If the Fat Copycats Darwin and Wallace Were Alive Today

 If Darwin and Wallace were both live today they would each have studied the original designs for quantum computing then claimed to have independently originated the exact same thing.

Bollox needs to be deleted: Or else let us all instead all play the game "bury the Scot"

 From a book review on Amazon:  

Peter Bowler Sends Himself and other Darwinists on a Final Fools Errand to Play their Old Game of Bury the Scot

In this book, (Bowler 2013) Darwin Deleted: Imagining a World without Darwin, Professor Bowler - Professor emeritus of the history of science at Queens University Belfast - creates a counterfactual history of how things might have turned out had Darwin died aboard the Beagle and never written about natural selection.

His book is well written and entertaining once you get beyond the necessarily very thorough caveats about the usefulness of thinking counter-factually in the introduction. However, it contains significant and unforgivable errors. That I am no Darwinist and no science historian and yet the fact that I know them to be 100% erroneous does not bode well for Bowler or Chicago University Press and it's so-called "expert" peer review system!

A book such as Bowler's takes a lot of work - blood sweat tears and even bone marrow - but his credulous parroting of the Darwinian myth that Matthew's published discovery of natural selection did not reach the brains of either Darwin or Wallace is his utter downfall. An error of fact that, unfortunately, makes his entire book a fool's errand. All is not lost of course. He could bring out a second edition with Patrick Matthew as the protagonist.

In this review, I prove my point. On which note, what follows is a brief presentation of Bowler's errors and the published evidence in the literature that proves him to be 100 per cent wrong.

Error of fact 1:

On page 54 Bowler (2013) writes of Patrick Matthew:

`Patrick Matthew may well have stated the idea of natural selection as early as 1831, but he did nothing to explore its implications or to persuade his readers that it had the potential to revolutionize biology. His contribution is worth noting, but to suggest that is provides the basis for dismissing Darwin as the true founder of the theory is to misunderstand the whole process of how scientific revolution happens.'

In point of disconfirming fact for Bowler's argument:

Other great discoverers, such as Mendel, Fleming, and Higgs, did not take their ideas forward, but others did. The main issue, therefore, in the story of Matthew, Darwin and Wallace is simply to determine whether or not Matthew influenced Darwin or Wallace. Focusing upon that question, we do know that Matthew fully articulated his discovery of natural selection in a publication 27 years before Darwin and Wallace (1858) replicated it. And we know that both Darwin (1859) and Wallace claimed to have also discovered natural selection independently of one another (Darwin and Wallace 1858). Darwin (1860 and 1861) specifically claimed no-prior knowledge of Matthew's discovery and Wallace (1871; 1905) less specifically, simply claimed to have discovered it independently.

We now know (see Sutton 2014) that Loudon (1832), Selby (1842) and Chambers (1832) each cited Matthew's book before being at the epicentre of influence and facilitation of Darwin's and Wallace' published work on evolution. That fact alone proves that Matthew in fact did influence others of the importance of his discovery. And those others - via 'knowledge contamination' - must most surely have influenced both Darwin and Wallace.

So Nullius in Verba Charles Darwin! Because other naturalists who influenced you actually cited Matthew's book pre-1858!

(1) Loudon edited and published Blyth's (1835 and 1836) hugely influential papers on evolution - papers which Bowler mentions as having stated several key concepts of natural selection. And Darwin (1861) freely admitted the great contribution Blyth made to his own thinking on the topic.

(2) Chambers (1832) cited Matthew's book and then went on (Chambers 1844) to publish the Vestiges of Creation - a book which Both Wallace and Darwin admitted was a great influence on thinking about natural selection and organic evolution in general.

(3) Selby (1842) cited Matthews book many times and commented upon his key natural selection notion of power of occupancy. And Selby edited and published Wallace's (1855) famous Sarawak paper - which contained many examples of key natural selection ideas. Darwin also read that paper pre-1858.

That three of only seven naturalists, newly discovered to have cited Matthew's book in the literature, should have played such essential roles in influencing, editing and publishing the work of Darwin and Wallace proves beyond all reasonable doubt that Matthew did persuade his readers that natural selection had the potential to revolutionize biology. Bowler is proven wrong, because under the very criteria that Darwinists such as Bowler specifically created to exclude Matthew from his rightful place as an immortal great thinker of science, the new discovery of his certain indirect influence upon Darwin and Wallace, means that as both first discoverer and proven influencer Matthew now has full and complete priority over Darwin and Wallace for the discovery of natural selection. Perhaps Darwinists would now like to exercise their right to cognitive dissonance and invent some new `bury the Scot' criteria to protect their namesake from being knocked off the pedestal he fought to so hard for them to put him on?

