Plagiarising Science Fraud

Plagiarising Science Fraud
Newly Discovered Facts, Published in Peer Reviewed Science Journals, Mean Charles Darwin is a 100 Per Cent Proven Lying, Plagiarising Science Fraudster by Glory Theft of Patrick Matthew's Prior-Published Conception of the Hypothesis of Macro Evolution by Natural Selection

Friday, 22 September 2017

Thursday, 14 September 2017

The £10 Darwins

+


Tuesday, 12 September 2017

GCSE Darwin Monkey Business

Darwin Catfight in the Evening Standard

Sunday, 10 September 2017

The Patrick Matthew Weekend

+

After the Age of Enlightenment, facts are supposed be judged on their merits, not source of publication

+
+

Thursday, 7 September 2017

Even more evidence of foul language Darwinite abuse of those they disagree with

Look, at least from what I have read of his own accounts about it, A.N. Wilson has indeed written a fair degree of nonsense and he does appear to confuse natural selection with the ancient development hypothesis, but that does not excuse publishing foul penned abuse such as this.  No wonder Amazon deleted it.

+

Saturday, 2 September 2017

More hard data from social media of Darwinists publishing foul abuse when faced by unwelcome verifiable facts that disconfirm their unevidenced mere comfort-beliefs

+ + + + + + + + + +

Wednesday, 30 August 2017

Charles Darwin's Tangled Bank Job: Just More Evidence of his Science Fraud by Plagiary


A recent review in the Guardian newspaper    of the historian A.N. Wilson’s book on Charles Darwin points out – quite correctly - many of Wilson’s mistakes and his failure to understand what the process of natural selection is. The book review is written by Victorian history expert Kathryn Hughes. However, waxing lyrical in credulous regurgitation of the romance and lies about Darwin’s supposed good nature and original genius, she uses the cliched example of Darwin’s supposed observations of a tangled bank in nature as supposed evidence of his originality. Hughes writes:
His most famous motif, the one that everyone remembers because it leaps off the page with such unforced joy, is that of the tangled bank. Based on his daily observations of a stretch of land near his home, Darwin describes a buzzing ecosystem that is home to plants, birds and insects “all dependent on each other”. Here, he implies, is a microcosm for how we too might imagine our lives.’
But, once again, this is just another example of Darwin replicating Patrick Matthew’s (1831) original theory and its supporting examples, explanatory analogies of difference and terminology.
I could add a wealth of examples of how many of Matthew's prior-published ideas, original terminology, and confirmatory evidence were replicated by Darwin. Those examples are provided in my book "Nullius in Verba: Darwin's greatest secret   " but - given the tangled bank example used in the Guardian review one should look at what the statistical geneticist Dr Mike Weale tells us about Professor Donald Forsdyke's observations of Darwin's tangled bank text and its similarities to an evidentiary example provided by Patrick Matthew almost three decades earlier. The text below is taken from the comments section of Weal's website "The Patrick Matthew Project" and are addressed to me: 
"Mike, were you aware of the following interesting similarity between a famous passage of Darwin’s, and something that Matthew wrote in NTA? I thank Donald Forsdyke for pointing out the Matthew quote (see the end of his last video in his educational video series (https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL59A9C65FB0DCED9E   ).
The Darwin quote, from the last paragraph of “On the Origin of Species”, is: “It is interesting to contemplate an entangled bank, clothed with many plants of many kinds, with birds singing on the bushes, with various insects flitting about, and with worms crawling through the damp earth, and to reflect that these elaborately constructed forms, so different from each other, and dependent on each other in so complex a manner, have all been produced by laws acting around us.”
The Matthew quote, from pp.229-30 of NTA, is: “Look at the broken mound, with its old picturesque trees and tangled bushes; there is the ancient root where the throstle had its nestlings, which are now at large on the leafy boughs, and are tuning their yet unformed notes to melody. Now every twig has raised its new column of foliage to the sun; and branch, and root, and stone, embellished all over in the richest variety of cryptogamic beauty, swarm of insect life.”
The scene is used differently (to contemplate Nature’s laws by Darwin, to contrast beautiful Nature with boring manicured parks by Matthew), but the similarity of the picture is striking."
NOTE: NTA is an acronym for Matthew's book 'On Naval Timber and Arboriculture.'

