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