Ernst Mayr (1904-2005), _The Growth of Biological Thought: Diversity, Evolution, and Inheritance_ (1982)

** you do not have permission to see this link **
Page 489 — 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 mentioning this in his writings.
The subsequent discovery of Darwin's notebooks has permitted the refutation of Eiseley's claims.
More importantly, Blyth's theory was clearly one of elimination rather than of selection.
His principal concern is the maintenance of the perfection of the type.
Blyth's thinking is decidedly that of a natural theologian, for whom all occurrences of variation "are among those striking incidences of design which clearly and forcibly attest the existence of an omniscient great first cause."
Everything attests design and the perfect balance of nature (Schwartz, 1974).
Darwin quite likely had read Blyth's paper but paid no further attention to it since it was anti-evolutionary in spirit and not different from the writings of other natural theologians in its general thesis.
In later years, Blyth became one of Darwin's valued correspondents.

Do you believe that Darwin read Blyth's 1835 article?

[1835 Blyth]"known by the name of _ancons_ or _otter_ sheep... A ewe produced a male lamb of peculiar form, with a long body, and short and crooked limbs... tailless cats... rumpless fowls, together with many sorts of dogs"
[1844 Darwin]"where all the limbs are stunted (as in the ancon sheep), or where a part is wanting as in rumpless fowls & tailess dogs or cats"

Loren Eiseley, _Darwin and the Mysterious Mr. X:  New Light on the Evolutionists_ (1979)
amazon.com/Darwin-Mysterious-Mr-Loren-Eiseley/dp/052508875X/
** you do not have permission to see this link **
Page 60 — In Blyth's paper of 1835 occurs a statement concerning Ancon sheep.
A little later in the same paragraph occurs a list of odd mutations, including "donkey-footed swine, tailless cats, back-feathered, five-toed, and rumpless fowls, together with many sorts of dogs. . . ."^40
This odd little concentration of mutative types is duplicated in almost the same order in Darwin's essay of 1844.
Like Blyth, Darwin is discussing "sports" or hereditary monsters.
Like him, Darwin mentions Ancon sheep, rumpless fowls, and tailless cats.^41

RECORD:  Darwin, C. R.  1844.  Sketch of species theory (fair copy).
** you do not have permission to see this link **
[page] 4
(4
...the proverbial expression that no live animals or plants are born absolutely alike, is much truer when applied to those under domestication, than to those in a state of nature.
Besides these slight differences, single individuals are occasionally born, considerably unlike in certain parts or in their whole structure, to their parents:
these are called by horticulturists & breeders "sports";
and are not uncommon, except when very strongly marked.
Such sports are known in some cases, to have been parents of some of our domestic races;
& such probably have been the parents of many other races, especially of those, which in some senses maybe called hereditary monsters;
for instance, where there is an additional limb, or where all the limbs are stunted (as in the ancon sheep), or where a part is wanting as in rumpless fowls & tailess dogs or cats.

Edward Blyth, "An Attempt to classify the 'Varieties' of Animals, with Observations on the marked Seasonal and other Changes which naturally take place in various British Species, and which do not constitute Varieties" _The Magazine of Natural History, and Journal of Zoology, Botany, Mineralogy, Geology, and Meteorology_ Vol 8 (1835)
** you do not have permission to see this link **
cited in
** you do not have permission to see this link **
Page 103 — In like manner, among animals which procure their food by means of their agility, strength, or delicacy of sense, the one best organized must always obtain the greatest quantity; and must, therefore, become physically the strongest, and be thus enabled, by routing its opponents, to transmit its superior qualities to a greater number of offspring.
The same law, therefore, which was intended by Providence to keep up the typical qualities of a species, can be easily converted by man into a means of raising different varieties;
but it is also clear that, if man did not keep up these breeds by regulating the sexual intercourse, they would all naturally soon revert to the original type.
Farther, it is only on this principle that we can satisfactorily account for the degenerating effects said to be produced by the much-censured practice of "breeding in and in."^8
There would almost seem, in some species, to be a tendency, in every separate family, to some particular kind of deviation;
which is only counteracted by the various crossings which, in a state of nature, must take place, and by the above-mentioned law, which causes each race to be chiefly propagated by the most typical and perfect individuals.

