Posted: Jan 20, 2016 10:21 pm
An admittedly incomplete review of the paper seems to suggest it is one giant argument from incredulity.
There is no PROOF - only supposition and conjecture. There isn't even very much evidence.
In the end, it comes down to re-using the same 4 titular words? But Darwin's work did so much more than simply post a title - his reams of evidence were what mattered, and what Matthew didn't have, although he had the germ of the idea before Darwin.
In the end, this is not evidence of plagiarism, nor is it strong evidence of scientific misconduct. It might at best raise a little doubt on whether Darwin truly independently developed the theory - but even that is a stretch.
There is no PROOF - only supposition and conjecture. There isn't even very much evidence.
In the end, it comes down to re-using the same 4 titular words? But Darwin's work did so much more than simply post a title - his reams of evidence were what mattered, and what Matthew didn't have, although he had the germ of the idea before Darwin.
In the end, this is not evidence of plagiarism, nor is it strong evidence of scientific misconduct. It might at best raise a little doubt on whether Darwin truly independently developed the theory - but even that is a stretch.