Patrick Matthew

This page deals with academic articles and book chapters that cite the 'New Data' on Darwin's and Wallace's plagiarism. However, press articles on Mike Sutton's publications abound. Some of them are listed below. More details can be found on the News Page.

1. The Daily Telegraph 2014 (archived) (also archived here)

2. Scottish Daily Mail 2014 (archived)

3.The  Courier  March 15th 2016 (archived)

4. Deadline March 16th 2016 (archived)

5.The Courier 19th March 2016 (archived)

6. The Courier 22nd March 2016 (archived)

7. The Scotsman  2016 (archived)

8. The Nottingham Post 2016 (28.3.2016)

9. Five Thirty Eight 2016 (archived)

10. Sputnik (France) 2016 (archived)

11. Sputnik (Germany) 2016 (archived)

12. The Courier (May 2016) (archived)

13. The Courier (May 2017) (archived)

14. Several articles (May 2017) Press Reader

15. The Courier (August 2017) (archived)

16. The Courier (Sept 2017) (archived)

17. The Evening Telegraph (Sept 2017) (archived)

18. The Courier (Sept 2018) (archived) 

19. The Courier (Nov 2019) (archived)

"The Patrick Matthew Effect in Science" (2023) Springer Science book chapter by Sutton and Griffiths. In the text book Academic Integrity in the Social Sciences: Here

Read my article On Darwin's and Wallace's science fraud by plagiarism and serial lying 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.

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. Available here as a pdf file.

.

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

Time to put Darwin back in his box. Boz magazine, 54: 9, October 1998
Brian J Ford. Available online here

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

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

A Bombshell for the History of Discovery and Priority in Science (2014) The Daily Journalist. By Mike Sutton (here). Archived (here)

The life and death dangers of bullshit in food, science and politics (2020) CrimeTalk.org. By Mike Sutton (here). Archived (here).

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.

Darwin’s Greatest Secret Exposed: Response to Grzegorz Malec’s De Facto Fact Denying Review of My (2014) e-Book-  Click here to read

And so we see that the science problem of Darwin's and Wallace's claim of miraculous virgin brained dual independent conception of a prior published theory, which both admitted was essentially the same as their own, and which Wallace wrote was even more complete, is solved by disproving the consensus that 0 people read Matthew's theory before they replicated it. Hence, any notion that mysterious forces govern the affairs of humans with otherwise amazing improbable coincidences is disproven in this case. The solution to this particular virgin conception problem is 30, which is the difference between 0 and 30. Hence, there were 30 routes for knowledge contamination to directly or indirectly prior-impregnate the brains of Darwin and Wallace with Matthew's bombshell breakthrough before they replicated it and then each claimed it as their own original idea.

From this example, we can learn how to solve the science problem of the Christian belief claim in the virgin conception of Mary with Jesus. All we need to find out is how many probably fertile human males were in a position to impregnate her.