Articles & Essays

Patrick Matthew

There is a rather useful site for finding articles on the questions of Darwin's plagiarism of Matthew, his plagiarism of Wallace, of Wallace's plagiarism of Matthew and more besides on the general topic: HERE

Peer reviewed academic journal articles on the question of immortal great thinker scientific discovery priority status in the story of Matthew, Darwin, Wallace and the history of the discovery of natural selection

Darwin: The Microscopist Who Didn't Discover Evolution. By Brian J. Ford. The Microscope. 59:3, 2011. pp 129-137.

 

Darwin neither discovered evolution as a general concept, nor did he discover evolution by natural selection.

 

"Darwin is set on a pedestals though he were Einstein or Copernicus, and anyone doubting adherence to this conventional view risks ostracism. In science, as much as in religion, we can find extreme views that fly in the face of realities." Click to read

 

Charles Darwin: Mycologist and Refuter of his Own Myths. By Milton Wainwright. FUNGI Volume 4:1 Winter 2011 pp 12-20.

 

Although nearly every aspect of Darwin’s work has been scrutinised, his occasional studies of microorganisms and in particular fungi have been overlooked. Darwin however, took an interest in the Victorian debate over spontaneous generation and in the role of Phytophthora infestans in causing potato blight. Darwin was also interested in the possibility that his long-standing stomach complaint was caused by a fungus. Considerable hyperbole surrounds Darwin’s work. However, while he was a first rate naturalist, Darwin, by his own admission, did not originate the ideas of evolution or natural selection. By using Darwin’s own words I hope to show that the numerous myths which have grown up around Darwin diminish, rather than elevate, the great man’s contribution to biology. Click to read

Darwin's error? Patrick Matthew and the catastrophic nature of the geologic record. By Michael R. Rampino. (2010) Historical Biology: An International Journal of Paleobiology Volume 23, Issue 2-3, pp 227-230.

 

In 1831, the Scottish horticulturalist Patrick Matthew (1790–1874) published a clear statement of the law of natural selection in an Appendix to his book Naval Timber and Arboriculture, which both Darwin and Wallace later acknowledged. Matthew, however, was a catastrophist, and he presented natural selection within the contemporary view that relatively long intervals of environmental stability were episodically punctuated by catastrophic mass extinctions of life. Modern studies support a similar picture of the division of geologic time into long periods of relative evolutionary stability ended by sudden extinction events. Mass extinctions are followed by recovery intervals during which surviving taxa radiate into vacated niches. This modern punctuated view of evolution and speciation is much more in line with Matthew's episodic catastrophism than the classical Lyellian–Darwinian gradualist view. Click view

Natural Selection: It’s Not Darwin’s (Or Wallace’s) Theory. By Milton Wainwright. Saudi Journal of Biological Sciences 15 (1) 1-8 June, 2008 pp. 1-8.

 

For nearly 150 years, since soon after the appearance of the On the Origin of Species, we have known that neither Charles Darwin nor Alfred Russel Wallace originated the theory of natural selection. This certainty is based on the fact that both of these great naturalists admitted that they were beaten to the theory by at least two other naturalists. Since Darwin and Wallace readily accepted that they did not originate natural selection why the do we insist on crediting them with this seminal discovery? Here, I will show how Darwin and Wallace’s lack of priority on natural selection has been kept from both the scientific community as well as the general public. Click to read.

Darwinism in Forestry. By Raphael Zon (1913) The American Naturalist Vol. 47, No. 561 (Sep.), pp. 540-546

 

Even without the new proof of Darwin’s and Wallace’s lies, deceptions and plagiarising science fraud that is afforded by big data analysis (Sutton 2014), the natural conclusion of Zon’s century old thesis is that neither Darwin nor Wallace had a comparably plausible framework of expertise that can be relied upon to understand how they were supposed to have arrived ‘independently’ of Matthew at exactly the same complex theory, terminology and explanatory examples. Click to read

The hi-tech detection of Darwin’s and Wallace’s possible science fraud: Big data criminology re-writes the history of contested discovery. By Mike Sutton. Peer Reviewed Papers from the British Criminology Conference. © 2014 the authors and

the British Society of Criminology www.britsoccrim.org ISSN 1759-0043; Vol. 14: 49-64

Panel Paper

 

Priority for discoveries is awarded to those who are first to publish. If a scholar writes claiming to have discovered something or originated a theory that has been earlier published, or presented in public by another who got their first, then the peer review process, professional and public disapproval is relied upon to identify and correct the self-serving irregularity. Thereafter, the pretender to the throne of discovery is expected to retract and apologise. If there is evidence that such a counterfeit originator had prior knowledge of their supposedly independent discovery being first discovered by another, the professional repercussions are likely to be catastrophic. This article is about the devastating Big Data facilitated 2014 discovery that the world’s most celebrated and studied natural scientist Charles Darwin, and his lesser known associate Alfred Russel Wallace, more likely than not committed the world’s greatest science fraud by apparently plagiarising the entire theory of natural selection from a book written by Patrick Matthew and then claiming to have had no prior-knowledge of it. Click to read.

 

Note: this paper was subject to annonymous peer review. The entire vol. 14 is here., which includes the Editor's comments on the peer review process.

 

On Knowledge Contamination: New Data Challenges Claims of Darwin’s and Wallace’s Independent Conceptions of Matthew’s Prior-Published Hypothesis. By Mike Sutton (2015) Philosophical Aspects of Origin.Vol 12. Click to read.

.

