Emigration Fields and the Artificial Selection of Humans by Social Class

Re question. Britain was overpopulated. Patrick Matthew (Chartist leader & landowner) saw emigration as solution to the artificial selection by career & marriage blocking of best of the lower classes by the upper. He was against such dysfunctional artificial selection of humans. pic.twitter.com/JlyCjey0bF

— Dr Mike Sutton (@Dysology) January 31, 2019

Matthew had an International Reputation Long Before Darwin

In my research on Matthew, the originator of the the theory of macroevolution by natural selection, I have proven many times that contrary to the Darwinite myth, he was not simply an unread obscure writer on forest trees.

Matthew had an international reputation as an agriculturalist and writer on that topic in Europe and the USA (see Woodbury cited at end of his post) long before Darwin. Yet the serial liar Darwin sought to portray Matthew (even after Matthew had informed him that the opposite was true) that he was a mere obscure Scottish writer on forest trees. Credulous neo-religious Darwin and Wallace cultish worshippers have fallen for Darwin's sly propaganda plagiarising cover-up lies ever since.

Here, in this one further example, we see Matthew's (1831) book (which contains the original conception of macro evolution by natural selection) cited and praised in relation to information about spreading soot around plants to improve their growth. My book (Sutton 2014 & 2017) on the topic reveals that years before Darwin and Wallace replicated Matthew's original breakthrough ideas without citation that Matthew was read and cited many times, not only in the Encyclopedia Britannica, but at least 25 times, seven by naturalists, four of whom (Loudon, Chambers, Selby and Jameson) were at the epicentre of their influence.

The Gardener's Magazine and Register of Rural & Domestic Improvement, (1837) Volume 3. pp 517-518

https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=_TdNAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA518&dq=matthew+naval+timber+fertilizer+charcoal&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiIjqfhmbvbAhWLKsAKHQqVAo0Q6AEILDAA#v=onepage&q=matthew%20naval%20timber%20fertilizer%20charcoal&f=false

The historian Ton Munnich kindly translated a Dutch article published in 1832 on Matthew's research (here) that reproduced the text of Matthew's Lightning Rod Experiment. As cited in On Knowledge Contamination see pp. 184-185), The Gardener’s Magazine and Register of Rural and Domestic Improvement, vol. 9, Longman, Rees, Orme, Brown and Green 1833 also published the results of that very same experiment.

Ton also reveals that the same Matthew information had been published in Germany on this topic.  

Ton Munnich via On 24.01.2019 (private email correspondence) kindly provides us with the following intelligence:

: about the magazine

The "Algemeene Konst- en Letter-bode" existed from ca. 1800 until 1862.

It published weekly an issue of ca. 15 pages. 

It was a magazine for the educated general readership.

About developments in science, medicine, agriculture, art, literature, new publications, etc.

: about Patrick Matthew's article

The 52 issues of 1832 are bound in two volumes. Vol. 1 contains issue 1 to 27.

Page-numbering went on throughout the year.

Matthew's article is in issue 8, published on Friday, February 17, 1832.

That issue goes from page 113 to 128. Matthew's article uses ca 70 lines. 

It starts on page 125 (lower half), then 126 (whole page) and 127 (two lines).

•  "...the article was taken from "Frorieps Notizen", which took it from R. Jameson's "Edinburgh New Philosophical Journal". (the translator's note does not add from which specific issue it was taken, only the names of the German and Scottish magazines). (in Germany Ludwig Friedrich von Froriep edited a kind of science-news magazine : "Notizen aus dem Gebiete der Natur- und Heilkunde". Also known as "Frorieps Notizen".
• So perhaps the article was translated twice.  First from English into German, and then from German into Dutch."

CONCLUSION

The fact (uniquely noted by Ton Munnich) that Matthew's Lightning Rod Experiment was first published by Robert Jameson is extremely important. Jameson was Darwin's Edinburgh University Tutor! Matthew and Jameson and Jameson's nephew (the naturalist William Jameson) are intricately bound together and - yet again provide many potential routes for 'knowledge contamination' of Darwin's and Wallace's brains via The Hookers of Kew (see important earlier post)

Pre 1859 citations of Matthew in the USA

Woodbury, L. (1832) Live Oak. Report of the Secretary of the Navy. December 15th. House of Representatives. Executive Documents. Duff Green. Washington.

