Postscript 29 September 2014. If you found this blog post of interest, then you may wsh to know that details about my book on this topic - which provides a wealth of more detailed information can be found here
Blog post begins:
In 1831 the Scottish laird, botanist, orchardist, farmer, grain dealer and Chartist, named Patrick Matthew. published his discovery of the ‘natural process of selection’ in his book entitled ‘On Naval Timber and Arboriculture’.
Amazingly, 27 years later, in 1858, Charles Darwin and Alfred Russel Wallace each claimed to have independently discovered the exact same process. Both Darwin and Wallace claimed that they had no prior knowledge of Matthew’s book, prior to the presentation of their two papers to the Linnean Society in 1858, and pre-Origin of Species 1859. To this day Darwinists and other scientists have simply taken their word for it that they were not lying plagiarizers and science swindlers.
In the third edition of the Origin of Species Darwin (1861) wrote:
‘In 1831 Mr. Patrick Matthew published his work on 'Naval Timber and Arboriculture,' in which he gives precisely the same view on the origin of species as that (presently to be alluded to) propounded by Mr. Wallace and myself in the 'Linnean Journal,' and as that enlarged on in the present volume. Unfortunately the view was given by Mr. Matthew very briefly in scattered passages in an Appendix to a work on a different subject, so that it remained unnoticed until Mr. Matthew himself drew attention to it in the 'Gardener's Chronicle,' on April 7th, 1860.’
Nullius in Verba
The seventeenth century Latin motto of the Royal Society, nullius in verba, means ‘on the word of no one’, which informs us that when it comes to claims of fact that scientists should not credulously take somebody’s word for it that something is true.
Contrary to the pervasive Darwinist myth that nobody read it, with hi-tech research methods, I have discovered the hidden books in the library that prove Matthew's 1831 book was read and cited by at least seven naturalists before Darwin and Wallace each replicated the unique ideas within it. Three of those naturalists were in Darwin’s inner circle and one, Prideaux John Selby (1842) - in the very year Darwin wrote his first unpublished essay on natural selection - cited Matthew's book many times in his own book on trees and therein commented on his failure to understand Matthew's unique 'survival of the most circumstance suited' notion of 'power of occupancy' of certain trees.
Selby later edited and published Wallace’s (1855) first paper on organic evolution, which is known today as the famous 'Sarawak Paper'. That paper laid down Wallace's marker in the field of the discovery of natural selection. Moreover, thirteen years before that same famous paper was published, William Jardine, who co-edited Wallace's Sarawak paper with Selby, also had Matthew's book in his hands. And he held onto it for some time, because it was Jardine who purchased it in Scotland for Selby (see: Jackson, 1992).
And so the mythical pristine field of Wallace's claimed independent discovery of natural selection is proven to have been completely and utterly contaminated with prior knowledge by those who both edited and then published his pre-Origin work. If Selby and Jardine had not informed Wallace of Matthew's unique ideas, then this case would surely be the first scientifically discovered event of paranormal activity, because those ideas were replicated for the very first time in Wallace's Sarawak paper.
To explain the importance of the 'Selby Citation Discovery', if Wallace's editors and publishers never told him about Matthew's ideas, if Wallace never perpetrated a deliberate fraud by having full prior-knowledge of those ideas, and if he had no psychic ability to to read the minds of Selby and Jardine, there is only one alternative explanation. Selby and/or Jardine must have written Matthew's unique ideas into Wallace's paper. But even if that had been the case, it is unlikely that it would have been done without Wallace's knowledge and approval. If it was done without Wallace's approval then he really was a schnook and not a crook. But even that conclusion completely refutes the current Darwinian myth that Matthew's discovery played no part in influencing the work of Wallace or Darwin before 1858.
Although the precise details of whatever actually happened may never be known, this unique and brand new discovery is one of many newsworthy bombshells now blasting to smithereens current mythical Darwinist accounts of the origin of Darwin's (1859) Origin of Species.
To add to the seriousness of the impact on the history of science of this discovery, Selby's prior reading and citation of Matthew's book contaminates also Darwin's claim to pristine independent discovery of the unique ideas within it.
