The Blindsight Explanation for Poor Scholarship
For the past 155 years, Darwin scholars have simply parroted Darwin’s (1860 and 1861) 'Appendix Myth', 'Scattered Passages Myth' and 'Mere Enunciation Myth',in order to fill in the knowledge gaps as to what really happened to Patrick Matthew’s original ideas on natural selection between their publication in 1831 and Wallace’s, (1855), Darwin’s and Wallace’s (1858) and Darwin’s (1859) replications without citing Matthew. These myths served as plausible devices to enable the world to accept Darwin’s fallacious tale that Matthew’s ideas went unread by natural scientists until Matthew drew Darwin’s attention to them in 1860 , Hence the three myths above braced Darwin's: 'No Naturalists Read Matthew's Original Ideas Before 1860 Myth' and 'No Single Person Read His Original Ideas Before 1860 Myth', The credulous use of these myths by 'expert' Darwin scholars to criticise the scholarship of those who have in the past questioned Darwin's right to be celebrated as an original and immortal great thinker for what he has written on the theory of natural selection, has made Darwin's two Matthew was unread until 1860 variant fallacies into the worst kind of entrenched fallacy. Namely, they are braced-supermyths.
What everyone somehow missed, is that the fact was right under their noses, in the print they all read closely, the indisputable plain and highly significant fact that Darwin knew of at least two naturalists who had read Matthew's original ideas on natural selection because Matthew had told him so in print in 1860 (Sutton 2014). Moreover, my research went even further to originally uncover, using an apparently unique hi-tech BigData analysis method in Google's Library Project, the fact that a total of seven naturalists, four known to Darwin/Wallace, three of whom played major roles influencing and facilitating the work of Darwin/Wallace on macroevolution, not only read Matthew's (1831) original ideas before 1858 - but also cited the book containing them before that famous year when Darwin and Wallace had their papers read before the Linnean Society.
In reality - as the proven serial liar Darwin knew, because he informed Hooker that he knew, Matthew's ideas were contained throughout the main body of his book as well as in its appendix. I demonstrated this fact in a recent blog post, with reference to Matthew referring his readers, on several pages in the introduction chapter in his book On Naval Timber and Arboriculture (Matthew 1831) to that book's appendix. Matthew did this very clearly so they could tie in his observations on natural selection in nature with the socially damaging artificial selection of human stock that happened in human culture. And yet Darwin scholars for over a century and a half failed to register this fact and its significance on reading Matthew's book. Why? The question is hugely important because failure to see this fact has led to the myth, blindly parroted throughout the literature, that Matthew is to be blamed for the World's failure to acknowledge his discovery, because he supposedly buried his original ideas on natural selection in the book's appendix (e.g. Dawkins in Bryson 2010; Bowler 2014) where they supposedly remained unread by any naturalists until 1860. Incidentally, my book, Nullius in Verba, has an appendix that contains every word on natural selection from the main body of Matthew's (1831) book and includes its famous appendix.
But that is not the all of it. Other plain facts and their obvious significance, right under the very noses of Darwin scholars, who read them these past 155 years, were peculiarly missed until my 2014 research. I revealed this in my peer reviewed article on the topic of Darwin's and Wallace's plagiarising science fraud Sutton (2014), where I wrote the following:
'What makes Darwin’s (1861) falsehood all the more audacious is the fact that he knew also that Matthew’s ideas were not merely contained in an appendix, nor briefly scattered. Because Matthew (1860) published large passages of text, cited as coming from his book - a great deal of which came from the main body of the book - in his letter in the Gardener’s Chronicle. And Darwin knew that because he purchased a copy of Matthew’s book, read it before replying to Matthew’ letter, and wrote as much about those same passages, although somewhat cryptically, to Joseph Hooker (Darwin 1860b)
What has been newly, uniquely, discovered in Nullius in Verba: Darwin's greatest secret that changes everything we thought we knew about the discovery of natural selection?
Before the publication of Nullius, Darwinists simply believed their namesake and Alfred Wallace when each claimed to have discovered natural selection "independently" of Patrick Matthew's prior published theory. They held this mere belief because none had looked behind Darwin's (1860) excuse for replicating Matthew's prior published unique discovery that : "I think that no one will feel surprised that neither I nor apparently any other naturalist had heard of Mr Matthews’ views..."
