that's bull. Below is the same link I've always posted when darwoodians slip into denial mode instead of getting up off their lazies and looking for themselves.
It's amusing how far you will reach to find an insult. Here's a good example. By "here", I obviously mean "on this thread". Are you contending that you already posted this new cite on this thread? If so, kindly show me where.
Could you show me in this new cite exactly where Darwin committed plagarism? I have now "gotten off my lazies" and read it a great deal more often than it's merits warrant and cannot find any such reference. If you were not, to be polite, "mistaken", it would be but a moment's matter to point this out to me, but, of course, you do not, because you cannot, because, as I have pointed out before, you are bluffing, and hoping no one bothers to read it.
"the evolution believing atheist cannot find God for the same reason a thief cannot find a policeman." And the same applies for looking for anything that doesn't shine a most favorable light on your god Darwood.
If official global demographics are to be believed, Most evolutionists are believers, including the Pope in Rome. So your homily is largely irrelevant.
Darwin's ideas were similar to Wallace's, Lyell's and Blyth's. Duh. The article uses the word "plagarism", but does not actually present evidence of plagarism, just long-winded, obtuse references to, for example, apparently unpublished notes of Blyth's. Showing, I guess, that plagarism might have been possible.
I guess you could call this the fossil gap argument with colors reversed. Because it was physically/chronologically possible that plagarism happened, therefore, plagarism happened.
By the same token, it's possible I might be all the mass murderers in recent history: no contrary evidence suggests otherwise, after all.
What really strikes me about this cite is that, in the unlikely event that it's case were to be made, it does absolutely nothing to dethrone evolutionary theory. It is just an irrelevant ad hominem attack on the first guy to bulldog it into common consideration.
In that regard, it kind of reminds me of your general behavior--eschewing arguments or evidence in favor of mining the far reaches of irrelevant absurdity for the chance at an insult, so I can see why you might actually think this silly exercise in imaginative pettifogging is somehow a devastating argument.