Darwin's father was a guest at Selby's country house, as were many important naturalists in Charles Darwin's inner circle, and Charles Darwin sat on several important scientific committees with Selby. Equally incriminatingly, Selby - who was right at the center of the scientific community in the mid-nineteenth century - was a prolific correspondent and friend of Darwin's great friend and corespondent Leonard Jenyns (see: Jackson 1992, p. 124).
And so here we must now see further than the end of Darwin's fallacious pen to the fact that his 154 year old and lame excuse that no one read Matthew's book and it's ideas is exterminated by the hard dis-confirming evidence that Selby did both. Such concrete facts always trump unevidenced rhetoric. 'Selby's Citations' absolutely prove that other naturalists - indeed important and highly influential naturalists, who were closely linked to both Darwin and Wallace - did read Matthew's ideas and it alone debunks the Patrick Matthew Supermyth, which is so beloved by academically besotted Darwinists, such as the famous Richard Dawkins (2010) and also the Head of the Skeptics Society, Michael Shermer (2002), because it has enabled them to dispose fallaciously of the Matthew Problem in the exact way Darwin intended.
Dawkins and Shermer, like every other Darwinist who has written on the "Matthew Problem", failed to apply the scientific principle of nullius in verba to the unevidenced excuses made by their namesake.
'Nullius in Verba: The High-Tech Detection of Charles Darwin's and Alfred Wallace's Great Science Fraud (forthcoming Sutton 2104) uniquely reveals that many more authors read and cited Matthew’s book. The names of those newly discovered naturalists, besides Selby, who actually cited Matthew's book in the literature, are revealed exclusively in this forthcoming book. In the case of one naturalist in particular I have a tremendous surprise in store - so much so the Bank of England might want to retract its £10 notes. Perhaps the Bank of Scotland will put Patrick Matthew on the back of its own currency?
Were Darwin and Wallace Schnooks or Crooks?
Ignoring for now my unique new discovery of other naturalists who Darwin knew well, who read Matthew’s book and then cited it in the literature, it is already known - but studiously ignored by Darwinists - that the botanist-naturalist, agriculturalist, and most famous Victorian garden designer John Loudon, reviewed Matthew's book and pointedly mentioned the originality of his hypothesis ' the natural process of selection' as being on the very subject that he referred to as the origin of species, He wrote (Loudon 1832): 'One of the subjects discussed in this appendix is the puzzling one, of the origin of species and varieties...'
When Matthew was just fifteen years of age, Loudon drew the plans for landscaping what are now the parklands of Scone Palace, which neighbored Matthew's birthplace of Rome Farm. It seems likely they would have met. Moreover, Loudon was a friend of William Hooker - the Director of the Royal Botanical Garden's at Kew. Hooker's own book was reviewed in the same edition of the journal that reviewed Matthew's, and his friend John Lindley's was reviewed directly above the review of Matthew;s book. The economic botanist Lindley then went on to write two articles on naval timber. Most importantly in this story, William Hooker was also the father of Darwin’s best friend and botanical mentor Joseph Hooker. And William Hooker was also a friend of Darwin.
Loudon, the most influential of all Victorian Gardeners, wrote more than six million words in his lifetime, including proposals for the establishment of Kew Gardens for the ultimate benefit his friend William Hooker.
Oddly, no one appears to have made anything of these connections before now. Presumably because 'expert' Darwinists would have us believe that Loudon probably never discussed Matthew' s unique ideas with his great friend William Hooker and that William Hooker probably never discussed them with his botanist son - or if he did that Joseph must have kept them secret from his best friend Darwin. And we are further supposed to believe that neither Hooker nor Lindley read the review of Matthew's book, even though they were economic botanists and, incidentally - contrary to Darwinist myth-making about Matthew's book being on an obscure and irrelevant topic - naval timber and arboriculture were key topics in their field in 1832, and even though Lindley and Loudon were fascinated by the problem of species. For example, according to Millhauser (1959, p.72):
‘Four academic botanists – E.M. Fries, James E. Smith, J.C Loudon, and John Lindley – subscribed about 1828, to the opinion that certain plant species might, under environmental stimulus, metamorphose into one another.’.