_IV. True Varieties_.
The last of these divisions to which I more peculiarly restrict the term _variety_, consists of what are, in fact a kind of deformities, or monstrous births, the peculiarities of which, from reasons already mentioned, would very rarely, if ever, be perpetuated in a state of nature;
but which, by man's agency, often become the origin of a new race.
Such, for example, is the breed of sheep, now common in North America, and known by the name of _ancons_ or _otter_ sheep.^9
A ewe produced a male lamb of peculiar form, with a long body, and short and crooked limbs:
the offspring of this animal, with ordinary females, was found sometimes to resemble the one parent, and sometimes the other;
but did not usually blend the characters of each; and, in the cases of twins, the two lambs were often equally diverse with their parents.
This variety was extensively propagated, in consequence of being less able to jump over fences than the ordinary breeds of sheep.
The solidungular ["donkey-footed"] variety of swine, tailless cats, back-feathered, five-toed, and rumpless fowls, together with many sorts of dogs, and probably, also the race of fan-tailed pigeons, are other striking examples of _true varieties_.
The deviations of this kind do not appear to have any tendency to revert to the original form:
this, most probably, could only be restored, in a direct manner, by the way in which the variety was first produced.

Different people at different times have considered different things to be or to _not_ be "obvious."

Conway Zirkle, "Natural Selection before the 'Origin of Species'" _Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society_ 84(1): 71-123 (1941)
** you do not have permission to see this link **
Actually the conception of natural selection is very old, although originally it was not used to explain the origin of new species (evolution) but to account for the existence of adaptation.
The survival of the fit organism, of course, implies the survival of fitness itself, and thus natural selection can serve as an alternative explanation of those facts which are generally cited as evidences of teleology.
Natural selection was used for this purpose by Empedocles (400 B. C.), Lucretius (99-55 B. C), Diderot (1749), Maupertius (1756), and Geoffrey St. Hillaire (1833);
but it was specifically rejected in favor of teleology by Aristotle (384-321 B. C.), Lactantius (260-340 A. D.), St. Albertus Magnus (1236), and Whewell (1833).

Natural selection was used to explain organic evolution by Wells (1813), Matthews (1831), Darwin (1858), and Wallace (1858).

As an explanation of evolution, natural selection involves a number of distinct though subordinate propositions, such as the existence of heritable variations, of population pressure, of a struggle for existence and the consequent survival of the fit or better adapted.
A number of philosophers and naturalists recognized the validity of one or more of these propositions without however, gaining any clear conception of the implications of the whole doctrine.
One such component, population pressure, was described by Hale (1677), Buffon (1751), Benjamin Franklin (1751), Bonnet (1764), Monboddo (1773), Herder (1784), Smellie (1790), Malthus (1798), Prichard (1808), Wells (1813), Matthews (1831), De Candolle (1833), Lyell (1833), Geoffrey St. Hillaire (1833), and Spencer (1852).

The struggle for existence was described by al-Jâhiz (9th cent.), Hobbes (1651), Hale (1677), Buffon (1751), Monboddo (1773), Kant (1775), Herder (1784), Smellie (1790), Erasmus Darwin, (1794) Wells (1813), De Candolle (1832), Lyell (1833), and Spencer (1852).

Several eighteenth and nineteenth century scientists almost grasped the full significance of natural selection but just failed to recognize all of its implications.
Among these were Rousseau (1749), Prichard (1808, 1826), Lawrence (1819), Geoffrey St. Hillaire (1833), Herbert (1837), Spencer (1852), and Naudin (1852).

After all, nobody argues about the existence of gravity even though you can't see it and there's much we don't understand.   Its effects are obvious.  Just step off the roof of a 12 story building.  The physicist will splat just as surely as the theologian.   

Note:  I say "gods" because the notion that there must only be one rather than many is simply prejudice not borne out by any claims to the contrary.  Arguments simply defining god into existence are non-starters.    