Woodbury, L. (1833) Live Oak Timber for the Navy. Military and Naval Magazine. Vol. 1 Number 3. (here)

Woodbury, L. (1838) Live Oak. House of Representatives. December 15, 1832. Report of the Secretary of the Navy on Live Oak. Navy Department. December 14th. In: Register of Debates in Congress: Comprising the Leading Debates and Incidents of the Second Session of the Eighteenth Congress: Dec. 6, 1824, to the First Session of the Twenty-fifth Congress, Oct. 16, 1837. Together with an Appendix, Containing the Most Important State Papers and Public Documents to which the Session Has Given Birth: to which are Added, the Laws Enacted During the Session, with a Copious Index to the Whole. Volume IX. Washington. (see p. 128).

Woodbury, L. (1852) Writings of Levi Woodbury, LL.D. Political, Judicial and Literary.Volume 3 - Literary. Boston. Little, Brown and Company. p. 361.

Emilio @BiologiaPensamt Hugh @HughDower For #veracity: Further intelligence on Patrick Matthew's pre-1858 international reputation. Supplied from the Netherlands last night.

Don't tell #RichardDawkins or credulous Darwin #cultists. They might explode🤪 https://t.co/M9nkoT2Wm3

— Dr Mike Sutton (@Dysology) January 25, 2019

Charles Darwin Har Ha ha

Whatever the case on the theory, it's not Darwin's theory (despite what credulous neo-religious Darwin worshipping cultists would have us swallow). All the evidence proves he stole it from its originator Patrick Matthew 1. https://t.co/LMpbVPuYSw
2. https://t.co/yZSRhv40YX & Lied https://t.co/i5ObQPqFiH

— Dr Mike Sutton (@Dysology) January 24, 2019

+

Darwin became convinced by Lamarckism in later life, believing Blacksmiths passed on the muscles gained through their occupation to their offspring. Wallace believed in the woo-woo spirits of parlour room mediums and was an avid anti-vaxxer. The ha ha ha heroes of Darwin worship!

— Dr Mike Sutton (@Dysology) January 24, 2019

+

Just as Darwin & his latterday credulous worshippers sought to censure truth about Matthew - the extent of his theory & who prior read it who influenced Darwin & Wallace - before Darwin & Wallace replicated it, & then claimed no one had read it as a lying excuse for plagiarism.

— Dr Mike Sutton (@Dysology) January 25, 2019

The Lindley Files

Interesting, is it not that in a host of otherwise massive mere multiple coincidences that John Lindley, who would later steal Matthew's priority rights to Giant Redwood importation, first UK growing and planting fame, had his work reviewed in Loudon's journal immediately below Matthew's (1831) in which Loudon (1832) wrote Matthew had something original to say on "the origin of species". See the facts of that Here . And the facts of Lindley's aforementioned apparent Giant Redwood fame fraud Here.

NOTE Lindley was a friend and co-author with Loudon, and ....wait for it...a great friend of William Hooker - him again - (acquaintance of the proven serial liar and plagiarist Charles Darwin, and Father of Darwin's best friend Joseph Hooker).

Full facts in Nullius in Verba: Darwin's greatest secret

William Hooker

Many links have been found between William Hooker (Darwin's acquaintance and father of Joseph Hooker who was Darwin's best friend and botanical mentor) and Patrick Matthew - in terms of who cited Matthew who William Hooker knew (see Sutton 2017). This is because the Hookers were economic botanists. In this 1838 anonymously authored essay (cited in Sutton 2014) we find Matthew and Hooker each cited in the very same essay on economical uses of the Willow : https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=E1oFAAAAQAAJ&pg=RA1-PA435&dq=%22Mathew%22+%22naval+timber%22&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjohti42YPgAhXKQxUIHRKHC5YQ6AEIMTAB#v=onepage&q=%22Mathew%22%20%22naval%20timber%22&f=false

The many newly discovered routes for pre-1858 Matthewian knowledge contamination of the replicating brains of Darwin and Wallace just just keep on heading toward the Hooker's of Kew (father William Hooker and his son Joseph - both leading economic botanists) - particularly William Hooker who was also Wallace's sponsor, mentor, specimen customer and correspondent. The question is - how many such possible multiple coincidences do we need to to sum to the probability that they are not coincidental at all?