The most telling question is: When will historians face the concrete fully evidenced truth and choose it over the romance and lies about Charles Darwin, which they have been hoodwinked to believe in?The most telling question is this: ‘Just how many supposed multiple coincidences of this kind are required in the story of Matthew and Darwin to convince scientists and historians that Darwin more likely than not plagiarised Matthew’s prior published discovery of evolution by natural selection, and in doing so committed the world’s greatest science fraud?’ My book is jam packed with them. Jam-packed with independently verifiable evidence of Darwin’s lies and Matthew’s influence on other naturalists known to Darwin and Wallace and his influence on their greatest influencers and their influencer’s influencers before either Darwin or Wallace penned a word on the topic of evolution. How can this be so? Because it is newly discovered those naturalists actually cited Matthew’s book and original ideas long before Darwin and Wallace replicated them. And Matthew’s work was cited by naturalists long before Darwin excused his and Wallace’s failure to cite Matthew by lying that no naturalist had read Matthew’s work. It was a lie because Matthew had twice prior informed Darwin that the exact opposite was true.

Darwin, the patron saint of atheists in fact kept the notion of a supernatural being in several editions of his Origin of Species. Read the whole context of his "tangled bank" job from that book and you will see this fact:


Now, by way of contrast, see how Matthew (1831) , the originator of the theory Darwin and Wallace stole, had the courage - years earlier - to commit heresy by mocking such an unscientific superstitious notion:


As I fully reveal in my book Nullius  - It was for such reason, as Matthew explained to Darwin in the pages of the Gardeners' Chronicle of 1860, that his work was banned by libraries and renowned university academics feared to repeat his ideas for fear of pillory punishment. But you won't read those facts in any ignorant Darwin bashing book penned by a born again creationist, nor in any penned by a credulous and biased, cherry-picking, Darwin worshipper.


1000 hits inside 24 hours on Darwin's plagiaism

Guardian Review of A.N. Wilson's book: The Grassy Bank Job

Today I left the following comments on the Guardian Newspaper website regarding a book review of A.N. Wilson's book on Darwin.

CLICK HERE to read the Guardian article and comments on it 



01
Typo in my comment on the "grassy bank job" below. I mean in the opening sentence - of course - replicated by Darwin.



  • 01
    I could add a wealth of examples of how many of Matthew's prior-published ideas, original terminology, and confirmatory evidence were replicated by Matthew from my book "Nullius in Verba: Darwin's greatest secret" but - given the grassy bank example used in the Guardian review above look at what the statistical geneticist Dr Mike Weale tells us about Professor Donald Forsdyke observations of Darwin's grassy bank text and its similarities to an evidentiary example provided by Patrick Matthew almost three decades earlier. In the text below (taken from the comments section of Weal's website "The Patrick Matthew Project" is addressed to me - Professor Forsdyke very kindly read my book and offered comments on it prior to its publication - NTA is an acronym for Matthew's 1831 book On Naval Timber and Arboriculture :
    "Mike, were you aware of the following interesting similarity between a famous passage of Darwin’s, and something that Matthew wrote in NTA? I thank Donald Forsdyke for pointing out the Matthew quote (see the end of his last video in his educational video series (https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL59A9C65FB0DCED9E).
    The Darwin quote, from the last paragraph of “On the Origin of Species”, is: “It is interesting to contemplate an entangled bank, clothed with many plants of many kinds, with birds singing on the bushes, with various insects flitting about, and with worms crawling through the damp earth, and to reflect that these elaborately constructed forms, so different from each other, and dependent on each other in so complex a manner, have all been produced by laws acting around us.”
    The Matthew quote, from pp.229-30 of NTA, is: “Look at the broken mound, with its old picturesque trees and tangled bushes; there is the ancient root where the throstle had its nestlings, which are now at large on the leafy boughs, and are tuning their yet unformed notes to melody. Now every twig has raised its new column of foliage to the sun; and branch, and root, and stone, embellished all over in the richest variety of cryptogamic beauty, swarm of insect life.”
    The scene is used differently (to contemplate Nature’s laws by Darwin, to contrast beautiful Nature with boring manicured parks by Matthew), but the similarity of the picture is striking."