Error of fact 2

On page 31 Bowler writes that Wallace missed the key element of using artificial selection to explain natural selection.

Bowler (2013, p. 31):

`Alfred Russel Wallace also conceived a basic idea of natural selection, although we shall see that he understood its implications rather differently. Wallace also missed key elements of the case Darwin presented, most obviously the analogy between artificial and natural selection.'

However, Bowler - in writing a book for a popular audience - and, therefore, for all scientists as well as biologists, fails to distinguish between "the biologists' analogy" - which includes only things that are alike - and the general use of the term analogy - which includes comparing things to explain how they are alike, or else comparing them in order to explain why they are unalike.

Adopting as he does, without explanation only the biologists' restricted special use of the term 'analogy', Bowler conveniently fails to mention that Darwin replicated an analogy invented by Matthew in 1831 to explain his discovery of natural selection. Loren Eiseley (1979, pp.71-73) believed Darwin plagiarised Matthew's (1831) prior use of the analogy of artificial selection to explain natural selection and even replicated a specific example of trees raised in nurseries in his unpublished essay of 1844.

By neglecting to distinguish between the "biologists analogy" and the general understanding of the term, Bowler has penned another absolute fallacy by telling us that Wallace did not deploy the artificial selection analogy. Because in his own Linnean Society paper, Wallace (see Darwin and Wallace 1858), whilst specimen hunting in the jungles of the Far East, in actual fact, does incredibly replicate Matthew's prior- discovery that artificial selection is the key to explaining natural selection. Wallace (1858) wrote:

`...those that prolong their existence can only be the most perfect in health and vigour - those who are best able to obtain food regularly, and avoid their numerous enemies. It is, as we commenced by remarking, "a struggle for existence," in which the weakest and least perfectly organized must always succumb.' [And]: `We see, then, that no inferences as to varieties in a state of nature can be deduced from the observation of those occurring among domestic animals. The two are so much opposed to each other in every circumstance of their existence, that what applies to the one is almost sure not to apply to the other. Domestic animals are abnormal, irregular, artificial; they are subject to varieties which never occur and never can occur in a state of nature: their very existence depends altogether on human care; so far are many of them removed from that just proportion of faculties, that true balance of organization, by means of which alone an animal left to its own resources can preserve its existence and continue its race.'

By failing to discover who Matthew influenced, who in turn must have influenced Darwin and Wallace, Bowler's (2013) entire book is a fool's errand because it is based on the false premise that Darwin and Wallace were independent discoverers of natural selection. To compound that dysology Bowler, creates the fallacy that Wallace did not replicate Matthew's prior use of artificial selection as an analogy to explain natural selection. Bowler's deploys that specific fallacy to make the case that Darwin was an original thinker. Clearly, the hard facts prove that nothing could be further from the truth. Because both Darwin and Wallace both audaciously replicated Matthew's use of artificial selection.

Here is just one example, of many, that Matthew (1831) wrote in the main body of his book on this issue:

`Man's interference, by preventing this natural process of selection among plants, independent of the wider range of circumstances to which he introduces them, has increased the differences in varieties particularly in the more domesticated kinds...'

In his unpublished essay of 1844, Darwin wrote:

`In the case of forest trees raised in nurseries, which vary more than the same trees do in their aboriginal forests, the cause would seem to lie in their not having to struggle against other trees and weeds, which in their natural state doubtless would limit the conditions of their existence...'

We should not actually be in the least bit surprised to find Wallace replicating Matthew's artificial selection analogy to explain his discovery, because Selby, the editor and publisher of Wallace's (1855) Sarawak paper, cited Matthew's book many times in his own book on forest trees (Selby 1842), which is an irrefutable case of Matthewian knowledge contamination of Wallace's pre-Origin work. I made that particular discovery in 2013. It was completely undetected by anyone until I published it in (Sutton 2014). So much then for Bowler's uncritical parroting of the Darwinist myth that Matthew never influenced anyone with his discovery.