How many otherwise multiple "route for knowledge contamination" coincidences sum to the probability they are not coincidental at all? Here Matthew and William Hooker cited in same essay on economic botany https://t.co/DrNwB6VaEF Clearly, Matthew was not an obscure author at all. pic.twitter.com/k3x3iYg6Yn

— Dr Mike Sutton (@Dysology) January 23, 2019

2019 Further Newly Unearthed Citations of Matthew's (1831) Book

Following the many newly unearthed citations of Matthew's (1831) book "On Naval Timber and Arboriculture " revealed in  'Nullius in Verba Darwin's: greatest secret' (Sutton 2014, 2017), here are some newly discovered others that I  found in Jan 2019

1. The anonymous essayist (1843) "S G 2" pp 226-227. "Economical uses of the Larch" in  Knight's Penny Magazine, Volume 3, [edited by Charles Knight.] https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=W-E2AQAAMAAJ&pg=PA227&dq=%22Mathew%22+%22naval+timber%22&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwizr_2xvIPgAhURtnEKHRn9BQwQ6AEIXjAJ#v=onepage&q=%22Mathew%22%20%22naval%20timber%22&f=false

2. Patrick Matthew citing his (1831) book in  'Testimonials in favour of W.L. Lindsay ... as a candidate for the office of Conservator of the museum of the Royal College of Surgeons, Edinburgh (1852). - Note in this same publication we find a testimonial by Robert Jameson (Darwin's Geology professor no less!Moreover the testimonials are for a naturalist whose work Darwin later relied upon!) (Click here for the details) 

Darwin Art

The Evolution of Fraud

Natural selection aids species in fraud. Darwin was a plagiarising science fraudster by glory theft of that theory. His abilities in deception aided him enormously. Only now, is new technology unweaving his tangled web of lies & science fraud by plagiarismhttps://t.co/yMLRSHW8Vc pic.twitter.com/DKQ2uZoi7k

— Dr Mike Sutton (@Dysology) January 18, 2019

Hugh Dower's page on PatrickMatthew.com

Hugh Dower's page on PatrickMatthew.com is here: https://patrickmatthew.com/hugh%20dower.html

Please everyone, don't tell #DarwinWorshippers about @HughDower 's new page on https://t.co/zflwNCotAD as they are likely to experience further episodes of #dysological nervous shock induced by veracity. We don't want to be held responsible for that, do we?https://t.co/TgrLy15PBt pic.twitter.com/MlSC1AlKYl

— Dr Mike Sutton (@Dysology) January 17, 2019

.

Why is the concept of Knowledge Contamination so important?

Conclusion on the topic of 'knowledge contamination' from the latest IDD method bombshell breakthrough in the history of scientific discovery and Darwin's and Wallace's plagiarism of Matthew's prior-published and often-prior cited theory (see related earlier blog post here).

Above all else, the unearthing of the fact that both heretical evolutionist Professor Robert Jameson and  his nephew, the botanist William Jameson knew of Matthew and were aware of his work On Naval Timber is confirmation for the concept of knowledge contamination and its applicability in the story of Darwin's and Wallace's plagiarizing replication of Matthew's theory of evolution by natural selection from that book. This is because pre-1858 Matthew twice appeared in print citing himself as the author of On Naval Timber in works edited by and also contributed to by Robert Jameson  (who was, incidentally, Darwin's tutor at Edinburgh University), whose nephew William Jameson was a regular correspondent of William Hooker. William Hooker was in turn an associate of Charles Darwin and father of Darwin's best friend, evolutionary confidant and botanical motor Joseph Hooker. If knowledge contamination is not relevant then anyone claiming so perhaps believes no amount of what might be seen as improbable and closely linked multiple coincidences ever sum to a likelihood that they are not actually coincidental at all? By way of example: Are we to believe that the fact Robert Jameson edited the journal containing an article by Matthew, in which Matthew cited his own 1831 book and where an advert for that book made the subject matter of species and varieties in it plain and clear, and that Matthew appeared in an academic testimonial with Robert Jameson, where Matthew again cited his book has nothing at all to do with the fact William Jameson then cited Matthew's book and mentioned one of Matthew's important observations that supported Matthew's original theory of evolution by natural selection? 

