The Evolution of Evolution
Excerpt from my book "An Unorthodox Truth"
Contrary to popular belief, Charles Darwin was not the sole discoverer of evolution. Another key figure in this field was Albert Wallace.
While Darwin came from a prestigious background, Wallace was considered a commoner in society. Nevertheless, Wallace conducted extensive research on species and formulated a theory that he shared with Charles Lyell, a fellow biologist. This is where the story takes an intriguing turn.
According to a paper from the Western Kentucky University of Charles Wallace, we read the following:
“In February of 1858 Alfred Russel Wallace, weak with fever, had a now-famous epiphany.
Recalling his field experiences of the past several years and adding to them the logic of Malthus, he came up with a principle, natural selection, which seemed to explain how populations might indefinitely move away from “original types.”
Pleased with his thinking, he decided to write up the idea as an essay and send it to Charles Darwin, who he knew through earlier correspondence was interested in the subject.
But his real target was Charles Lyell, whose theories on biogeography he had just challenged in a paper published in late 1857 (Wallace 1857), and to whom Wallace was asking Darwin to relay the manuscript if he thought it worthy.
Wallace now had a theory that backed his criticisms, and he must have been very eager to receive some feedback. Fate intervened, however, and Lyell never responded: instead the essay was read before the Linnean Society two weeks later and published immediately, without Wallace’s permission.”
Darwin, a more connected individual and from a more successful family lineage, was able to publish the theory before Wallace, with his name appearing first on the manuscript.
However, it is important to note that we credit Darwin for the theory not because of a significant scientific breakthrough or groundbreaking discovery, but rather due to plagiarism and theft.
One significant change that occurred when Darwin adapted Wallace’s paper was the introduction of the concept of “survival of the fittest.” While studying nature and biology, Wallace did not observe this concept, instead focusing on the “elimination of the unfit.”
This difference in perspective was highlighted by Charles Smith in his paper, “Wallace and Incipient Structures: A World of ‘More Recondite’ Influences”.
“…In Wallace’s eyes natural selection was not so much the “survival of the fittest” as it was the “elimination of the unfit.”
“…The survival of the fittest is really the extinction of the unfit. In nature this occurs perpetually on an enormous scale, because, owing to the rapid increase of most organisms, the unfit which are yearly destroyed form a large proportion of those that are born. (Wallace 1890, p. 337)”
So, where did we get survival of the fittest? An economist.
According to ThoughCo.com:
“In the 1800s, after Darwin first published his book “On the Origin of Species,” British economist Herbert Spencer used the term “survival of the fittest” in relation to Darwin’s idea of natural selection as he compared Darwin’s theory to an economic principle in one of his books.
This interpretation of natural selection caught on, and Darwin used the phrase in a later edition of “On the Origin of Species.” Darwin used the term as it was meant regarding natural selection.”
Darwin’s adaptation of Wallace’s paper brought about a significant change in the concept of evolutionary biology: the introduction of the phrase “survival of the fittest.”
While Wallace, in his studies, focused on the idea of “elimination of the unfit,” Darwin popularized the notion of “survival of the fittest” in later editions of his book “On the Origin of Species.”
This term originated from an economist, Herbert Spencer, who used it to compare natural selection to economic principles.
The phrase “survival of the fittest” has become a widely recognized concept in society. It carries economic implications, suggesting that one must be the strongest and possess the most resources to thrive. This ideology can be seen as rooted in greed and self-preservation, and its influence can be traced back to the principles of evolution.
The publication of Darwin’s theory of evolution in 1859 sparked immense public interest, with the added notion that only the fittest individuals would survive.
This mentality likely contributed to events such as “The Scramble for Africa,” which took place just 29 years later, as nations sought to claim and exploit resources in Africa. From the PDF European Imperialism of Africa, we read the following:
Many Europeans believed that they were better than other peoples. The belief that one race is superior to others is called racism. The attitude was a reflection of Social Darwinism, a social theory of the time.
In this theory, Charles Darwin’s ideas about evolution and natural selection were applied to human society. Those who were fittest for survival enjoyed wealth and success and were considered superior to others.
According to the theory, non-Europeans were considered to be on a lower scale of cultural and physical development because they had not made the scientific and technological progress that Europeans had. Europeans believed that they had the right and the duty to bring the results of their progress to other countries.
Cecil Rhodes, a successful businessman and a major supporter of British expansion, clearly stated this position, “I contend that we [Britons] are the first race in the world, and the more of the world we inhabit, the better it is for the human race. . . . It is our duty to seize every opportunity of acquiring more territory and we should keep this one idea steadily before our eyes that more territory simply means more of the Anglo-Saxon race, more of the best, the most human, most honourable race the world possesses.” CECIL RHODES, Confession of Faith, 1877
Ladies and gentlemen, that’s just one of the effects of evolution that we still see in our world today. But we’re not here to discuss that – at least not now. We’re here to examine if this scientific theory, evolution, has any merit, weight to its cause.
Evolution’s Short Comings
Darwin’s groundbreaking book, “The Origin of Species,” delves into the concept of evolution and the origins of all biological species. While the book consists of 14 chapters, we will focus on chapter 6, titled “Difficulties of the Theory,” to explore the validity of Darwin’s ideas.
In this chapter, Darwin himself admits to encountering numerous challenges in his theory. He states, “Long before the reader has arrived at this part of my work, a crowd of difficulties will have occurred to him. Some of them are so serious that to this day I can hardly reflect on them without being in some degree staggered…”
It is commendable that Darwin acknowledges the flaws in his theory and dedicates an entire chapter to addressing them.
Within this chapter, we will specifically examine two areas of concern. First, we will discuss the concept of transitional forms, and then we will delve into the development of organs, focusing on the remarkable complexity of the eye.
Call to Action
This is an excerpt from my book: An Unorthodox Truth. It’s a fact-based journey through 200 years of deception—a must-read for those seeking clarity in a manipulated world.
If this article opened your eyes, there’s more behind the paywall. Exclusive, in-depth pieces that go deeper, challenge more, and reveal the truths they don’t want us to see.
🔑 Become a paid member and gain access to premium and archived articles, exclusive podcasts, and thought-provoking chats you won’t find anywhere else.
☕ Feeling generous? Leave a simple tip to support this work—every bit helps me continue creating meaningful content.
Was Darwin a rich brat plagiarist? Lots of evidence of that and of not having much intelligence. What has been referred to since then, "the missing link" is a bold lie put in front of your eye.
The correct term, IF evolution at its core is valid, would be MISSING LINKS! Not just from monkey to man but ALL THE LINKS FOR ALL SPECIES is required. Some species appear to solve an evolutionary chain but those are rare and still not complete as "science" demands for conclusion.
Almost finished reading your book, which I bought. Great topics leaving one much to ponder. Very enjoyable. Thank you!