Before my research uniquely proved it totally wrong - because 25 people cited Matthew's book, seven of whom were naturalists and four of those seven were known to the naturalists Darwin/Wallace and three of those four significantly influenced Darwin and Wallace (see Sutton 2014) - Darwinists believed that Darwin was unusually scrupulously honest and so believed in their namesake's 100 per cent provable deliberate lie (see the BlessedVirginDarwin 2015) that no one at all read Matthew's ideas before 1860. For example the highly expert and esteemed Royal Society Darwin Medal winner Sir Gavin de Beer ( 1962) wrote:
"...William Charles Wells and Patrick Matthew were predecessors who had actually published the principle of natural selection in obscure places where their works remained completely unnoticed until Darwin and Wallace reawakened interest in the subject.'
I have been unable to discoverer anything of this same kind happening in the history of scientific discovery.
I do not think a single other case exists in the entire history of scientific discovery of someone, who
|Patrick Matthew: The Originator |
of Natural Selection
My Big Data discovery of Darwin's lies, and discovery that those who knew and influenced him and Wallace (before 1858) had read and actually cited Matthew's book, means that Darwinists - ignoring the New Data, or denying its significance in re-writing the history of the discovery of natural selection are - by default - miracle believers in an anomalous paradox of a miraculous dual immaculate conception, by Darwin and Wallace of a prior published hypothesis.
Darwin's 100 percent proven lies make a monkey out of brainwashed Darwinists @analyticbridge https://t.co/HSvEzkl5yE pic.twitter.com/kiMkpFp4MZ— Supermythbuster (@supermyths) August 22, 2015