Darwin and Wallace aped Matthew's unique discovery, its name, hypothesis and many of his key explantions.
The discovery of natural selection was made at Gourdiehill, the seat of Matthew Esquire.
Dr. Michael (Mike) Sutton (brief biography)
Quite by chance, I became interested in the history of discovery of natural selection. As I explain in my book ‘Nullius in Verba: Darwin’s greatest secret’, I had been experimenting in the winter of 2013 with various ways to search the millions of newly scanned books and other documents in the Google Library Project. I was doing that to try to check the veracity of long-accepted claims regarding the origination of words, terms and their associated concepts. I made a breakthrough in this research on January 5th when I found a powerful way to use Google to detect the use of words, terms and phrases dating back as far as the 16th-century.
Paradoxically, both disappointed and rather excited to find that this new Big Data analysis was disproving many long-standing 'knowledge claims' made in the scholarly press about the originality of such terms and concepts as 'moral panics', 'the global village' and 'self-fulfilling prophecy', I focused my attention on checking the veracity of claims I felt sure were sound.
Alarmingly, I found I could immediately prove that seemingly countless publications are wrong to claim that one of my then science heroes, Richard Dawkins, coined the term and the concept of the 'selfish gene' in his book of the same name. I soon discovered that he did neither. Rather, years before Dawkins wrote about them, his associate William Hamilton published both term and concept first, in an obscure paper.
Somewhat further perturbed by what I was unearthing, in March 2013, I turned my attention to my other science hero Charles Darwin. I thought that most surely all the science and history of science books were right that both the term and the concept of natural selection were Darwin's unique origination. What I found was literally shocking. Firstly, I soon learned that it is acknowledged in the literature that the existence of the Scottish botanist and farmer, Patrick Matthew's (1831) book 'On Naval Timber and Arboriculture', proves he was the first to discover and have published the concept of macorevolution by natural selection, 27 years before Darwin's and Wallace's papers were read before the Linnean Society and 28 years before the publication of Darwin's 'Origin of Species'. However, the new evidence I found built on this existing knowledge to disconfirm the existing majority view that Darwin and Wallace each conceived the idea of natural selection independently of Matthew. In brief, the New Data, which I originally discovered between 2013 and 2014 in 'the hidden books in the library', reveals that - as opposed the earlier 'knowledge claim' that none had read it - seven naturalists cited Matthew's book before 1858. Among them were four of Darwin's and Wallace's friends and influencers, three of whom (Loudon, Selby and Chambers) were at the very epicentre of influence and facilitation of the pre-1858 work of Darwin and Wallace on organic evolution. Loudon was an associate of the father of Darwin's best friend, Joseph Hooker. Loudon's work as a naturalist was well known to Joseph Hooker. Loudon went on to be Chief Editor editor of the journal that published two of Blyth's (1835, 1836) influential articles on evolution. And Blyth was Darwin's most prolific informant. Selby went on to be Chief Editor of the Journal that published Wallace's 1855 Sarawak paper on evolution. Chamber's, an associate and correspondent of Darwin, and Wallace's greatest influencer, went on to write, in 1844, the best selling book on evolution 'The Vestiges of Creation'.
Most importantly, it is a newly discovered fact, therefore, that Darwin and Wallace (1858) and Darwin (1859) replicated the original ideas in Matthew's book, without citing Matthew, and then claimed, fallaciously, in their defence that no naturalists, indeed no one at all, had read those ideas before their replications. As objective scholars, we cannot now rule out the likelihood that, at the very least, some form of indirect 'Matthewian knowledge contamination' affected the pre-1858 minds of Darwin and Wallace.
Moreover, I went on to prove that from 1860 onwards that Darwin lied about no naturalists reading Matthew's book before Matthew brought it to Darwin's attention in 1860. It is a lie because Darwin made that claim in both the Gardener's Chronicle (1860), and from 1861 onwards in the third and every subsequent edition of the 'Origin of Species', after Matthew had informed him by way of two letters published in the Gardener's Chronicle (1860) that his book had been read by at least two naturalists (Loudon and the other unnamed) and was banned by Perth Public Library in Scotland. Before my research, no one seems to have noticed that Loudon was an internationally famous and influential naturalist and polymath.
By lying about the readership of the original ideas in Matthew's book, Darwin most certainly corrupted the history of discovery of natural selection and committed lying, plagiarising science fraud by glory theft, of Matthew's prior-published ideas and their influence on 19th century naturalists who, in turn influenced Darwin and Wallace.
I conclude from the evidence given in these few paragraphs, and in far greater detail, with many more facts in my book 'Nullius in Verba', that Darwin committed the world's greatest science fraud. Finally, I conclude that the 'New Data' in the history of discovery of natural selection has punctured the 'no naturalist read it' premise upon which rests the currently accepted paradigm of Darwin's and Wallace's independent discoveries of Matthew's prior published hypothesis of the unifying theory of biology.