Stratham, J. (2015) Did Darwin Plagiarize Patrick Matthew? JOURNAL OF CREATION 29 (2)

 

There can be no doubt that Patrick Matthew preceded Darwin in articulating the theory of evolution by natural selection. Darwin claimed that he knew nothing of Matthew’s work prior to publishing the Origin of Species. Some doubt this, arguing that in places his early writings appear too similar to Matthew’s to be explained by coincidence. The book in which Matthew documented his theory was well known among naturalists and it would seem unlikely that Darwin would not have read it. Click to access the journal publishing the article.

A Biographic Journal Article

Biographical Portrait PATRICK MATTHEW — FOREST GENETICIST (1790–1874) by John E. Barker. FOREST HISTORY TODAY | SPRING/FALL 2001 pp. 64-65. Click to read.

Scholarly Science Magazine Articles on Matthew

 

PATRICK MATTHEW: FROM NATURAL SELECTION TO THE GERM THEORY. By Milton Wainwright. In: Microbiologist- The magazine of the Society for Applied Microbiology December 2010 Vol 11 No 4. Available online at the Milton Wainwright site.

Internet essays on the question of immortal great thinker scientific discovery priority status in the story of Matthew, Darwin, Wallace and the history of the discovery of natural selection

Patrick Matthew: priority and the discovery of natural selection. By Mike Sutton (2014) RationalWiki Essay. Click to read

 

This article explains that the rules of priority in science have been flouted by influential Darwinist biologists in the greatest deliberate cover-up of the work of an original dscoverer in the history of science.

BigData Darwin Bashing: A YouTube Interview on What The 'New Data' Now Means. By Mike Sutton. (2014)

 

Sometimes a good interview provides the quickest route to understanding the significance of new discoveries. This article provides a link to a most telling interview with Myles Power of the League of Nerds. Readers and listeners are invited to comment and debate the significance of the 'New Data'. Click to read and then listen.

Nullius in Verba, Darwin's greatest secret: a strategic anonymous review. With introduction. By Mike Sutton. (2015)

 

When first published, why are some books - such as Patrick Matthew's 'On Naval Timber and Arboriculture' and Charles Darwin's 'Origin of Species' anonymously reviewed? What is it, if anything, the reviewer fears? What does the reviewer intend their review to do? Most importantly, what happens next?

Click to read

 

It's Not Darwin's or Wallace's Theory THE ORIGIN OF SPECIES WITHOUT DARWIN AND WALLACE. By Milton Wainwright (2008). Click to read.

 

Darwin's Darkside.By Hugh Dower (undated). Click to read

Darwin's Guilty Secret. By Hugh Dower (2009). Click to read

Internet Dating with Darwin: New Discovery that Darwin and Wallace were Influenced by Matthew's Prior-Discovery. By Mike Sutton. (2014)

 

Contrary to current Darwinist knowledge beliefs, Matthew's 1831 book, revealing and detailing his discovery of natural selection, was cited before 1858 by three naturalists who played key pre-1858 roles in facilitating and influencing Darwin’s and Wallace’s published ideas on natural selection. Click to read.

After the Big Data Bombshell: Can Darwin’s and Wallace’s Claims to Independent Discovery Remain Vertical? By Mike Sutton. (2014)

 

This article informs natural scientists of the discovery of new data that proves Darwin and Wallace did not discover natural selection independently of Matthew's prior published discovery of 1831. Moreover, it supports new claims that Darwin and Wallace committed the world's greatest science fraud. Click to read.

The De Facto " MacDarwin Industry" and it's Member’s Pseudo-Scholarly Corporate Denial of the Very Existence of Uncomfortable New Facts. By Mike Sutton (2016)

 

Darwin scholars, and their supporters, are actively involved in using transparent, age old, corporate denial tactics to seek to hide the "New Data" facts in the history of discovery of natural selection from the public. Click to read

 

 

Other journal articles on the subject of Darwin's plagiarism of Matthew

A Dreadful Discovery: Big Data Proves Wallace and Darwin Counterfeit Discoverers. Mike Sutton's historic Sunday Lecture at Conway Hall. London. The Ethical Record Volume 119. Number 8. August September 2014 pages 7-14. Click to read.

Published Right of Reply to Malec's Review of Nullius in Verba

Follow the biological father of the theory of natural selection on Twitter: 'The Seer of Gourdie Hill'

Matthew

Solver of the problem of species

 

 

In 1831, the Scottish laird, farmer, orchard owner, grain dealer and botanist, Patrick Matthew, authored 'On Naval Timber and Arboriculture.' Matthew's book is universally recognised as the first publication to contain the complete hypothesis of the theory of natural selection. New evidence proves that both Darwin and Wallace lied by pretending they had no prior-knowledge of it; both committed science fraud by plagiarising Matthew's discovery, his name for it, his examples of the process in nature compared to culture. They even ripped-off his unique creative perspective.

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

Rational Wiki

Leading experts agree that only Patrick Matthew discovered and had published the full theory of natural selection before Darwin's and Wallace's replication of it 27 years later. Here.

 

Hard Facts and Rational Argument

 

Every Darwinist argument against the importance of the New Data in Nulius in Verba: Darwin's greatest secret can be rebutted with facts and reason. Here.

 

Pseudo Skeptical Darwinists

 

Read why biased Darwinists, named for Charles Darwin, are unsurprisingly found-out by their poor scholarship, to be unfit to tell the veracious story of the discovery of natural selection. Here.

 

 

Why was the New Data detected by a social scientist 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 totally 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.