  • 01
    It is clear to anyone with an understanding of it that A.N. Wilson confuses the simple ancient (linear) development hypothesis of evolution with far more complex theory of macroevolution by natural selection. Is it because he is a born-again creationist that Wilson makes no mention of Patrick Matthew, the true originator of the theory? Unlike Darwin, Patrick Matthew mocked "God" in his (1831) book, which contains the entire complex theory. Darwin, Wallace, Darwin's wife and the world’s leading evolutionary biologists (e.g. de Beer, Mayr and Dawkins) all wrote that Matthew was first into print in 1831 with the entire thing. Darwin wrote lies that none read Matthew's origination. Darwin wrote those lies after Matthew informed him that the opposite was true. The suppression of Matthew's first and foremost legacy is founded on credulous belief in those sly lies. If you want the independently verifiable facts about Darwin's lies and plagiarism (as unpalatable to creationists as to those in the cult of Darwin worship) simply Google "On Knowledge Contamination" to read my peer reviewed science article on the topic.
+

Tuesday, 29 August 2017

Why Avoid the Matthew Problem?

+
+

Like sending Giant Redwoods to the USA: Yes exactly that

On A.N. Wilson and the actual facts

+

Grab the unwelcome facts

+

Monday, 28 August 2017

The Brute Censorship of Hugh Dower

Pseudo Scholarly Fact-denial Darwin Worship and the Rise of the Right

Darwin's Grandfather Erasmus:Like Charles was Also a Repeat Plagiarist

Darwinians are akin to fact denying religious maniacs

A. N. Wilson On Darwin is a case study in Dysology

Because biologists - indeed all scientists - have allowed a cult of Darwinism to dominate the
academic literature with easily proven myths and lies about Patrick Matthew (started by Darwin) they have created a niche for claptrap to flourish. A. N Wilson's book - at least what he reveals about it here (ahead of its release) and in the Times - proves he doesn't even understand what the theory of the process of natural selection actually is. Hence, he conforms the Dysology Hypothesis:

 "Letting scholars get away with publishing fallacies and myths signals to others the existence of topics where guardians of good scholarship might be less capable than elsewhere. Such dysology then serves as an allurement to poor scholars to disseminate existing myths and fallacies and to create and publish their own in these topic areas, which leads to a downward spiral of diminishing veracity on particular topics."

A. N Wilson on Darwin in the Evening Standard: HERE


+

Are they Worshipping Darwin as a God Substitute?

+

Sunday, 27 August 2017

Tuesday, 22 August 2017

The Courier on Matthew and Darwinites

Monday, 21 August 2017

Sunday, 20 August 2017

Saturday, 19 August 2017

Not Killing Kittens: Only debunking myths

++

Thursday, 17 August 2017

Nullius in Burger: Bullshit Kills!

image
Mike SuttonAttribution
Bullshit kills!
Last week in London, I seriously offended my hosts by insisting that the pink beef burger they served my daughter from their BBQ was quite possibly not safe for her or anyone else to eat. The juicy fat and perfectly charred burger was made from the finest ground steak from their local trusted butcher, and so they insisted it was perfectly safe to eat. Safe, because it is safe to eat a rare steak. After a heated discussion (pun intended) they finally referred themselves to independently verifiable facts - found by using Google - and grudgingly, accepted that I was right. But not before ganging up on me for shamefully and ignorantly disparaging the reputation of the highly renowned neighbourhood barbecue "chef" - an Australian of New Zealand birthright who had never to his knowledge poisoned anyone with his wonderful "expert" BBQ cooking to date.

Despite their initial laughing-out-loud and angry fact-denial protests, I was right to tell them that not only are pink burgers unsafe (unless you first sear the outside of the steak before grinding it up), they are particularly unsafe for children and should never be served to them. Why is this a fact? Because the carcass of a slaughtered bull is often covered in its faeces, or that of other bulls (literally bullshit), and so it can get onto the meat. Bullshit contains E. coli, which is a lethal bacteria if ingested by humans.

Pink burgers might be safe if the internal pink bit has reached 160 degrees throughout in the cooking process, but it's very hard for anyone to prove to you that it has. For all you know they made a mistake or they are "bullshitting" in the philosophical sense described by Harry H. Frankfurt   . Where is the verifiable evidence, you need to ask.
In my opinion, when it comes to beef burgers, it is logically, rationally, better to stick with the veraciously potential life-saving guidance of the Hospitality Association    on such things as pink beef.
Click the image below for ease of reading.

