far-off Malay Archipelago involved months of delay, so he was not part of this rapid publication. Wallace accepted the arrangement after the fact, happy that he had been included at all, and never expressed bitterness in public or in private. Darwin's social and scientifc status was far greater than Wallace's, and it was unlikely that, without Darwin, Wallace's views on evolution would have been taken seriously. Lyell and Hooker's arrangement relegated Wallace to the position of co-discoverer, and he was not the social equal of Darwin or the other prominent British natural scientists. All the same, the joint reading of their papers on natural selection associated Wallace with the more famous Darwin.

As you see, they are still making no effort to hide it, admitting that Darwin was given credit not because he published first or had any believable precedence, but because of his “social status”. He outranked Wallace, so it was OK for them to bump him. They might as well say Darwin was a Stuart and therefore it was his birthright to be given credit for this. They basically ARE saying that, as you see for yourself.

And yet, somehow, no one in the mainstream has ever had any problem with it. While telling us how strict they are about the scientific method and peer review and all the modern rules of publication, we see they just make the rules up as they go to suit themselves. There are a lot of rules for you and none for them. The Gentile scientist rulebook is fifty volumes of fine print, while the Phoenician scientist rulebook is two words: ANYTHING GOES.

A year after that reading, Darwin's team published their book. Wow, that was fast! After not being able to come up with anything for decades, suddenly they cranked out this 500-page book in just a matter of months. I guess we are supposed to believe the health of Darwin and all his kids and pets improved overnight, and that he suddenly became a miracle of efficiency.

But seriously, it is pretty obvious the team hired another couple of ghosts and got this thing to the

publisher as soon as possible. We are just lucky they didn't try to backdate it, claiming it had gotten lost behind the printing presses.

They needed to backdate it to claim precedence, since in his paper Wallace had not only proposed Evolution but Natural Selection. That's what Partridge doesn't tell you. Notice that he tells us Natural Selection was presented at the meeting, implying that it came from Darwin's papers. It didn't, it came from Wallace's paper. And there is no evidence Wallace stole the idea from Darwin. Wallace got the idea from Malthus (and Blyth), not Darwin, transferring Malthus' environmental pressures to Evolution. We are told Darwin and Wallace just happened to come to the same mechanism separately and almost simultaneously, though there is no evidence of that on Darwin's side. There is no circumstantial evidence indicating Wallace got it from Darwin, but there is clear evidence Darwin and his team got it from Wallace, since his paper was in their possession. But even if it could be proved they came to the same idea independently, precedence would still go to Wallace, for writing it down and sending it off for publication first. That is how it really works, according to their own published rules. It was actually brilliant of Wallace to send it to Darwin instead of the publisher, because then Darwin couldn't claim not to have seen it.

I assume Wallace didn't make a stink for several reasons: one, they no doubt paid him off handsomely; two, he knew by the way it turned out that everyone on the inside knew he beat Darwin and his team to the punch. That and the money were all he wanted: he didn't care what the great unwashed thought of the matter, since the peerage was the whole world to these people. The peers of his own time knew the truth, so the future could hang. These people don't believe in the future. Wallace won and he knew that and Darwin knew that and the rest didn't matter.

But let's go back to the title of Wallace's second paper, “On the Tendency for Varieties to Depart Indefinitely from the Original Type”. There is no such tendency, is there? Think about it. If there were such a built in tendency, we would see a lot more change than we do. Any amount of thought on the subject confirms there is the opposite tendency, that of varieties or species not to depart from the existing type. Malthus' environmental pressures should exist all the time everywhere, which means that species should be changing constantly to match an ever-changing environment. But they mostly DON'T. Natural Selection is always used to explain change, but how does it explain lack of change? For example, cats have not changed significantly in five million years. Does that mean their environment didn't change significantly in five million years? No. Does that mean they are perfect? Maybe, but I doubt it. What about coelacanths, who have been around in the same form for over 400 million years. How does natural selection explain that? They are perfect? They don't look perfect to me. Did all that change just skip them? No environmental pressure for them?

