I was thinking about how so many people have misinterpreted/misunderstood/parroted the myth that the Shrodinger's cat thought experiment proves that any cat in a box with a 50/50 chance of being killed by a toxin inside is both either alive or dead until the outcome is observed by a conscious being. As LiveScience.com explains:
"Schrödinger's cat cut to the heart of what was bizarre about Bohr's interpretation of reality: the lack of a clear dividing line between the quantum and everyday realms. While most people think it provides an example in support of particles lacking clearly-defined properties until they are measured, Schrödinger's original intention was the exact opposite—to show that such an idea was nonsensical. Yet, for many decades, physicists largely ignored this problem, moving on to other quandaries. "
Maybe the use of a human in a Shroedinger influenced thought experiment would help explain the absurdity of applying quantum (subatomic) physics theory to the everyday observable world of larger objects will help things along?
Here goes.: If you wish to misunderstand the Dead Cat thought experiment then consider the idea that Both Darwin and Wallace both did not and did plagiarise Patrick Matthew's prior published full theory of macroevolution by natural selection until the creation of Google's BigData library revealed to the world that on both the legal notion of balance of "reasonable probability" and "beyond all reasonable doubt" the new found empirical data (added to existing already found data) reveals, by way of conscious observation of the empirical data, now beyond all reasonable doubt, that they most certainly did.
Let us call the explanatory analogy "Sutton's Dead Darwin Copycat Thought Experiment".
