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'.
 

Categories

This Blog has no active categories.
 
Close  
Posted in Science / Social Sciences / Sociology

Proof Darwin Lied in Order to Corrupt the History of the Discovery of Natural Selection

Aug. 21, 2015 4:36 am

PART 1

100 PER CENT INDEPENDENTLY VERIFIABLE, HISTORIC PUBLISHED EVIDENCE IS ABSOLUTE PROOF THAT DARWIN LIED, AND POWERFUL EVIDENCE THAT HE DID SO IN ORDER TO STEAL MATTHEW'S RIGHTFUL PRIORITY FOR THE DISCOVERY OF NATURAL SELECTION.


What follows is the pertinent timeline of what was written by Patrick Matthew and Charles Darwin about who read Matthew's prior published discovery of natural selection.

image

Public Domain

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

1. In 1860, in his first letter to the Gardener's Chronicle, to claim his rightful priority for his full prior published hypothesis of natural selection, which Charles Darwin replicated without citing him, Matthew wrote that his book had been reviewed by the famous naturalist botanist John Loudon.

Loudon’s review (1832): of Matthew's (1831) book contained the following sentence:

‘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.’

Matthew (1860) in his first letter to the Gardener's Chronicle ( Matthew, P. 1860a. Letter to the Gardeners Chronicle. Nature's law of selection. Gardeners' Chronicle and Agricultural Gazette (7 April): 312-13. Darwin Online: ) wrote:

'In your Number of March 3d I observe a long quotation from the Times, stating that Mr. Darwin "professes to have discovered the existence and modus operandi of the natural law of selection," that is, "the power in nature which takes the place of man and performs a selection, sua sponte," in organic life. This discovery recently published as "the results of 20 years' investigation and reflection" by Mr. Darwin turns out to be what I published very fully and brought to apply practically to forestry in my work "Naval Timber and Arboriculture," published as far back as January 1, 1831, by Adam & Charles Black, Edinburgh, and Longman & Co., London, and reviewed in numerous periodicals, so as to have full publicity in the "Metropolitan Magazine," the "Quarterly Review," the "Gardeners' Magazine," by Loudon, who spoke of it as the book, and repeatedly in the "United Service Magazine" for 1831, &c. The following is an extract from this volume, which clearly proves a prior claim. ..'

Loudon was a famous naturalist, Darwin's notebooks and correspondence proved he read and was greatly influenced by Loudon's work. Yet in his 1860 reply to Matthew's 1860 letter Darwin wrote the exact opposite to what Matthew had just told him. See point 2, immediately below, for the hard evidence.

image

Trumpet from the rooftopsPublic Domain

Charles Darwin: The World's Greatest Science Fraudster

2. In his 1860 letter in the Gardener's Chronicle (Darwin, C. R. 1860b. Natural selection. Gardeners' Chronicle and Agricultural Gazette no. 16 (21 April): 362-363.) Darwin's first lie on this specific matter was written by his own hand:

" I think that no one will feel surprised that neither I, nor apparently any other naturalist, had heard of Mr Matthew's views, "

To necessarily repeat the point already made, Darwin wrote the exact self-serving opposite to what Matthew had just informed him. No such thing was apparent to Matthew (obviously). And no such thing was apparent, apparently, to anyone other than Darwin's fallacious spin, because ID analysis of 30 million publications reveals that Darwin was 'apparently' the first to write any such thing. Moreover, Darwin knew it wasn't true when he wrote it because Matthew had prior-informed him otherwise. Darwin lied in order to corrupt the history of the discovery of natural selection so that he could deny Matthew's right to be considered not only the first discoverer of natural selection but also an immortal great thinker and influencer in science. The evidence for the latter is much greater than the following example (see Sutton 2014), but for now it is sufficient to explain that Loudon went on to be the editor of the magazine that published two of Blyth's most influential articles on organic evolution, both of which influenced Darwin.

image

Public Domain

Introduction to my original discovery of 2014

3. Naturally concerned that Darwin was denying the truth about the fact that his book had been read by other naturalists, and its unique ideas understood, Matthew (Matthew, P. 1860b. Letter to the Gardeners Chronicle. Nature's law of selection. Gardeners' Chronicle and Agricultural Gazette (12 May) p. 433.) then very clearly, in his second letter in the Gardener's Chronicle - by way of reply to Darwin's blatant self-serving lie - wrote:

'I notice in your Number of April 21 Mr. Darwin’s letter honourably acknowledging my prior claim relative to the origin of species. I have not the least doubt that, in publishing his late work, he believed he was the first discoverer of this law of Nature. He is however wrong in thinking that no naturalist was aware of the previous discovery. I had occasion some 15 years ago to be conversing with a naturalist, a professor of a celebrated university, and he told me he had been reading my work “Naval Timber,” but that he could not bring such views before his class or uphold them publicly from fear of the cutty-stool, a sort of pillory punishment, not in the market-place and not devised for this offence, but generally practised a little more than half a century ago. It was at least in part this spirit of resistance to scientific doctrine that caused my work to be voted unfit for the public library of the fair city itself. The age was not ripe for such ideas, nor do I believe is the present one,..'