So what did I uniquely discover to prove the rational improbability that either or Darwin or Wallace discovered natural selection independently of Patrick Matthew's prior publication of the full hypothesis? And what did I uniquely discover to prove Darwin and Wallace were not at all the honest and humble scientists portrayed in the literature - but were instead egotistical self-serving liars?
1. Darwin lied when he wrote in his defense in the Gardeners Chronicle in 1860 that :"...neither I nor apparently any other naturalist had heard of Mr Matthews’ views..." because Matthew told him in the letter to which Darwin responded with that lie that John Loudon had written a review of his book. Loudon - a noted naturalist polymath, owner and Editor of 'The Magazine of Natural History and Zoology Journal', noted botanist and fellow of the Royal Society of Arts and the Linnean Society (amongst others) had been dead 16 years by then. But Darwin knew he was a naturalists because his notebook of books read was jam packed with Loudon's books (often heavily anotated). And that same notebook showed that Darwin had held in his hands at least five publications that cited Matthew, two of which were written by Loudon. Moreover, Darwin had his best friend the botanist Joseph Hooker approve his letter containing this lie and then send it on his behalf to the Gardener's chronicle. Joseph Hooker also knew Loudon was a naturalist. In fact he had earlier written that Loudon was better than any other in Europe. This is the same Joseph Hooker who had in 1858 worked with Darwin's other great friend and mentor Charles Lyel to slyly mislead the Linnean Society into believing Wallace had given his consent to have his paper read before them and then published with Darwin's. Wallace's paper they read along with (but after) Darwin's so that it would thereafter be called Darwin's and Wallace's theory. Darwin continued his lie that Matthew's book had gone unread (despite Matthew telling him in his second letter to the Gardener's Chronicle of other naturalists besides Loudon who had read it) from the third edition of the Origin of species and in a letter to the eminent French naturalist Quatrefages de Bréau (April 25, 1861 ).
2, Had any Darwinists - who society relies upon to tell the veracious story of the discovery of natural selection - not simply swallowed Darwin's story- hook, line and "Hooker" - noticed Darwin's great lie that no naturalist had read Matthew's book pre 1860 then they might have investigated whether or not what Loudon did as a naturalist might be important in the veracious story of the discovery of natural selection. Had they done that then they would have discovered that Loudon did far more than write in his 1832 book review that Matthew may have written something original on "the origin of species", because they would also have found that Loudon owned and edited the journal the published two of Edward Blyth's influential papers on the evolution of species and varieties of organic life; papers which definitely influenced Darwin - because he wrote from the third edition of the Origin of Species onward that Byth was his most important and prolific informant on the topic. More on that issue here.
3. To further uniquely bust the myth that no naturalist read Matthew's (1831) prior published hypothesis, I uniquely discovered six more naturalists actually cited it in the literature before Darwin's and Wallace's papers were read before the Linnean Society in 1858. Darwin knew four of them. And Darwin and Wallace were influenced and facilitated by two of those naturalists.
Selby cited Matthew's book many times in 1842 and then went on to edit Wallace's (1855) Sarawak paper - which Darwin also read pre 1858. Darwin and his friends knew Selby very well. Darwin sat on committees with him and his father and friends had even stayed at Selby's home - where Matthew's book sat in the library.
Chambers cited Matthew's book in 1832 and then in 1842 wrote 'The Vestiges of Creation' the best seller on evolution that was Wallace's greatest influence and a great influence on Darwin for famously putting evolution "in the air" in the first half of the 19th century. Darwin was a friend and correspondent of Chambers. And Lyell was a member of the same Geological society as Chambers and heard him speak on more than one occasion. It is well known that both Darwin and Lyell knew that Chambers was the anonymous author of the heretical Vestiges.
4. Wallace misled the world in his autobiography by slyly deleting incriminating text in his transcription of his letter to his mother where he had written that following what Darwin, Lyell and Hooker had done at the Linnean Society with his work that he was owed "assistance" by Darwin and his associates. And he did indeed receive a great deal of financial and social "assistance" from them thereafter.
5. Darwin told a further five lies that mislead the world into crediting him with priority over Matthew for the Originator's unique discovery.
6. 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.'