We all remember the graphic of a fish walking out of the water and becoming a reptile, then an ape, then a man. So why didn't the coelacanth evolve in that direction even a little in 400 million years? You will say that is just one line of evolution, so I will vary my question: why didn't the coelacanth evolve into a dolphin even a little? The dolphin seems way more advanced than the coelacanth, so why did the dolphin evolve and not the coelacanth? They live in the same ocean.

So Darwin and Wallace offered us this “mechanism”, but the mechanism seems to only apply when we need it. It doesn't seem to apply indiscriminately, as a natural law should. It applies more like a grand fudge factor. It ignores dinosaurs for tens of millions of years, but then evolves a hummingbird overnight to match its flower.

We also find this on Wallace's Wiki page:

Others have noted that Wallace appeared to have envisioned natural selection as a kind  of feedback mechanism that kept species and varieties adapted to their environment (now called 'stabilizing", as opposed to 'directional' selection).[129] They point to a largely overlooked passage of Wallace's famous 1858 paper, in which he likened "this principle ... [to] the centrifugal governor of the st ea m  e ngin e,  wh ich  ch ec ks  and   co r rec ts  a ny  i r reg ula r i t ie s" . [3] The cybernetician and anthropologist Gregory Bateson observed in the 1970s that, although writing it only as an example, Wallace had "probably said the most powerful thing that'd been said in the 19th Century".[130]

So some are actually selling Wallace as superior to Darwin, which is interesting. But I remind you there is still no mechanism here, just a broad analogy. We know how a steam engine corrects irregularities, but how does Nature do that? To have a feedback mechanism, you have to not only a mechanism, but FEEDBACK. How are the environment and the organism communicating? Darwin, Wallace, Malthus, Blyth, and all the rest tell us it is via pressure, death, scarcity, and competition, but that doesn't answer, because all those things are abstractions. Not one of them is a direct feedback mechanism, like a pushback on an over-rotation in an engine.

As I have shown here, all these claims of a mechanism are empty, namings standing for explanations. These people say there is a mechanism and call it something, Evolution or Natural Selection, but never get around to showing you how it works. A mechanism answers the question HOW, but without a real charge field, none of these scientists could ever tell you how any of this was being achieved by Nature or the organisms or the species or the varieties. It was the claim of a mechanics with no mechanics. Same as quantum mechanics, which is another vast claim of discovery with no mechanics. Just a lot of cutesy naming and browbeating.

In that paper I show that every organism, and every cell in every organism, can  communicate constantly with the environment via the charge field, which creates a real feedback mechanism as well as a real mechanics. It is mechanical because the charge field is mechanical, made of real photons with real radii and real spins. And the environment doesn't just communicate with each cell, it communicates with each enzyme in the body, giving the cells and enzymes the information they need to do what they do. One of the things the enzymes can do: change the genetic code.

And why do enzymes sometimes “want” to do that and sometimes not want to do that? No one knows, not even me, but at least it gets us to the next level of questioning. We are no longer tied up in the non- mechanical handwaving of Darwin, Wallace, and all the rest since then. The charge field all by itself moves us a huge step forward in understanding how all things work.

I had wanted to say more about the publication of Darwin's book, but the historical accounts are so obviously fabricated I gave up in disgust. See for example the Wikipedia page “publication of Darwin's theory”, which was obviously assigned to some specialist in propaganda. It is nothing but unsubstantiated claims, airy assertions, and the usual attempts at smiling hypnosis. You can almost see the watch swinging. We are told Darwin was working on this as soon as he returned to England in 1836, but we have not a shred of proof of that. Twenty years later he is just beginning a “sketch” of his views, and we are supposed to believe it is an outline of a far larger existing work he is sitting on. Even Origin of Species is supposed to be just a gloss of it. One problem: that urtext has never surfaced, and you can tell just by the form of this promotion it never existed. We get a long line of excuses—bad health, sick and dying children, the whole town with scarlet fever—but that doesn't explain two decades of inertia and nothing actually published.  Read closely and you soon realize the whole thing is a charade.

