Read the newly discovered paradigm puncturing facts about who really did read Patrick Matthew’s (1831) prior published original conception of macroevolution by natural selection before Darwin and Wallace (1858) and Darwin (1859) replicated it. See the proof that Darwin deliberately lied in his own defence by claiming Matthew's original breakthrough went unread until after his supposed independent conception and, otherwise, amazing replication 27 years later.
Abridged and updated, the new paperback (Vol. 1) of Nullius in Verba: Darwin's greatest secret is now available on all Amazon stores worldwide.
Did you, like I did, once believe the story that Newton discovered gravity by watching an apple fall? Not all, but some reading these words will think that myth and some other debunked science stories are true. Perhaps you do currently, or perhaps once believed that everyone apart from Columbus thought the Earth was flat before he sailed West to reach the East Indies? Do you still believe the story that Darwin discovered natural selection from observing varieties of finch beaks on the Galapagos Islands? The myths about Columbus and Newton prevail, despite having been debunked decades ago. The same thing goes for the myth about Darwin's Finches. One causal factor for continued belief in such busted myths is, at least in part, sugggested by James Randi:
"The public really doesn't listen when they are being told straight-forward facts. They would rather accept what some charismatic character tells them than really think about what the truth might be. They would rather have the romance and the lies."
I feel that we all need to do something more to end the way myths undermine veracity. I am very interested, personally, in the influence of other myths on the history of discovery. I think such understanding is important. Because understanding how discovery myths are created and spread is important to our understanding of the real process of discovery. Improvements in our understanding on these topics is crucial, therefore, if we wish to learn more about how to make new discoveries that will improve the world. If myths get in the way of that process we are analysing erroneous data and getting invalid results.
On this website I deal in hard facts about the newly debunked myth that Charles Darwin and Alfred Wallace each discovered natural selection completely independently of one another and completely independently of its recognised first discoverer Patrick Matthew. Arriving at a veracious history on this topic cannot be achieved by believing in fallacies or myths and not by blindly swallowing the deliberate lies that sometimes underpin the stories about its discovery. From that cause, on this website you will find the fallacies, myths and lies about Darwin exposed for what they are in light of newly discovered disconfirming and independently verifiable hard facts. That hard evidence was found using newly available Big Data research techniques.
Dr Mike Sutton (Criminologist)
In 1831, Patrick Matthew's book 'On Naval Timber and Arboriculture' was published. It contained the first full conception of the theory of macroevolution by natural selection (Sutton 2014). Matthew uniquely named it 'the natural process of selection'. Then, 27 years later, Darwin replicated Matthew’s original idea and many of his explanatory examples. Darwin claimed to have done so independently of anyone else, failed to cite Matthew and uniquely four-word-shuffled Matthew’s unique term into 'process of natural selection' – which is the only possible grammatically correct equivalent use of the same four words in Matthew's original term for his discovery. The naturalist John Loudon - a world renowned and noted botanist whose work was well known to Darwin and his best friend Joseph Hooker, his father William Hooker and their mutual friend John Lindley - published his review of Matthew's book. Loudon (1832) wrote that Matthew appeared to have something original to say on 'the origin of species' no less!
On 9th January 2016, (Sutton 2016a) it was discovered that, for 13 years, at great reputational expense to Matthew, Professor John Lindley - a correspondent of both Darwin and Wallace with a deep interest in evolution of species - hoodwinked the world that he and Lobb and Veitch were the first to introduce the hugely admired giant Californian redwood into Britain and the first to propagate them. The Lindley-Lobb Myth was only debunked in the press in 1866 - three years after Veitch died, two years after Lobb's demise and exactly a year after Lindley's death. In fact, Patrick Matthew and his son John are proven to be first to introduce the giant redwoods into Britain. They did so in 1843. And Patrick Matthew was first to propagate them. Most significantly, the magazine, of which Lindley was Editor, had long held a letter from Matthew that proved it!