Error of fact 3: Bowler Deploys Darwin's sly Appendix Myth

Darwin knew full well that Matthew's unique ideas were in both the main body of his book and in its Appendix. Indeed he wrote to his friend Joseph Hooker admitting as much (Darwin 1860b). Yet still Darwin went on to lie (Darwin 1861) that Matthew's ideas were brief and buried in his book's appendix as an excuse for not having read them and for his fallacious claim that those ideas went unnoticed pre-Origin of Species. Bowler merely parrots Darwin's great lie, flying in the face of the fact that Matthew's ideas run throughout the book where they take up many pages - including Matthew's artificial selection analogy, and the unique name for his discovery. Indeed, as outlined above; the very artificial selection analogy that Bowler (2013 - pp. 56-58) admits Matthew used is in the main body of his book - not its appendix.

See Sutton 2014 for hard proof of how page after page of Matthew's (1831) text on natural selection is in the main body of his book.

Another Darwinian Myth in the Making

In the weird unscholarly Darwinist tradition of writing that you are personally naming or calling something, when it has already been thus named by others, Bowler gives the false impression that he is uniquely coining his own term and its concept (see my blog on Richard Dawkins doing the exact same thing). In this case, Bowler (2013, p 139) writes:

'The formalist perspective encouraged a more structured progressionism that I call "developmentalism". 

But Bowler never coined the term developmentalism, because its been used by natural scientists since 1869. For example, see the Anthropological Review (1869, p.ixxxix):

`He dissented from developmentalism, we believe decidedly it has been said by Professor Welcker that although he was sceptical upon the descendance hypothesis he reserved himself expectant but the readers of the well argued exposition of his views entitled. Some Remarks on the Succession and Development of Animal Organisation on the surface of our globe, in the different periods of its existence, would rather conclude that he had decided against developmentalism after careful and thorough investigation.'

By giving such a powerfully false impression that he has coined the term "developmentalism", Bowler engages in exactly the same type of Darwinist dysology that led so many Darwinists to go into print with their erroneous beliefs that Darwin coined the term and concept `natural selection' and that Richard Dawkins coined the terms and concepts of the `selfish gene' and, most ironically, `replicator'. Of course, Darwin and Dawkins did no such thing. But, just like Bowler in 'Darwin Deleted', they sure as hell gave the self-serving impression that they are being original by naming terms and ideas that are, in fact, pre-named and pre-owned.

Discussion and conclusions

Bowler's weird error of fact, in claiming that Wallace, pre-1858, did not use the artificial selection analogy first used by Matthew to explain natural selection, led him ultimately to draw the 100 per cent wrong conclusion to crucially inform his ultimate prediction about what would have happened had Darwin drowned pre-Origin (Bowler 2013, p170):

`Wallace would not have used the analogy between natural and artificial selection...'

Surely this amazingly massive error, and the failure of any Darwinist to spot it before I, is further evidence that leading Darwinists are suffering from dreadful bias when it comes to assessing the originality of their namesake?

That Bowler's book passed peer review, and has been highly praised by fellow biologists and science historians, is indicative of a widespread and very deep-seated scientific monopoly on 'knowledge' that is facilitated by conflict of interest when it comes to judging who has priority for the discovery of natural selection. Failing to apply the scientific principle of nullius in verba (on the word alone of no one), it seems that Darwinists have been unable to see that their namesake is only their namesake due to their own failure to investigate Darwin's (1861) impudent claim that Matthew's ideas went unnoticed until he called Darwin's attention to them in 1860.

If Darwinists refuse to accept now that they are named after the wrong scientist, then we should not be surprised. It is important to understand that those calling themselves a Darwinist will have a colossal conflict of interest when it comes to judging whether someone not called Darwin should have priority over their hero for the very idea that made him famously their namesake. In light of the new discovery, that Matthew did influence Darwin and Wallace pre-1858, we should expect Darwinists to experience cognitive dissonance and set about making a number of implausible arguments along the lines that Matthewian knowledge contamination from Loudon, Chambers and Selby cannot be 100 per cent proven to have occurred. Failing that, we should expect them to create a new made-for Matthew excuse to deny his priority. Perhaps Darwinists will now newly create a third criteria for priority? Perhaps they will argue next that it is not the originator who influenced others to take a discovery forward that has priority for a discovery but whoever more famously convinced the wider world of the veracity of that discovery? After all that is exactly what appears to have happened by default in the case of Richard Dawkins and the 'selfish gene' and - with exquisite backside biting irony - the 'selfish replicator' (see Sutton 2013).