4. Despite being initially informed that the naturalist Loudon had read and reviewed his book Darwin lied in his letter of reply in the Gardener's Chronicle by writing that no naturalist had read Matthew's ideas. As can be seen in point 3, above, Matthew then corrected Darwin by informing him in detail of yet another naturalist, a university Professor (unnamed) who had read his original ideas on natural selection but was afraid to teach them for fear of pillory punishment. In addition, Matthew added that his orignal ideas were also read by those in charge of the Public Li bray of Perth (Perth in Scotland is also famously called "the fair city") - who were so outraged by the heresy of natural selection that they banned the book!

So what did Darwin do next? The following year, in 1861 He wrote to a famous and influential naturalist with yet another outrageous self-serving lie. This time Darwin wrote that no one at all had ever read Matthew's book! To the famous French naturalist Quatrefages de Bréau in his letter of April 25, 1861 Darwin lied:

"I have lately read M. Naudin's paper; but it does not seem to me to anticipate me, as he does not shew how Selection could be applied under nature; but an obscure writer on Forest Trees, in 1830, in Scotland, most expressly & clearly anticipated my views—though he put the case so briefly, that no single person ever noticed the scattered passages in his book."

5. Then in 1861 in the Third Edition of the Origin of Species - and in every edition thereafter, Darwin continued that exact same great self serving lie about Matthew's book, and who read the ideas in it. That third lie corrupted - for 155 years - the history of the discovery of natural selection. Darwin (1861) wrote in the third edition of The Origin of Species -despite being informed of the exact opposite by Matthew only the year before - the following lie:

' Unfortunately the view was given by Mr. Matthew very briefly in scattered passages in an Appendix to a work on a different subject, so that it remained unnoticed until Mr. Matthew himself drew attention to it in the Gardener's Chronicle,' on April 7th, 1860.'

Small wonder then that Darwin's Darwinist's - being named for their lying hero - failed to check the truth of the matter. By way of example, Sir Gavin de Beer - Royal Society Darwin Medal winner - wrote in his Wilkins Lecture for the Royal Society (de Beer 1962 on page 333): Darwin's great lie as the "gospel according to Darwin" truth. Until I personally put the record fully straight (Sutton 2014) not a single person corrected his credulous Darwin deification claptrap:

"...William Charles Wells and Patrick Matthew were predecessors who had actually published the principle of natural selection in obscure places where their works remained completely unnoticed until Darwin and Wallace reawakened interest in the subject.'

By way of another example of proof of the great impact of these three Darwin Lies on the history of discovery of natural selection, the leading evolutionary biologist of the 20th century, Ernst Mayr, published a more specific fallacy about Matthew's (1831) unique ideas going completely unread by biologists (Mayr 1982 The Growth of Biological Thought: Diversity, Evolution and Inheritance p.499):

'The person who has the soundest claim for priority in establishing a theory or evolution by natural selection is Patrick Matthew (1790-1874). He was a wealthy landowner in Scotland, very well read and well traveled (Wells 1974). His views on evolution and natural selection were published in a number of notes in an appendix to his work On Naval Timber and Arboriculture (1831). These notes have virtually no relation to the subject matter of the book, and it is therefore not surprising that neither Darwin nor any other biologist had ever encountered them until Matthew brought forward his claims in an article in 1860 in the Gardener's Chronicle.''

Mayr was completely wrong, and easily discoverable to be so, when he wrote those words. Because naturalists are by definition biologists. And as we have seen above, Matthew told Darwin - indeed told us all - of John Loudon's review of his ideas. And Loudon was a noted botanist - a naturalist - so by default a biologist. Moreover, Matthew told Darwin of another naturalist professor - so, again, by default, a biologist - who had read his ideas on natural selection.

Conclusion

Darwin was a self-serving deliberate liar. The record is independently-verifiable. Darwin wrote the very opposite to what he had twice been informed was the truth by the very trustworthy originator whose ideas he replicated without citing their originator's prior publication of them. And Darwin wrote those falsehoods - because - just as de Beer's and Mayr's ludicrously acclaimed texts go to prove- they were needed to wrestle priority away from the true biological father of natural selection.

Had the powerfully connected and much revered Charles Darwin , responded in writing, in the Gardener's Chronicle and from the third edition of the Origin of Species onward, for the historical record with honestly, to the correct and honest information supplied by Matthew – as opposed to writing the opposite to it in a series of deliberate Matthew suppressing lies – the history of discovery of natural selection would be a veracious record and it would be called Matthewism, not Darwinism. Clearly, today, Darwinists, named for Darwin, have a professional academic and ‘Darwin Industry’ interest in saving face and seeking, wormingly, to wriggle-deny by any embarrassing means at their desperate disposal, this obvious – fact-led truth. The shame of it.