The obvious and significant facts reveal that Patrick Matthew was a repeat victim of glory theft by fallacy coining - first by Lindley (1853) then by his correspondent Alfred Wallace (1855; 1858), then by their mutual correspondent Darwin (1858, 1859). In addition, in 1867, Matthew was victimized again. This time by unknown members of the British Association for Advancement of Science - who platform blocked him from giving his conference-accepted paper on his prior-published discovery of macroevolution by natural selection at the Annual Meeting, held that year in Dundee (See: Sutton 2016b). Because he was prevented from presenting his paper, the rules of the 'British Association' ensured it could not be included in the published conference papers. Notably, Lindley (then deceased), Wallace and Darwin were all members of the 'British Association' as were Darwin's friends and associates, who were also present. Wallace was present, as was Charles Lyell (guest of honour) and Robert Chambers. This multiple victimisation of Matthew, at different times, but for the same academic 'crime' of significant and delinquent 'immortal great glory theft ', by Lindley, Wallace, Darwin and members of the 'British Association' - three keenly co-operative co-correspondents and a science institution, with a shared understanding that species evolved, is most remarkably unique in the history of scientific discovery if it is only a mere multiple coincidence.
Surpassing the failure of traditional Darwin scholar rubber thimble paper turning in the libraries of the world, the cutting edge high technology of the Google library project, of some 35 million searchable publications, enabled me to originally discover facts that 100 per cent prove Charles Darwin and Alfred Wallace fallaciously claimed that no one read Matthew's prior-published discovery and explanatory examples of natural selection before they replicated both. And the "New Facts" 100 per cent prove it, because the proof is in the previously undiscovered 19th century printed words in publications that absolutely prove Matthew's book, and the original ideas in it, were cited by influential naturalists known both to them and their influencers, before they replicated those same ideas - claiming they alighted upon them independently of Matthew's prior publication of the same. Darwin would later fallaciously excuse himself from 1860 onward by claiming those ideas were unread before he and Wallace replicated them. Darwin is 100 per cent proven to have lied in that regard, because he wrote that lie after Matthew had informed him of two influential naturalists who read and understood his original ideas, and their significance, and that his book had been banned, because of those same bombshell ideas, by Perth Public Library in Scotland.
This website explains the significance of the New Data about who Darwin and Wallace each knew who really did read Patrick Matthew's (1831) original and full prior published hypothesis of natural selection, and then influenced their thinking on the topic, before Darwin and Wallace (1858) replicated and claimed Matthew's ideas as their own independent discovery.
Evolutionary biologists appear to be in a classic 'state of denial' over the new facts about who Darwin and Wallace knew who did read and then cite Matthew's ideas before 1858.
You are invited to peruse what I have written on this website, study the New Data, and make up your own mind.
Dr Mike Sutton (2015)
This Prezi-show reveals the obvious and significant evidence
that 100 per cent proves Darwin committed lying, plagiarising science fraud
by glory theft of Matthew's prior-published conception of macro-evolution by natural selection.
Samuel Arbesman (2013) The Half Life of Facts (paperback updated edition) pp. 83-.84.
(Accept nothing as true on the word alone of any "expert" or guru.)
DON'T BE CREDULOUS
DON'T BE LAZY
CARE AND DARE TO DELVE DEEPLY INTO THE LITERATURE TO FIND THE "REAL FACTS"
ALWAYS FOLLOW THE DATA TO WHEREVER IT TAKES YOU
STICK TO FACTS
EXPOSE FALSEHOODS BY SHARING THE TRUTH
FINALLY: WEIGH THE EVIDENCE AND ASK OTHERS TO DO THE SAME
DO IT FOR VERACITY'S SAKE!
One day, Scotland will have Patrick Matthew on the back of its £10 note.
Arbesman's simple explanation for why fallacies spread to become myths is useful, but it does not explain why busted myths continue to be promoted as veracious knowledge.
Psychologists, however, do explain why. They explain that the reason why new facts are completely denied by individuals in certain groups is when those facts completely undermine the individual's and their group's sense of deeply held identity.
Darwinists, named for their much worshipped hero, have traditionally worshipped Darwin for his honesty, integrity and originality. The "real facts" prove they have been worshipping nothing more than a lying, replicating shameless glory thief.
Darwinists, therefore, are compelled to deny all the newly discovered facts because their worship of Darwin is like a stack of dominoes. If one of the New Facts is acknowledged then the whole stack tumbles. References to the psychology literature on fact denial can be found on the Patrick Matthew blog. Here.