7. Wallace replicated that exact same analogy of differences in his 1858 Ternate paper, which was read after Darwin's before the Linnean Society in 1858.
8. Using new technology of Big Data analysis, I was able to determine - out of over 30 million publications in Google's Library Project - which terms and phrases in his 1831 book were apparently coined by Matthew and who was then apparently first to be second to use them in print. I discovered many naturalists well known to Darwin and his closest associates who were apparently first to be second with apparently unique Matthewisms. Surprisingly, five out of only 25 people in the entire world discovered in this way were naturalists well known to Charles Lyell. This method also uniquely revealed that Chambers was first to be second to replicate Matthew's unique term for his discovery 'natural process of selection' and that Darwin uniquely four-word-shuffled that term into its only grammatically correct equivalent 'process of natural selection', which he used nine times in the Origin of Species (1859).
9, An electronic plagiarism check reveals many examples of great similarity between the prose and ideas of Wallace and Darwin compared to Matthew's. But Darwin also replicated Matthew's unique creative process by replicating his examples of how the natural process of selection works. By way of just two examples in addition to the example of plants grown in nurseries that Eiseley discovered, Darwin also replicated Matthew's examples of what happens when many seedlings spring up together in a forest. Moreover, he replicated what Matthew cited from Steuart (1828) about cattle eating young trees.. Only where Matthew cited his source about the cattle example, Darwin audaciously pretended it was his own observation in nature.
10. Nullius uniquely contains the 'Virgin Darwin Allegorical Analogy Explanation', which Is particularly designed for Darwinist atheists. In effect, the analogy is that we know the Virgin Mary of Christian belief was surrounded by men whose testicles were to some unknown degree fertile. And it is for that reason that her mythical conception of the child of a supernatural sky-dwelling deity ("God") is a supernatural miracle. Analogously to the Blessed St Mary, so too do we newly know that, pre-1858, Darwin and Wallace were surrounded and influenced by men whose brains were fertile to some unknown degree with Matthew's unique ideas - because those men had read and then cited his book and they are known influencers of Darwin and Wallace. It would, therefore, be a supernatural miracle, perhaps granted by some divine invisible cognitive contraceptive, for both Darwin and Wallace to have immaculately conceived Patrick Matthew's prior published unique complex theory of the natural process of selection, his four words to name it, his analogy to explain it and even his unique and idiosyncratic examples of its operation in nature.
Darwinists, unconvinced by the strong new evidence for Darwin's and Wallace's work being contaminated by Matthew's influence, and similarly unconvinced by the further evidence for their science fraud being more likely than not, insist that we must - in order to convince them - find in the decimated archives of the 19th century a "smoking" gun letter from or to Darwin and or Wallace revealing that they definitely knew about Matthew's unique ideas pre-1858. By rational retort, the lesson of the 'Virgin Darwin Allegorical Analogy Explanation ' is to ask them a most telling question: "Why then do you not insist on us finding a 2000 year old paternity admission letter from the human biological father of Jesus of Nazareth in order to be convinced that it would be a miracle for Jesus to be the biological son of the Christian 'God'?" The answer is because Darwinists already know that it is outside the realm of current scientific experience and understanding for women to conceive a child without the presence of male human sperm. Can Darwinists, therefore, show us one example in the whole of human history where a complex prior published theory has been immaculately conceived by another human (never mind two at the same time) whilst surrounded, facilitated and influenced by others who read it before influencing them, corresponding with them, meeting with them and their family and other friends and influencers and facilitating their work? Of course not. Darwinists are, therefore, being completely irrational by denying the strength and great importance of the new data in Nullius. It seems they do not love science and reason at all.
In addition to these unique discoveries, which mean highly influential knowledge contamination from Matthew to Darwin and Wallace is now rationally proven far more likely than not, I have uniquely unearthed a plethora of clues as to where to look next for printed or hand-written 19th century confirmatory evidence that the author or recipient of as yet undiscovered "smoking gun" text was Darwin or Wallace; or else where to look next for such documentary evidence that reveals that they knew by reading or else writing it that Darwin or Wallace was aware of Matthew's book pre 1858. Namely, in the correspondence, notebooks, published and unpublished work, and private diary archives of those I discovered cited Matthew's 1831 book before 1858 or else were apparently first to be second with apparently unique Matthewisms before 1858 - and also in the diaries, notebooks, published and unpublished work and private correspondence archives of their friends and associates. Let us call this Sutton's New Data Hypothesis. And let it be noted boldly here for the historical record that I am publicly inviting other scholars to be guided by the names uniquely unearthed in my book Nullius in Verba: Darwin's greatest secret to go out into the field and test it. I do this just as Matthew (1831) invited other scholars to test his own unique hypothesis of the natural process of selection by their observations and experiments.
