Patrick Matthew (1831) was the first to fully explain natural selection as new species branching from a common ancestor by way of nature selecting varieties that were best circumstance suited. He even uniquely called it: 'the natural process of selection'. A term Darwin (1859) would uniquely four word shuffle into 'process of natural selection'.
What was written about Patrick Matthew's Bombshell Ideas before Darwin Replicated and then Claimed them as his Own Discovery?
The answer is: quite a lot. In this blog post, I show you just some of what was written about them.
Writing in the third party, Matthew (1831), essentially admitted his heresy when he wrote:
"The very great interest of the question regarding species variety habit has perhaps led him a little too wide."
Trumpet from the rooftopsPublic Domain
Darwin merely replicated Matthew's 'divergent ramification' explanation of how species change and branch to evolve from a common ancestor
An anonymous savage review in the Edinburgh Literary Journal July 2nd 1831 reprinted those words and admonished Matthew for when the reviewer thought his speculation and misconception of facts led him into error.
An otherwise very positive review in The United Service Journal and Naval and Military Magazine, disclaimed Matthew's idea of the natural process of selection (1831a, p. 457):
"In thus testifying our hearty approbation of the author, it is strictly in his capacity of a forest ranger, where he is original bold, and evidently experienced in all the arcana of the parentage, birth and education of trees. But we disclaim participation in his ruminations on the law of Nature, or on the outrages committed upon reason and justice by our burthens of hereditary nobility, entailed property, and insane enactments."
By way of block advertisement in the Quarterly Literary Advertiser (1831), Matthew's publishers Longman and Co and Adam Black of Edinburgh wrote:
"In embracing the Philosophy of Plants the interesting subject of Species and Variety is considered the principle of the natural Location of Vegetables is distinctly shown the principle also which in the untouched wild keeps unsteady Nature to her law inducing conformity in species and preventing deterioration of breed is explained and the causes of the variation and deterioration of cultivated Forest Trees pointed out."
In 1832, the naturalist John Loudon reviewed Matthew's (1831) book and wrote - Loudon, J. C. (1832) Matthew Patrick On Naval Timber and Arboriculture with Critical Notes on Authors who have recently treated the Subject of Planting. Gardener's Magazine. Vol. VIII. p. 703) :
"One of the subjects discussed in this appendix is the puzzling one, of the origin of species; and varieties (and if the author has hereon originated no original views and of this we are far from certain), he has certainly exhibited his own in an original manner."
Loudon then went on to edit Edward Blyth's (1835 and 1836) papers on the varieties of species that are widely acknowledged to have significantly influenced Darwin before he penned in 1859 a book called The Origin of Species - which not only took for its famous title the same term Loudon used to describe what Matthew had done, he four-word-shuffled Matthew's unique term 'natural process of selection' into his own unique term 'process of natural selection', replicated Matthew's unique bombshell ideas on how new species emerged, replicated other unique terms coined by Matthew, replicated unique explanations such as Matthew's 'artificial versus natural selection analogy of differences', replicated examples of natural selection in nature from Matthew's book, and then - just like Alfred Wallace (whose Sarawak paper was edited by Selby who had read and cited Matthew's book many years earlier) - Darwin claimed to have done so with no prior knowledge of Matthew's book, which contained them all. (See Nullius in Verba for the hard and fully referenced, independently verifiable, new evidence).
Mike Sutton All Rights ReservedAttribution Non-commercial
Immaculate Deception - Oil on Canvas by Gabriel Woods (2015)
Clearly Darwin and Wallace, if they had no prior knowledge of Matthew's book. whilst surrounded by others who read and then cited it in the literature - including Selby, Chambers and Loudon - who then facilitated their work through editorship, hugely influenced them and influenced their major influences (such as Blyth) - must have miraculously immaculately conceived Patrick Matthew's discovery with the aid of some kind of divine cognitive contraceptive blessing from a supernatural force, which prevented any kind of Matthewian 'knowledge contamination'.
Francesco Francia (1450-1517) - The Holy Family
Darwinists believe in miracles. Moreover, they believe they have the divine right to beautify Darwin, the Great Replicator, and so award him priority over Matthew - the Originator. Like their namesake, Charles Darwin, Darwinists must, then, have been wonderfully blessed with incredible miraculous powers of cognitive contraception, because they have all the answers (see Sutton 2015) for why Darwin's (1858/1859) replication of Matthew's (1831) prior-published discovery was delayed for over two decades by Darwin because it was a controversial, taboo, heretical, seditious, long-insufficiently evidenced hypothesis. Yet these same Darwinists, with exquisite hypocrisy, divinely decree that Matthew should have self-promoted his own hypothesis in order to be fully credited with it over the mere replicators - Darwin and Wallace. The daft-as-a-brush pseudo-scholarly shame of it!
(c) Darwin and WallaceAttribution
Miracle Double Immaculate Conceptions of the Blessed Virgins Darwin and Wallace of Matthew's prior published hypothesis of natural selection
Find out the facts that have been buried for over 155 years
Don't let the dysology of the cult of Darwin live rent free in your head a moment longer! Find out the truth. Weigh the evidence. Then use your wonderful brain to decide for yourself. In order to do so you are advised to know what the New Evidence is, how it was found after all these years, and where it comes from. You can find it all in my book Nullius in Verba: Darwin's greatest Secret, which has uniquely unearthed the full, and fully evidenced, story of the world's greatest science fraud.
(c) Peter SymonAttribution
Errol Churchyard showing Patrick Matthew's burial plot
Patrick Matthew's unmarked grave was finally located in May 2015. His body - like his prior publication of the bombshell unique discovery of the full hypothesis of natural selection, and those who Darwin and Wallace knew who read it before they replicated it - will no longer lay buried in oblivion, nor will the evidence of Darwin's and Wallace's great plagiarizing science fraud.
Find out more about the greatest cover-up in the history of scientific discovery at Patrickmatthew.com