Darwinist Defenses Rebutted

PatrickMatthew.com is owned and published by Dr Mike Sutton

 

Science swindler Darwin's unpublished notes from 1837 reveal that Matthew's subject of apple trees - was the first he wrote on evolution. Extensive additional evidence proves he reverse-engineered Matthew's discovery to pretend it was his own.

 

Golden Pippin Apples

Hard Facts and Rational Argument

I HAVE PUBLISHED A DETAILED LIST OF 10 FACT GROUPS THAT PROVE DARWINITES ARE UNDONE BY THE FACTS: HERE. And below:

The 10 Fact Groups that Prove Darwinities Undone

 

Introduction

 

The paradigm of Darwin's and Wallace's (1858) and Darwin's (1842, 1844 and 1859) independent conceptions of Patrick Matthew's (1831) prior published conception of the full and complex hypothesis of macro evolution by natural selection is based on the premise (e.g de Beer 1962 and Mayr 1982) that no one known to Darwin or Wallace, indeed no naturalists at all, read Matthew's (1831) original conception before they replicated it. That Darwinite paradigm is based on a punctured myth. Because it is newly discovered by me (Sutton 2014) that other naturalists, indeed naturalists well known to Darwin and Wallace, their influencers, facilitators and their influencer's influencers and facilitators in fact did read, and then actually cite in the pre-1858 literature, Matthew's (1831) book before either Darwin or Wallace so much as put pen to private notebook on the topic.

 

Those seeking to maintain the paradigm of Darwin's and Wallace's independent conceptions of Matthew's prior-published conception of evolution by natural selection are undone by the following ten groups of facts.

 

Veracity

 

FACTS 1. Only Matthew (1831) in his book On Naval Timber wrote about Natural Selection as an explanation for organic macro evolution before Darwin and Wallace (1858) and Darwin (1859) replicated his original ideas. This is established by many biologists including, for example, Dawkins (2010) in Bryson's edited collection, By Weale (2014) and by Royal Society Darwin Medal winner Ernst Mayr 1982 who wrote: 'The person who has the soundest claim for priority in establishing a theory or evolution by natural selection is Patrick Matthew.'

 

FACTS 2. Matthew wrote about natural selection throughout his book and not just in its appendix. Darwin wrote a deliberate lie when he claimed Matthew limited his orignal ideas on the topic to his book's appendix and he wrote to Joseph Hooker admitting as much (see Sutton 2014). The Matthew Appendix Myth is, therefore, bust by the facts. Furthermore, contrary to claims made by Richard Dawkins (2010) and others Matthew's (1831) book was far from obscure. As the citations in Nullius prove, it was heavily advertised in the first half of the 19th century, reviewed, frequently and cited (many times by Loudon in several books and many times by Selby in his 1842 book on trees. Significantly, it was very prominently advertised on more than half a page in the hugely popular Encyclopedia Britannica in 1842 and cited in the Encyclopedia Britannica again in 1842 in an article (citations to facts here) Moreover, pre -1858, Darwin's private notebook of books to read and books read lists five publications that are now known to cite or advertise Matthew's 1831 book.

 

FACTS 3. Contrary to claims in many academic textbooks and in social media, Darwin did not coin the term natural selection, nor it's scientific meaning. Moreover, he did not coin the term artificial selection (see Sutton 2014). Matthew used the term the "natural process of selection" in his 1831 book. And Big Data analysis of over 30 million publications reveals he apparently coined that term. Robert Chambers (anonymous author of the "Vestiges of Creation"), who cited Matthew's (1831) book On Naval Timber in 1832, and then in 1840, cited his second (1839) book "Emigration Fields", which took Matthew's (1831) orignal ideas forward with regard to dealing with the social problem of overpopulation in Britain, was apparently 'first to be second' in writing Matthew's apparently orignal term in his review of Darwin's (1859) Origin of Species. Darwin four-word-shuffled Matthew's term to 'process of natural selection' and in doing so, Big Data analysis reveals he apparently coined that term. See Sutton 2014 for further details and fully cited facts. Furthermore, Matthew (1831) was first to use the Natural versus Artificial Selection Analogy of Differences as an explanatory analogy for macro evolution by natural selection. As the historian Loren Eiseley discovered, Darwin replicated this original idea in his 1844 private essay with regard to Matthew's highly idiosyncratic wild forest versus nursery grown trees example. And I discovered that Wallace (1858) did so more generally in his Ternate paper. When the arch Darwinite Stephen J. Gould (1983 and 2002) set out to rubbish Eiseley's findings he got his own facts wrong and conveniently cherry-stepped away from mentioning this, Eiseley's most compelling evidence of Matthew's influence on Darwin (see Sutton 2015 for the facts).What Gould did is the same grossly misleading biased "cherry stepping" and "cherry picking" misrepresenting de facto fact denial ploy tried by Grzegorz Malec in his so called "review" of my book. It is a shame Eiseley, having died in 1977, could not take Gould to task for his dysology, Malec does not escape. You can read my published right of reply: Here. Matthew's orignal general explanatory analogy of differences between artificial and natural selection is so important that Darwin used it to open the very first Chapter of the Origin of Species. An electronic plagiarism check reveals many examples of great similarity between the prose and ideas of both Wallace and Darwin compared to Matthew's. For example, Darwin replicated Matthew's unique creative process by replicating his examples of how the natural process of selection works. By way of just two examples in addition to the example of plants grown in nurseries that Eiseley discovered, Darwin also replicated Matthew's examples of what happens when many seedlings spring up together in a forest. Moreover, he replicated what Matthew cited from Steuart (1828) about cattle eating young trees. . Only where Matthew cited his source about the cattle example, Darwin audaciously pretended it was his own observation in nature. My book, Nullius has an entire chapter dedicated to many other uniquely discovered examples of Darwin's and Wallace's obvious plagiarism of Matthew's book.

