Patrick Matthew
HERBERT SPENCER and the Newly Discovered Routes for Matthewian Knowledge Contamination
Spencer began writing on the topic of evolution in his 1851 book 'Social Statistics', London. John Chapman.
Patrick Matthew - the originator of natural selection theory - most likely influenced Spencer. As yet there is no evidence he did so directly, but he probably did so via Robert Chambers, who cited Matthew's 'On Naval Timber in 1832' (Sutton, 2014 and 2017) And we know also that Spencer read Chambers' (1844) Vestiges of Creation before writing on the same topic of evolution.
Afer reading and citing Matthew's book, which contained the full hypothesis of natural selection, Chambers wrote (anonymously) the best selling book Vestiges of Creation- which put evolution in the air in the first half of the 19th-century - and had it published in 1844 - seven years before Spencer penned a word on the topic of evolution.
Although he rejected it in the 1860's, Spencer's earliest work in science, in the 1840's was on the topic of phrenology. In this regard, like Wallace he was greatly influenced by Chambers's popularisation of this pseudo-scientific doctrine. For example, in the same year (1844) Chambers's Vestiges was first published, Spencer wrote an article on phrenology for the Medical Times (Spencer, H. (1844) The Situation of the Organ Amativeness. The Medical Times. Vol.10. pp, 305-306).
In 1852, Spencer informed his father that he met with Robert Chambers (see Duncan, D. The Life and Letters of Herbert Spencer (Cambridge Library Collection p. 64. This was the year after Spencer's first work that touched upon evolutionary ideas: Spencer, H. (1851) Social Statics, or the Conditions Essential to Human Happiness.
Routes of Mathewian Knowledge Contamination to Herbert Spencer's Brain
Here then we see a clear possible route of knowledge contamination from the originator Matthew to Chambers - to Spencer from Chambers's published work and also from Chambers to Spencer via anything Chambers may have said to him about Matthew's 1831 book. Moreover, we know that Darwin read Spencer's work before publishing his ideas on natural selection.
Just as Chambers - whose brain is known to have knowledge contaminated by Matthew's original ideas (because he cited Matthew's book in 1832) - was Wallace's greatest influence and an admitted influence on Darwin and wider society on the topic of organic evolution, he is acknowledged as a great influence on Spencer.
Spencer coined the term 'survival of the fittest' in 1864.
Spencer, H. ( 1864) The Principles of Biology, Volume 1. p. 444. London. Williams and Norgate.
Spencer's term (1864) 'survival of the fittest' is simply a re-hash of Matthew's (1831, p. 387) original phrase 'selection by the law of nature' , which Darwin (1859) shortened to 'selection by nature' on page 224 of the Origin of Species. Spencers re-hash is more elegant but less precise than Matthew's (1831, p.385) original prose:
'Nature tests their adaptation to her standard of perfection and fitness to continue their kind by reproduction.'
Matthew (1831) wrote also about the natural process of selection on pages 364-365 using examples of fierce strength, cunning and swiftness being present in naturally selected species:
'This law sustains the lion in his strength, the hare in her swiftness, and the fox in his wiles.'
Matthew (pp 307-308) wrote further of the survival of 'the best circumstance suited for reproduction', which is a far more precise phrase than Spencer's, which has been wrongly taken by non-experts to imply that the most athletic survive in competition.
Moreover, Matthew uses his phrase in the context of his original Artificial versus Natural selection analogy of Differences, that Wallace used in his 1858 Ternate paper, Darwin used in his unpublished essay and then to open Chapter One of the Orign of Species (Darwin 1859).
Matthew was the first to use the powerfully simple Artificial versus Natural Selection Analogy of Differences to explain the complexity of natural selection. This is probably the most important explanatory analogy ever published in the history of humanity. Loren Eiseley (1979) had earlier discovered that Darwin's unpublished (1844) replicated Matthew's (1831) plants grown in nurseries versus those growing wild analogy of differences to explain the operation of natural selection. What none before me picked up on is that Darwin (1859) opened Chapter 1 of the Origin of Species with Matthew's unique explanatory analogy:
'When we look to the individuals of the same variety or sub-variety of our older cultivated plants and animals, one of the first points which strikes us, is, that they generally differ much more from each other, than do the individuals of any one species or variety in a state of nature. When we reflect on the vast diversity of the plants and animals which have been cultivated, and which have varied during all ages under the most different climates and treatment, I think we are driven to conclude that this greater variability is simply due to our domestic productions having been raised under conditions of life not so uniform as, and somewhat different from, those to which the parent-species have been exposed under nature.'
Matthew (1831) had earlier written on page 308 - in the main body of his book:
In the text above you will see that Matthew uses the term 'natural process of selection'. BigData analysis (Sutton 2014 and Sutton 2017), within the 35 million publications in Google's library project reveals that Matthew was apparently the first to coin that term, that Chambers 1859 was apparently ‘first to be second’ to use it in published print (or anywhere for that matter) and that Darwin apparently originally four word-shuffled Matthew’s apparently original term for Matthew's beakthrough into the only grammatically correct equivalent “process of natural selection”.
On this page you have seen just some of the multiple coincidence in the story of Matthew, Darwin and Wallace. Coincidence do happen. But how many multiple coincidences of the kind revealed here sum to the likelihood that they are not coincidences, but instead form a preponderance of evidence that Darwin was influenced by Matthew's prior published discovery?
Herbert Spencer
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.
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.
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.
Further reading on the Charles Darwin and Patrick Matthew Supermyth can be found on Supermyths.com HERE
THE ANSWER IS 30
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.