You can read more about Matthew on the Patrick Matthew website PatrickMatthew.com and on the Patrick Matthew blog.

image

Attribution

Proof Darwin Lied and Engaged in Fraudulent Glory-Theft

Darwinists still maintain that their deified namesake - Charles Darwin - did not lie about who really read Matthew's discovery before Darwin replicated it without citation to its originator. You can read the arguments on Dr Mike Weale's Patrick Matthew Project., where the evidence appears to reveal that the name "Darwin" creates an optical illusion that hides otherwise obvious lies.

PART 2

Immaculate conceptions by the liar Darwin and dishonest Wallace

1. The purported "Blessed Virgin" St Mary of Nazareth (if indeed she ever existed) has never been proven to have told a deliberate lie (deliberate falsehood). But it is, rationally, more likely than not that (if he ever existed) St Mary's purported son (Jesus of Nazareth) was fathered, not by "immaculate conception" by the deity that the Christians call God, but instead by one of the human men who surrounded Mary - with whom she met and had physical contact over 2000 years ago.

2. The alleged Christian Biblical apostle Matthew (if he ever existed) has never been proven to have told a deliberate lie. And the author of the Christian biblical 'Gospel According to Matthew' (whoever that was) has never been proven to have told a deliberate lie (deliberate falsehood). The Gospel According to Matthew is the main source of the holy Roman Catholic Christian story of St Mary's supposed immaculate conception.

3. Darwin and Wallace each claimed to have discovered Patrick Matthew's (1831) full prior published hypothesis of natural selection independently (immaculately conceived) of Matthew's prior published work. They each claimed this despite the fact that I have since uniquely discovered - and published in my book 'Nullius in verba: Darwin's greatest secret'' - that 25 people actually cited Matthew's book in the published literature before Darwin and Wallace (1858) replicated the original 'bombshell' ideas and examples in it. Moreover, I have also uniquely proved in my book (with newly discovered independently verifiable published evidence) that Darwin and Wallace knew, and that Darwin and Wallace were assisted and influenced by, influential naturalists who had both read and then cited Matthew's (1831) book pre-1858.

4. Darwin (1860 and 1861 - to his death) wrote and had published his own fabricated falsehoods when he claimed that no naturalists, indeed no one at all, had read Matthew's (1831) book before Matthew informed Darwin about it in 1860 in the Gardener's Chronicle. Darwin - in fact (following from what Matthew informed him) wrote that falsehood after and as the absolute opposite to what Matthew (1860) had twice informed him in print in the Gardener's Chronicle. Because Matthew (1860), on two separate occasions informed Darwin - indeed corrected Darwin once in print in the Gardener's Chronicle in 1860 on Darwin's first published claim that no naturalists had read Matthew's book. Despite Matthew informing him otherwise - about the famous naturalist Loudon reviewing his book and an unnamed naturalist who feared teaching Matthew's unique discovery of natural selection having read and understood it,

It is pertinent to mention at this point that Loudon went on to edit two of Blyth's (1855 and 1856) influential papers on organic evolution. Darwin (1861) admitted, from the third edition of the Origin of Species onward, that Byth was his most valuable and prolific informant.

Darwin told a lie when he wrote to the famous French naturalist Quatrefages de Bréau in 1861 about Matthew that "no single person ever noticed the scattered passages in his book". Darwin further lied when - again writing the exact opposite to what Matthew had twice informed him in print - by continuing with his big self-serving lie about Matthew's ideas being unread - from the third edition of the Origin of Species (1861) onward.

Darwin's lies about no single person reading Matthew's (1831) unique ideas on the origin of species have been taken as the literal truth by credulous Darwin worshiping Darwinists for the past 155 years. They simply never once bothered to check the facts about the how the most important scientific theory of all time was actually first discovered and the how its true originator - Patrick Matthew - influenced others with it. By way of example, see the totally inaccurate rubbish written by Royal Society Darwin Medal winner Sir Gavin de Beer (in de Beer's Wilkins Lecture for the Royal Society (de Beer 1962 on page 333) .

5. There is no known evidence (on examination of his extensive publications) that Matthew ever deliberately misled anyone about anything. Hence, Darwin - in 1860 - had no reason for not taking Mathew's word as a gentleman scholar about everything he wrote about who did read his book before Darwin's and Wallace's published dual replication of his prior-published (1831) discovery in 1858.

6. St Mary was surrounded by - communicated with and was in the presence of - men whose testicles were more likely than not fertile (at least to some unknown degree) with sperm.