 

As I reveal (see Sutton 2014 for the full citations) Big Data analysis of over 30 million publications in the literature record reveals that Matthew’s original explanatory analogy was apparently replicated first by Mudie (1832), then Low (1844), Darwin (1844), Wallace (in Darwin and Wallace 1858) and by Darwin again (1859; 1868). Most tellingly, analysis of the literature reveals that Mudie was apparently the “first to be second” in print with the original “Matthewism” “rectangular branching”.

 

Most significantly, Mudie was both an associate and two times co-author with Darwin’s most prolific informant Edward Blyth. Blyth’s own work was edited by Loudon, who cited Matthew’s book in 1832. David Low’s replication of Matthew’s artificial analogy of differences is, arguably, unlikely to be purely coincidental. They were schoolmates at Perth Academy!

 

Nullius reveals that Low was apparently twice “first to be second” with the Matthewisms: “long continued selection” and “overpowering the less”. He used each in different publications. Moreover, Low, just four years older than Matthew, was a highly esteemed Professor of Agriculture at the University of Edinburgh. He might, therefore, be the unnamed naturalist professor of a “celebrated university” who Matthew (1860) claimed, in his second open letter to Darwin in the Gardener's Chronicle, was afraid to teach his heretical and original ideas, or mention them elswhere, for fear of pillory punishment, long before 1859. Most importantly, Low was a Fellow of the Royal Society of Edinburgh, as was Darwin’s great friend and mentor Charles Lyell. Laird Lyell’s manor house was just 20 miles from laird Matthew’s country seat. It seems improbable Lyell did not know of him and the scandal of heretical ideas in his book (more on Lyell and his connections here). Low's work was very carefully read by Darwin, according to Darwin's own notes, and then recommended by him to the Royal Society for the author's useful work on using artificial selection to explain natural selection.

 

A new fallacy has sprung up on social media that I am the only person to believe that Matthew influenced Darwin and Wallace through knowledge contamination of their influencers, facilitators and their influencers's influencers and facilitators or that Darwin more likely than not plagiarised Matthew. In reality, Samuel Butler (1887, p, 100) believed Darwin copied Matthew but then forgot he had done so. This same cryptomnesia explanation was proposed by Darwin's biographer Ronald Clarke (1984). Furthermore, Loren Eiseley (1981) was convinced that Darwin deliberately plagiarised Matthew, as is Milton Wainwright (2008) and (2011).

 

FACTS 4. Under the Royal Society imposed conventions for priority, as decided by the Arago Rule (Strivens 2003), in cases of non-plagiarised claimed dual or multiple independent conceptions, it is only those who are first to actually publish their original discoveries /original conceptions who have scientific priority for them.