My assumption is that 19th century scientists would as likely as not discuss then if they were aware of the heretical ideas in Matthew's book. And aware of them they were made, not only by the famous naturalist and editor Loudon who wrote in 1831 a very public review that Matthew's (1831) book contained important new information on what he termed the "origin of species", but amongst others by an anonymous reviewer who wrote that he/she disdained so much as rumination on Matthew's writings on law of nature, a fact that Darwin deification fanatical official Wikipedia editors fought desperately to permanently delete by deleting it again and again when its fully referenced source in the historic publication record was put on the Patrick Matthew page on Wikipedia. This desperate Darwinist superfan fact denial behaviour, on the world's worst encyclopedia, with all fully verifiable facts on that disgraceful matter can be seen here. What were those Wikipedia editors so afraid of? And what do they remain afraid of today? I think the answer is they were and remain afraid of 'knowledge contamination' of the wider scientific community and the wider general public with newly unearthed data that disconfirms all Darwin fans mere mythology about Darwin's originality, honesty and disproves the lies Darwin wrote about Matthew and the myth fuelled bias-blinkered and fake-facts claptrap his fanatical followers have written about Matthew since. 

  Secord's book on the Vestiges (its anonymous author Robert Chambers also newly discovered by me to have cited Matthew's 1831 book) in : 'Victorian Sensation' absolutely demonstrates that the heretically delicious topic of organic evolution was on everyone's lips.  Moreover, two acts of Parliament were passed to stop such issues being discussed in public scientific societies. Knowledge contamination is such an important issue. If not, why were all those science clubs and societies formed - if not to bring naturalists together to discuss new ideas? That was one very important reason given for the founding of the British Association for Advancement of Science - for the very reason that others were hypothesising about evolution. So weighing all these facts, a quite reasonable assumption is, I think, that 19th century naturalists might well have discussed the topic of Matthew's book with fellow naturalists, if they were aware of it. Then there are all those letters from these so called "men of letters" - letters kept and even more burned that where is could have been discussed in correspondence. The time is now to look in the archives of those naturalists we newly know did read and cite Matthew's (1831) book (see Sutton 2015) to see what can be found in that regard pre-Darwin's and Wallace's 1858 claimed independent replications of Matthew's prior published - and prior cited by their friends, editors and influencers and their influencer's influencers - complete theory of macroevolution by natural selection, including his name for it and his highly idiosyncratic explanatory example and analogy of differences between artificial and natural selection.

Reasoned arguments (see text in image file) @HughDower on why the latest discovery about Robert Jameson confirms the suitability of the notion of "Knowledge Contamination" in the story of Charles Darwin's science fraud by lies and plagiary. The story: https://t.co/2Jxxr6GMrm pic.twitter.com/7izaxADqqw

— Dr Mike Sutton (@Dysology) January 15, 2019

Original expert peer reviewed article:   On Knowledge Contamination: New Data Challenges Claims of Darwin’s and Wallace’s Independent Conceptions of Matthew’s Prior-Published Hypothesis

My book containing more information: Nullius in Verba: Darwin's Greatest Secret (paperback version)

Original e-book will be re-released in or after 2019 after licence with its original (folded) publisher expires

.

Hugh Dower's @HughDower original research reveals more examples of independently verifiable proof that contrary to the Oh So Unusually Honest Darwin Myth Charles Darwin was clearly a blatant serial liar when it came to his pre 1858 influencers. Facts here https://t.co/DWt7Oo9OXU pic.twitter.com/E5uS0sv7VI

— Dr Mike Sutton (@Criminotweet) January 17, 2019

.