[1844 Darwin]"forest-trees, raised in nurseries, which vary more... than the same trees... do in their aboriginal forests"
[1831 Patrick Matthew]"NURSERIES... Man’s interference... preventing this natural process of selection among plants... has increased the difference in varieties"

Patrick Matthew, _On Naval Timber and Arboriculture_ (1831)
** you do not have permission to see this link **
** you do not have permission to see this link **

PART III.—MISCELLANEOUS MATTER CONNECTED WITH NAVAL TIMBER.
106 NURSERIES,
ib. Infinite variety existing in what is called species,
...
Page 106 — NURSERIES.
Page 107 — NURSERIES. 107
Page 108 — 108 NURSERIES.
Page 109 — NURSERIES. 109
Page 110 — 110 NURSERIES.
Page 111 — NURSERIES. 111
Page 112 — 112 NURSERIES.
Page 113 — NURSERIES. 113
Page 114 — 114 NURSERIES.

Page 307 — The use of the infinite seedling varieties in the families of plants, even in those in a state of nature, differing in luxuriance of growth and local adaptation, seems to be to give one individual (the strongest best circumstance-suited) superiority over others of its kind around, that it may, by overtopping and smothering them, procure room for full extension, and thus affording, at the same time, a continual selection of the strongest, best circumstance-suited, for reproduction.
Man’s interference, by preventing this natural process of selection among plants, independent of the wider range of circumstances to which he introduces them, has increased the difference in varieties, particularly m the more domesticated kinds;
and even in man himself, the greater uniformity, and more general vigour among savage tribes, is referrible to nearly similar selecting law— the weaker individual sinking under the ill treatment of the stronger, or under the common hardship.

Cf.

RECORD: Darwin, C. R. 1844. Sketch of species theory (fair copy). "--" equals strikethrough
** you do not have permission to see this link **
In the case of forest-trees, raised in nurseries, which vary more --, it is probable-- , than the same trees --would in-- do in their aboriginal forests;
the cause would seem simply to lie, in their not having to struggle against other trees & weeds, which in their natural state doubtless would limit the conditions of their existence.

Loren Eiseley, _Darwin and the Mysterious Mr. X: New Light on the Evolutionists_ (1979)

** you do not have permission to see this link **
Page 72 — Darwin's comment, in other words, sounds as though based on Matthew — at least I am unaware of any other convenient source.
So strongly did I feel this to be the case that, upon encountering Matthew's statement, I looked into the _Variation of Animals and Plants Under Domestication_, curious as to what one might find there.
By 1868 Matthew's book had been publicly called to Darwin's attention.
There was thus no reason why he should not refer to _Naval Timber and Arboriculture_.
In the second volume of Darwin's work one comes immediately upon the following reference under "Matthew":

"Our common forest-trees are very variable, as may be seen in every extensive nursery-ground;
but as they are not valued like fruit-trees, and as they seed late in life, no selection has been applied to them;
consequently, as Mr. Patrick Matthew remarks, they have not yielded different races. . . ."^94

This statement appears to be a shortened version of the 1844 comment placed in a new setting, with some additional comment from another page of Matthew added.^95

The re-emergence of this discussion of the variability of forest trees in nurseries suggests that Darwin _was_ aware of Matthew by 1844.
The fact that Darwin, as has been seen, speaks forcefully of his long and persistent searching of horticultural and agricultural sources, makes it less easy to accept his ingenuous disclaimer that "one may be excused in not having discovered the fact [i.e., natural selection] in a work on Naval Timber."^96

NASA - Planet X
** you do not have permission to see this link **

Compare the video below to NASA's website above.

YouTube channel: Bright Side Global

RECORD: Darwin, C. R. 1844 Essay, Draft A [of species theory]
** you do not have permission to see this link **

Erasmus Darwin (1731-1802), _Zoonomia_ (1794, modern spelling 1818)
** you do not have permission to see this link **
** you do not have permission to see this link **
Page 394 — The birds... are armed with spurs for the purpose of fighting for the exclusive possession of the females, as cocks and quails.
It is certain that these weapons are not provided for their defence against other adversaries, because the females of these species are without this armour.
The final cause of this contest amongst the males seems to be, that the strongest and most active animal should propagate the species, which should thence become improved.