Since the mainstream is not giving me anything to comment on there, I will look instead at Charles Lyell, who I have so far missed in my critiques. He was actually Sir Charles Lyell III, 1 st Baronet, putting a huge red flag on him from the start. All the baronets are worthy of high suspicion, as we have found. His grandfather made a huge fortune supplying the Royal Navy at Montrose, in Scotland. Lyell's wife was Mary Horner, whose uncle Francis Horner had founded the Edinburgh Review. These Horners were also Murrays, linking us to the John Murray who published Darwin. Lyell's own uncle was Gilbert Heathcote, whose father was also a baronet. Heathcote's brother Henry was Admiral of the Blue. His grandmother was Lady Parker, daughter of the Earl of Macclesfield. His son married Mary Thomas, her father being Rear Admiral Frederick Jennings Thomas, son of the 5th Baronet. The Heathcotes are also closely related to the Dickens, as in Charles Dickens. These Heathcotes were baronets in two lines at the time, the second line marrying the Manners, Dukes of Rutland, and becoming Barons Aveland in 1856. They then married the Gordons, Marquesses of Huntley, and became the Earls of Ancaster 1892.

Wiki scrubs Lyell's mother, but at thepeerage.com we find she was a Smith of Muker Hall, Swaledale, Yorkshire. Darryl Lundy reports it as Maker Hall, but it was Muker Hall. This would make these Smiths the lead mining Smiths of that area. Lyell also inherited all this Smith property when his uncles in that line died without issue, making him the biggest landowner in that area. Lyell had no children, but his brother married his wife's sister Katherine Horner, and their son Leonard Lyell became the 1 st Baron Lyell. He married a Stirling of Drumpelier, linking us to more titles.

What does it all mean? The usual: Darwin and Lyell were peerage cousins, perhaps most closely related through Lyell's wife.

Why does it matter?  Because with a little research we find the same thing applies to Lyell that applies to everyone else we have looked at. On his own page, he is sold as the father of Uniformitarianism, but in the page on that, second paragraph, Wiki admits:

Coined by William Whewell, it was originally proposed in contrast to catastrophism[10] by British naturalists in the late 18th century, starting with the work of the geologist James Hutton in his many books including Theory of the Earth.[11] Hutton's work was later refned by scientist John Playfair and popularised by geologist Charles Lyell's Principles of Geology in 1830.[12] Today, Earth's history is considered to have been a slow, gradual process, punctuated by occasional natural catastrophic events.

Ah, so the truth comes out! Lyell was mainly a popularizer of other people's ideas. Another idea thief. And why is he so much more famous than Hutton and Playfair on these topics? Now you know: it is because he was a Stuart. As a peer from top lines, he figured it was his just reward for being born.

This is also interesting: Principles of Geology was Lyell's first published book, and it came out when he was. . . you know it. . . 33. He was not a geology professor and had no degree in geology. By today's rules, he could not claim the title “geologist”. He would be banned from the field as an interloper, crank, and carpetbagger. He had been a lawyer up to age 30. As with Darwin, Lyell's book was published by John Murray, another close cousin. We saw the Murrays above.

Unless you are in the field, you probably haven't heard of Hutton, but you have likely heard of Lyell. Even in the field, you wouldn't have heard of Hutton if he weren't also a peer. A lower ranking one than Lyell, but still a Hutton and a Balfour, which guaranteed he wouldn't be completely buried.

Hutton's father was a rich merchant, City Treasurer of Edinburgh. His mother is scrubbed, but she is probably of the Balfours of Pilrig, who were also Hamiltons of Airdrie, Elphinstones of Logie, Forbes of Craigievar, and Montgomeries of Hazelhead.