Darwinists, it seems, must further expect us to believe also that William never discussed Matthew's hypothesis directly with Darwin either, not even when Darwin visited his house at Kew; even though they all discussed and later corresponded at length on the subject of crab apple trees - a major topic of Matthew's 1831 book. Furthermore, there is also the inconvenient fact that Wallace weirdly enters this social scene via Matthew's 1831 book ten years prior to 1858. This time as a friend, correspondent and supplier of specimens to William Hooker, who kindly wrote him letters of introduction and reference. Of course coincidences happen, except in green ink conspiracy theories. But are these close social and professional connections between Matthew, Darwin and Wallace merely coincidental? How could we objectively tell? When does a multitude of such possible coincidence become simply too much to be probable coincidence?
Darwin was a prolific liar
My forthcoming book reveals five newly discovered lies that Darwin told in order to achieve primacy over Matthew, The sixth lie is known but its existence is yet another uncomfortable fact that is studiously ignored by Darwinists. This sixth lie is Darwin's (1860) claim that no one was aware of Matthew's unique ideas pre-Origin. That is an outright lie because Matthew (1860) informed Darwin in the press that his book had been reviewed in several journals including the review by Loudon (1832). On top of which, in his reply to Darwin's (1860) letter of initial capitulation and apology, Matthew (1860b) further informed Darwin that a natural scientist, who was a university professor, was well aware of the unique ideas in the book but feared to teach Matthew's heresy. And yet Darwin (1861) deliberately and brazenly lied in the third edition of the Origin by claiming that Matthew's ideas had gone unnoticed.
My forthcoming book
Nullius in Verba, which is currently under review byThinkerBooks, presents an absolute multitude of similar, and in some cases even more serious, highly incriminating close social connections between Darwin, Wallace and those naturalists I uniquely discovered to have actually cited Matthew's 1831 book in the published literature.
The scientist Carl Sagan is claimed to have said that remarkable claims require remarkable evidence.
There is zero remarkableevidence to support Darwin's and Wallace's remarkable claims to have each independently of Matthew, and independently of one another, discovered the natural process of selection 28 years after Matthew (1831) prominently published it with major Edinburgh and London publishers - when naturalists whom they both knew very well had both read and then cited Matthew's prior discovery in the literature. However, the new remarkable evidence of whom Darwin and Wallace knew who read and actually cited Matthew's book, Darwin's self-serving fallacy spreading, lies, and Darwin's and Wallace's unique plagiarism of Matthew's unique terms, ideas, examples and explanatory concepts does remarkably prove beyond all reasonable doubt that both Darwin and Wallace committed the greatest science fraud ever detected when theyremarkably claimed to have had no prior knowledge of Matthew's 1831 book.
By way of just one further preview example, among many similar instances of incriminating evidence weirdly ignored by Darwinists, is that the very first thing Darwin wrote on organic evolution in his private notebook of 1837 was on the subject of Matthew's area of expertise. Namely apple trees. Moreover, Darwin's own notebooks also record, in his own hand, that he owned at least five books that cite Matthews 1831 book.
Without Matthew, neither Darwin nor Wallace would have written a word worth reading on the subject of organic evolution. Without Matthew the discovery of natural selection might not have been made until the second quarter of the 20th century, perhaps later. Without Matthew there would not today be a theory called natural selection. We would probably refer to it by the pre-Matthew title of 'The Development Theory', and would understand it from an entirely different explanatory perspective.
The time for celebrating Darwin and Wallace is now at an end.
A Trumpet from the Rooftops
Alfred Wallace (1871), Richard Dawkins (2010), and other Darwinists have successfully promoted the ludicrously unethical idea that scientific priority is dependent upon distasteful self-promotion by incompetent - or else fraudulent - replicators, rather than prior publication by first discoverers. As the first discoverer of the new evidence that proves Darwin and Wallace committed the World's greatest science fraud, I wish this blog post and any future shameless hawking of Darwin's and Wallace's great science fraud to be taken as multiple examples of trumpeting the importance of my discovery from the rooftops. Hopefully, such unseemly and excited trumpeting will suffice as sufficient evidence that I do fully comprehend the significance of what I have uniquely discovered and published.