Explanations for why expert Darwin scholars failed to see the obvious and significant fact that Darwin lied when confronted by Matthew in the press can be understood in terms of 'blindsight' cognitive bias, and other explanations provided by Cohen's States of Denial.
The 100 per cent proven fact that Darwin lied about who really did read Patrick Matthew's prior-published theory of macroevolution by natural selection is now in a peer reviewed science journal - Here
On Meta Skepticism: Reasons why the "New Data" in the story of the history of discovery of natural selection are being stonewalled by the "Darwin Industry" are explored in an article by the science journalist Daniel Engber: "Who Will Debunk the Debunkers?"
READ THE TEN GROUPS OF FACT THAT PROVE DARWIN AND WALLACE HAVE NO LEGITIMATE CLAIM WHATSOEVER TO BE ORIGINATORS OF PATRICK MATTHEW'S FULL PRIOR-PUBLISHED CONCEPTION OF EVOLUTION BY NATURAL SELECTION
Read more about the mythbusting work of the criminologist Dr Mike Sutton on the Best Thinking website
Prior to the publication of this book, it was universally believed that Charles Darwin told the truth when he wrote in 1860 that apparently no naturalist had read Patrick Matthew's 1831 book, which contained the full theory of natural selection.
Nullius in Verba: Darwin's greatest secret is the hard-fact-led mythbusting book that re-wrote the history of the discovery of natural selection with new BigData made discoveries of the once hidden books that reveal who Darwin and Wallace knew who really did read Patrick Matthew's prior publication of the full theory of natural selection before Darwin and Wallace supposedly 'independently' replicated it in 1858 with, supposedly, no knowledge of what Matthew had discovered that their friends and influencers had read and actually cited in the literature before influencing them on the same topic!
Nullius is available on Amazon
Cast iron proof that Charles Darwin, in collusion with his best friend and botanical mentor Joseph Hooker, lied in the Gardener's Chronicle when he wrote in 1860 that apparently no naturalist had read Matthew's (1831) prior-published ideas, and further lied when he wrote in the third edition of the Origin of Species (1861), and every edition thereafter, that Matthew's unique ideas had passed unnoticed until 1860.
Contrary to the myth started by Darwin's deliberate self-serving lie, told in 1860 in the Gardener's Chronicle, and from the third edition of the Origin of Species onward, credulously parroted by influential Darwinists, such as Gavin de Beer, ever since, Mike Sutton (2014) uniquely discovered that Matthew's (1831) original ideas on natural selection in fact were read and discussed by naturalists and others. The book containing them was cited, and the ideas on natural selection in it, commented upon, years before Matthew brought them to Darwin's attention after the publication of Darwin's Origin of Species in 1860.
Sutton proved that Matthew's book, containing the full hypothesis of natural selection, was cited by at least 25 people before 1858. Seven were naturalists, four were known to Darwin and two to Wallace and three (Loudon, Sellby and Chambers) played major roles at the epicenter and influence of the pre-1858 work work of Darwin and Wallace on natural selection.
Therefore, in 2014, the neglected anomaly of the Darwinist myth of Darwin's and Wallace's independent discoveries of Matthew's prior published hypothesis is disconfirmed by the discovery of the New Data.
Fact-led reason suggests now that Matthewian knowledge contamination more likely than not took place.
Charles Darwin's success at creating a persona of respectability and great honesty is proof of the old adage that it is not what and who you really are that matters. All that counts in society is what and who you appear to be.
Why was the New Data detected by a social scientist and not by an expert Darwinist biologist?
For 155 years, following the publication of Darwin's (1859) Origin of Species, until Sutton's (2014) Nullius in Verba, Darwinists were unobservant of the damning evidence in the literature. They had seen only what they were taught to expect about their deified namesake. The totaly unexpected evidence, that they are named for a plagiarizing science fraudster, evaded them like an optical illusion.
One needs to retain the unblinking observancy of a curious child, whilst exercising an open mind. To succeed, it is necessary to create a physical, social and personally cognitive research environment in which things can happen and where significant new data can be searched for, detected, followed-up with intuitive instinct and appreciated. In such an environment, it is important to know and fully exploit the potential of the tools that facilitate your research and to use them in search for the unusual.