Hutton came to his theories over a period of 25 years, finally publishing them in 1788 in Theory of the Earth. We are told this was ignored because his prose was bad, but if that were the case no one would have ever heard of Newton, Kant, and almost everyone else. The mathematician John Playfair basically rewrote the book for him in 1802, leaving out the parts on evolution as too revolutionary. This helped a bit, but it helped much more when Lyell—who had all the right connections, to the Edinburgh Review and everywhere else—rewrote it all again in 1830, and it really caught fire.

Are there any statues to Hutton, father of geology? No. There is one statue of him in the Scottish National Portrait Gallery, but since it is from 1776, it can't be for his geology work. It may be for his work on the canal. More likely it is misattributed, being his father the city treasurer.

As for Lyell:

Lyell was knighted (Kt) in 1848,[12] and later, in 1864, made a baronet (Bt),[13] which is an hereditary honour. He was  awarded  the Copley  Medal of  the Royal  Society in  1858  and the Wollaston Medal of the Geological Society in 1866. Mount Lyell, the highest peak in Yosemite National Park, is named after him; the crater Lyell on the Moon and a crater on Mars were named in his honour; Mount Lyell in western Tasmania, Australia, located in a profitable mining area, bears Lyell's name; and the Lyell Range in north-west Western Australia is named after him as well. In Southwest Nelson in the South Island of New Zealand, the Lyell Range, Lyell River and the gold mining town  of Lyell (now  only  a  camping  site)  were  all  named  after  Lyell.[14] Lyall  Bay in W e l l i n g t o n ,  N e w Z e a l a n d  w a s  p o s s i b l y  n a m e d   a f t e r   L y e l l .[15][16] The  jawless fish Cephalaspis lyelli, from the Old Red Sandstone of southern Scotland, was named by Louis Agassiz in honour of Lyell.[17]

So the real father of geology (who was also not a geology professor or a professional geologist and who had no science degree—he was trained as a doctor) is lost in obscurity, while the rich guy who stole everything from him was showered with prizes and medals and has fish and craters and towns named after him. Given all that, it is sort of embarrassing that he was wrong about almost everything. A lot of his later fame was due to his links to Darwin, but he also became the main top name in the argument against Cuvier, as you may know. Lyell saw himself as "the spiritual savior of geology, freeing the science from the old dispensation of Moses." Very pretty, but Georges Cuvier (also a baron, by the way) had already destroyed Uniformitarianism before Lyell even got there, arguing against Hutton's ideas in 1812. Cuvier, like Hutton but unlike Lyell, did a lot of work in the field (Lyell was almost blind from an early age). But Cuvier didn't limit his digging to one place. He and his comrades found evidence of several mass extinctions, which obviously don't fit the idea of uniformitarianism. In response to that, the only thing Lyell had to say is

the geologic record was "grossly imperfect" and that observations cannot be trusted if they go against "the plan of Nature".

In other words, let's not confuse the issue with facts. Lyell bragged he was more scientific than the priests, but you see he still had very little use for experiments when they got in the way of his theorizing.

It is also strange to see him so connected to Darwin, since he always argued against the transmutation

of species.

In the first edition of Principles, the first volume briefly set out Lyell's concept of a steady state with no real progression of fossils. The sole exception was the advent of humanity, with no great physical distinction from animals, but with absolutely unique intellectual and moral qualities. The second volume dismissed Lamarck's claims of animal forms arising from habits, continuous spontaneous generation of new life, and man having evolved from lower forms. Lyell explicitly rejected Lamarck's concept of transmutation of species, drawing on Cuvier's arguments, and concluded that species had been created with stable attributes.

That is remarkable not only for its direct opposition to Darwin, but for the admission that Lamarck beat them both to the punch on evolution, transmutation of species and spontaneous generation (mutation).

