Patrick Matthew Supermyth

The Patrick Matthew Supermyth

A supermyth is a myth about a myth where the second myth is created in an apparent atmosphere of concern to veraciously bust the first myth. What makes supermyths so powerful is that they appear all the more plausible because they are stories about why the first myth came into being and how it was bust.

 

The discovery of the phenomenon of the Supermyth was first published on the Best Thinking website. The Spinach Popeye Iron Decimal Error Point Error Myht (SPIDES) was fully bust in two articles The first here and the second here.

 

The Patrick Matthew Supermyth

READ MORE

Supermyths have very specific components:

1. The creation of a fallacy, myth or error by an orthodox expert.

 

2. Being used by another expert who in turn promotes it as being ‘true, and whilst still thinking that it is true either promotes it as a good example of the need to be healthily skeptical of bad scholarship, or else:

 

3. compounds the myth by using it as a premise upon which to build one or more supporting myths.

The Patrick Matthew Supermyth was created by faux-skeptical Darwinists and other equally credulous members of the scientific community who neglected to apply the scientific principle of nullius in verba to Darwin's and Wallace's incredible claims to have independently discovered natural selection with no prior knowledge of Matthew's prominent publication of it 27 years earlier.

 

The myth is a supermyth because Darwinists, using natural selection as a mythbusting device for the myth that a God created all species of plants and animals, created the secondary myth that Darwin first discovered the natural process of selection, and that he was first to use artificial selection as an explanatory analogy for the process of natural selection. In fact, Matthew was first to do both.

 

The myth of Darwin's and Wallace's supposed exclusive duel 'independent' discoveries of Matthew's prior published discovery of the 'natural process of selection' was bust when it was 100% proven (Sutton 2014) that, contrary to the myth started by Darwin in 1860 and 1861, other naturalists known to Darwin and Wallace - who in fact played key roles in influencing and facilitating their pre-1858 work on natural selection - had read and cited Matthew's (1831) book in the literature. That book - On Naval Timber and Arboriculture - is widely acknowledged to contain the full theory of natural selection (see my RationalWiki essay). The mythbust is best explained to sceptical Darwinists by way of analogy. The Darwin and Wallace Duel Miraculous Immaculate Conception Analaogy can be read on BestThinking.com {Here}.

 

The Patrick Matthew Supermyth is underpinned by two deliberate lies that Darwin in order to corrupt the history of discovery of natural selection {here} and by the fallacious Loudon-Naturalist-Blinding toxic super-meme that the unique ideas on natural selection in Matthew's 1831 book were, variously, unread by any naturalists, biologists, anyone known to Darwin or Wallace, or indeed anyone, before Matthew brought them to Darwin's attention in 1860.

 

PROOF DARWIN LIED IN ORDER TO STEAL MATTHEW'S RIGHTFUL PRIORITY

 

 

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

 

1. In 1860 in his first letter to the Gardener's Chronicle, to claim his rightful priority(see Sutton 2014) for his prior published (Matthew 1831) full and detailed hypothesis of natural selection (Matthew 1831), which Darwin replicated without citing him, Matthew wrote that his book had been reviewed by the famous naturalist botanist John Loudon.

 

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

 

‘One of the subjects discussed in this appendix is the puzzling one, of the origin of species and varieties; and if the author has hereon originated no original views (and of this we are far from certain), he has certainly exhibited his own in an original manner.’

 

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

 

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

 

Loudon was a famous naturalist, botanist, polymath and fellow of the Linnean Society, known very well to Darwin (from his correspondence and his notebook of books read) and to his best friend Joseph Hooker (who, from his book review of Loudon's work and correspondence revealled that he much admired Loudon) - who approved Darwiin's letter of reply before sending it on to the Gardener's Choronicle on Darwin's behalf at Darwin's request, whilst complying with Darwin's odd request that he re-date the letter to prove he had approved it. Yet in that 1860 letter of reply to Matthew's 1860 letter, Darwin wrote the exact opposite to what Matthew had just told him. See point 2, immediately below, for the hard evidence.

 

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

 

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

 

To necessarily repeat the point already made, Darwin wrote the exact self-serving opposite to what Matthew had just informed him, and his best friend, the influential Hooker, backed him up in the great lie.

 

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

 

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

 

4. Despite being initially informed that the naturalist Loudon had read and reviewed his book Darwin lied in his letter of reply in the Gardener's Chronicle by writing that no naturalist had read Matthew's ideas. As can be seen in point 3, above, Matthew then corrected Darwin by informing him in detail of yet another naturalist who had read his original ideas on natural selection but was afraid t 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 who read the ideas in it. 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 in his Wilkins Lecture for the Royal Society (de Beer 1962 on page 333): Darwin's great lie as the "gospel according to Darwin" truth. Until I personally put the record fully straight not a single person corrected his credulous Darwin deification claptrap:

 

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

 

Conclusion

 

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

 

A more detailed account of Darwin's proven science fraud by glory theft can be read here:

DARWIN'S PROVEN LIES

Darwin wrote a total of ten lies to steal priority from Matthew. You can see the fully evidenced details and effects of three of them on the Patrick Matthew Blog. Seven additional lies can be found in my book Nullius in Verba. The fact Darwin did lie about the prior readership of Matthew's book can be read in my 2016 peer reviewed science article.

Find out more about supermyths by reading my article: On Supermyths: Their discovery, distinguishing characteristics and significance {Here}

Visit the Supermyths website to discover what supermyths have so far been discovered. {Here}.

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

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.

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.

GLORY THEFT

Of all crimes the worst

 

Is to steal the glory

 

From the great and brave,

 

Even more accursed

 

Than to rob the grave.

 

From 'Kitty Hawk' by Robert Frost (1953)

Patrick Matthew