Patrick Matthew
'Quality for sheep is what the shepherd says. And if you take a sheep and put it on the timberline at night when the wind is roaring, that sheep will be panicked half to death and will call and call until the shepherd comes, or comes the wolf.'
Robert M. Pirsig (1974) Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance: An enquiry into values. P. 386
Immaculate Deception (AKA The Blessed Virgin Darwin). By Gabriel Woods.
There are only Two Possible Rational Explanations for Darwin's and Wallace's Replications of Matthew's Unique and Prior-Published Ideas:
(1) A dual immaculate conception of a prior-published complex theory, it's unique explanatory analogy, many of the same examples in nature to confirm it's veracity, and the same four words to name it, or else:
(2) Knowledge contamination
A Typology of Knowledge Contamination
- Innocent Knowledge Contamination: The spread of unique ideas from Matthew's 1831 book via (a) other published sources on the topic, which failed to cite Matthew as their source, (b) word of mouth and/or correspondence to Darwin by those who read Matthew's book - understood its importance in whole or simply in part - but failed to tell Darwin about the existence of the book.
- Reckless or Negligent Knowledge Contamination: (a) Darwin read Matthew's book, absorbed many ideas and examples and terms from it, but forgot all about having read it - and never did remember (b) read it and took notes but forgot the source of the notes, (c) was told about ideas from Matthew's book by someone - who understood their importance in whole or simply in part - told they came from a book, but failed to ask the name of the author and book.
- Deliberate Knowledge Contamination (science fraud): Darwin read Matthew's book, took copious notes, remembered what he had done but always pretended otherwise.
Read my peer reviewed science journal article on knowlwdge contamination (Sutton 2016) Here.
Among all the authors, revealed uniquely in Nullius, that I have discovered did both read Matthew's book and also influenced, directly, Darwin and Wallace - and/or influenced those who we know influenced them - are the following important naturalists.These three played major roles at the epicenter of Darwin's and Wallace's pre-1858 written work on natural slection theory:
- Loudon
- Selby
- Chambers
A Note on Charles Lyell's Amazing (or not as the case may be) links to Matthew's 1831 book.
Conclusion
The fact that Loudon, Chambers and Selby, three out of only seven naturalists known to date to have definitely read NTA pre-Origin, played such dynamic roles at the very core of influence and facilitation of Darwin's and Wallace's published work on natural selection can have only one rational explanation—beyond seeking to explain it away as a coincidence upon coincidence upon coincidence pile-up. Namely that it is now established beyond any reasonable doubt that Matthew's discovery influenced both Darwin and Wallace. This finding alone means that Matthew's prior-published discovery and his influence on others undoubtedly fulfills, indeed surpasses, all the conditions, protocols and conventions of scientific priority, thereby satisfying all required criteria for Matthew to be awarded full priority over Darwin and Wallace.
Read my earlier expert peer reviewed paper on Charles Darwin's science fraud by plagiarism here and below
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 Nullius in 2014, 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!
Read the five-star reviews of Nullius on Amazon books
100 per cent independently verifiable proof that Darwin (1860) lied, and colluded with Hooker in that lie, when he wrote that apparently no naturalist had read Matthew's (1831) prior published hypothesis of natural selection before Matthew brought it to his attention in 1860 - Here
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.