The Darwinist Bowler is very far from alone in creating his own and spreading old fallacies, lies and myths to keep Patrick Matthew buried in relative obscurity. One cannot help wondering, how Professor Bowler - an expert historian of science - could have unwittingly made so many glaring factual errors? More so, his book is published by the prestigious University of Chicago Press, which means that it will have undergone expert peer review. How could the reviewers possibly fail to spot those obvious errors of fact? Surely it cannot be because they serve to perpetuate the myth that Darwin and Wallace each discovered natural selection independently of Matthew, can it?

Bowler's 2013 dysology sits among many other examples, by other authors, publishing with prestigious scientific publishers, which confirms the Dysology Hypothesis that poor scholarship facilitates and encourages others to get away with publishing further poor scholarship. Moreover, it is yet another example from a long list of scientific publications, by major science publishers, which are written by Darwinists who have, since 1860, managed to contain the threat of Patrick Matthew by publishing numerous downright fallacies, lies and myths.

References

The Anthropological Review (1869) Volume 7.

Bowler, P. J. (2013) Darwin Deleted: Imagining a World without Darwin. Chicago. University of Chicago Press.

Blyth, E. 1835. An attempt to classify the "varieties" of animals. The Magazine of Natural History. (8) (1), Parts 1-2.

Blyth, E. 1836. Observations on the various seasonal and other external Changes which regularly take place in Birds more particularly in those which occur in Britain; with Remarks on their great Importance in indicating the true Affinities of Species; and upon the Natural System of Arrangement. The Magazine of Natural History: Volume 9. p. 393 - 409.

Chambers, R. 1832. Chambers's Edinburgh Journal. William Orr. Saturday March 24th p. 63.

Chambers, R. 1844. Vestiges of the Natural History of Creation. New York. Wiley and Putnum. (published anonymously).

Darwin, C. R. and Wallace, A. R. (1858) On the tendency of species to form varieties; and on the perpetuation of varieties and species by natural means of selection. Journal of the Proceedings of the Linnaean Society of London.

Darwin, C. R. (1860a) Natural selection. Gardeners' Chronicle and Agricultural Gazette no. 16 (21 April): 362-363.(This is Darwin's letter in response to Matthew's in the Gardeners Chronicle where Darwin clearly indicates he had no prior knowledge of Matthew's book).

Darwin, C. (1860b) Letter to Hooker. 13th April. Darwin Correspondence Project. Darwin Correspondence Database.

Darwin, C. R. (1861) On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection. Or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life. (Third Edition) London. John Murray.

Eiseley, L. (1979) Darwin and the Mysterious Mr X: New Light on the Evolutionists. New York. E. P. Dutton.

Loudon, J.C. 1832. Matthew Patrick On Naval Timber and Arboriculture with Critical Notes on Authors who have recently treated the Subject of Planting. Gardener's Magazine. Vol. VIII. p.703.

Matthew, P (1831) On Naval Timber and Arboriculture; With a critical note on authors who have recently treated the subject of planting. Edinburgh. Adam Black. [...]

Selby, P. J. (1842) A history of British forest-trees: indigenous and introduced. London. Van Voorst.

Sutton, M. (2013)The Selfish Gene Myth is Bust: Richard Dawkins is an Invented Originator. BestThinking.com

Sutton, M. (2014) Internet Dating with Darwin: New Discovery that Darwin and Wallace were Influenced by Matthew's Prior-Discovery. BestThinking.com

Wallace, A. R. 1855. On the law which has regulated the introduction of new species. The Annals and Magazine of Natural History. Series 2. 16. 184-196

Wallace, A. R. (1871) Contributions to the Theory of Natural Selection. A Series of Essays. New York. Macmillan and Co.

Wallace, A. R. (1905) My Life: A Record of Events and Opinions, Volume 1. Cambridge. Cambridge University Press. Note: Taken here from digitally printed version (2011), Cambridge University Press.

Dr Mike Sutton is author of Nullius in Verba: Darwin's greatest secret and more recently Science Fraud: Darwin's Plgiarism of Patrick Matthew's Theory

If it never happened it's not history

 The Fact-Led Story of Patrick Matthew, Darwin and Wallace is of Interest to People who Think Knowing and Telling the Truth Matters

In the fields of science and history we should trust those who seek the truth and be sceptical of those who say they have found it. However, being sceptical does not mean blindly dismissing the empirical fact findings and consequent conclusions of others based on those facts.

