You've yet to offer anything suggesting that Blyth beleived that speciation was even possible, let alone that natural selection played a role in it.
And if Blyth rejected common descent then he certainly rejected the possiblity that speciation could occur in part of a population (cladogenesis), leaving a significant discovery for Darwin.
Let us cover this issue here then, shall we? Francis Hitching mentioned that Eiseley had chronicled quite substantial portions of Darwin's writings that were nearly "word for word identical between Darwin and Blyth"" although Blyth's ideas preceded Darwin's publication of The Origin by over twenty years (I do not necessarily agree with Eiseley on the strict word for word comparison, however compare this from the Magazine of Natural History in 1835, which Darwin read on the Beagle, with Darwin's earlier chapters on natural selection in his Origin) .(9)
Large parts of Darwin's personal notes during this period in 1835 reflected his familiarity with Blyth's writings, yet for some mysterious reason fifty pages of Darwin's notebook from this time are missing, with the cryptic reference "All useful pages cut out," (6) added by Darwin in 1856.
This does not prove that Darwin purposely hid reference to Blyth's writings. You can draw your own conclusions.
Darwin's own copy of Magazine of Natural History in 1837 showed that he made use of Blyth's paper of that year, the same year when he first claimed to have come up with the idea of natural selection on his own,(7)wherein Blyth had written essentially the same basic doctrine that Darwin took credit for.(8)
Eiseley wrote, "At that moment, probably in 1837, the Origin was born."
William Wells had actually written of natural selection in 1813 (as had many others, however it was Blyth's writing that Darwin clearly was impressed by during his voyage, and it was Blyth who saw natural selection in a creationist context) but Darwin claimed that he was unfamiliar with Well's writings at the time of the original publication of The Origin of Species.
Later on, after being brought to task by certain individuals for taking credit for an idea that was not his own, Darwin gave Wells credit for the idea; however Wells originated nothing novel either: as noted, the basic concept of natural selection had been around since ancient Greek time. (Although it is a bit like pulling teeth, evolutionists are finally having to admit that there was really nothing original in what Darwin wrote, however they still insist that he somehow proved evolution. Very few of them can actually cite evidence for this. For more on this century old fable, see Chapter Four of The Darwin Papers)
The significant difference between the writings of Charles Darwin and Edward Blyth was that Blyth was an ardent creationist; (other evolutionists had written of natural selection before Blyth, it's really a pretty simple concept and was nothing new when Darwin wrote about it either, as can be seen from this website), the uniqueness of Blyth's writing was that he saw natural selection within a creationist perspective, not from a purely naturalistic one, and his papers simply flowed with his sense of awe and reverence for the God of creation who had so wonderously and wisely made all of His creatures. Blyth showed that natural selection actually worked better within a creationist framework. Thus, with this major pillar destroyed, the theory of evolution didn't have a leg to stand on, except for the ongoing propaganda campaign conducted by those such as Roland that lends the momentum to continure the charade.
http://www.thedarwinpapers.com/...te/Number2/Darwin2Html.htm
Blythe actually demonstrated how Natural Selection actually works. He was the very first Scientist to ever do this, not Darwin! Darwin and Blythe's writings were basically identical word for word. Why is that?
Well obviously, the burden doesn't fall on Blythe, since his writings were from 1835. But Darwin's writings being 25 years later? Perhaps this could also explain why he got sick on his voyage to the Galapogos (if he even in fact went!).
In other words, NS and Evolution are mutually exclusive terms
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Only if NS cannot guide the change of speciation. Even if the entire population became a new species (anagenesis) that would still be evolution. Thus you only confirm the point that this idea belongs to Darwin, not Blyth.
- Problem no. 1 with this is the fact that no new gain of information has ever occurred, and we should expect a TON of this if Evolution were true. So right away, Evolution is really dismissible. Natural Selection does not guide the change within Speciation.
Problem 2:
Here is an example of Blyth's description of natural selection, which, as opposed to Darwin's (and other evolutionist's writings), describes it as a process whereby the original created type of a species has the best chance of surviving among brute animals:
" There has been, strangely enough, a difference of opinion among naturalists, as to whether these seasonal changes of colour were intended by Providence as an adaptation to change of temperature10, or as a means of preserving the various species from the observation of their foes, by adapting their hues to the colour of the surface; against which latter opinion it has been plausibly enough argued, that "nature provides for the preyer as well as for the prey." The fact is, they answer both purposes; and they are among those striking instances of design, which so clearly and forcibly attest the existence of an omniscient great First Cause. Experiment demonstrates the soundness of the first opinion; and sufficient proof can be adduced to show that the other is also sound. Some arctic species are white, which have no enemy to fear, as the polar bear, the gyrfalcon, the arctic eagle-owl, the snowy owl, and even the stoat; and therefore, in these, the whiteness can only be to preserve the temperature of their bodies [VI. 79.]; but when we perceive that the colour of nocturnal animals, and of those defenceless species whose habits lead them to be much exposed, especially to enemies from above, are invariably of the same colour with their respective natural haunts, we can only presume that this is because they should not appear too conspicuous to their enemies.".
Blyth, Magazine of Natural History, 1835
http://www.thedarwinpapers.com/...te/Number2/Darwin2Html.htm
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Darwin's main purpose and drive was to establish a Philosophy known by most intelligent Philosophers as Naturalism and then call it "Science."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Got any evidence for that incredible assertion ? Or is it more of the usual slander we've come to expect from creationists ?
Slander nothing. Why do Scientists today claim that only Naturalism is Science? Do you happen to realize that none of that was even considered until the Age of Enlightenment? The Greeks used to combine God and Science! Being that Creation Science has not been refuted, it is in fact the Evolutionists who carry the burden of proof, though, they always love to shift it over to the YECS side.
Also see: Francis Hitching, an evolutionist, wrote: "Darwin took everything Blyth had said and used it to support an opposite conclusion"(10) i.e. the denial of the miraculous and of special creation. Darwin changed natural selection around to mean evolutionary descent of all beings from a common ancestor, which was never Blyth's original contention at all."
http://www.thedarwinpapers.com/...te/Number2/Darwin2Html.htm
The author seems to dance around the issues here and does not stand firmly committed to any position for the most part. What is significant however are the quotes surrounding his claims.
Edited by Casey Powell, : No reason given.
™ Version 4.2
