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.
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 .
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.
Nullius in Verba
+
+