7. Both Darwin and Wallace communicated (pre 1858) - and Darwin met and physically associated with (Chambers) men who had read and cited Matthew's (1831) book. Selby edited the journal that published Wallace's Sarawak paper and sat on several scientific committees with Darwin - and even had Darwin's father and Darwin's great friend Jenyns as house guests. Hence, pre 1858, Darwin and Wallace were in communication with (and Darwin and his friends and relatives in the physical presence of ) men whose brains were fertile (admittedly to some unknown degree) with the ideas published in Matthew's (1831) book.

8. No single other known case exists in the entire history of scientific discovery of someone who was not proven a fraudulent plagiarizer who knew personally and communicated with and/or was assisted by others who had read the work they replicated and then claimed to have discovered the same ideas independently of the prior publication of those by their originator. That makes Darwin's and Wallace's claims of 'independent discovery' a dual vexatious anomaly in the history of science.

9. Wallace claimed that he finally, and independently of anyone, discovered natural selection whilst suffering from Malaria.

That claim - let's call it: 'Wallace's unique malarial cognitive enhancement claim' - another vexatious anomaly in the entire history of scientific discovery. Moreover, it should be weighed, rationally, in light of the fact that Wallace, in his autobiography, doctored the published transcription of one 1858 letter that he sent to his mother. The dishonest deletion of key words in Wallace's transcribed letter concealed the fact that he believed he was owed services and favors from Darwin and his cronies for his role and contribution (in absence and without his permission) to the Linnean Society presentation of his paper on natural selection alongside Darwin's in 1858.

Conclusion

Darwinists' belief in their namesake's and Wallace's alleged independent discoveries of Matthew's prior published hypothesis, whilst they were immediately surrounded and associating with men whose brains were fertile with it, is allegorically analogous to Christian belief in St Marry's miraculous immaculate conception of Christ whilst she was surround by, and associating with, fertile men. Indeed, the Darwinist miracle belief is even more ludicrous, because Darwin and Wallace are proven to have been deliberately dishonest - whereas there is zero evidence that either St Mary, Matthew the apostle, the author of The Gospel According to Matthew, or Patrick Matthew were ever dishonest. Moreover, the Darwinist miracle belief is arguably rendered even more improbable than the Christian version, because Christians believe in only one immaculate conception. Darwinists, however, to their eternal intellectual shame, believe in two!

The New Data, which I have uniquely discovered, that 100 per cent proves Matthew's prior publication of natural selection was read by influential naturalists known to Darwin and Wallace and their associates, drags the vexatious anomalies of Darwin's and Wallace's claimed dual independent discoveries under the spotlight of probability, ethics, reason, honesty, rationality and veracity as a critical paradox that will lead to a paradigm change in the history of the discovery of natural selection. If not a miracle and if not science fraud, then some kind of Matthewian knowledge contamination (cognitive fertilization) of Darwin's and Wallace's brains is as rationally more likely than not as the fertilization of the mythical Blessed Virgin Mary's egg by a human.

image

Public Domain

Darwin's Worms, He was nicknamed by his best friend Joseph Hooker: "The Wriggler"

Christians understand that they believe in a miracle. And they know its a miracle for the simple reason that it is improbable. Darwinists, hoodwinked by the weird optical illusion of the name 'Darwin', can't see the wood for Matthew's trees and their namesake's wormy lies.

I should now add – for the benefit of biased Darwinists:

The usual response – to the allegorical analogy of “The Blessed Virgins Darwin and Wallace” at this point is along the lines of someone writing or saying: “You have only circumstantial evidence. You have no letter to or from him that proves Darwin was made aware of Matthew before 1860, so your arguments don’t stand up.”

Such a response in light of the discovery of new data that dis-confirms the Darwinist myth that Matthew’s book went unread by anyone known to Darwin or Wallace, is indicative that such Darwinists might be suffering from cognitive dissonance. because they ask for no such kind of “smoking gun” letter by way of a human admission of paternity of Jesus of Nazareth. The reason they don’t is because immaculate conception when surrounded by men who were fertile, though fertile to some unknown degree, is so highly improbable that rationall people don’t need one to know it’s nonsense, because such conception would require a supernatural miracle. So why ask for one in the case of Darwin’s claimed immaculate conception of natural selection, when he too was surrounded by men whose brains were fertile, to some unknown degree, with Matthew’s ideas and great discovery after having read and cited him? Do Darwinists now wish to claim – in light of the data I uniquely discovered – that a 20 year long and repetitive Darwinist mental-contraceptive miracle took place?

Sorry Darwinists but the game’s up. You had a good run for 155 years. But hard facts trump claptrap in the end. And we now have new facts that do just that.

Please note: This ultimate fact-led conclusion has been posted for discussion in a rather "Darwinist friendly" environment on Dr Mike Weale's website the Patrick Matthew Project.

I challenge anyone to get the biased Darwinist Wikipedia editors to allow them to include on the Wikipedia Patrick Matthew page the hard fact led 100 per cent proof that Darwin lied about the reality of who really did read Matthew's book pre-1860. Try it. I double-Darwin- dare you!