You should be inspired, tenaciously powered and moderated by the joyful application of your diligent and acute, unbiased, curiosity and observation skills.
In the words of Alexander Fleming (1959), in order to first make game changing discoveries, one should:
'Work hard, work well, do not clutter up the mind too much with precedents, and be prepared to accept such good fortune as the gods offer...'
If it happens that you find something big, to intuitively appreciate the 'bombshell' significance of your newly discovered hard facts is, at the very outset at least, an altogether more subjective matter. I don't think such appreciation is something that can be taught to everyone. One, essentially, needs the gift of an eye to notice and a mind to grasp what it means.
To argue for and disseminate the significance of your discovery, in the face of an entrenched, powerful, hostile, and self-interested 'expert' 'majority view', requires personal and intellectual mettle and sense of moral integrity for promoting fact-led progress that is too often lacking in the world.
For the social scientist, indeed, for any scientist, it is a moral duty to reveal myths and fallacies and to share as widely as possible the newly discovered facts that disconfirm them.
I know exactly what I have uniquely discovered with my carefully planned and executed research design and innovative ID research method. Therefore, I know its originality and great importance in the history of scientific discovery.
The New Data of Wallace's sly correspondence record tampering dishonesty and Darwin's 100 per cent proven audacious self-serving lies, when added to the newly discovered fact that highly influential naturalists, who Darwin and Wallace knew, read and then cited Matthew's (1831) book before Darwin and Wallace replicated the bombshell ideas in it - followed by their own fallacious defence that before 1860 no naturalist had read those prior-published ideas - re-writes, significantly, the history of the discovery of natural selection.
Macro evolution by natural selection is, arguably, the most important scientific discovery of all time. The great importance of this theory underpins the significance of the New Data for veracious scientific progress in our knowledge of how such great scientific discoveries are made.
This site was established in 2104 following my original Big Data discovery (Sutton 2014), revealed in Nullius in Verba: Darwin's greatest secret, that, contrary to what Darwinists have been fallaciously claiming for the past 155 years in favour of their namesake, influential naturalists, known to both Charles Darwin and Alfred Wallace, in actual point of disconfirming fact, did read and then cite the 1831 book containing Patrick Matthew's full prior-published hypothesis of natural selection decades before Darwin and Wallace each replicated it along with many of Matthew's unique explanatory examples.
The 155 year old paradigm that Darwin and Wallace discovered natural selection independently of Matthew's (1831) prior and original publication of the full hypothesis is in fact premised on credulous Darwinist belief in the self-serving lie written by their namesake in his own defence in the Gardener's Chronicle in 1860, and in his subsequent lies from the third edition of the Origin of Species onward (Darwin 1861), that no naturalist read Matthew's original ideas on natural selection until he brought them to Darwin's attention in 1860.
The independently verifiable facts take us in the opposite direction from disconfirmed Darwinist spin.
In point of fact, 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. Moreover, Matthew had also prior-informed Darwin that because of his original and heretical ideas on natural selection that his book was banned by the Public Library of Perth in Scotland. Curiously, at the time of writing these words (September 2015), these are 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.
Prior to the publication in 2014 of the original findings in my book - Nullius in Verba: Darwin's greatest secret - the history of discovery of natural selection was founded upon the fixed-false-belief that no biologists, no naturalists and certainly one known to Darwin or Wallace had read Patrick Matthew's(1831) full prior published hypothesis of natural selection before Darwin's and Wallace's (1858) and Darwin's (1859) claimed independent discoveries of the same explanation for all life on Earth.
In fact, prior to their replication of Matthew's 'natural process of selection', along with many of his confirmatory examples and his unique explanatory analogy, Darwin/Wallace corresponded with, were editorially assisted by, admitted to being influenced by and met with other naturalists who - it is newly discovered - had read and cited Matthew's book long before 1858. Of that number, several mentioned Matthew's original ideas on natural selection and one who cited the book, Robert Chambers, went on to write the best-selling book on evolution - the Vestiges of Creation in 1844, which influenced Darwin and Wallace on the topic and was said to have put evolution 'in the air' in the mid 19th century. Hence, probable Matthewian knowledge contamination of the minds of Darwin and Wallace creates a new paradigm in the history of scientific discovery,
To find out about the new hi-tech, BigData research method that discovered the New Data, which debunks, with independently verifiable hard facts, the old unevidenced 'expert' majority view of Darwin's and Wallace's supposed dual, vexatiously anomalous and paradoxical immaculate conceptions of Matthew's prior published hypothesis of natural selection you have arrived at the right website. Please read on and then explore the other pages.