There is a story behind everything. You just have to dig deep enough to find the facts, follow the facts, weigh those facts without fear or favour and then share them for the benefit of veracious human knowledge. The problem we currently have in the history of science is that Charles Darwin venerating fanatics do not want the empirical fact led truth. Instead they want only their own comfy old, yet new found empirically evidenced fact debunked, "truth" and the multitude of publications in the so called "Darwin Industry" helps them find it and re-write it simply in order to create more Darwin fans to sell more publications for the benefit only of the so-called Darwin Industry. The myth that has been bust with new found hard data is the "Original Genius Honest Independent Discoverer of a Prior Published Theory" Victorian science myth of Charles Darwin.

At the time of writing, an ideologically political campaign is being waged to suppress the new empirical data on Darwin's plagiarism and his associated lies to hide it. The Dr Mike Sutton, Patrick Matthew and Charles Darwin pages of Wikipedia are prime examples of what is being done by way of brute censorship and pseudo-scholarly publishing of complete falsehoods to hide the independently verifiable facts from the wider public. Such behaviour is noted in the expert peer reviewed 2024 Springer Science book chapter "The Patrick Matthew Effect in Science." The Wikipedia page on Patrick Matthew fails to mention that publication, fails to record the 30 people who we newly know cited Matthew's 1831 book pre-1858 and fails to cite Dr Mike Sutton's (2022) book "Science Fraud: Darwin's Plagiarism of Patrick Matthew's Theory", which shows exactly who cited Matthew's (1831) book, and which of them were known to Darwin as his friends and associates. That Wikipedia pages also fail to cite the multitude of examples of national newspaper coverage of Sutton's (2022) book and the bombshell findings in it (See the News page on PatrickMatthew.com to see those reports).

The fact-led story of Patrick Matthew, Charles Darwin and Alfred Wallace is not about ideologically or politically dishonouring Darwin and Wallace, as Darwin fans would have you believe, it is about seeking the empirically evidenced truth about those we venerate in order that our history is correct rather than being based on debunked embarrassing myths. It did not happen that "no single person and none known to Darwin or Wallace" read Patrick Matthew's (1831) prior published complete theory of evolution by natural selection, as we have been led to believe following lies written by Darwin, who had been directly prior informed in published print by Matthew that Matthew's book was read and the bombshell theory in it reviewed in published print by at least one highly influential horticultural naturalist and Magaizine of Natural History science journal Chief Editor. That was John Loudon, who very well known to Darwin, Wallace, their influencers, and influencer's influencers long before 1858. 

If something did not happen then it is not history. The fact it has been newly discovered Matthew's book was read then cited in the literature by more than 30 people is history, because those citations exists as recorded as such in the historic publication print record, analogously like fossils embedded in the geological strata. The new found empirical data means it did not happen that Matthew's theory went unread by anyone known to Darwin or Wallace pre-1858. Currently, this new fact is being brute censored on Wikipedia, in the Darwin Industry literature and in the unhinged fact denial arguments of Darwin fanatics. 

They say societies that denigrate their heroes face insanity. Alternatively, is it not true that insanity involves believing in something irrational, arguing in its favour despite the empirical evidence it is not real and acting on that blind sight belief?

Why Darwin and Wallace stole Matthew's theory and lied to cover it up is a question that rational scholars will no doubt choose to debate in the future. But currently there is only some circumstantial evidence to allow the formulation of sensible speculation on that question. The book, "Science Fraud: Darwin's Plagiarism of Patrick Matthew's Theory" deals only in independently verifiable empirical data.

League of Nerds Takes Down its Podcast interview with Dr Mike Sutton

 Recently the League of Nerds made its interview with Dr Mike Sutton private. It can no longer be accessed on YouTube? Why? I don't know. (marked private)

The full transcript of the interview is below and was published as a book chapter recently in a Springer science book (with permission of Myles Power the interviewer). Book chapter (here) Archived link (here) 

Transcript of the League of Nerds interview by Miles Power talking to Dr Mike Sutton

POWER The talk youʼve just given was about Charles Darwin and how you donʼt believe he was the first to come up with the idea of natural selection. What evidence do you have that he might not have been the first?

SUTTON There is a lot of evidence and published explanations are available in the orthodox history of science that Matthew fully articulated the complete theory of evolution by natural selection. Probably the most powerful of those explanations is from Richard Dawkins (2010) in Bill Brysonʼs edited collection Seeing Further, where Dawkins fully admits the only person who could be attributed with having the full theory of natural selection, prior to Darwin, is Matthew.

