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.
8. The Nottingham Post 2016 (28.3.2016)
You may have heard of "The Matthew Effect in Science" and so the "Patrick Matthew Effect" is incredibly important and ironic for those who have written about the Matthew Effect but are uninterested in Patrick Matthew precisely because of The Matthew Effect.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
Darwin's Guilty Secret. By Hugh Dower (2009). Click to read
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.
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