Page 394 — Another great want consists in the means of procuring food, which has diversified the forms of all species of animals.
Thus the nose of the swine has become hard for the purpose of turning up the soil in search of insects and of roots.
The trunk of the elephant is an elongation of the nose for the purpose of pulling down the branches of trees for his food, and for taking up water without bending his knees.
Beasts of prey have acquired strong jaws or talons.
Cattle have acquired a rough tongue and a rough palate to pull off the blades of grass, as cows and sheep.
Some birds have acquired harder beaks to crack nuts, as the parrot.
Others have acquired beaks adapted to break the harder seeds, as sparrows.
Others for the softer seeds of flowers, or the buds of trees, as the finches.
Other birds have acquired long beaks to penetrate the moister soils in search of insects or roots, as woodcocks;
and others broad ones to filtrate the water of lakes, and to retain aquatic insects, as ducks.
All which seem to have been gradually produced during many generations by the perpetual endeavour of the creatures to supply the want of food, and to have been delivered to their posterity with constant improvement of them for the purposes required.

Page 397 — Other changes seem to have arisen in them by their perpetual contest for light and air above ground, and for food or moisture beneath the soil.
As noted in Botanic Garden, Part II.
Note on Cuscuta.
Other changes of vegetables from climate, or other causes, are remarked in the note on Curcuma in the same work.
From these one might be led to imagine, that each plant at first consisted of a single bulb or flower to each root, as the gentianella and daisy;
and that in the contest for air and light new buds grew on the old decaying flower stem, shooting down their elongated roots to the ground, and that in process of ages tall trees were thus formed, and an individual bulb became a swarm of vegetables.
Other plants, which in this contest for light and air were too slender to rise by their own strength, learned by degrees to adhere to their neighbours, either by putting forth roots like the ivy, or by tendrils like the vine, or by spiral contortions like the honey-suckle;
or by growing upon them like the misleto, and taking nourishment from their barks;
or by only lodging or adhering on them, and deriving nourishment from the air, as tillandsia.

Page 397 — If this gradual production of the species and genera of animals be assented to...
Page 398 — This idea of the gradual formation and improvement of the animal world accords with the observations of some modem philosophers...
Page 398 — This idea of the gradual formation and improvement of the animal world seems not to have been unknown to the ancient philosophers. ...

Page 399 — ...the immense beds of limestone, chalk, marble, from the shells of fish; and the extensive provinces of clay, sandstone, ironstone, coals, from decomposed vegetables;
all which have been first produced by generation, or by the secretions of organic life;
he [David Hume] concludes that the world itself might have been generated, rather than created;
that is, it might have been gradually produced from very small beginnings, increasing by the activity of its inherent principles, rather than by a sudden evolution of the whole by the Almighy fiat. —
What a magnificent idea of the infinite power of THE GREAT ARCHITECT!
THE CAUSE OF CAUSES!
PARENT OF PARENTS!
ENS ENTIUM! [Being of beings? Entity of entities?]

Page 414 — This idea of the gradual generation of all things seems to have been as familiar to the ancient philosophers as to the modem ones;
and to have given rise to the beautiful hieroglyphic figure of the ... or first great egg, produced by NIGHT, that is, whose origin is involved in obscurity, and animated by ... , that is, by DIVINE LOVE;
from whence proceeded all things which exist.

Page 437 — 6. This perpetual chain of causes and effects, the first link of which is rivetted to the throne of GOD, divides itself into innumerable diverging branches, which, like the nerves arising from the brain, permeate the most minute and most remote extremities of the system, diffusing motion and sensation to the whole.
As every cause is superior in power to the effect, which it has produced, so our idea of the power of the Almighty Creator becomes more elevated and sublime, as we trace the operations of nature from cause to cause, climbing up the links of these chains of being, till we ascend to the Great Source of all things.

Patrick Matthew, _On Naval Timber and Arboriculture_ (1831)
** you do not have permission to see this link **
** you do not have permission to see this link **