Dr Mike Sutton (c)Attribution Share Alike
The Bullshit Burgar Parable
Later in the evening, my hosts turned the discussion to the difficulty I am having in getting the scientific and wider community to understand why it is important that we distinguish between truth and bullshit in the story of the discovery of evolution by natural selection.
People read my book, 'Nullius in Verba: Darwin's greatest secret'    agree with the newly discovered bombshell evidence in it, but just can't be bothered to spend so much as 5 minutes of their precious time to write a review on Amazon to help spread the truth. Why, because apparently "who cares about the truth of such matters?" I was further informed: "The trouble with you is that you care too much about the truth."
image
(c) Andy Sutton (c) Mike Sutton. All Rights ReservedUsed only with express written permission
Second Edition of Nullius in Verba: Darwin's greatest secret
Analogously, understanding the real, as opposed to mythical, process by which all ground-breaking scientific discoveries are made may in the future improve scientific knowledge about how to increase the rate of making new life-saving discoveries in science. If we don’t realise this we don’t realise the lesson of the Bullshit Burger Parable: namely, bullshit literally kills!

I hope my hosts come to realise that the importance of knowing how to distinguish bullshit from truth has lifesaving consequences. I don't think they will be serving their own or anyone else's children pink burgers ever again. I hope not anyway. Where the truth is concerned it is important not to try to win any popularity contests, leave that to the bulshitters, because fear of being uncouth, deemed obnoxious or impolite might cost you your own life or that of a loved one. 

The newly discovered facts in my book are as unwelcome as the socially impolite guest who questions the food hygiene of the dish served them by a beloved and proud host. And so I don't expect any thanks for conveying veracious information about dangerous bullshit in "trusted" burgers from renowned sources, and none have been forthcoming.

Rightfully, you should ask for the evidence that E. coli in undercooked burgers causes serious E. Coli food poisoning. Here is probably enough of it to spoil the day of any pro-pink burger flipper

Do you have time to spread this important message to your fellow humans? Perhaps you don’t care enough about the truth? After all, as my extremely successful hosts told me: “Don’t you realise we are living in a post truth world?” They know that the big money in academia today, and other corporations (not their respective sources of income, by the way) is in selling palatable bullshit instead of unpalatable truth, just so long as it brings in money. And that is exactly what the Darwin deification industry does. It’s very profitable for universities that spread it. It’s very profitable for the publishers who publish it. And it’ very profitable for the authors and scientific associations that peddle it. Is money the “bottom” line (pun intended)?

image
(C) Dr Mike Sutton. ALL RIGHTS RESERVEDUsed only with express written permission
The author's eight year old daughter understands the lifesaving difference between evidence and dangerous wishful thinking. Do you?


Tuesday, 15 August 2017

Darwin Cult Marketeers

Monday, 14 August 2017

Darwin Emoji

Scholarly Journal Cites a Best Thinking Article as Busting the Cohen Coined Moral Panic Myth

My incredibly simple BigData IDD method that has bust so many academic myths in recent years - including "Charles Darwin's Slyly Coined Patrick Matthew Myth   " - is once again cited in a scholarly peer reviewed academic journal article.
In this latest case, my Best Thinking article, which blew the myth that Stan Cohen coined the term and most basic concept of moral panic is here.. It is cited by Mark Horsley of Teesside University. in his article: Forget 'Moral Panics'.- it can be read here    in the Journal of Theoretical and Philosophical Criminology.
Never underestimate the ability to search 35 million publications in seconds. The method - which involves making Google do what Google does not want you to do - is fully explained in my expanded full 600 page Thinker Media e-book Nullius in Verba Darwin's greatest secret.   



Sunday, 13 August 2017

Steve Hall on Knowledge Suppression

Saturday, 12 August 2017

Monday, 7 August 2017

#CharlesDarwinHahaha

+

Poem for a plagiarist

Saturday, 5 August 2017

On A.N. Wilson's Evening Standard Article on Darwin

A Sign For Intellectual Lemmings


Knowledge Contamination

Thursday, 3 August 2017

Royal Society has Long History of Rewarding Sly Plagiarists who Toady to the "Establishment"