 

FACTS 5. There is no independently verifiable evidence, other than that which Darwin, (a proven serial liar) wrote on his private notebooks and essays in his private study, that Darwin wrote a single word on natural selection anywhere until 1857. The earliest solid dated, independently verifiable, evidence we have that Darwin actually had definitely written any kind of note or essay on the topic pre-1858 is that he sent a mere abstract a private essay to Gray in 1857. See Sutton 2016 for the peer reviewed facts of the matter. Moreover, Matthew's (1831) book was published six years before Darwin is claimed to have written a single word on the topic in his private Zoonomia notebook of 1837-38, which opens on the subject of Matthew's area of professional expertise. Namely fruit trees. And contains many other examples (here). And Matthew's (1831) book was cited by Darwin's correspondent Robert Chambers in 1832, by Loudon in 1832 (who edited two of Blyth's 1835, 1836 highly influential papers on evolution. And Blyth was Darwin's most prolific informant and correspondent on the topic) and by Selby in 1842 - the year Darwin is claimed to have penned his first private essay on the topic. Moat significanty, Selby went on to be editor of Wallace's Sarawak paper on evolution. Loudon was well known to William Hooker, the father of Darwin's best friend Joseph Hooker, who knew Loudon's work well and praised it to the skies in a book review (see Sutton 2016).

 

Loudon was also friends and co-author with John Lindley, who deceived the public pre-1858 in order to convince them that he and Lobb were first to propage and import the much loved and famous gaint redwood trees in Britain. All the while he possessed a letter proving that Matthew and his son were first to do so (get the facts here). Lindley's glory stealing fraud helped facilitate Darwin's later claim that Matthew was an obscure writer on forest trees.

 

FACTS 6. It is propagandising pseudo-scholarly fact denial behaviour to write nonsense of the kind that Richard Dawkins has written on this topic. Namely, that Matthew should have "trumpeted his discovery from the rooftops" to prove he understood what he had conceived at a time when it would have been criminally heretical to do so. Dawkins cherry-steps away from the fact that Matthew (1860) - using real examples - very forcefully informed Darwin of this fact in his second letter to the Gardener's Chronicle, where he told Darwin of an (unnamed) naturalist from a prestigious university who could not to teach his orignal work for fear of pillory punishment - and that his book had been banned by Perth public library in Scotland (he called it by its nick-name Fair City) for the same reason. For the very same reason, Robert Chambers (who is newly discovered to have cited Matthew in 1832) published his heretical Vestiges of Creation - the book that put evolution in the air in the mid 19th century - anonymously until the day he died. See Sutton 2014 for citations to the facts.

 

FACTS 7. The rationale (premise) for believing Darwin's and Wallace's claims to have each independently conceived Matthew's prior published origination is built entirely on total belief in Darwin's tale that no naturalist (as told in Darwin's 1860 letter of reply to Matthew in the Gardeners Chronicle) or no one at all (as told by Darwin from the 1861 third edition onwards in every edition of his Origin of Species) is now a punctured myth because it is newly proven that naturalists well known to Darwin and Wallace, and to their influences and their influencer's influencers, in fact did read and then they cited Matthew's (1831) book in the literature years before 1858 (see Sutton 2014). Moreover, Darwin lied - and so committed glory thieving science fraud - when his claimed from 1860 onwards that no naturalist / no one at all had read Matthew's prior published conception - because Matthew had very plainly and forcefully informed Darwin, by way of his two letters published in the Gardener's Chronicle (1860), that the very opposite was true.

 

FACTS 8. We now newly have 100 per cent proven evidence that routes for knowledge contamination from Matthew's (1831) book to the minds of Darwin and Wallace did exist pre-1858. (See Sutton 2016). This is better than mere smoking gun evidence.

 

FACTS 9. It is a fallacy that no one who read Matthew's ideas understood them before Darwin and Wallace replicated them and Matthew brought them to Darwin's public attention in1860. In reality, in the first half of the 19th century people would have avoided the taboo of writing about them, because they heretically trespassed on the realm of natural divinity regarding the topic of the origin of species. This is why Chambers (who cited Matthew's book in 1832) had to publish anonymously his heretical Vestiges of Creation. Famously, as Darwin admitted from the third edition of the Origin of Species onwards, it was the Vestiges that paved the way for public acceptance of his own book in the second half of the 19th century. With regard to evidence of treatment of Matthew's work as taboo in the first half of that century, The United Service Journal and Naval and Military Magazine published an extended review of it n the 1831 Part II and 1831 Part III numbers of the magazine; it praised Matthew's book in around 13,000 words and would say no more on natural selection other than: "But we disclaim participation in his ruminations on the law of Nature." Today, it seems that the truth of this independently verifiable fact is heretical, because Wikiepedia - in trying to claim that Matthew's orignal ideas were not understood - denies that this text actually exists in the 19th century publication record, immediately deleting each and every mention of it (get the clickable citation to that literature and the facts on Wikipedia's fact deleting behaviour here). As Matthew explained to Darwin in the Gardener's Chronicle in his second letter of 1860, his book was banned by Perth (the Fair City, Matthew called it by its nick-name) public library in Scotland for its heresy, and another naturalist feared to teach, or to mention Matthews original ideas elsewhere, for fear of pillory punishment (see Sutton 2016 for the full facts). Loudon (1832), however was so bold as to write that Matthew appeared to have something original to say on the "origin of species", no less. These facts all prove that Matthew's ideas were understood. However, most of those who cited Matthew's (1831) book would be unlikely to mention it's distasteful heresy in print. Moreover, logically, they did not have to provide evidence in the literature that they fully understood Matthew's then heretical ideas, and they did not even have to fully understand everything about natural selection in his book to know that Matthew had written something on evolution to, therefore, be in a position to give Darwin and Wallace any kind of "heads-up" that Matthew's book might be worth looking at. Because, rationally, knowledge contamination can happen in at least the following three ways (from Sutton 2016):