PART III.—MISCELLANEOUS MATTER CONNECTED WITH NAVAL TIMBER.
106 NURSERIES,
ib. Infinite variety existing in what is called species,
107 Injurious effect from selecting the seed of the inferior varieties for sowing,
...
108 A principle of selection existing in nature of the strongest varieties for reproduction, ...
...
APPENDIX.
381 Accommodation of organized life to circumstance, by diverging ramifications,
...
The use of the infinite seedling varieties in the families of plants, even in those in a state of nature, differing in luxuriance of growth and local adaptation, {308}
seems to be to give one individual (the strongest best circumstance-suited) superiority over others of its kind around, that it may, by overtopping and smothering them, procure room for full extension, and thus affording, at the same time, a continual selection of the strongest, best circumstance-suited, for reproduction.
Man’s interference, by preventing this natural process of selection among plants, independent of the wider range of circumstances to which he introduces them, has increased the difference in varieties, particularly in the more domesticated kinds;
and even in man himself, the greater uniformity, and more general vigour among savage tribes, is referrible to nearly similar selecting law—the weaker individual sinking under the ill treatment of the stronger, or under the common hardship.
...
Is the inference then unphilosophic, that living things which are proved to have a circumstance-suiting power—
a very slight change of circumstance by culture inducing a corresponding change of character—
may have gradually accommodated themselves to the variations of the elements containing them, and, without new creation, have presented the diverging changeable phenomena of past and present organized existence.

The destructive liquid currents, before which the hardest mountains have been swept and comminuted into gravel, sand, and mud, which intervened between and divided these epochs, probably extending over the whole surface of the globe, and destroying nearly all living {383} things, must have reduced existence so much, that an unoccupied field would be formed for new diverging ramifications of life, which, from the connected sexual system of vegetables, and the natural instincts of animals to herd and combine with their own kind, would fall into specific groups, these remnants, in the course of time, moulding and accommodating their being anew to the change of circumstances, and to every possible means of subsistence, and the millions of ages of regularity which appear to have followed between the epochs, probably after this accommodation was completed, affording fossil deposit of regular specific character.

There are only two probable ways of change—the above, and the still wider deviation from present occurrence,—of indestructible or molecular life (which seems to resolve itself into powers of attraction and repulsion under mathematical figure and regulation, bearing a slight systematic similitude to the great aggregations of matter), gradually uniting and developing itself into new circumstance-suited living aggregates, without the presence of any mould or germ of former aggregates, but this scarcely differs from new creation, only it forms a portion of a continued scheme or system.

In endeavouring to trace, in the former way, the principle of these changes of fashion which have taken place in the domiciles of life, the following questions occur:
Do they arise from admixture of species nearly allied producing intermediate species?
Are they _the diverging ramifications_ of the living principle under modification of {384} circumstance?
Or have they resulted from the combined agency of both?
Is there only one living principle?
Does organized existence, and perhaps all material existence, consist of one Proteus principle of life capable of gradual circumstance-suited modifications and aggregations, without bound under the solvent or motion-giving principle, heat or light?
There is more beauty and unity of design in this continual balancing of life to circumstance, and greater conformity to those dispositions of nature which are manifest to us, than in total destruction and new creation.
It is improbable that much of this diversification is owing to commixture of species nearly allied, all change by this appears very limited, and confined within the bounds of what is called Species;
the progeny of the same parents, under great difference of circumstance, might, in several generations, even become distinct species, incapable of co-reproduction.

The self-regulating adaptive disposition of organized life may, in part, be traced to the extreme fecundity of Nature, who, as before stated, has, in all the varieties of her offspring, a prolific power much beyond (in many cases a thousandfold) what is necessary to fill up the vacancies caused by senile decay.
As the field of existence is limited and pre-occupied, it is only the hardier, more robust, better suited to circumstance individuals, who are able to struggle forward to maturity, these inhabiting only the situations to which they have superior adaptation and greater power of occupancy than any other kind; the weaker, less circumstance-suited, being {385} prematurely destroyed.
This principle is in constant action, it regulates the colour, the figure, the capacities, and instincts; those individuals of each species, whose colour and covering are best suited to concealment or protection from enemies, or defence from vicissitude and inclemencies of climate, whose figure is best accommodated to health, strength, defence, and support; whose capacities and instincts can best regulate the physical energies to self-advantage according to circumstances—in such immense waste of primary and youthful life, those only come forward to maturity from the strict ordeal by which Nature tests their adaptation to her standard of perfection and fitness to continue their kind by reproduction.

From the unremitting operation of this law acting in concert with the tendency which the progeny have to take the more particular qualities of the parents, together with the connected sexual system in vegetables, and instinctive limitation to its own kind in animals, a considerable uniformity of figure, colour, and character, is induced, constituting species;
the breed gradually acquiring the very best possible adaptation of these to its condition which it is susceptible of, and when alteration of circumstance occurs, thus changing in character to suit these as far as its nature is susceptible of change.