Lamarck was also a noble, though they try to sell him now as impoverished. The usual.  He came out of a Jesuit College, so he was another Phoenician cousin. Despite that he is now universally ridiculed, but probably more for being a Frenchman than for for his theory of acquired characteristics. He and Cuvier had to be buried to make room for Lyell and Darwin, you know. If you read closely, you will find it admitted even in these mainstream sources that Lamarck didn't invent that theory and actually refined it quite a bit. What you won't generally find admitted is that acquired characteristics are making a strong comeback in the margins, due to many newer experiments pointing at them. This silent revolution has been proceeding like many others, unknown to all but a few. It made some headway with Arthur Koestler's Case of the Midwife Toad of 1971, which argued that not only had Paul Kammerer obtained proof of it in 1925, but that he was blackwashed to hide it and protect Darwinism.  That was somewhat difficult to believe in 1971, and Koestler's book didn't make much of a dent. But given what we have discovered since, my readers at least are in a position to give it another look. We know that people are destroyed to protect entrenched theory, since I am one of those people. But unlike Kammerer I refused to commit suicide and go away.  In my paper linked above, I show how the charge field might explain acquired characteristics. I just discovered that some mainstream scientists now parallel my explanation there, especially Alexander Vargas, who specifically points to the emerging field of epigenetics, as I do. This is the first sentence on the Wiki page for epigenetics:

In biology, epigenetics is the study of heritable traits, or a stable change of cell function, that happen without changes to the DNA sequence.[1] The Greek prefx epi- (ἐπι- "over, outside of, around") in epigenetics implies features that are "on top of" or "in addition to" the traditional (DNA sequence based) genetic mechanism of inheritance.[2] Epigenetics usually involves a change that is not erased by cell division, and affects the regulation of gene expression. [3] S u c h    e f f e c t s    o n cellular and physiological p h e n o t y p i c  t r a i t s m a y   r e s u l t

from environmental factors.

ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS. They admit it, right there. That's neo-Lamarckism, since traits affected by immediate environmental factors lead to acquired characteristics. They continue:

The term also refers  to  the  mechanism  of  changes:  functionally  relevant  alterations  to the genome that do not involve mutation of the nucleotide sequence. Examples of mechanisms that produce such changes are DNA methylation and histone modifcation, each of  which alters how genes are expressed without altering the underlying DNA sequence.

Wiki doesn't seem to want you to realize what that means, since they make sure to include a final section on “pseudoscience”. They are warning you against quacks who claim the genetic sequence can be changed by mind control.   I haven't come across that, but epigenetics certainly can be linked to

acquired characteristics, especially when combined with the charge field. The charge field is not “mind control” or pseudoscience either, since the mainstream admits it exists. My charge field is simply Maxwell's D-field, which underlies and causes electromagnetism. It is the same charge that exists on protons and electrons, and inside the nucleus.

What IS pseudoscience is mainstream science in all fields, which has been existing without a real mechanics since the time of Newton. It is all bluster and fudge and unassigned math, as I have shown exhaustively. That couldn't be clearer in evolutionary biology, which has existed from the beginning without any real mechanism. You are taught that Natural Selection is the mechanism of Evolution, but Natural Selection isn't a mechanism. It is another theory. As I have shown, it bogs down just like all these other theories in all subfields when it gets time to point to a method of communication or force between organism and environment. How do any of these things know to do what they do? The DNA was supposed to explain that, but it too is not a mechanism. It is a code. How does the environment affect the code, and how does the organism read the code? Without the charge field, mainstream scientists are left to explain everything with chance mutations, some of which are beneficial, but I have shown that doesn't serve as a mechanism. They knew that before I came along, but because it is all they have they guard it jealously, as if it is something to cherish. It isn't, it is just idiotic. No sane person would consider mutations something to cherish as a theory or mechanism, since its explanatory power is about nil. If Nature had to wait around for beneficial chance mutations, nothing would ever get done.