 

Prior published unique ideas may contaminate the minds and work of others in three

main ways:

 

(a). Innocent Knowledge Contamination: The spread of original ideas in

a prior-publication via (a) subsequent published sources on the topic,

which failed to cite the Originator as their source, or (b) word of mouth

and/or correspondence to the replicator by those who read the Originator’s

work or communicated with others who did — understood its importance

in whole or simply in part — but failed to tell the replicator

about its existence.

 

(b). Reckless or Negligent Knowledge Contamination: (a) The replicator

reads the original publication, absorbs information such as original

ideas and examples and terms, but forgets having read it — and never

does remember. (b) The replicator reads the original publication and takes

notes, but forgets the source of the notes. (c) The replicator is told

about original ideas in a publication by someone — who understands

their importance in whole or simply in part — who explains they come

from a publication, but the replicator fails to ask the name of the author

and title of the publication.

 

(c). Deliberate Knowledge Contamination (science fraud): The replicator

reads the original publication, or is told about its contents, takes notes,

or is given notes, remembers this, but pretends otherwise.

 

FACTS 10. It is a fallacy (e.g see Stott 2013) that Matthew was quite content after Darwin's 1860 and 1861 acknowledgments of Matthew's prior-published the hypothesis of macro evolution by natural selection. In reality, he fought untill his dying day for full recognition for his original and prior published (1831) deas, which Darwin replicated and continued to call "my theory". See the fully cited facts here.

 

Conclusion

 

The facts re-write the history of discovery of natural selection.

 

Perhaps we need an independent Veracity Institute to address all issues where independently verifiable facts bust much loved paradigms and then meet fierce resistance from those whose career and financial interests are underpinned by keeping the punctured premises, which support those paradigms, inflated with de-facto fact-denial pseudo scholarship, cherry picking, cognitive blindsight, propaganda, mythmongering, fallacy spreading, obscene abuse and downright lies.

 

 

Nullius is available on Amazon

Patrick Matthew (1831) was the first to fully explain natural selection as new species branching from a common ancestor by way of nature selecting varieties that were best circumstance suited. He even uniquely called it: 'the natural process of selection'. A term Darwin (1859) would uniquely four word shuffle into 'process of natural selection'.

Bombshell

To fully appreciate the weakness of every single Darwinist defense against Matthew's priority for his complete prior publication of the discovery of natural selection see my (1) position paper and (2) list of rebuttals (3) an account of what New Data has been discovered. All three publications should be considered together. See the links immediately below:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Visit Mike Weale's Patrick Matthew Project position paper and my examination of Mike's defence of Darwin, by way of critical reply.

Read the arguments on the comments page to my Rational Wiki essay on why Matthew has always had full - yet unrecognised - priority over Darwin and Wallace for his own prior-discivery

See Professor James Moore's Semmelweis Reflex response to the discovery of new data that naturalists known to Darwin had in fact read Matthew's book pre-1858. Then scroll down and read the comments section,

 

 

Listen to Rick Coste's Podcast on Matthew. Then read the comments section. Here George Beccaloni once again touts his book review of Nullius in Verba - despite admitting elsewhere that he wrote it without even reading the book. Read my blog post on why we should seek to understand rather than condemn him.

(1) Short Version: Read all known Darwinist criticisms of the significance of the New Data versus my rebuttals: Here.

Professor Peter Bowler. Three Decades of Darwinsist Dysology Confirms the Frozen Donkey Hypothesis {Here}

After the Big Data Bombshell: Can Darwin’s and Wallace’s Claims to Independent Discovery Remain Vertical?

 

Click here to read an open access article that explains the implications of the 2014 big data discovery that Matthew's (1831) book was read by other naturalists known to Darwin and Wallace before both replicated the unique discovery of natural selection within it and then claimed no prior-knowledge of it. Most importantly, this article explains the irrationality of those arguing in favour of the occurrence in the literature of an incredible tri-coincidence that is improbable beyond rational belief.