POWER Who was Matthew?

SUTTON Patrick Matthew in 1831 wrote a book called On Naval Timber and Arboriculture, which many of the few historians of science writing on the specific topic fully admit articulated the entire theory of natural selection, 28 years before Darwin wrote Origin of Species.

POWER And did it definitely have the theory for natural selection in it?

SUTTON Well, both Darwin and Wallace when confronted by Matthew in 1860 admitted it had the full and entire theory of natural selection. Subsequent to that, many experts have said he is the only person with the full precursory explanation for natural selection.

POWER In the talk you just gave, you kind of said Darwin knew about it.

SUTTON Well, the current explanation for how Darwin and Wallace came up with natural selection independently of Matthew and independently of each other is that they were all unique originators of the theory of natural selection. In other words all three were supposed to have come up with it independently of each other. The reason Darwin is on the back of the £10 note and it is his statue in the Museum of Natural History in London is because he came up with so many confirmatory examples. And the story is that Matthew in particular never influenced anyone with his ideas. Darwin wrote in his defence after being challenged by Matthew [1860a , 1860b] in the Gardenerʼs Chronicle: “Neither I nor any naturalist known to me read Matthewʼs book.”

POWER You in your talk said thatʼs not the case. You even cited people who cited Matthewʼs book. Is that correct?

SUTTON What Matthew couldnʼt do that we can do now in 2014 using Googleʼs Library Project is to look prior to 1858, when Darwin and Wallace (1858) both had their papers presented before the Linnaean Society, and a year before the publication of Darwinʼs Origin of Species, to see whether anyone cited Matthewʼs book in the literature. Whilst the current story is that nobody did, in fact we find now that it was cited by 25 people [Note: in Sutton [2022] this has now been updated to 30]. This is new information. Seven naturalists cited it. Did Darwin and Wallace know any of them? Yes! They knew three.

POWER They cited the book, but did they cite anything in it that had anything to do with natural selection?

SUTTON John Loudon [1832] wrote a review of Matthewʼs book that literally said Matthew had something “original to say on the origin of species.” That is not a new discovery by me. That is in a small amount of the literature written by others. But what people donʼt know is that Loudon went on to both edit and publish [Edward] Blythʼs papers that were influential for Darwinʼs work on natural selection, some of which Darwin admitted influenced him.

POWER Darwin had published his Origin of Species in 1859, right? So that is well before.

SUTTON Darwin published 29 years later than Matthew. That was 28 years after Loudonʼs review. So we must ask next, who else cited Matthewʼs book who was known to Darwin and Wallace? Robert Chambers [1832] cited Matthewʼs book. Unlike Loudon, Chambers did not write about Matthewʼs book containing the theory of natural selection. He only cited what Matthew wrote about the pruning of trees. But Chambers [1844], who was a geologist, went on to publish The Vestiges of Creation, which is hailed by experts [e.g., see Secord 2000) as a major precursor to Darwinʼs Origin of Species, the most important book on evolution pre-Darwin. The book that is said to have “put evolution in the air.” Chambers also cited Matthewʼs [1839] second book Emigration Fields. So we know Chambers was reading Matthew. Chambers knew Darwin. They met and corresponded long before 1858. And Wallace [1845] wrote that Chambers was his greatest influencer on the topic of the evolution of species.

A third person is Prideaux John Selby [1842] who cited Matthew many times in his book and he did write about Matthewʼs theory, about how he did not understand what Matthew wrote about trees being circumstance suited. Selby edited Wallaceʼs [1855] Sarawak paper on the evolution of varieties and species which was a major influence on Darwin. So out of only seven naturalists newly discovered to have read Matthewʼs book before 1858, three of them played major roles at the epicentre of influence on Darwin and Wallace. The question I ask is this: If contrary to where the newly unearthed data points, if somehow Matthew never influenced Darwin, are those citations of Matthew by Darwinʼs and Wallaceʼs influencers and facilitators, and their influencerʼs influencers just an amazing tri-coincidence, even though such a multiple coincidence appears improbable as simple coincidence? Improbable beyond rational belief and reason?

POWER But anyway, you said in your talk that people like Richard Dawkins have dismissed Matthew by asking why he didnʼt sing his theory from the rooftops if he thought he came up with an interesting theory. So what is your take on that?