Part Three

155 years of Darwinist Fallacy Belief Following their Namesake's Published Lies

Before the publication in 2014 of my book Nullius in Verba: Darwin's greatest secret, Darwinists have been misleading the public and other scholars into believing that Patrick Matthew's (1831) full prior published hypothesis of natural selection was unread by anyone in the field who mattered before Matthew brought his book to Darwin's attention by way of the first of two letters he had published in 1860 in the Gardener's Chronicle.

Even my personal Darwinist hero, Jim Dempster, the man Richard Dawkins (2010 in Bryson Ed.) calls Patrick Matthew's champion, was misled by the Darwinist literature, and a failure to discover the truth, into believing (Dempster 1983 'Patrick Matthew and Natural Selection' p. 21):

'Matthew's book and its Appendix went unread except by a few reviewers who praised it.'

In 1983, what Dempster wrote was an easily discovererable fallacy, because it runs counter to what Matthew (1862) wrote to Darwin in his second letter to to the Gardener's Chronicle about an unnamed naturalist who had read his original ideas on natural selection but feared to teach them for fear of pillory punishment. Moreover, Dempster's claim was also even more erroneous, but only so in light of the fact that it is newly discovered (Sutton 2014) that, outside and beyond book reviews, quite a few others did, in fact, read Matthew's book, cite it, and mention the original, yet heretical, ideas in it. Among that number we can count Loudon who, after his 1832 review of Matthew's 1831 book, cited the same book many more times in books on trees and gardening and botany. Before my research everyone appears to have failed to realize that Loudon was a naturalist. Furthermore, I uniquely discovered that, including him, seven naturalists read and cited Matthew's 1831 book before 1858. They are: Loudon, Chambers, Murphy, Johnson, Selby, Norton and Jameson.

As we have seen above, the year before Dempster's classic book on Matthew, Ernst Mayr published a more specific fallacy about the unique ideas in iMatthew's book going unread by biologists. .(Mayr 1982 The Growth of Biological Thought: Diversity, Evolution and Inheritance p.499).

Mayr was completely wrong. Biologists include zoologists, botanists, ornithologists, malacologists, naturalists and other specialties - and the Oxford English Dictionary (OED) dictionary definition of what constitutes a biologist has it that a biologist is an expert, specialist or student in biology, and the OED also has it that biology is: 'The branch of science that deals with living organisms as objects of study, apart from any utilitarian value they may have, and now comprising more specialized disciplines such as zoology, botany, and bacteriology.' Therefore, Loudon (1832), Chambers (1832), Murphy (1834), Johnson (1842), Selby (1842), Norton (1851) and Jameson (1853) were most certainly all biologists. Indeed (for what it is worth) Loudon and Selby are listed as such in the Wikipedia pageof famous biologists.

The most highly esteemed Darwinist Ernst Mayr is today proven also to have been 100% wrong about the readership of Matthew's book. He is proven wrong by the newly discovered facts fist published in Nullius, because Mathew's 1831 work in fact was read by other biologists. And Loudon (a biologist) - who everyone - including Mayr - seems to have failed to realize was a naturalist (and therefore, being one who studied and wrote about the evolution of animals and plants, as well as geology, that makes him a biologist) until the publication of Nullius in 2014, we can be sure definitely read Matthew's appendix, because Loudon commented upon the original ideas in it by noting that it appeared to have something original to say on what he referred to as 'the origin of species' no less! Mayr like so many of those in the Darwin Industry appears to have suffered from an occupational cognitive disease known as Loudon Naturalist Blind Syndrome.

Furthermore, it is important to note that Mayr - like so many Darwinists - misleads his readers by failing to mention that Matthew's (1831) original ideas on natural selection were not merely contained in the notorious appendix. As the excerpts included in Matthew's first 1860 letter to Darwin in the Garderner's Chronicle prove - his original ideas on natural selection were also in the main body of his book. And ideas from these were mentioned - albeit briefly - by Selby (1842) and Jameson (1853) - both can most certainly be deemed to be naturalists and biologists.

We should not forget that these fallacies about Matthew's prior published discovery of natural selection being unread were started by Darwin as deliberate lies in the Gardener's Chronicle in 1860 and from the third edition of the Origin of Species onward.

For more original and newly discovered concrete facts that bust Darwinist claptrap, and in so doing drag the vexatious anomaly of Darwin's and Wallace's self-serving claims to have discovered natural selection independently of Matthew's (1831) prior published hypotheses, and independently of those naturalists they knew who actually cited it before they replicated it, under the spotlight of veracity as a ludicrously biased Darwin worshiping belief in a completely unique and paradoxical dual miracle of immaculate conception of a prior published hypothesis - you could do worse than read Nullius in Verba: Darwin's greatest secret.