Charles Darwin and Alfred Wallace each claimed to have discovered Patrick Matthew's (1831) prior-published original theory of natural selection independently of Matthew's work. Moreover, Darwin claimed no naturalist had read Matthew's ideas - further asserting that those original ideas passed unnoticed until Matthew brought them to his attention in 1860. Then, in 2014, I proved that Matthew's ideas did not pass unnoticed, because at least 25 people cited Matthew's book before 1858. Seven of those were naturalists. Four of the seven were known personally to Darwin as associates and/or correspondents and one was the editor of Wallace's (1855) Sarawak paper. Three of the seven played major roles influencing and facilitating the pre-1858 work of Darwin and Wallace on the topic of organic evolution. Furthermore, Darwin is proven to have told a deliberate lie in 1860 when he wrote that no naturalist had read Matthew's ideas, because Matthew had already informed him that the hugely influential famous naturalist Loudon, an expert on trees, had reviewed his book. Matthew then informed Darwin that a second naturalist had read his book - but was afraid to teach its radical ideas. Unperturbed by the truth, Darwin (1861) continued disseminating his lie about Matthew's ideas passing unnoticed from the third edition of the Origin of Species onward.
Hard facts demand an end to the past 155 years of Darwinist faith-bias mythmongery about the discovery of natural selection. The New Data means that some kind of Matthewian knowledge contamination is now rationally more likely than not. Further evidence, some old and a lot that is new, including a plagiarism check, proves it more likely than not that Darwin and Wallace committed the world's greatest science fraud. See my book Nullius for all the fully evidenced details.
The comforting yet credulous old Darwinist faith-based paradigm, which blindly accepts as true Darwin's and Wallace's anomalous claims to 'independent discovery' of a complex prior published hypothesis is debunked by the New Data. That old paradigm is based on the false premise arising from a fallacy, started as a deliberate lie by Darwin in 1860 that no one read the orignal ideas in Matthew's (1831) book before 1858 (e.g. see de Beer 1962). In 2014, however, that old vexatious dual anomaly was dragged before the New Data revealing 'knowledge contamination' spotlight of historical truth, veracity, good sense, reason and ethical justice by my original disconfirming evidence, as a strangely ignored yet absurd belief. This is because of my original Big Data facilitated discovery (Sutton 2014) that other influential naturalists, known personally to both Darwin and Wallace, in fact did read and then cited Matthew's book in the literature before 1858 and mentioned his original ideas on natural selection. Consequently, the New Data makes Darwin's and Wallace's claimed independent discoveries of Matthew' prior-published hypothesis, his original examples, and key artificial versus natural selection analogy of differences, a ludicrously miraculous paradox of dual immaculate conception that is without any kind of remote parallel in the entire history of scientific discovery.
Mike Sutton (2015)
The Darwinist pseudo scholarly version of the history of the discovery of natural selection is about turning fallacious statements, made by their namesake, into unshakable truths through the power of institutions and the passage of time. Here.
In 1831, the Scottish laird, farmer, orchard owner, grain dealer and botanist, Patrick Matthew, authored 'On Naval Timber and Arboriculture.' Matthew's book is recognised by leading experts on this topic as the first publication to contain the complete hypothesis of the theory of natural selection.
Exceptional claims were made by Charles Darwin and Alfred Wallace when they each claimed to have arrived at the theory of natural selection independently of Matthew's prior published, extensively advertised, and reviewed work and independently of one another. Yet the surviving private notebooks, oftentimes with torn out pages, and sections of text scribbled out, along with the heavily decimated correspondence archives of these two men is not even close to being capable of warranting the description 'exceptional evidence' for their claimed dual independent discoveries of Matthew's prior published discovery.