How does knowledge contamination work?

This is a tweet containing my typology of knowledge contamination from my expert peer reviewed article of the same name (here)

.

But we have newly unearthed routes for potential 'knowledge contamination' (see my typology - Darwin did not have to "know" or "read" Routes that were denied for 155 years by the "no naturalist known to Darwin or Wallace read Matthew" pre 1858 myth started by Darwin's proven lie. pic.twitter.com/wuyFSHjFbP

— Dr Mike Sutton (@Dysology) January 13, 2019

+

Civil law test is - for plagiarism = "on balance of reasonable probability' Hugh. Given the preponderance of circumstantial evidence, in addition to proof of Darwin's lying dishonesty about Matthew's readership by naturalists he knew. No benefit of doubt about Darwin's dishonesty

— Dr Mike Sutton (@Dysology) January 14, 2019

+

Darwin's post hoc glory thieving plagiarism by lying is 100% proven Hugh. If any university academic did that today they would be sacked & rendered unemployable. Of course, Darwin was not anyones employee, not ever. It's in my expert peer reviewed articles https://t.co/LMpbVPMAh6 pic.twitter.com/Kw717j0Zmw

— Dr Mike Sutton (@Dysology) January 14, 2019

+

Thanks Hugh. I have blocked Derry pending legal action for his cybertalking, harassment and multiple instances of libel and poison pen letter writing. Legal experts have it in hand.

— Dr Mike Sutton (@Dysology) January 14, 2019

Matthew's book was prominently advertised in the Encyclopedia Britannica. For further reading see:  https://dysology.blogspot.com/2019/01/credulous-darwin-worshippers.html

More Newly Unearthed Unwelcome Facts On Probable Knowledge Contamination: Dr Lauder Lindsay (naturalist), Patrick Matthew and the Jameson's

An interesting new find for Matthewists: Here

In this newly unearthed publication 'Testimonials in favour of W.L. Lindsay ... as a candidate for the office of Conservator of the museum of the Royal College of Surgeons, Edinburgh (1852)' we find Patrick Matthew being asked to vouch for the abilities, character and suitability of the well known naturalist Lauder Lindsay for a senior appointment. Interestingly, Darwin would later cite Lauder Lindsay in his book The Descent of Man. Along with Matthew's testimonial we find further testimonials from naturalists. One is the famous uncle of a naturalist who cited Matthew's book (among over 25 others to cite it pre-1858) before Darwin (1858, 1859) replicated Matthew's discovery, claimed it as his own and then lied (see Sutton 2014 and Sutton 2015) that no naturalist / no one whatsoever had read Matthew's original ideas before Darwin's and Wallace's (1858) supposed independent conceptions and replications of Matthew's ideas, unique terminology and explanatory examples and idiosyncratic analogies. 

Most importantly, in this book, Matthew spells out that he is the Author of: 'On Naval Timber and Arboriculture' 

The relevant text is on page 18

The celebrated naturalist in question is Robert Jameson, whose (it is newly known Sutton 2014) nephew - William Jameson  - cited Matthew's book in 1853, which is a year after Matthew appears in print in this book of testimonials with hs famous uncle.

William Jameson cited Matthew to point out Matthew's (1831) unique observation that some tree species could thrive even better in areas that were not their natural habitat. This was just one of Matthew's heretical points, which provided disconfirming evidence for the then orthodoxy in science that the Christian "God" put all species in a predestined place that was best and perfectly suited to them and the needs of all humans.  Most notably, Robert Jameson was famously Charles Darwin's tutor at Edinburgh University. Robert Jameson believed in evolution and is widely considered to be the anonymous author of the Edinburgh New Philosophical Journal article of 1826 that contains the first known English usage of the word "evolved" in the context of organic evolution. 