+

Vae Victus

Tuesday, 25 July 2017

The Slaying of the Beautiful Myth of an Honourable and Original Thinker

+

Thursday, 20 July 2017

A Paperback Bombshell for the History of the History of Science



image
(c) All Rights Reserved the Vae Victus group. (c) Mike Sutton. (c) Andy SuttonUsed only with express written permission
Nullius in Verba: Darwin's greatest secret. Second edition, Paperback.
Taking advantage of new print-to-order technology, I have published the second edition of Nullius in Verba: Darwin's greatest secret as a paperback only publication. This second edition is a 200 page abridged and updated book. The paperback book, including its cover, is a product of the endeavours of the Vae Victus group, which is a newly formed and independent affiliation of university academics, artists and experienced publishers.
Nullius in Verba: Darwin's greatest secret reveals independently verifiable, newly discovered, evidence that punctures the established paradigm of Charles Darwin's and Alfred Wallace's supposed independent conceptions of Patrick Matthew's (1831) prior published conception of the theory of macroevolution by natural selection.
Until the publication of the 1st edition of Nullius in 2014    by Thinker Media Inc as an e-book, leading scientists believed Darwin's newly proven deliberate and various private letter penned and prominently published lies that apparently no naturalist/no single person/no one whatsoever read Matthew's breakthrough untill after Darwin and Wallace replicated it in print in 1858 and after Darwin did so in more detail in 1859. In reality, as Nullius newly and originally reveals and proves, Matthew's (1831) original breakthrough was cited by a total of at least seven naturalists pre-1858. Four were known to Darwin/Wallace and three played major roles at the epicenter of facilitation and influence of their pre-1858 work on evolution and of that of their influencer's influencers and facilitators.
This second edition (abridged and updated) of Nullius reveals a wealth of detail about the work and associations with Darwin and his influencers of those naturalists who cited Matthew's book pre-1858. By way of just one example of the seven influential naturalists who cited Matthew pre-1858, Robert Chambers (1832, p. 63) is most interesting: Here.   
The column of text is cited as: -Matthew On Naval Timber.
image
Chambers (1832) citing Matthew (1831)
If you click the image above it will be slightly easier to read.

Arguably, there can be no reasonable room for rational doubt that Chambers himself wrote this cobbled together information from Matthew's book, in this earliest Vol. 1 of Chambers' Edinburgh Journal, because Chambers famously did that sort of thing as a matter of routine and cited so many books and other publications, using a dash and italics in this exact same way, just as he did for the -Quarterly Review on the very same page and on the following page (64) for -Elliot's North Europe. etc. Furthermore, as confirmatory evidence, C. H. Layman (1990, p.175) informs us in a biography on Robert Chambers, on the topic of the workload he shared with his brother William, that when it came to Chambers' Edinburgh Journal: 'Robert... offered all possible literary assistance - which at first amounted to writing almost the whole of the journal himself.'

The hard and independently verifiable facts 100 per cent prove that Robert Chambers cited Matthew (1831) in 1832.The independently verifiable hard-print evidence in the publication record 100 per cent proves it. If you doubt that audacious statement is true, then try the following experiment: cover the published text with your hand and remove it 100 times. You will note it never changes. What is published in the publication record is as proven to exist as fossils in the geological fossil record. Explaining them is another matter, of course

In detail, the various possible reasons for why Chambers most likely despised Matthew, and other possible reasons for why he did not cite him anywhere on the topic of his breakthrough conception are discussed in my new paperback abridged edition of Nullius in Verba (Sutton 2017).
Staying on the topic of objective and independently verifiable fact-enlightened rationality, as opposed to mere subjective wishful thinking, we must ask the following most telling question:
Is it a mere coincidence, as part of a snowball, or else unconnected collection, of nothing more than mere multiple coincidences perhaps, that Chambers was fascinated by trees and arboriculture, that within a decade of 1832 he had written his own guide on arboriculture and cited Matthew's (1839) second book, that in the next decade he wrote his own best selling book on evolution - the Vestiges of Creation, that he both met with and corresponded several times with Darwin in the 1840's? Of course coincidences happen, which is exactly why we have a word for the phenomenon, but how many coincidences of this kind in the history of the publication of a bombshell breakthrough in science, and the citation of its published source by other influential scientists, I wonder, are required to sum to a probability that they are not merely coincidental, not unconnected?
Rationally, mere multiple coincidences of this kind seem unlikely when we are dealing with the impact on others of a prior published bombshell breakthrough in science. Clearly, Chambers represents a potential route of Matthewian Knowledge Contamination to Darwin's pre-1858 brain; as do the other naturalists we now newly know (Sutton 2014) actually cited Matthew's (1831) book before 1858; cited the very book that contains his original bombshell breakthrough of the unifying theory of biology.

