Identity Verified Thinker in Science / Social Sciences / Sociology
Mike Sutton
Mike Sutton
Dr Mike Sutton is the author of 'Nullius in Verba: Darwin's greatest secret'.
Posted in Science / Social Sciences / Sociology

Through Darwin's Wormhole with Milton Wainwright: The F2b2 Hypothesis: Important Post-Hoc Discovery of Prior Confirmatory Evidence from Professor Milton Wainwright's Research

Jun. 8, 2015 7:09 am

Public Domain

Google uses BigData technology to enhance our powers of detection

Last night my wife Elaine and I sat in front of the TV, shared half a bottle of Cabernet and watched episode 1 of series 6 of Through the Wormhole with Morgan Freeman.

Half way through both documentary and wine, I was surprised and most delighted to see Professor Milton Wainwright standing beside the stepping-stones at Dovedale in the Derbyshire Peak District explaining his research into the possible discovery of extra-terrestrial particles found at high altitude (see my earlier blog on his research into that topic).

Wainwright's research into Darwin's plagiarism of Patrick Matthew's prior-published hypothesis of natural selection is mentioned quite a bit in my book Nullius in Verba: Darwin's greatest secret. Wainwright has written peer reviewed articles on the topic (Wainwright 2008; Wainwright 2011) He very kindly took the time to email me after my e-book was published in July 2014 to say he had read it through on his flights to and from the USA and enjoyed it.

Milton is supportive of the findings in the book, but warned in his subsequent emails to me that I, like he, would certainly face great difficulties getting Darwinists to engage objectively with the simple facts that overturn all their prior knowledge beliefs about the discovery of natural selection. He was right, it turns out,

Having written that blog post this morning about Wainwright's research into alien particles, I went back around midday today (June 8th 2015) and looked at my personally archived word file, which I made in 2013 from the 2008 text of Wainwright's website Wainwrightscience. Doing so was an act of simple curiosity aroused from being reminded of him. I'd read his work on Darwin, Wallace and Matthew at the very start of my own researches into Darwin's and Wallace's suspected plagiarizing science fraud, but felt - rather bullheadedly - that my discoveries -using BigData technology - had gone way beyond Milton's. However, on reading his work again, I was surprised by several of the names of 19th century naturalists in his references section.

Wainwright (2008) named the naturalists in question - amongst others - on the basis that they had written on precise, specific and idiosyncratic topics of organic evolution, before Darwin, in works that Darwin's subsequent work closely resembled. Yet Darwin (1859), had failed to credit them or cite their influential work on organic evolution properly (even by the standards of the time). Whereas, I - on the other hand - had named those very same naturalists (Sutton 2014) simply because they were apparently the first to go into print with terms or phrases that were apparently first published by the originator, Patrick Matthew (1831), in his unique book that was first in the world to contain the full hypothesis of natural selection.

My ID method to test my F2b2 hypothesis did not involve going on a 'witch hunt' through the work of any named author looking for evidence they read Mathew's book. Instead, it simply involved going through Matthew's entire book to look for any phrases whatsoever that were not thought, by me, to be necessarily commonplace in 1831, in order to see if they could be found - out of the 30+ million books and articles in Google's Library Project - to have been published pre-1831. If not, then they were boldly presumed, by me, to be apparently coined by Matthew in 1831.

Matthew's book was published on January 1st 1831; Darwin's and Wallace's papers on natural selection were read before the Linnean Society in 1858.

The ID method found 198 terms/phrases that appear to have been coined by Matthew in 1831.I discovered that 30 were replicated at least once before 1858. I was concerned with those who were first to be second in print with those phrases pre-1858, because I hypothesized that they were likely to have got them from reading Matthew's book.

Of the 30 replicated phrases so far discovered, 56.6 % (17) were first replicated by naturalists who never cited Matthew's 1831 book in the publication in which they replicated it. This means that 8.6 per cent of all the apparently original Matthew phrases so far discovered were first replicated by naturalists who failed to cite Matthew. Those phrase replicating naturalists and the publications of each, containing the replication, are:

  1. Robert Mudie. (1832), in The Botanic Animal, was apparently the first to replicate the Matthewism "rectangular branching."
  2. James Main (1835), in Illustrations of Vegetable Physiology, was apparently the first to replicate the Matthewism "luxuriant growing trees"
  3. Timothy Conrad (1834), Observations on the Tertiary and more recent formations of the portion of the Southern States, Journal of the Academy of Natural Sciences of Philadelphia, Vol. 7. was apparently the first to replicate the Matthewism 'admixture of species'
  4. Paul Roget (1834), In The Bridgewater Treatise on the Power, Wisdom and Goodness of God As Manifested in Creation. Treatise V. Animal and Vegetable Physiology, was apparently the first to replicate the Matthewism 'living aggregates.’
  5. John Wilson (1837) The Elections, Blackwood's Edinburgh Magazine, Vol. 42. was apparently the first to replicate the Matthewism '‘threatened ascendency’
  6. Constantine Rafinesque (1836) New Flora of Botany of North America. Philadelphia, was apparently the first to replicate the Matthewism ‘evinced in the genus’
  7. John Dovaston (1837) (Writing under his pseudonym Osdat) Some Observations on the Oak, Magazine of Natural History and Journal of Zoology, Botany, Minerology, Geology and Meteorology Vol. 1.was apparently the first to replicate the Matthewism ‘sport in infinite varieties’
  8. Jesse Buel (1840) A Treatise on Agriculture was apparently the first to replicate the Matthewism ‘infirm progeny’.
  9. Cuthbert Johnson (1841) On the Improvement of Peat Solis. Journal of the Royal Agricultural Society of England Vol. 2. was apparently the first to replicate the Matthewism ‘adapted to prosper’
  10. David Low (1834) Elements of Practical Agriculture was apparently the first to replicate the Matthewism ‘long continued selection’.In (1844) On Landed Property, and the Economy of Estates was apparently the first to replicate the Matthewism ‘overpowering the less'.
  11. Ebenezer Emmons (1846) American Journal of Agriculture and Science was apparently the first to replicate the Matthewism ‘habits of varieties’ .In (1849) Natural History of New York was apparently the first to replicate the Matthewism 'deteriorated by culture’
  12. Simon Wilkin (1852) Sir Thomas Browne's Works was apparently the first to replicate the Matthewism ‘figure is best accommodated’
  13. Thomas Laycock (1855) Further Researches into the Functions of the Brain. British and Foreign Medico-chirurgical Journal was apparently the first to replicate the Matthewism ‘mental or instinctive powers’
  14. Baden Powell (1858) The British and Foreign Evangelical Review and Quarterly Record of Christian Literature was apparently the first to replicate the Matthewism ‘restricted adaptation’
  15. Joseph Leidy (1858) The Journal of the Louisiana State Medical Society was apparently the first to replicate the Matthewism ‘impressions in insects’

The number of naturalists in this list is 15 and not 17 because both Low and Emmons each replicated two different inimitable Matthewisms in two different publications. So we have 17 Matthewisms replicated by 15 naturalists pre 1858.


Public Domain

Patrick Matthew: The biological father of the theory of natural selection

Adding these 15 naturalists, who we can confidently assert more likely than not read Matthews 1831 book, to the seven who we know read it because they cited it, gives us 22 naturalists, 19 of whom were closely connected to Darwin.

Of the 25 who actually cited it in the literature pre-1858 (see all 25 listed here), the seven naturalists in their number are - in date order of their citing of Matthew’s 1831 book:

  1. John Loudon (1832),
  2. Robert Chambers (1832),
  3. Edmund Murphy (1834),
  4. Cuthbert Johnson (1842),
  5. Prideaux John Selby (1842),
  6. John Norton (1851)
  7. William Jameson (1853)

As confirmatory evidence to support the F2b2 hypothesis, that:

Those who the ID method in Google's Library reveals are apparently first to be second with apparently original words, terms or phrases more likely than not replicated them because they read them first in the apparently original source.

Current evidence to support the F2b2 hypothesis comes by way of:

1, David Low being twice apparently first to be second with exclusive Matthewisms.

2. Ebenezer Emmons being twice apparently first to be second with exclusive Matthewisms.

3. Cuthbert Johnson being apparently first to be second with ‘adapted to prosper’ and then actually citing Matthew in a separate publication to the one where he replicated that phrase.

4. Robert Chambers, author of the hugely influential (see Millhauser 1959) pre-cursor to Darwin’s Origin - ‘The Vestiges of Creation’ - cited Matthew's 1831 book in 1832. Then, 27 years later, in 1859, he was apparently first to second-publish Matthew’s unique phrase ‘natural process of selection’ in his review of the Origin.(1853).

Wainwright's prior research provides further confirmatory evidence for the F2b2 hypothesis

In terms of more confirmatory evidence to support the F2b2 hypothesis, what interests me is those who I found with this method, who Wainwright found earlier with the traditional scholarly method of simply relying upon his expertise in spotting their prior-published original work on organic evolution.