For instance, you might alternatively - if you don't care for hard and independently verifiable facts - read anything at all written on the topic by a top Darwinist!

Amazingly, in 2015 some Darwinists are now newly, desperately and irrationally resisting the 2014 paradigm change from the old improbable immaculate conception of Matthew's prior published original work to one of most probable 'knowledge contamination' by arguing that Darwin and so many of his Darwinists must have meant the exact opposite to what they very precisely wrote in a precise context of keeping Matthew down - because otherwise the New Data makes Darwin and his Darwinists look very silly. See my dismissive - hard evidence and fact-led - response to this desperate, daft as a brush, Darwin-defying biased blind-belief pseudo-scholarship.

PART 4

The Matthewian Revolution and Identity by Descent: David L. Hull and The Legacy of Darwin's "Total" and "Complete" Lies about Matthew.

So far, I have produced the published evidence that, following Darwin's (1860 and 1861) published lies about no one reading Patrick Matthew's 1831 book - On Naval Timber and Arboriculture - containing the full prior published hypothesis of natural selection (Sutton 2014), that the World's most eminent evolutionary biologists have plainly and precisely written the same fallacy.My paradigm changing book Nullius in Verba: Darwin's greatest secret.busts Darwin's and his credulous myth-parroting Darwinist's 'no one read it fallacy' completely with independently verifiable absolute proof that seven naturalists - four known to Darwin and two to Wallace - in fact did read Matthew's book pe-1858, because they actually cited it in the literature. And so Matthewian knowledge contamination of Darwin's and Wallace's replicating work on natural selection, which replicated so many of Matthew's prior published original ideas and explanatory examples without citing Matthew, more likely than not happened.

Royal Society Darwin Medal winner Sir Gavin de Beer very plainly wrote the ludicrously biased Darwinist pleasing fallacy that no one at all read Matthew's ideas before 1860. In this blog post, I show how the exact same self-serving Darwinist's fallacy spreading legacy of their namesake's lies misled the philosopher David L. Hull into erroneously believing there was no evidence for the likelihood of any kind of likely Matthewian knowledge contamination having taken place.

In his book - published by Cambridge University Press, which is an eminent a publishing house that ensures the content of all its published books is approved as being accurate and not misleading by an expert academic editorial board -Science and Selection: Essays on Biological Evolution and the Philosophy of Science (2001) on page 227, in a chapter entitled 'studying the the study of science scientifically', Hull writes:

'...Matthew (1831) anticipated Darwin with respect to natural selection... Why then term the revolution that took off in 1859 the Darwinian Revolution? Why not the Matthewian Revolution? The answer is that Matthew did not produce a revolution of any kind. His allusions to what later came to be known as natural selection[+] went totally [my emphasis] unnoticed at the time. Authors such as Lamarck and Chambers had some impact with respect to the transmutation (e.g.on Wallace) but neither succeeded in producing anything like a "revolution". Darwin did.'

Hull was wrong. He was as "completely" and "totally" wrong as de Beer (1962) was also totally andcompletely wrong to write:

'…William Charles Wells and Patrick Matthew were predecessors who had actually published the principle of natural selection in obscure places where their works remained completely [my emphasis] unnoticed until Darwin and Wallace reawakened interest in the subject.’

Because, as I have written before, it was known at the time Hull wrote that fallacious statement - from the plain facts presented in Matthew's first published letter of 1860 in the Gardener's Chronicle that the naturalist (and biologist) John Loudon had read and reviewed Matthew's book in 1832. Moreover, further evidence, from Matthew's second (1860) published letter in the Gardener's Chronicle reveals that an unnamed naturalist had also read Matthew's unique ideas but that the unnamed naturalist feared to teach them for fear of pillory punishment, because they were considered heretical at the time.

Similarly, Ersnst Mayr (1982) was also "totally" and "completely" wrong to write:

Because, as I have written before, it was known at the time Hull wrote that fallacious statement - from the plain facts presented in Matthew's first published letter of 1860 in the Gardener's Chronicle that the naturalist (and biologist) John Loudon had read and reviewed Matthew's book in 1832. Moreover, further evidence, from Matthew's second (1860) published letter in the Gardener's Chronicle reveals that an unnamed naturalist had also read Matthew's unique ideas but that the unnamed naturalist feared to teach them for fear of pillory punishment, because they were considered heretical at the time.

Similarly, Ersnst Mayr (1982) was also "totally" and "completely" wrong to write:

'His views on evolution and natural selection were published in a number of notes in an appendix to his work On Naval Timber and Arboriculture (1831). These notes have virtually no relation to the subject matter of the book, and it is therefore not surprising that neither Darwin nor any other biologist had ever [my emphasis] encountered them until Matthew brought forward his claims in an article in 1860 in the Gardener's Chronicle.'