SUTTON First of all, to my knowledge Dawkins is not currently aware of the new data on who we now newly know did cite Matthew pre-1858. What Dawkins has written about is the fact some experts know and have fully admitted Matthew fully articulated the theory of evolution by natural selection before Darwin or Wallace. Dawkins is not writing about anything I have discovered. Dawkins admits Matthew got the full thing, but he says that does not matter because Matthew did not influence anyone. Dawkins says “Nobody read it.” We now know thatʼs not true. Dawkins asks: “Why didnʼt Matthew, if he knew what he had, trumpet it from the rooftops?” But there are books written about why Darwin delayed publishing the theory for over 20 years because he was supposedly afraid of being labelled a heretic and of being prosecuted for heresy. So, you canʼt have it one way and not the other. In 1831 there were riots. Matthew was a head of the Chartists. He provided a scientific explanation for why people were being kept out of their natural place by politics and the social class system. He was lucky his book wasnʼt burned.

Now, if we write Matthew out of the story, we donʼt really understand how natural selection was discovered. We need to know how Matthewʼs story fits the discovery of natural selection.

POWER For me, personally, theories stand up on their own. It doesnʼt matter who creates them. It doesnʼt matter about the history behind them. From a scientist's point of view, history is interesting, but itʼs always wibbly-wobbly. It is not set in stone. People see things through rose-tinted glasses. History, I guess, is written by the winners, isnʼt it? [Laughs].

SUTTON Well, then we are talking about PR and game playing rather than understanding how the most groundbreaking discovery of all time was really made. If we are not really interested in how Mathew discovered it….

POWER I wouldnʼt say we are not interested. I mean it is really interesting…

SUTTON Does it matter?

POWER Yes it does. Someone in the talk used the old analogy that you are just asking how many angels can dance on a pin. He was basically asking “Does it matter?” And I was thinking “Yes of course it matters. We have to have an accurate history.” That is why we have historians.

SUTTON If we can collect enough valid data about how all breakthroughs are made it might help us to make new ones. We can only do that with veracious data. We donʼt want wrong data.

So what we get to at the end of the day is the question “Was Darwin influenced by Matthew?” I think Iʼve shown by way of the people we know influenced Darwin, who we now newly know read Matthew, that it is more likely than not that he was. Knowledge contamination seems to me, subjectively, to be more likely than not. We now need to look at Matthew in more depth in order to understand how he arrived at this discovery.

The other argument is justice. Letʼs put aside the legacy that descendant relatives of Matthew would have, if you just look at injustice. If we let people get away with science fraud by plagiary, if they think they can get away with it for over 154 years and no-one will care, because it doesnʼt really matter, then their own legacy is secured. Is that not giving people a license to commit such science fraud so long as they can get away with it? As a criminologist, I think justice is important. Justice to Matthew.

We must simply take a look at the facts, it doesnʼt matter that I am not a biologist. Since the great enlightenment, facts must stand on their own. The veracity of them is not determined by who discovered them.

We now know for an empirical evidence-based fact it is not true that no naturalist read Matthewʼs book before Darwin and Wallace replicated the big idea in it. These are newly discovered facts. Darwin and Wallace said that no-one who they knew who was a naturalist read Matthew [1831 ] before 1858, we now know that is simply not true.

Not so much a "missing link" as a new one?

 

Not so much a "missing link" as a new one?

Might a perversion or paraphilia yet overturn the notion of species?

There is an interesting "link" (no pun intended) between the work I have published on Charles Darwin's plagiarism of theory of evolution by natural selection and the book I edited on perversions and paraphilias.

Although I have published books ( Curtis Press ), a book chapter and several peer reviewed academic articles on Darwin's science fraud by plagiarism, I am not qualified enough to know how good a theory natural selection is for explaining the origin of new species. I am, of course, aware of the argument that it takes so long to branch from a common ancestor that absence of evidence of it actually happening is not evidence of absence it happened and happens. But what of two species that were said to have branched from a common ancestor and (so being separate species) cannot mate with one another? You know like chimpanzees and humans.