In 1831, citing himself as the author of the book On Naval Timber and Arboriculture (that we know both Matthew, Darwin and Wallace and others since fully admitted contains the first complete theory of macroevolution by natural selection - see Sutton 2015 for the citations to this fact recorded in the historic publication record), Professor Robert Jameson published Matthew's paper on meteorology (here - see image below). Clearly, Jameson would most surely have been fully aware of who Matthew was and of his dangerously heretical work - which had been noted in reviews as such (see Sutton 2014, 2017). On heretical ideas of evolution Jameson, we know - if it was he - would write only anonymously (see Jenkins 2015), as did the best seller author of "The Vestiges of Creation" the naturalist geologist and publisher  Robert Chambers (a correspondent and acquaintance of Darwin and Wallace's' greatest influencer) - who we do know for sure, but only due to my original research (e.g. Sutton, 2014, 2015, and 2017), also cited Matthew's 1831 book long before 1858.

Matthew's newly discovered (on 12 Jan 2019) juxtaposition and citation of his book in a publication co-contributed to by Professor Robert Jameson is the second I have uniquely unearthed where this occurs. Both examples explain why Robert Jameson's naturalist nephew William cited Matthew's original ideas. Moreover, it is powerful circumstantial evidence that Professor Robert Jameson also read and understood Matthew's theory long before Darwin and Wallace stole it and claimed it as their own on the dishonest and totally wrong grounds that no naturalist / no one at all had read and understood Matthew's (1831) prior-published complete theory.   

Perhaps Robert Jameson is the eminent naturalist who - as Matthew (1860) patiently explained to the proven lair Darwin -  understood Matthew's bombshell conception and original ideas - yet would not teach nor otherwise share them for fear of pillory punishment?

Conclusion

Above all else, the unearthing of the fact that both heretical evolutionist Professor Robert Jameson and  his nephew, the botanist William Jameson knew of Matthew and were aware of his work On Naval Timber is confirmation for the concept of knowledge contamination and its applicability in the story of Darwin's and Wallace's plagiarizing replication of Matthew's theory of evolution by natural selection from that book. This is because pre-1858 Matthew twice appeared in print citing himself as the author of On Naval Timber in works edited by and also contributed to by Robert Jameson  (who was, incidentally, Darwin's tutor at Edinburgh University), whose nephew, William Jameson, was a regular correspondent of William Hooker, who was in turn an associate of Charles Darwin, Wallace's mentor and guarantor and father of Darwin's best friend, evolutionary confidant and botanical motor Joseph Hooker. If knowledge contamination is not relevant then anyone claiming so perhaps believes no amount of what might be seen as improbable and closely linked multiple coincidences ever sum to a likelihood that they are not actually coincidental at all? By way of example: Are we to believe that the fact Robert Jameson edited the journal containing an article by Matthew, in which Matthew cited his own 1831 book and where an advert for that book made the subject matter of species and varieties in it plain and clear, and that Matthew appeared in an academic testimonial with Robert Jameson, where Matthew again cited his book has nothing at all to do with the fact William Jameson then cited Matthew's book and mentioned one of Matthew's important observations that supported Matthew's original theory of evolution by natural selection?

Advertisements for Robert Jameson's books were published in the Edinburgh Literary journal along with those for Matthew's Naval Timber. The fact Matthew's book was about species and varities and their location in nature was made very clear indeed (see the example of one advert below in the same publication of 1830, here is one for Jameson. And here, some commentary on one of his publications.

#Boom! @DrMarkGriffiths Another bombshell just went off in history of scientific discovery & research into Charles Darwin's plagiarism: https://t.co/2Jxxr6GMrm - Newly found that Matthew contributed to book with the great evolutionist Prof Robert Jameson. Darwin's Edinburgh tutor

— Dr Mike Sutton (@Dysology) January 12, 2019

+

Last night #news. Further @HughDower @a8drewson @DrMarkGriffiths unwelcome bombshell discoveries made in the history of discovery of the theory of macroevolution by natural selection to upset independently verifiable fact denying Darwin worshipers: https://t.co/uEK2CAKvHl pic.twitter.com/Ggmvr0UDn7

— Dr Mike Sutton (@Criminotweet) January 13, 2019

+
Archived:  http://archive.is/jkmYZ and http://archive.is/73PqI and http://archive.is/ZHQfs

Note: There was a second (1854) copy of the testimonials as well. It's here

Note: At the 1867 Dundee meeting of the British Association for the Advancement of Science (where Matthew was platform blocked from speaking on his original discoveries) both he and Lauder Lindsay presented papers on other topics - see here.