This circumstance-adaptive law, operating upon the slight but continued natural disposition to sport in the progeny (seedling variety), does not preclude the supposed influence which volition or sensation may have over the configuration of the body.
To examine into the {386} disposition to sport in the progeny, even when there is only one parent, as in many vegetables, and to investigate how much variation is modified by the mind or nervous sensation of the parents, or of the living thing itself during its progress to maturity;
how far it depends upon external circumstance, and how far on the will, irritability and muscular exertion, is open to examination and experiment.
In the first place, we ought to investigate its dependency upon the preceding links of the particular chain of life, variety being often merely types or approximations of former parentage; thence the variation of the family, as well as of the individual, must be embraced by our experiments.

Robert, Stephen, I read back over what passed here, and it moved me. I will leave it with you, that is possibly best, although I cannot easily step past what you wrote. Peace to you both, and until next time.

Roy Davies, _The Darwin Conspiracy_ (2008), 204pp., on xi, 161-162

PDF:
** you do not have permission to see this link **
During the 1980s, as editor of the BBC history series _Timewatch_, I commissioned a documentary idea about Charles Darwin...
In 1996, having left the BBC, I was approached by an independent television producer who was convinced that I had told the wrong story:
that there was a story not even hinted at in the _Timewatch_ program.
Today, having researched the Darwin record for myself and having been utterly convinced by what I have learned, I believe that she was absolutely right...

The television producer Elin Rhys suggested to me in 1996 that I should examine whether Charles Darwin had acted improperly in order to establish his priority.
I felt that she had to be wrong and scoured my mind for what I knew about Darwin...
Armed with this limited number of 'facts', I defended Darwin's reputation, only to find that Elin was not convinced.
What, she wanted to know, did I know of Alfred Russell Wallace? ...
Did I know that Darwin and two of his friends [Lyell and Hooker] had cheated Wallace out of his rightful inheritance?
Did I know that it was Wallace and not Darwin who had first written out the complete theory?
Two days later, she referred me to Brackman's book _A Delicate Arrangement_, and so began my research into the contentious world of Darwin and Wallace.
Now, I am convinced that Charles Darwin-- British national hero, hailed as the greatest naturalist the world has ever known, the originator of one of the greatest ideas of the nineteenth century-- lied, cheated and plagiarized in order to be recognized as the man who discovered the theory of evolution.

transcript of Roy Davies on _The Darwin Conspiracy_ - October 4, 2014
** you do not have permission to see this link **

I usually see this ehrmanblog.org’s Recent Posts on Facebook, now I see something else, for example, Bart Ehrman asks on Facebook, Have You Seen “Disclosure Day?”

Are you putting the Hebrew God, the God of Israel, the God of the Bible not only above
Ancient Egypt and Ancient Sumer but above
who aliens recognize as Supreme?

We cannot prove what Hebrews call God/Elohim didn’t come from their Babylonian Exile
and what Hebrews learned of Apsu, Tiamat, Marduk, Anu, Enlil, Enki, Ninhursag, Inanna–

Ancient Sumer’s “Seven Gods Who Decree Fate”

An (Sky)
Enlil (Wind/Storms)
Enki (Water/Wisdom)
Ninhursag (Earth/Motherhood)
Nanna (Moon)
Utu (Sun)
Inanna (Venus/War/Love).

In the book UFO of God, Chris Bledsoe and his associates at NASA say there are intelligent non-humans who travel/commute in orbs. The Bible’s God the Father or a god council did not inform us humans were genetically engineeried by Enki and Ninhursag as in Atrahasis. It did not tell us of the Younger Dryas (12,000 years ago) but the local Hebrew theology with its failed apocalypse (tribulation > judgement > Kingdom ruled by the Son of Man on earth) and a local god who could not defend his son or temple is to be magnified?

** you do not have permission to see this link **

Ancient Sumer's the "Seven Gods Who Decree Fate"

• An (Sky)
• Enlil (Wind/Storms)
• Enki (Water/Wisdom)
• Ninhursag (Earth/Motherhood)
• Nanna (Moon)
• Utu (Sun)
• Inanna (Venus/War/Love) [** you do not have permission to see this link **]