The only naturalist known, prior to my 2014 book, to have cited Matthew was Loudon. Wainwright, like others before him, note that Loudon (1832) cited Matthew's 1831 book, but all, including Wainwright, it appears, failed to note or appreciate the significance of the fact that Loudon, a famous botanist, was a noted naturalist. And so they failed to notice that Darwin lied after Matthew told him about Loudon when Darwin (1860) wrote that apparently no naturalist had read Matthew's unique ideas before 1860. And they failed also to discover that Loudon went on to edit two of Edward Blyth's articles on evolution. Since those articles by Darwin's acknowledged most prolific and helpful informant are known to have significantly influenced him the likelihood of Matthewian knowledge contamination - of Matthew's prior published hypothesis - from Matthew to Loudon to Blyth to Darwin seems, rationally, more likely than not.

Besides those I found to have actually cited Matthew's book, those I detected with ID as apparently first to be second with apparent Matthewisms are 19th century naturalists who simply introduced themselves to me by way of what they had written being the exact same thing that Matthew had written. They were, therefore, compelled to come down like ghosts, automatically, by way of what they had replicated. These dead authors names fetched for me their work, from the dusty library shelves, and in so doing opened their own pages to show exactly where they had written a phrase or term that was apparently coined in Matthew's 1831 book.

To repeat an important point for absolute clarity, apart from Loudon, Wainwright found his list of naturalists differently to the way I found mine. He found them due to his professional expertise as a biologist. He found them from reading large swathes of their work and thereby knowing what original ideas were later published by Darwin without citation to that original work. I found mine by using the ID method to detect those who cited Matthew and those who were apparent first to replicate one of his unique terms of phrases.

Naturalists listed by Wainwright (2009), with the relevant publication, as being among those whose prior-published work was replicated by Darwin, who were also later discovered, independently, by Sutton (2014), to have been apparently first to be second to replicate apparently unique 1831 Matthewisms.

1. Wilson, J. (1829-31) uses the expression, “origin of species” in 1829-31, Quarterly J. Agriculture 2, {Different publication to that with which apparently second with a unique Mathewism

2. Robert Mudie (1832) . A Popular Guide to the Observation of Nature, London {Different publication to that with which apparently second with a unique Mathewism}

3. Rafinesque (1836) - On evidence of "types" being not merely a direct "chain of being" in The World, or Instability (a poem) {Different publication to that with which apparently second with a unique Mathewism}

4..Chambers, R. (1844) The Vestiges of Creation {Different publication to that with which apparently second with a unique Mathewism and a different publication to the one that I uniquely detected cited Matthew in 1832}

5. Leidy, J.(1853). Flora and Fauna within Living Animals. Smithsonian Contribution to Knowledge, pp.5-57. {Different publication to that with which apparently second with a unique Mathewism}

6. Baden Powell (1856). The Unity of the Worlds of Nature, London, Longman. {Different publication to that with which apparently second with a unique Mathewism}

Other interesting connections

Wainwright quotes David Ansted (1855) at length as writing on subject matter that Wainwright classifies under "the natural process of selection" (Matthew's unique term for his unique discovery). This is most interesting, since I discovered that Ansted dismissed and mocked Matthew when he wrote to the Dublin University Magazine (1860) to claim the rights to his prior discovery of natural selection. Ansted was very closely networked with Darwin and Lyell pre-1858. He was a fellow Cambridge graduate, fellow member of the Royal Society, a correspondent of Darwin's and Vice Secretary of Lyel's Geological Society.

Wainwright cites Selby (1837) on evidence of his writing on "variation" within species, text on rock pigeons, which is quoted in Anon (1837). Penny Cyclopaedia of Useful Knowledge 7, 371-372 London, Knight. The source of the 1837 Selby quoted text is unknown but it is a different one to the 1844 publication where Selby cited Mathew's (1831) book many times before going on to edit Wallace's Sarawak paper. That Selby wrote on this topic before citing Mathew's (1831) book and before editing Wallace's Sarawak paper is highly important information in the history of the discovery of natural selection.

Conclusions and the way forward

My F2b2 hypothesis is that those found by the ID method to be apparently first to be second with unique Matthewisms more likely than not read Matthew's (1831 book. Moreover, it seems reasonable to conclude that:

  • those who were first to be second with unique Matthewisms on more than one occasion (David Low and Ebeneezer Emmons) almost definitely read it and this discovery confirms the F2b2 hypotheis
  • those who were first to be second with unique Matthewisms and then cited it in a later publication (Cuthbet Johnson and Robert Chambers) had earlier read it and this discovery further confirms the F2b2 hypothesis
  • those detected by a non-expert social scientist (Mike Sutton) to be relevant to the veracious history of the discovery of natural selection because they were first to be second with unique Matthewisms, who were earlier detected by an expert biologist (Milton Wainwright) using different research methods, to have written in different publications on the same topic, further confirm the F2b2 hypothesis.