Note Lauder Lindsay in 1855 citing assistance from who is most probably Patrick Matthew's son, who farmed in Germany here 

Note: In 1861 he was elected a member of the Royal Society of Edinburgh and, earlier, in 1858, Lindsay was elected a fellow of the Linnean Society (Darwin was a member and it was the society that published Darwin's and Wallace's plagiarizing joint article in 1858)  More here.

Postscript 30. 01. 2019
See a more recent post with further observations on the links between Matthew and Robert Jameson

Get the facts

Get the facts on Darwin's plagiarism. Visit the Patrick Matthew website: PatrickMatthew.com

On Hugh Dower, Darwin, Matthew and John Loudon: On Matthewian Knowledge Contamination of Blyth and from him to Darwin and Wallace pre-1858

Hugh Dower has published (online) two excellent essays on Patrick Matthew and Darwin's replication of his oignation.

1. The Dark Side of Darwin: http://archive.vn/OjeTa
2. Darwin's Guilty Secret: http://archive.vn/EJg26

+

I see you cover Loudon issue, with more than Dempster got before (your unique circumstantial evidence Darwin read Matthew), but don't say Loudon was a naturalist or mention his Magazine of Nat. Hist. & his membership Linnean soc etchttps://t.co/L7wkY86y1yhttps://t.co/3xIEeZ2PEC

— Dr Mike Sutton (@Dysology) January 7, 2019

.

No conflict Hugh. You are an unusually honorable & accurate, rightfully inquisitive person. Re merits writer v naturalist - now on that point I do disagree, because it's important Darwin's lie be proven. Yet, I unearthed he was EDITOR of Blyth's influential papers read by Darwin

— Dr Mike Sutton (@Dysology) January 7, 2019

Not only is it proven that Darwin deliberately and slyy lied in an act of  science fraud by post hoc glory thieving plagiarism when he wrote that apparently no naturalist read Matthew's prior published theory, but it is newly unearthed that Loudon was not only well known to Darwin and his closest influencers and friends, he also edited two of Blyth's most influential papers on evolution that were read by Darwin and Wallace Here
+

We learn the lesson @HughDower that @RichardDawkins teaches us, whilst his silly nonsense that Matthew should have trumpeted his imprisonable heresy from the rooftops is ludicrous, we should ALL trumpet our own priority for discoveries of Darwin's plagiarism & glory thieving lies pic.twitter.com/1myhPF7F7Q

— Dr Mike Sutton (@Dysology) January 8, 2019

+

On The Loudon Blyth Connection: Matthewian Knowledge Contamination Probability

We know that in 1832 Loudon reviewed Matthew's (1831) book and most significantly noted that Matthew had something original to say on what he called 'The Origin of Species' no less. Other writers, such as Eiseley and Dempster have noted that Loudon was founder and editor of the Journal that later published Blyth's important articles in the 1835 and 1836 on natural selection. However, neither writer appears to have noted - because they most certainly never pointed it out - that Loudon (as editor) could have in some way provided a route for unique Matthewian  knowledge contamination of Blyth's brain - and therefore of Darwin's and Wallace's  brains, pre-1858. Because we know both Darwin and Wallace read those Blyth articles before they replicated Matthew's theory.
+

+

Eureka Hugh! Page 52 of Dempster 1996 does state that Loudon founded and edited the Magazine of Natural History in which Blyth's papers appeared. But Dempster completely fails to make the link that Loudon could have influenced Blyth through some kind of knowledge contamination.