As if that is not enough, in his 1859 review of Darwin's Origin of Species, Chambers was apparently "first to be second" in published print (at least out of the 35 million books and other publications scanned by Google to date) with Matthew's apparently original term "natural process of selection". That is highly significant, because Darwin was apparently first to re-shuffle those exact same four absolutely essential words to "process of natural selection." Matthew's original term containing the exact same three most crucial words that are in that Darwin-shuffled term are crucial. They are crucial to the theory of macroevolution by natural selection because natural selection occurs as an unthinking "process", and because it is "natural" as opposed to artificial "selection". Arguably, that is most likely why Darwin was compelled to replicate them in his four-word shuffle of Matthew's (1831) original published useage, along with replicating Matthew's superb origination of his natural versus artificial selection analogy of differences to explain the process.
Notably, Loren Eisley discovered that in his private penned essay, Darwin replicated Matthew's precise and highly idiosyncratic forrester explanatory analogy of differences between trees grown in nurseries and trees grown in the wild to explain natural selection. In the following decade, Darwin (1859) opened Chapter 1 of the origin with this same analogy of differences, only by then he never used trees as an example. "Why not?", is the obviously telling question. Moreover, it was Chambers who famously convinced "Darwin's Bulldog", Huxley" to return to the famous Oxford debate with Bishop Wilberforce in order to defend Darwin's "Origin of Species". Clearly, Chambers was in the "thick of things" when it comes to Matthew's bombshell breakthrough and Darwin's replication of it -Sutton Nullius in Verba   .
image
(c) Andy Sutton (c) Mike Sutton. All Rights ReservedUsed only with express written permission
Second Edition of Nullius in Verba: Darwin's greatest secret
The cover of the second edition of Nullius is by Andy Sutton of the Vae Victus group (incidentally, no relative of mine). Andy has taken and masterfully adapted the original artwork of Tissot. On the cover we see Darwin sitting atop Matthew's (1831) On Naval Timber and Arboriculture. The book is both concealed by Darwin and it makes him appear bigger than he really is. From beyond the grave, Tissot gifted Andy the ability to have Darwin hold the title of the book that proves he committed lying, plagiarizing science fraud by glory theft as well as the name of the author who "got him!"
The newly released abridged and updated paperback is available at all Amazon stores, e.g. Amazon.com    and Amazon.co.uk    etc
Following the publication of my book 'Nullius in Verba: Darwin's greatest secret' the history of scientific discovery now has a number of original bombshell new discoveries that rewrite the history of discovery of natural selection:
1. Darwinites can no longer claim - as they did before my book was published - that Patrick Matthew's prior published conception of macroevolution by natural selection was unread by any naturalists before Darwin and Wallace replicated it. Because I originally discovered seven who cited the book that contains it in the pre-1859 literature. And Darwin and Wallace, and their influencers, knew four of them well. Hence it is most significantly newly discovered and 100 per cent proven that routes of potential knowledge contamination from Matthew's (1831) book into the pre-1858 minds of Darwin and Wallace most certainly do exist. The date evidence of this newly discovered publication record now debunks the old Darwinite claim that Darwin's notebooks and private essays prove he independently discovered natural selection.
2. Darwinites can no longer claim that Darwin was an honest scientist. Because it is proven that from 1860 onward, following information provided by Matthew himself. that he lied about the prior readership of Matthew's book and the original ideas in it by other naturalists. Darwin told at least seven other lies in order to convince the scientific community that he independently conceived the idea of natural selection.
3. It can no longer be claimed that Wallace was an honest scientist. Because I originally discovered that he edited one of his letters in his autobiography to conceal his claim that he thought he was owed money and favours by Darwin and his associates for cooperating with the presentation of his replication of the concept of natural selection alongside that of Darwin in 1858.

4. Darwinites can no longer claim that Matthew's conception of natural selection was contained solely in the appendix of his book. I reveal exactly how much is actually contained in the main body of his book and that Darwin lied when he wrote that Matthew's ideas were solely contained in the appendix. Because Matthew referred him to just some of the relevant text from the main body of his book and Darwin wrote to admit the fact to Joseph Hooker, but wrote that it would be "splitting hairs" to admit the truth of the matter!

5. Darwinites should no longer claim that Matthew never understood what he conceived on the grounds that he never shouted about it from the rooftops. Because I show how the first half of the 19th century was governed by laws and conventions that forbade anyone from doing such a thing, and others from discussing it. Moreover, in 1860, in the Gardeners' Chronicle, Matthew told Darwin as much when he explained his book was banned from Perth  public library in Scotland and that an eminent naturalist, from an eminent university, could not teach the heretical orignal ideas in it, or communicate them in other ways, for fear of pillory punishment.


image
Nullius in Verba

+
+