A note on my unique discoveries and the threat of plagiarism
At the time of writing, I can attest that the Wikipedia page on Matthew makes absolutely no mention of Darwin's lies or of Loudon, Selby or any other writer who cited Matthew's work pre-Origin. In fact, no writer before now has commented upon the significance of the fact that Selby (editor of Wallace's Sarawak paper and multiple committee associate of Darwin) read and cited Matthew's (1831) book and ideas, and that Jardine (co-editor of Wallace's Sarawak paper) had the book in his possession. Jackson (1992), who found the information in Selby's correspondence, merely mentions it in passing in her book - with no reference at all to Darwin, Wallace or plagiarism. However, that is something that is likely to change without reference to this blog post as the source of the new discovery. Because senior Wikipedia editors have this snakelike habit of plagiarizing my unique discoveries from the Best Thinking site and then refusing to cite me as the source. So remember you read it here first that Darwin and Wallace more likely than not read Matthew first. Darn plagiarisers!
POSTSCRIPT 17th February 2014
We would expect the mythical Semmelweis reflex to kick in now that some of the newly discovered mythbusting facts about who really did read and cite both Matthew's book and its unique ideas have been published.
Scientists, particularly psychologists, wishing to study "live" Darwinists fallaciously denying that such facts have beendiscovered by me, and their further desperate denials that they are new discoveries, might note some rather amusing early Semmelweis reflex sub-types that we can identify so far. For example:
How to cite this blog post: Sutton, M. (2014) Crooks not Schnooks: Charles Darwin and Alfred Wallace Committed the World’s Greatest Science Fraud. Criminology, the blog of Mike Sutton. Best Thinking.com. February 9th 2014.
Please NOTE If you found this blog of interest, you might like the one that follows it, which reveals the importance of some of these ideas and discoveries when considered alongside Richard Dawkins' writing, and most ironic replication of writing, about selfish replicators.Click: Here to read that next blog on this topic.
To discover all seven naturalists who cited Matthew's 1831 book, and the 100% proven influence of three of those seven on Darwin and Wallace click here to read the article "Internet Dating With Darwin".
To find out more about my book Nullius in Verba: Darwin's greatest secret (Sutton 2014). Please click here
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.
Dawkins, R. (2010). Darwin’s Five Bridges: The Way to Natural Selection. In Bryson, B. (ed.) Seeing Further: The Story of Science and the Royal Society. London Harper Collins.
Jackson, C. E. (1992) Prideaux John Selby: A Gentleman Naturalist. Northumberland. Spredden Press.
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. London: Longman and co.
Matthew, P. (1860) Letter to the Gardeners Chronicle. Nature's law of selection. Gardeners' Chronicle and Agricultural Gazette (7 April). pp. 312-13.
Matthew, P. (1860b) Letter to the Gardeners Chronicle. Nature's law of selection.Gardeners' Chronicle and Agricultural Gazette (12 May) p. 433.
Millhauser, M. (1959) Just Before Darwin: Robert Chambers and the Vestiges. Middletown Connecticut. Wesleyan University Press.
Selby, P. J. (1842) A history of British forest-trees: indigenous and introduced. London. Van Voorst.
Shermer, M. (2002) In Darwin's Shadow: The Life and Science of Alfred Russel Wallace: A Biographical Study on the Psychology of History. Oxford. Oxford University Press.
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. pp. 184-196.
Wallace, A. R. (1871) Contributions to the Theory of Natural Selection. A Series of Essays. New York. Macmillan and Co.
 Although the actual review was anonymous, in his 1860 letter in the Gardener’s Chronicle, Matthew wrote that it was penned by Loudon, who was the magazine’s Editor.
 I wrote a book review of Jackson's book on Amazon.Here
 I wrote a review of Millhauser's book: Here