Ernst Mayr very plainly wrote a newly discovered and proven fallacy (see my book Nulliusfor the full details) because had Mayr checked the actual facts - or (if he knew them) told the truth - he would have written about the, naturalist and famous botanist and biologist John Loudon (1832) - who in actual fact prominently published a review of Matthew's (1831) book, Had he done the right thing and written about Loudon - Mayr would have explained how in that 1832 book review Loudon wrote most clearly that Mathew appeared to have something original to say on 'the origin of species' - a term that Darwin (1859) later used as the title for his famous book, which replicated, without citing so many of Matthew's original ideas on natural selection.

What we know now as hard facts - following the original discoveries revealed for the first time in my bookNullius (Sutton 2014) - is that Loudon went on - at the time they were published - to be editor of the journal that published two of Blyth's (1835) and (1836) influential papers on organic evolution, and that Blyth was Darwin's most prolific informant on the topic. Moreover, believing erroneously - as everyone did prior to the 2014 paradigm-changing publication of NulliusNullius- that Matthew's book went unread by anyone known to Darwin or Wallace, Hull never knew that the famous naturalist and biologist Selby had cited Matthew's book many times in 1842 and then gone on - at the time it was published - to be editor the journal that published Wallace's 1855 Sarawak paper on natural selection. Finally, had he known that Chambers cited Matthew's book in 1832 before penning the famous and influential 'Vestiges of Creation' in 1844, which so influenced both Darwin and Wallace - and that Darwin had met and corresponded with Chambers pre 1858 - he most surely would not have written in 1989(The Metaphysics of Evolution: Naqshbandis in the Ottoman World, 1450-1700,on page 233), that Darwin's and Wallace's supposed dual independent initiations of Matthew' prior published theory occurred because there were no linkages of possible original idea influence between Matthew's work and that of Darwin and Wallace. Hull did not have the evidence that we have today.

TheNew Data regarding who did read Matthew's book before 1858 which was originally revealed to the World in Nullius in 2014Nullius in 2014, proves it rationally more likely than not, given Darwin's and Wallace's supposed immaculate conceptions being anomalous paradoxes without parallel in the history of scientific discovery, thatidentity by descent from Matthew's prior published work actually can be established in the case of Darwin's and Wallace's replications of it.

Darwin's proven deliberate self-serving lies - told in the highly relevant and specific context of being called-out in the press by Matthew in the Gardener's Chronicle in 1860 for replicating his work without citing it - and their legacy of 155 years of credulous parroting by his Darwinists in the highly specific context of seeking (fallaciously it now turns out) to show that Matthew could not possibly have influenced Darwin or anyone known to him - did a very good job of hiding the truth for so long.

Today, the New Data, proves Darwin's and Wallace's friends and associates, and, in turn, their friends and associates, read and cited Matthew's 1831 book years before Darwin and Wallace replicated so much from it. Darwin's game is finally up.

Amazingly, in 2015 some Darwinists are now newly, desperately resisting the 2014 paradigm change from the old improbable immaculate conception of Matthew's prior published original work to one of most probable 'knowledge contamination' by arguing that Darwin and so many of his Darwinists must have meant the exact opposite to what they very precisely wrote in a precise context of keeping Matthew down - because otherwise the New Data makes Darwin and his Darwinists look very silly for being completely and emphatically wrong.

image

Public Domain

Science and Sound Scholarship versus Pseudoscience and Pseudoscholarship

Conclusion

The independently verifiable facts take us in the opposite direction from disconfirmed Darwinist spin.

Darwin knew otherwise when he wrote his lies about Matthew's ideas being unread, because Matthew clearly informed Darwin, before he wrote them, that naturalists - such as John Loudon, for example - had read those ideas. Indeed, as Matthew further explained to Darwin in 1860, an unnamed naturalist, a professor of an esteemed institution, told Matthew that he was afraid to teach the scientific ideas in his 1831 book for fear of pillory punishment for religious heresy. Curiously, at the time of writing these words (September 2015), these are two disconfirming facts among many others selectively ignored by cherry-picking Darwinists in the highly specific context of their strategic and successful one-sided-spin telling of the story of their namesake's claimed 'independent' discovery of Matthew's prior published ideas. In sum, ludicrous though their claims are, because Matthew's book would have been read in its entirety by many people, including naturalists. Darwinist published spin on this topic, written in the context of denying the existence of any probable routes of Matthewian knowledge contamination of the pre-1858 works of Darwin and Wallace, is premised upon misrepresenting the significance of the suitability of the title of Matthew's book 'On naval Timber and Arboriculture' as one that naturalists would not read, and that even if they did read it they would not appreciate the significance of Matthew’s discovery within its pages, or else would not read the arguments where they were placed within it. Those fallacies were published to prop-up further fallacious yet unequivocal arguments made by Darwin and leading Darwinists that, variously, no naturalists, no biologists, no one known to Darwin or Wallace, or even - apparently most stupidly of all - no one whatsoever, read Matthew's (1831) unique ideas on natural selection before 1860.