We know that Darwin went so far as to claim that no naturalist had read it before Matthew brought his prior published discovery to Darwin's attention in 1860. And today we know that was a fallacy - since it is newly discovered that 25 people cited Matthew's book in the literature pre-1858. Most importantly, seven of them were naturalists. Darwin knew four of those. And three of the four played major roles influencing and facilitating the pre-1858 work of Darwin and Wallace (Sutton 2014).
The genuine exceptional evidence of these newy discovered and independently verifiable hard-facts surely makes this New Data a game-changing discovery in the history of the discovery of natural selection.
The new, independently verifiable, exceptional evidence, of who both Darwin and Wallace knew who read Matthew's book pre-1858, who they admitted influenced them on the same topic, proves beyond reasonable doubt, in my considered opinion, which is reached in light of considerable further incriminating new and older evidence, discussed in detail, in my e-book Nullius, that both Darwin and Wallace lied by pretending they had no prior-knowledge of Matthew's prior published work; and that both committed science fraud by plagiarising Matthew's unique and complex discovery, his name for it and his original analogy of the process in nature compared to culture. They even ripped-off his unique creative perspective.
Good scholarship in any field involves questioning: '...most the the data that best fit your expectations and focus instead upon the unsolved problems, anomalies, and paradoxes of your field.' (Root-Bernstein 1993).
In all the sciences, the context of the mechanism of discovery is key to understanding the process of discovery
Consequently, in light of new discoveries about the context of Darwin's and Wallace's claimed 'independent' discoveries of Matthew's prior-published theory, the new problems that Darwinists now have to solve are:
How on Earth did Darwin and Wallace discover Natural Selection independently of Matthew's prior published hypothesis of it, despite the newly discovered fact that they were influenced and facilitated on the same topic by naturalists they knew who had long before read and cited Matthew's book, which contains it? Moreover, why did Darwin lie when, contrary to what Matthew had weeks before plainly informed him in print in 1860, he wrote that no naturalist had read Matthew's original ideas before 1860? Furthermore, why, after Matthew informed him a second time, in print, of yet another naturalist who read his original ideas, did Darwin continue his lie that no one read Matthew's ideas from the third edition of the Origin of Species onward? Why did Darwin continue to refer, 42 times, to natural selection as "my theory" in the 'Origin of Speices' after he admitted in 1860 that Matthew orignated it? And, why in his 1887 semi-auto biography (written with his son Francis) did Darwin make no mention of Matthew, who he knew had published the fully conceaved theory in 1831, but instead wrote: 'I gained much by my delay in publishing from about 1839, when the theory was clearly conceived, to 1859; and I lost nothing by it, for I cared very little whether men attributed most originality to me or Wallace.'? And why did he lie in that biography about not caring about who the theory was attributed to, when his 1858 letters to Lyell and Hooker prove he was in fact obsessed with being awarded full priority for it, and that he thanked Lyell and Hooker for what they did at the Linnean Society to ensure that happened?
Finally, is it, or is it not, more likely than not, in light of the New Data of who Darwin new who did read it, that such a newly proven serial lying replicator as Darwin plagiarized Matthew's book, rather than discovered the original ideas in it independently of it? And the same must be asked about the dishonest Wallace - who sneakily altered a letter in his autobiography about favours and services Darwin and his cronies owed him, and claimed, anomalously, to have alighted independently upon the complex and prior-published theory of natural selection whilst suffering from malarial fever, even though we now newly know his famous and influential naturalist editor (Selby), a friend of Darwin's father, associate of Darwin, and friend of many of Darwin's close naturalist friends had, years earlier, cited Matthew's book many times?
If Darwinists can solve, to the advantage of their namesake, these problems, rationally and convincingly, in light of Darwin's self serving lies and other dishonesty about Matthew, along with explaining how it was that so many of Matthew's original ideas and examples Darwin and Wallace replicated, along with his powerful Artificial Versus Natural Selection Explanatory Analogy of Differences, and his terminology,* then, and only then, can they solve - with a solution other than Darwin's and Wallace's plagiarizing science fraud - what we might name the Anomalous Paradox Problem of Darwin's and Wallace's Immaculate Conceptions of Matthew's Prior Published Hypothesis.