— Dr Mike Sutton (@Dysology) January 9, 2019

+

+

Thanks! Now found it pages 47+ of hardback copy Hugh. But Eisley failed again to note any knowledge contamination (re his 1832 review) probability
Dempster = yes and I see elsewhere (thank you) However, see my reply. He also failed to note any knowledge contamination probability

— Dr Mike Sutton (@Dysology) January 9, 2019

=

But Loudon DID read Matthew. He did understand it. And he did then edit journal publishing Blyth's paper. Darwin did read Blyth as did Wallace - as well as Darwin meeting Blyth - several subtypes of typology for knowledge contamination Hugh all outlined in my paper on very topic. pic.twitter.com/k0tJXNu3i1

— Dr Mike Sutton (@Dysology) January 9, 2019

=

As with any route for contamination of any kind (original ideas/examples and terminology, germs or cross contamination in a lab) the possibility (or not) for contamination is important to ascertain. An editor can edit Hugh - can insert knowledge one way or another into the paper https://t.co/YucW1SG5tz

— Dr Mike Sutton (@Dysology) January 9, 2019

=

Also, Robert Chambers, who x2 cited Matthew's books pre 1858, and "put evolution in the air in the 19th century with the heretical Vestiges of Creation, was elected a fellow in 1844. He met and corresponded with Darwin and was Wallace's greatest influencer https://t.co/VQQ6hyioMP

— Dr Mike Sutton (@Dysology) January 11, 2019

-

Debating the facts with Darwin cultists

No. He lied. Because he knew Matthew's book was prior read & cited by naturalists. He lied about that and then called it "my theory". That is plagiarizing science fraud by glory theft. It is misconduct that would have an academic fired in his day and ours: https://t.co/E8QuuMzsSL pic.twitter.com/uDIXOrZQR6

— Dr Mike Sutton (@Criminotweet) January 5, 2019

Top Articles on Darwin's Science Fraud by Lies and Plagiary

Five years have passed the detection of the world's greatest science fraud in 2014. Today, in January 2019 the New Data is still here despite desperate malicious Darwinist attempts. Top publications on the topic, all expert peer reviewed articles, here: https://t.co/GrZRsx4CkH pic.twitter.com/NBHndduB7f

— Dr Mike Sutton (@Dysology) January 4, 2019

Would someone calling themselves a Darwinist be best qualified to investigate and evaluate their beloved and cherished namesake's involvement in plagiarism and science fraud by glory theft?

Experts in science fraud & lies told by scientists to steal the glory of others are the best equipped (not biased & silly, assumption making, 'Saint Darwin of the Immaculate Conception of a Prior Published Theory' worshipping cultists) to judge that topic https://t.co/uDWRdLPKJd pic.twitter.com/k4YLPE0yOX

— Dr Mike Sutton (@Criminotweet) January 4, 2019

+

Someone calling themsleves Trumpist is hardly best qualified to weigh evidence for his corruption. Similarly, someone calling themselves "Darwinist" or "Darwinite" is hardly best suited to investigate his science fraud. Leave it to expert social scientists https://t.co/uDWRdLPKJd pic.twitter.com/Y9FcSfpFOW

— Dr Mike Sutton (@Criminotweet) January 4, 2019

Getting it right

Actually it's Matthew's theory, not Darwin's. Darwin stole it. That image and the ideas you attach to it do not represent the theory. They represent the earlier "development theory" promoted by Robert Chambers (friend of Darwin who also prior cited Matthew and influenced Darwin) https://t.co/xnoXEJhESX

— Dr Mike Sutton (@Criminotweet) January 3, 2019

Darwin believed in "God" - unlike Matthew

Why not ask Charles Darwin who kept what he called "the creator" in his Origin of Species? Unlike Patrick Matthew (the true originator of the theory Darwin & Wallace plagiarised)
1. Darwin (God believer) : https://t.co/k5JUgW0NuF
2. Matthew (mocking God) https://t.co/g9nQOBNk0C

— Dr Mike Sutton (@Criminotweet) January 2, 2019

Just how dim can Darwin worshippers be?

#fun in #TwentyNineteen pic.twitter.com/or95CEdFey

— BlessedVirginDarwin (@OnNavalTimber) December 31, 2018