In addition to the seven naturalists who we can assume almost definitely read Matthew's book pre 1858, because we newly know they cited it, we can now be particularly confident that it was read also by the following seven naturalists as well

  1. David Low
  2. Ebeneezer Emmons
  3. John Wilson
  4. Robert Mudie
  5. Constantine Rafinesque
  6. Joseph Leidy
  7. Baden Powell

I have uniquely proven that seven naturalists actually cited Matthew's 1831 book pre-1858 and that three of them played major roles at the epicenter and influence of the written work of Darwin and Wallace on natural selection. That seven of the 15 naturalists that I found were first to be second with unique Matthewisms were earlier independently identified by an expert biologist and Darwinist, using traditional research skills, to be key authors on the topic of organic evolution, writing on the same themes that Darwin replicated, after Matthew's 1831 publication, but all in different publications to those where they were discovered with Big Data analysis to first to be second with Matthewisms, is strong evidence supporting the veracity of the F2b2 hypothesis. Moreover, it is additional and new strong evidence supporting the conclusion that Matthew did influence many naturalists who in turn influenced Charles Darwin before 1858.

It seems that to test the New Data Hypothesis we should now turn our attentions, at least in the first instance, to the publications, archives of letters, diaries and notebooks of a total 14 key naturalists who triangulation in research suggests may yet be most likely of all to reveal more about how Matthew influenced them, Darwin and Wallace. They are:

  1. Robert Chambers
  2. Ebeneezer Emmons
  3. William Jameson
  4. Cuthbert Johnson
  5. Joseph Leidy
  6. David Low
  7. John Loudon
  8. Robert Mudie
  9. John Norton
  10. Edmund Murphy
  11. Baden Powell
  12. Constantine Rafinesque
  13. Prideaux John Selby
  14. John Wilson

Thinker Media IncUsed only with express written permission

Nullius in Verba

We know for a fact that Darwin knew many of the naturalists in this list and that he was admittedly influenced by them. This is strong evidence of knowledge contamination from Matthew's original prior publication of the full theory of natural selection to Darwin via those we know influenced his work. Chambers, Baden Powel and Rafinesque were mentioned in his historical sketch of precursory thinkers. Darwin's notebook of books he read shows that he read the work of these and many others in the list before 1858. He knew, met and corresponded with many of them. Leidy even went so far as to commission a bust of Darwin. Today it sits in Darwin's home in the village of Down, Kent.

My book Nullius in Verba: Darwin's greatest secret provides many more in-depth details about the men who we newly know did read Matthew's prior publication of the full theory of natural selection, their lives, work, interactions with Darwin and his work and with his closest friends and associates.

Once again, the old Darwinist mere unevidenced Darwinist self-serving knowledge belief that Darwin conceived the theory of natural selection independently of the originator, Patrick Matthew, is not only disconfirmed by the independently verifiable New Data - it is blown to smithereens by 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

Visit the Patrick Matthew website

You can find out more about Matthew and keep up with the latest news, such as the discovery of his grave, in May 2015 at the website, which also contains links to all my articles and key blogs on the topic of his influence on Darwin and Wallace.

The story of Matthew, Darwin and Wallace represents the most scandalously deliberate cover-up in the history of scientific discovery.

Follow dysology on Twitter

Author's Favorite
"The Post" by Dusty Blueprint
June 8, 2015 at 9:51 pm
A dam’s thirst quenched… veraciously.

Infernal curiosity of A dam in A; clogged river of thought needing careful removal through accumulated knowledge and irrigated by technical application to reach an understanding of properties of elixir is now Everyman’s fruit of desire in growing their own organically evolved ancestral tree. to Shut Down Permanently on December 31, 2017

If you want to save a copy of your content, you must do so before the website shuts down on December 31, 2017. We will NOT be able to provide any assistance after the website shuts down. We are available at only until the shutdown to provide more information and assistance.

It was a noble 10-year experiment, but it turns out that the writers with the best content are the least adept at the tech required to publish under our model, which in hindsight, makes perfect sense. If you are dedicating your life to becoming an expert in your specialty, you don’t have a lot of time left for figuring out publishing tech.

It hasn't helped that we have entered an age of unprecedented polarization and antagonism which doesn't foster demand for a website dedicated to the respectful engagement of diverse views.

Thank you, everyone!

Latest Thinking in Science
Latest Ebooks