All Darwinist defenses against the paradigm changing New Data about the history of the discovery of natural section can be rebutted: Here.

image

(c) Darwin and WallaceAttribution

Miracle Double Immaculate Conceptions of the Blessed Virgins Darwin and Wallace of Matthew's prior published hypothesis of natural selection

 
Dusty Blueprint
August 29, 2015 at 12:02 pm
Time and context issues

Dear Mike,

I think that it should be made clear that the Royal Navy were building wooden ships right up to and past the beginnings of the Industrial Revolution. Therefore, Patrick Matthew's book being the culmination of 20 years work published in 1831 was still current as regards trees needed for warships by the Royal Navy.

By 1859, however, there was a 'sea change' in the guise of the industrial revolution and the use of metal for ships. Watching a programme the other day only, I chanced to learn that the smashing of a cannon ball through the hull of a metal ship produced shrapnel that killed a lot of people standing on the decks. The Royal Navy continued to build WOODEN ships but armed the vessel with sheets of metal coverings thereby dampening the impact of a cannon ball which would penetrate the metal cover, shrapnel released would be minimal and be slowed down in its impact through the wooden hull thereby affording greater protection for the men on board. The fact that the wooden hull was thus hidden from view may be the reason why everyone thought that there had been a sudden changeover to metal hulls and perhaps lessened the apparent validity of planting forests for the building of ships as in ON NAVAL TIMBER AND ARBORICULTURE from 1831.

Darwin may have used this visible changeover to mask in another way his use of another's discovery, a man who was an actively contributive member of society with his own means of production and therefore who could be termed 'trade' was, to Darwin and his mates, not socially in the same class as a 'thinker' whose actual productive contribution to the "Wealth of the Nation" was nil.

Thinker's Post
Mike Sutton
August 30, 2015 at 6:22 pm

Absolutely Dusty. And we must not forget that by the late 1850's what someone wrote in the 1830's was a distant memory only for those who were still alive who were aware of his book.

Matthew was not in any of the science clubs of the day - whereas Darwin was in the Royal Society (like his father and grandfather before him and his progeny after him) and many others such as the Linnean Society. To Darwin and his cronies Matthew was a bankrupt (literally) "nobody" with radical political (libertarian Chartism) opinions that they despised almost as much as his mercantile profession as farmer and businessman. Darwin was powerfully connected to the gentlemen of science of the day. Matthew was not

But philosophical thinking on the lineage between an original idea and its replication by others by a philosopher on biology (no less) provides us with clear evidence of the impact of Darwin's lies about the readership of Matthew's book and the credulous dissemination of them, as though veracious truths, by the World's leading evolutionary biologists . Professor Hull was - of course - unaware of the New Data revealed in my book Nullius, which shows who Darwin knew who we newly know read Matthew's book, which is why what Hulll (like so many others) wrote within the specific context of his own argument that Matthew's discovery, since - (as he erroneously believed) it was not read by anyone - could not possibly have influenced Darwin or Wallace. Hull's book is just one (among many) most revealing consequences of the historical impact of Darwin's lies and the poor scholarship of Darwinists: http://patrickmathew.blogspot.co.uk/2015/08/the-matthewian-revolution-and-identity.html in light of the New Data.

In effect:

The New Data regarding who did read Matthew's book before 1858 which was originally revealed to the World in Nullius in 2014, proves it rationally more likely than not, given Darwin's and Wallace's supposed immaculate conceptions being anomalous paradoxes without parallel in the history of scientific discovery, that identity by descent from Matthew's prior published work actually can be established in the case of Darwin's and Wallace's replications of it.

Darwin's proven deliberate self-serving lies - told in the highly relevant and specific context of being called-out in the press by Matthew in the Gardener's Chronicle in 1860 for replicating his work without citing it - and their legacy of 155 years of credulous parroting by his Darwinists - did a very good job of hiding the truth for so long. Today, Darwin's game is finally up.

The trouble for them is that Darwin's incredibly biased Darwinists are not yet aware of their most probably inevitable demise as trusted scholars telling the story of the discovery of natural selection. And so they cling on to the newly debunked paradigm of their namesake's immaculate conception of a prior published hypothesis, by making brand new irrational arguments that what was plainly written in the specific self-serving context of denying Matthew's possible influence on Darwin and Wallace - by writing that Matthew's work went completely and totally unread - is now interpreted by them (and they wish by anyone else gullible enough to swallow it) as mere metaphor, because the New Data, originally revealed in Nullius in 2014, makes Darwin and the World's leading Darwinists look very silly if we accept - as we and all professional Darwinists and their students always did in the past - that they actually meant us to believe literally what they very precisely wrote for very particular self-serving anti-Matthew reason. The shame of it!

History will not treat Darwinists well for their 155 years of dysology.

 
 
 
Latest Ebooks