Of significant note also, is the fact that the problem of claimed independent replication of a full, complete, appreciable, original and unique prior-published, problem solving and game-changing idea, hypothesis or theory, whilst in contact with those who are 100 per cent proven to have read the publication containing it, is unique in the history of scientific discovery to the story of Matthew, Darwin and Wallace. That makes it a most important anomaly, which has been ignored for the 155 years following the publication of Darwin's Origin of Species, but it is dragged now into the spotlight by my new discoveries.
Kuhn's seminal work on the Structure of Scientific Revolutions explains: 'A shift in professional commitments to shared assumptions takes place when an anomaly subverts the existing tradition of scientific practice.' Darwinists will need now take note that the anomaly of Darwin's and Wallace's essential immaculate conceptions of a prior published theory has been highlighted by the New Data that their influencers had read it before they replicated it. Moreover, the Darwinist 'anomaly dodging' assumption, of Darwin's and Wallace's remarkable honesty, which they have shared and relied upon in order to deal with Darwin's and Wallace's so-called 'independent' discoveries of Matthew's prior published discovery, is newly bust in the light of Wallace's now proven dishonesty and Darwin's blatant lies.
If exceptional claims do require exceptional evidence, then that is exactly what Darwinists must provide now in light of the New Data presented in Nullius.
Notably, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, which means that, to repeat the point already made, what remains in Darwin's and Wallace's massively decimated private correspondence archives, private diaries, and Darwin's torn apart, missing pages and scribbled out text private notebooks and essays – dated as written in the exact same year, or after, Darwin's influential friends and associates, and Wallace's Sarawak paper editor, read and cited Matthew's work - is quite obviously not extraordinary evidence in support of their claimed 'independent' discoveries of Matthew's prior-published discovery of the natural process of selection.
Moreover, it is a fact that the New Data greatly highlights the anomaly of Darwin’s and Wallace’s supposed ‘independent discoveries’ of Matthew's ‘natural process of selection’. This represents the start of a paradigm change.
According to Kuhn (1970 p. 62) the characteristics of paradigm changing discoveries include the:
'... previous awareness of an anomaly, the gradual and simultaneous emergence of both observational and conceptual recognition, and the consequent change of paradigm categories and procedures often accompanied by resistance.'
Paradigm changes in our knowledge of the history of scientific discoveries are not arrived at by making scientific discoveries, although new technologies may be essential facilitators for the discovery of new knowledge about that history. There are, however, usefully analogous factors involved. All Kuhn's elements of paradigm change in science are to be found in the story of Matthew, Darwin and Wallace. There is the anomaly of Darwin's and Wallace's 'immaculate conceptions' (independent discoveries) of Matthew's prior published discovery. There is the new BigData ID hi-technology facilitated observation that influential naturalists, known to Darwin and Wallace, in fact did read, and cite, Matthew's book pre-1858, which represents an original, anomaly highlighting, paradigm shifting, discovery of a great paradox in the history of the discovery of natural selection. Finally, there is the fact that the change of paradigm to Darwin and Wallace having been more likely than not influenced by Matthew's prior-published work long before 1858, and the new research procedures I used to bring it into existence, are meeting resistance from those still wedded to the old 'majority view' of Darwin and Wallace as independent discoverers. See for example Dr Mike Weale's position paper on my discovery of the New Data. Every criticism in it can be rebutted by reference to reason and the newly discovered facts (here).
Technological progress in internet search engine technology facilitated original Big Data research in Google's Library Project of over 30 million searchable books and other publications. This research led to game-changing discoveries, which have transformed the unique anomaly of Darwin's and Wallace's claimed dual independent discoveries of Matthew's prior-published original ideas. That old anomaly was changed by the New Data in 2014 from a vexation into a crisis of credulous deifying Darwinist belief in a double occurrence of paradoxical immaculate conceptions by Darwin and Wallace, miraculously occurring as each now logically must, whilst they were surrounded by naturalists they knew, who influenced them, and whose minds were fertile with Matthew's original work, having read and then cited his 1831 book decades before Wallace (1855), Darwin and Wallace (1858) and Darwin (1842, 1844 and 1859) replicated the original ideas and explanatory examples within it.