Professor Mark Griffiths informed me of the recent claim that the first progeny of a fox and dog has been discovered: Shelter Rescues Injured Animal—Turns Out To Be World's First Dog-Fox Hybrid - See https://theconversation.com/the-first-dog-fox-hybrid-points-to-the-growing-risk-to-wild-animals-of-domestic-species-213616

As Editor of Professor Griffith's forthcoming book (1st Nov 2024) on Perversions and Paraphilias it made me think of this story in the news: (Perversions and Parahilias link here https://curtis-press.com/product/sexual-perversions-and-paraphilias-an-a-to-z/

Might humans then one day also possibly produce progeny with a chimpanzee?  From a perverted "love" relationship (see the news story)

What would the Darwin worshiping empirical fact denial zombie horde have to say about that one I wonder. Of course, the claimed fox-dog "discovery" might yet be debunked. And we do know that the fox in question was a pampas fox. Can a pampas fox breed with a red fox and the progeny from that breed with a dog? I don't know. Does anyone? Time will tell. Facts always burrow to the top in the end.

Google A.I. is not fact denying the empirical data like corrupt Wikipedia is

 As human biased members of the fanatical Darwin Industry on the Wikipedia cult-encyclopedia site continue to brute censor the verifiable empirical data on  Darwin's and Wallace's plagiarism of Patrick Matthew's theory it is interesting that Google's A.I. is now allowing people to see links to the evidence.

Just Google "did Darwin plagiarise Patrick Matthew's theory" to verify this.

You cannot keep empirical data buried forever

 This is a lecture on Charles's Darwin's science fraud by plagiary.

The Patrick Matthew stuff is HERE in the video

Why Darwinist's are unscientific when it comes to the story of Matthew v Darwin and Wallace

 In 1620 Francis Bacon wrote a great treatise on academic confirmation bias, cognitive dissonance, associated irrational reasoning and cherry-picking pseudo-scholarship:

‘The human understanding when it has once adopted an opinion (either as being the received opinion or as being agreeable to itself) draws all things else to support and agree with it. And though there be a greater number and weight of instances to be found on the other side, yet these it either neglects and despises, or else by some distinction sets aside and rejects, in order that by this great and pernicious predetermination the authority of its former conclusions may remain inviolate.’

1. In order to test potential truths, or hypotheses, Bacon devised a method whereby scientists set up experiments to manipulate nature and attempt to prove their hypotheses wrong. 

2. Bacon who was an English philosopher, used inductive reasoning in an attempt to improve the mistakes made by Aristotle, and is known to promote (scientific) method. In other words, Bacon believed that scientists should use inductive (not deductive) reasoning.

3. This new way of thinking was to stop the old way of simply coming up with a hypothesis or knowledge claim, simply out of your own head, or one based simply on what others in positions of authority said.

This is the approach taken in all my research on whether or not Darwin/ Wallace were influenced by Patrick Matthew's prior published theory of evolution by natural selection.

On the basis of empirical data observation we can now use inductive (scientific) reasoning to absolutely disprove the knowledge claims made by Charles Darwin and Alfred Wallace that what they were forced to admit (forced by Matthew laying claim to his theory in the press in 1860) Patrick Matthew had in 1831 published the full and complete theory of evolution by natural selection that Darwin and Wallace claimed as their own independent conceptions. 

To date the scientific community has simply accepted the deductive story told by Darwin out of his own head that Matthew's theory went unread until Matthew laid claim to it. Darwin made this story up in order to deny that Matthew could in any way have possibly influenced either he or Wallace in their replication of Matthew's prior published work.

In fact, not only has it now been discovered by my original inductive research that at least 30 people (including influencers and facilitators of Darwin and Wallace had read and cited Matthew's theory (see Sutton 2022), we also know Darwin knowingly lied when he wrote this excuse. 

The discovery of Darwin's lies and the 30 who we know read Matthew's book, and who they were, and the roles they played influencing Darwin and Wallace and their own influencers and their influencer's influencers is empirical evidence. Unlike Darwin's explanation for his replication it is not simply made up out of my own head. Unlike the Darwinists writing to support the lucrative Darwin Industry, I have actually tested Darwin's claim to see if it could be proven wrong. That is the scientific method. The scientific method proves Darwin's claim wrong. The scientific method proves knowledge contamination was possible. I argue on the basis of further detailed evidence of what Darwin replicated that knowledge contamination and deliberate plagiary is proven beyond all reasonable doubt, and is certainly proven on the basis of reasonable probability (Sutton 2015).

Chartles Darwin told 100% proven lies about Patrick Matthew

 Click the lying Darwin card below

"Liar liar pants on fire, see you squirm see you perspire...." Listen to the whole song on YouTube: https://youtu.be/FIh-g_kVvWo?t=6

Another song to be played on the Patrick Matthew Violin: Darwin is 100% proven liar