A Note of Rational Caution: Absence of Evidence is not Evidence of Absence
Professional Darwinists, as natural scientists, are perhaps particularly unsuited as a group to objectively and logically assess the evidence for their namesake's plagiarizing science fraud. There is, obviously, the first great handicap they carry, which is that Darwinists are named for the man they would try to objectively investigate. More so, however, is the problem that these scholars repeatedly confuse Darwin's private notebooks and letters as some kind of objective fossil record of what he did or did not do or know.
Darwin - like all of us - was no robot. Consequently, he did not write down or record everything he did or knew. Darwinists themselves know this - when it suits them - because they know that Darwin never could tell his publisher - who demanded to know - where exactly he found the term 'natural selection' in the literature. Darwin could only write. fallaciously, that the term was in abundant use in the literature. Moreover, Darwin's Darwinists even refer to some of Darwin's most important private documents as his "torn apart notebooks". And many have remarked on the extent to which letters in the Darwin archive are simple "missing". In reality, it is no secret that much of Darwin's correspondence - and letters he received - are "missing". Wallace's original Ternate paper is "missing". Darwin tore his own notebooks apart and ripped out many pages from his notebooks. What those pages contained we will never know. Darwin habitually rendered whole sections of his own handwriting illegible by scribbling over it. Relying therefore on the insensible argument that what survives of Darwin's letters and notebooks show that he slowly and independently of Matthew's prior published book discovered the bombshell hypothesis of natural selection is just plain silly. Darwinists do themselves a great intellectual disservice by relying upon such daft-as-a-brush reasoning as some kind of strong evidence that their namesake arrived at the theory of natural selection independently of Matthew, because we now newly know that both Darwin and Wallace were influenced and facilitated pre-1858 by naturalists who they knew - who they said were a great influence upon them - who had cited Matthew's 1831 book, containing the full theory of natural selection, in the literature before 1858 (Chambers) and by another other (Blyth) whose editor (Loudon) had reviewed it and remarked on its originality on the topic of "the origin of species" and by Wallace's own Sarawak paper editor Selby. The same Selby whose article was also in the journal owned and edited by Loudon and read by Darwin with great interest, and who sat with Darwin on various scientific committees many times pre 1858 and had both Darwin's father and Darwin's great friend Jenyns as house guests - where Matthew's book sat in his library, having been purchased for him in 1840 by the great and influential naturalist Jardine - no less. Jardine who, by the way, co-owned the journal that published Blyth's and Selby's influential articles!
To be kind, the least we can say now is that any Darwinists claiming in their namesake's defense that this new evidence is weak are being irrational. In the name of reason, the new evidence is so strong it logically renders all previous evidence for Darwin's and Wallace's so called dual "independent" discoveries of Matthew's prior published hypothesis not just weak but completely insensible.
The problem, however, for veracity in the history of science is the same as James Randi famously explained about those who believe in the paranormal and other debunked and otherwise un-evidenced nonsense:
"The public really doesn't listen when they are being told straight-forward facts. They would rather accept what some charismatic character tells them than really think about what the truth might be. They would rather have the romance and the lies"
The general public, by simply believing the words of those charismatic Darwinists posing as skeptical scientists and educators, writing scholarly books and articles that teach their now debunked fallacies about the history of Matthew's book, have fallen into the exact same trap as credulous punters at a spoon bending séance.
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.
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.
Cast iron proof that Charles Darwin, in collusion with his best friend and botanical mentor Joseph Hooker, lied in the Gardener's Chronicle when he wrote in 1860 that apparently no naturalist had read Matthew's (1831) prior-published ideas, and further lied when he wrote in the third edition of the Origin of Species (1861), and every edition thereafter, that Matthew's unique ideas had passed unnoticed until 1860.
Read the hard facts here