A bombshell in the history of science is that new disconfirming facts bust 155 years of credulous Darwinist mythmongering. The fallout of knowledge contamination now debunks previous versions of the discovery of natural selection, because Matthew's original ideas, in fact, were read and cited by at least seven naturalists, four known to Darwin and two to Wallace, decades before Darwin (1860) deliberately lied when he claimed no naturalist had read them before 1860, and then later lied again (Darwin 1861) by claiming they were read by no one at all. Darwin is proven a liar, because Matthew (1860) had earlier told him in published print about two naturalists who had read his book before 1859.
Consequently, the issue of Patrick Mathew's priority over Darwin and Wallace for his own prior-published and cited discovery is not something that the history of scientific discovery can ethically or sensibly continue to choose to ignore if it is to be of any use in helping us to understand how the discovery of natural selection occurred. Such knowledge is important, because it is fundamental in developing ways to increase the chances of making other great discoveries in the future.
*For the published proof of just how much of Matthew's unique and original 1831 ideas and content Darwin and Wallace replicated see e.g.: Sutton (2014); Dempster (1995); and Dawkins, in Bryson (ed) (2010).
The aim of this website is to disseminate the new and independently verifiable, hard evidence-led, truth, first published in my 2014 book Nullius in Verba: Darwin's greatest secret, about the veracious history of the discovery of natural selection, and to reveal the newly discovered lies and fallacies first started by Darwin about Matthew's work and spread by his deifying and credulous Darwinists ever since.
Read my Best Thinking blog post to get a quick overview of many of the newly discovered 100 per cent independently verifiable hard facts that re-write the history of the discovery of natural selection. The newly discovered facts prove that Charles Darwin, in collusion with his best friend Joseph Hooker, lied and cheated Patrick Matthew out of his prior-publication of the discovery of natural selection.
Every argument against the importance of the New Data can be rebutted by facts and reason (Here).
Nullius in Verba, the ancient motto of the Royal Society means don't simply take someone's word for it that something is true.
‘I think that no one will feel surprised that neither I, nor apparently any other naturalist, had heard of Mr. Matthew's views, considering how briefly they are given, and that they appeared in the appendix to a work on Naval Timber and Arboriculture.’ Charles Darwin (1860)
‘In 1831 Mr. Patrick Matthew published his work on 'Naval Timber and Arboriculture,' in which he gives precisely the same view on the origin of species as that (presently to be alluded to) propounded by Mr. Wallace and myself in the 'Linnean Journal,' and as that enlarged on in the present volume. 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.’
Charles Darwin lifted his theory of natural selection from the book by a Scottish fruit farmer, a researcher has claimed.
Decades before On the Origin of Species appeared in 1859, Patrick Matthew wrote of “the natural process of selection”, explaining how “a law universal in nature” ensured the survival of the fittest.
Darwin, although accepting that Matthew “anticipated” the theory, always denied plagiarism, maintaining that he arrived at the theory indpendently.
But Dr Mike Sutton, a criminolgy expert at Nottingham Trent University believes that Darwin must not only have been aware of Matthew's 1831 book, On Naval Timber and Arboriculture, but borrowed from it heavily.
He has spent years cross-referencing passages in both books, checking citations and studying the figures who influenced both men, and claims to have unearthed information which proves the naturalist lied.
“I have no doubt, based on the weight of new evidence, that Darwin read Matthew's book and then went on to replicate his discovery and key themes.” Dr Sutton said. “Without Patrick Matthew, The Origin of Species would never have been written.”
Loudon cited Matthew's book in 1832 and then went on to edit and publish Blyth’s highly influential papers of 1835 and 1837 on species variety and organic evolution! In the third edition of the Origin of Species Darwin fully admitted that Blyth was his most helpful and most prolific informant on the subject of species as it related to organic evolution. Chambers cited Matthew's book in 1832 before writing the best-selling 'Vestiges of Creation' in 1844. And both Darwin and Wallace admitted the huge influence of Robert Chambers’s ‘Vestiges of Creation’ on their own work in the field of natural selection. Selby, who cited Matthew’s book many times in 1842, went on to edit and publish Wallace's famous Sarawak paper of 1855!
To learn more about how to purchase and download the book that changes everything previously known about the story of Matthew. Darwin and Wallace and the discovery of natural selection please click here to read more about the theft of the most important discovery in the history of science.
PatrickMatthew.com is owned and published by Dr Mike Sutton