The Matthewian Revolution and Identity by Descent: David L. Hull and The Legacy of Darwin's "Total" and "Complete" Lies about Matthew

In an earlier blog post, I showed the published evidence that, following Darwin's (1860 and 1861) published lies about no one reading Patrick Matthew's 1831 book - On Naval Timber and Arboriculture - containing the full prior published hypothesis of natural selection (Sutton 2014), that the World's most eminent evolutionary biologists have plainly and precisely written the same fallacy.

 My paradigm changing book Nullius in Verba: Darwin's greatest secret, busts Darwin's and his credulous myth-parroting Darwinist's 'no one read it fallacy' completely with independently verifiable absolute proof that seven naturalists - four known to Darwin and two to Wallace - in fact did read Matthew's book pe-1858, because they actually cited it in the literature. And so Matthewian knowledge contamination of Darwin's and Wallace's replicating work on natural selection, which replicated so many of Matthew's prior published original ideas and explanatory examples without citing Matthew, more likely than not happened.

David L. Hull
Philosopher of Science

 Royal Society Darwin Medal winner Sir Gavin de Beer very plainly wrote the ludicrously biased Darwinist pleasing fallacy that no one at all read Matthew's ideas before 1860. In this blog post, I show how the exact same self-serving Darwinist's fallacy spreading legacy of their namesake's lies misled the philosopher David L. Hull into erroneously believing there was no evidence for the likelihood of any kind of likely Matthewian knowledge contamination having taken place.

In his book - published by Cambridge University Press, which is an eminent a publishing house that ensures the content of all its published books is approved as being accurate and not misleading by an expert academic editorial board - Science and Selection: Essays on Biological Evolution and the Philosophy of Science (2001) on page 227, in a chapter entitled  'studying the the study of science scientifically', Hull writes:

'...Matthew (1831) anticipated Darwin with respect to natural selection... Why then term the revolution that took off in 1859 the Darwinian Revolution? Why not the Matthewian Revolution? The answer is that Matthew did not produce a revolution of any kind. His allusions to what later came to be known as natural selection[+] went totally [my emphasis] unnoticed at the time. Authors such as Lamarck and Chambers had some impact with respect to the transmutation (e.g.on Wallace) but neither succeeded in producing anything like a "revolution". Darwin did."

Hull was wrong. He was as "completely" and "totally" wrong as de Beer (1962) was also totally and completely wrong to write:

The book that re-wrote
the history of the discovery of
natural selection

'…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.’

Because, as I have written before, it was known at the time Hull wrote that fallacious statement - from the plain facts presented in Matthew's first published letter of 1860 in the Gardener's Chronicle that the naturalist (and biologist) John Loudon had read and reviewed Matthew's book in 1832. Moreover, further evidence, from Matthew's second (1860) published letter in the Gardener's Chronicle reveals that an unnamed naturalist had also read Matthew's unique ideas but that the unnamed naturalist feared to teach them for fear of pillory punishment, because they were considered heretical at the time.

Similarly, Ersnst Mayr (1982) was also "totally" and "completely" wrong to write:

His views on evolution and natural selection were published in a number of notes in an appendix to his work On Naval Timber and Arboriculture (1831). These notes have virtually no relation to the subject matter of the book, and it is therefore not surprising that neither Darwin nor any other biologist had ever [my emphasis] encountered them until Matthew bought forward his claims in an article in 1860 in the Gardener's Chronicle.'

Ernst Mayr very plainly wrote a newly discovered and proven fallacy (see my book Nullius for the full details), because had Mayr checked the actual facts - or (if he knew them) told the truth - he would have written about the, naturalist and famous botanist and biologist John Loudon (1832) - who in actual fact prominently published a review of Matthew's (1831) book, Had he done the right thing and written about Loudon - Mayr would have explained how in that 1832 book review Loudon wrote most clearly that Mathew appeared to have something original to say on 'the origin of species' - a term that Darwin (1859) later used as the title for his famous book, which replicated, without citing so many of Matthew's original ideas on natural selection.

What we know now as hard facts - following the original discoveries revealed for the first time in my book Nullius (Sutton 2014) - is that Loudon went on - at the time they were published -  to be editor of the journal that published two of Blyth's (1835) and (1836) influential papers on organic evolution, and that Blyth was Darwin's most prolific informant on the topic. Moreover, believing erroneously - as everyone did prior to the 2014 paradigm-changing publication of Nullius - that Matthew's book went unread by anyone known to Darwin or Wallace, Hull never knew that the famous naturalist and biologist Selby had cited Matthew's book many times in 1842 and then gone on - at the time it was published - to be editor the journal that published Wallace's 1855 Sarawak paper on natural selection. Finally, had he known that Chambers cited Matthew's book in 1832 before penning the famous and influential 'Vestiges of Creation' in 1844, which so influenced both Darwin and Wallace - and that Darwin had met and corresponded with Chambers pre 1858 - he most surely would not have written in 1989 (The Metaphysics of Evolution: Naqshbandis in the Ottoman World, 1450-1700, on page 233), that Darwin's and Wallace's supposed dual independent initiations of Matthew' prior published theory occurred because there were no linkages of possible original idea influence between Matthew's work and that of Darwin and Wallace. Hull did not have the evidence that we have today. 

Immaculate Deception
 (AKA The Blessed Virgin Darwin)
By Gabriel Woods 

The New Data regarding who did read Matthew's book before 1858 which was  originally revealed to the World in Nullius in 2014, proves it rationally more likely than not, given Darwin's and Wallace's supposed immaculate conceptions being anomalous paradoxes without parallel in the history of scientific discovery, that identity by descent from Matthew's prior published work actually can be established in the case of  Darwin's and Wallace's replications of it. 

Darwin's proven deliberate self-serving lies - told in the highly relevant and specific context of being called-out in the press by Matthew in the Gardener's Chronicle in 1860 for replicating his work without citing it - and their legacy of 155 years of credulous parroting by his Darwinists in the highly specific context of seeking (fallaciously it now turns out) to show that Matthew could not possibly have influenced Darwin or anyone known to him - did a very good job of hiding the truth for so long. 

Today, the New Data, proves Darwin's and Wallace's friends and associates, and, in turn, their friends and associates, read and cited Matthew's 1831 book years before Darwin and Wallace replicated so much from it. Darwin's game is finally up. 

Amazingly, in 2015 some Darwinists are now newly, desperately resisting the 2014 paradigm change from the old improbable immaculate conception of Matthew's prior published original work to one of most probable 'knowledge contamination' by arguing that Darwin and so many of his Darwinists must have meant the exact opposite to what they very precisely wrote in a  precise context of keeping Matthew down - because otherwise the New Data makes Darwin and his Darwinists look very silly for being so completley and emphatically wrong. See my dismissive - hard evidence and fact-led - response to this desperately Darwin-defying pseudo-scholarship.

+Note that Hull does not appear to have known the fact - apparently uniquely revealed by me in in Nullius - that Matthew (1831) uniquely named his discovery the 'natural process of selection' and Darwin (1859) uniquely four word shuffled that same name to re-coin it 'the process of natural selection.'