(2) Long Version: Matthew v Darwin & Wallace: The New Evidence for Knowledge Contamination Versus the Old Myth of Dual Immaculate Conceptions of a Prior-Published Hypothesis. A Position Paper by Mike Sutton Here

(3) What hard facts been newly discovered and uniquely revealed in Nullius in Verba: Darwin's greatest secret that overturn prior beliefs about the history of the discovery of natural selection? Here

UNDERSTANDING THE OBJECTIVE COMPONENTS OF DARWIN'S AND WALLACE'S SCIENCE FRAUD OPPORTUNITY

Why Darwinist Immaculate Conception Miracle Beliefs are Even More Irrational than those Held by Christians

 

Influential professional Darwinists, such as Richard Dawkins and Michael Shermer, are actively engaged in bragging that they are more rational than those who believe in miracles - such as the one about St Mary's supposed virgin birth.

 

As a social scientist and confirmed atheist, who thinks Natural Selection is the best answer we have for the existence of all species, and and extinction of certain species., I think that the hypocrisy and credulousness of so many atheist Darwiniists - and the accepted 'majority view' that they are right about Darwin and Wallace independently discovering Patrick Matthew's (1831) prior published hypothesis of natural selection - makes a laughing-stock of science. I think this, because, contrary to 155 years of newly proven professional Darwinist myth mongering, I have uniquely proven (Sutton 2014) that - as opposed to none - seven other naturalists read Matthew's (1831) book containing his original hypothesis of 'the natural process of selection pre- Darwin's and Wallace's 1858 replication. Moreover, three of those naturalists (Loudon, Selby and Chambers) were known to Darwin/Wallace and influenced and facilitated their work on the exact same topic of organic macro evolution.

 

The facts of Darwin’s lies should be clearly stated and the data clearly presented:

 

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

 

2. Incidentally, 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 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, Yet in his 1860 reply to Matthew’s 1860 letter, Darwin wrote the exact opposite to what Matthew had just informed him. See point 2, immediately below, for the hard evidence.

 

2. In his 1860 letter in the Gardener’s Chronicle 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.

 

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 (1860) 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 Matthew's book, Darwin lied in his 1860 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 who had read his original ideas on natural selection but was afraid to teach them for fear of pillory punishment. So what did Darwin do next? He wrote to a famous and influential naturalist with the self serving lie 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 wrote:

 

'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 the ideas in it, being unread. That 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:

 

'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 Darwin’s great lie as the “gospel according to Darwin” truth: And – to necessarily repeat the point already made – until I personally put the record straight (Sutton 2014) not a single person corrected de Beer's award winning 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.’

 

Darwin was a self-serving deliberate liar. The record is independently verifiable. Darwin wrote the very opposite to veracious facts that he had twice been informed was the truth by the very trustworthy man whose ideas he replicated without citing their originator’s prior publication of them. And Darwin wrote those falsehoods – because, jjust as de Beer’s ludicrously acclaimed text goes to prove, they were needed to wrestle priority away form the true biological father of natural selection.

 

Had the powerfully connected and much revered Charles Darwin , responded in writing, in the Gardeners 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 pseudo-scholarly shame of it!

 

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, 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 Darwinists for the past 155 years. By way of example, see Sir Gavin de Beer (in de Beer's Wilkins Lecture for the Royal Society (de Beer 1962 on page 333) . I am claiming, from the published evidence, that Darwin deliberately lied.

 

Loudon went on to edit two of Blyth's (1855 and 1856) influential papers on organic evolution. Darwin admitted form the third edition of the Origin of Species that Byth was his most valuable and prolific informant.

 

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 makes Wallace's unique malarial cognitive enhancement claim another vexacious anomaly in the history of scientific discovery. Moreover, Wallace, in his autobiography, doctored the published transcription of one 1858 letter that he sent to his mother. The 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 (fertilization) of Darwin's and Wallace's brains is rationally more likely than not.

 

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 and/or the original ideas in it went unread by anyone known to Darwin or Wallace before1860, 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 rational 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.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Darwin is a counterfeit orginator who told six lies to achieve primacy over Matthew.

Darwin and Wallace aped Matthew's unique discovery, its name, hypothesis and many of his key explantions.

 

Matthew was born on a farm called Rome. The site is now in the grounds of the Palace of Scone.

 

The discovery of natural selection was made at Gourdiehill, the seat of Matthew Esquire.

 

Dr Mike Sutton (criminologist)

 

Read more about the mythbusting work of the criminologist Dr Mike Sutton on the Best Thinking website

 

Patrick Matthew