It is time to bring to an end the 'state of denial' of the dreadfully disturbing facts. Due to 155 of years of injustice, Scotland has a neglected science hero. He is worthy of long overdue celebration as an immortal great thinker and influencer in science. His name is Patrick Matthew. As an Englishman, I say his image belongs on the back of the English £10 note. What now say the Scots for their currency?
Mike Sutton, January 16th 2016
More on Mike Sutton
Mike is Reader in Criminology at Nottingham Trent University (UK), where he teaches Hi Tech Crime and also Crime Reduction and Community Safety where he is the founding Director of the Nottingham Centre for the Study and Reduction of Bias, Prejudice and Hate Crimes. Before that he worked for 14 years as a senior researcher in the Policing and Reducing Crime Unit in the Home Office in London. Mike is the originator of the Market Reduction Approach (MRA) to theft and co-founder and Chief Editor of the open access Internet Journal of Criminology. He is a joint winner, with David Mann, of the British Journal of Criminology Prize for virtual ethnographic research into a pan-European hacking group. He is particularly well known in popular science circles for debunking a long believed science myth that a misplaced decimal point in the recorded iron content of spinach led to scientists mistakenly believing its iron content was 10 times greater.
I am an academic criminologist with a particular interest in several areas, including, but not limited to, illicit markets, hi-tech crime, crime reduction, hate crime, bias and prejudice and science fraud. My publications and citation scores can be found here:
A more infernal braying of my shamelessly self-proclaimed “bragging rights” are 'trumpeted from the rooftops' here.
I have been Reader in Criminology at Nottingham Trent University since July 2001. Prior to that I worked as Senior Research Officer at the UK Home Office Research and Planning Unit and latterly within its Policing and Reducing Crime Unit. I teach undergraduate courses in hi tech crime and crime reduction and at any one time I am Director of Studies for a number of Doctoral criminology students. I am Editor in Chief and co-founder of the duel open access Internet Journal of Criminology .
For the record, in case any wonder about whether or not I might have a hidden agenda beyond seeking veracity in the history of scientific discovery, I have been an atheist for the past 40 years and have no interest whatsoever in promoting the ideas of intelligent design, any religion, Lamarck, Aquatic Ape Theory or any other contrary explanation to Neo-Darwinism / Darwinism.
Darwin admitted in 1860 that Matthew had published, 28 years before him, in the Gardener's Chronicle, the full hypothesis of natural selection. But Darwin then claimed in that same 1860 publication that no naturalist known to him had read Matthew's book. That is a fallacy because Loudon, Selby and Chambers all cited Matthew's book in the literature pre-1858, and Darwin knew Selby and Chambers. Moreover, knowledge contamination is therefore more likely than not since all three naturalists played major roles at the very epicenter of influence on the pre-1858 work of Darwin and Wallace on natural selection. This is a bombshell for the history of science!
In light of my unique discoveries in 2014 about who in fact did cite Patrick Matthew’s (1831) book, my book. ‘Nullius in Verba: Darwin’s greatest secret’ is essentially an evidence-based argument AGAINST the currently mainstream history of science claim that Charles Darwin and Alfred Wallace discovered what Darwin (1859) uniquely coined the 'process of natural selection' individually and independently of Patrick Matthew’s prior publication of the full and complete (Dawkins 2010) hypothesis of what Matthew (1831) uniquely named the 'natural process of selection’ many years earlier than either Wallace or Darwin had penned a single word on the topic. Matthew's book was published 28 years before Darwin replicated it in the Origin of Species (1859). Moreover Matthew's book was published, reviewed, advertised and widely cited six years before Darwin penned his very first words on the topic in his private 'Zoonomia' notebook of 1837-38. And the very first words in that notebook were on the subject of Matthew's prime expertise - apple trees! Furthermore, Darwin's own records prove that he had in his possession an earlier article by Matthew on that very topic.
'Nullius' argues, subjectively, that in new light of who Darwin and Wallace knew - who we now newly know read Matthew’s book (because they cited it!) - that Patrick Matthew was in 2014 proven to be more likely than not the only independent discoverer of the hypothesis of natural selection.
Furthermore, ‘Nullius’, uses a great deal of additional new information, original synthesis of the literature, and arguments presented by others before me, that both Darwin and Wallace lied when they each claimed no prior knowledge of Matthew’s idea.
In the final analysis, it is my considered new evidence-led opinion that between them Darwin and Wallace committed the World’s greatest science fraud.
Why do I think you should read my book? Because your HONEST opinion of the meaning of the weight of ALL the new evidence is far more important than mine. Please click here to find out why I think that is so.
In the author's considered opinion, this book proves, with newly discovered facts, that there can now be only one independent discoverer of natural selection, namely Patrick Matthew.
Why was the New Data, proving Darwin's deliberate lies about who read Matthew's (1831) book, and proving that other influential naturalists, known to Darwin and Wallace, did read it pre-1860, discovered by a social scientist in 2014 and not 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.
To see what most people miss, 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.
Mike Sutton, July 2015.
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
New Hard Fact-Led Rational Argument
PatrickMatthew.com is owned and published by Dr Mike Sutton