I have newly acquired a violin that is some 100 years old. The instrument, has scribed purfling, and is made of London plane tree wood AKA lacewood). The internal construction and other characteristics are such that it may well have been made in England. However, it has no makers mark or label. Not yet it doesn't. But I'm going to label it "The Charles Darwin Violin".
On the interlaced complexity of Fraud The Charles Darwin Lacewood Violin
 |
| The Charles Darwin Violin before restoration |
When Doctor Sutton took apart A violin mistreated He didn’t take Darwin’s approach No, Mike has never cheated By sound research and evidence Investigating theses Mike has delved into, carefully The origin of the pieces And Darwin’s fiddle might appear To be more loudly spoken But please note that this instrument Was found to be quite broken The Lacewood body’s not the norm Revealed by fine detection Mike applied the process of Natural dissection Unlike the Patrick Matthew one This instrument’s quite dated And like the Darwin postulate Is not newly created
Andy Sutton (Andy Sutton Poetry) March 2024
- Chambers (1832) cited Matthew's (1831) heretical and seditious book – although he only mentioned Matthew's expertise on the subject of pruning trees for plank wood.
- Chambers (1840) cited Matthew’s later work, Emigration Fields (Matthew 1839) regarding Matthew's writing on the ill-effects of tobacco smoking. Emigration Fields took Matthew's ideas on evolution forward for (British) human progress at the expense of those in other lands to be occupied by the British.
- In 1841, Gavin Cree cites Matthew's book "On Naval Timber" and cites Matthew's text from On Naval Timber quoted by Robert Chambers in Chambers's 1832 Journal (here).
- Chambers (1844) authored and had published (anonymously) The Vestiges of the Natural History of Creation - the book that 'put evolution in the air' in the mid-19th century (see Millhauser 1959).
- In 1845, Alfred Wallace wrote to Bates to explain that seeking proof of the ideas in the Vestiges was what motivated his interest in the field of research into the problem of solving the origin of species (See Sutton 2104 ).
- Chambers met Darwin in 1847 and thereafter engaged in correspondence. In 1847 Chambers gave Darwin a copy of the Vestiges, leading Darwin to write to his friend Joseph Hooker that he knew Chambers was its secret author.
- Darwin's personal copy of the Vestiges was heavily annotated by Darwin.
- Wallace, in 1855, had his Sarawak Paper published. Incidentally, it was published in a journal the chief editor of which was another naturalist named Selby, a man very well and closely connected to Darwin (see Sutton 2014 for all the precise details), who had 15 years earlier purchased a copy of Matthew's book in 1840 and cited it many times in his own book of 1842). So Selby both read and then cited Matthew (1831) in the literature BEFORE Darwin wrote his famous unpublished essay on natural selection of 1842! Darwin read Wallace's Sarawak Paper in 1855. Wallace's Sarawak paper appears to have far too many replications of Matthew's (1831) unique ideas, terms, words and highly unique and idiosyncratic explanatory examples to have been written independently of Matthew's prior published work (see Sutton 2014 for precise details of this complex plagiarism check).
- In 1858, Wallace sent Darwin his Ternate Paper - which had in it evidences to support the hypothesis of natural selection. It was this paper that led Darwin and his cronies, Lyell and Hooker, to arrange - without first seeking any consent from Wallace - for a paper hastily written by Darwin to be presented together with Wallace's Ternate Paper - but read first so it would thereafter be called "Darwin's and Wallace's theory." This all happened in 1858.
- In the Origin of Species (Darwin 1859), Darwin uniquely four-word-shuffled Matthew's unique name for Matthew's 1831 published discovery from 'natural process of selection' to 'process of natural selection.' Darwin used that shuffled phrase nine times in the Origin of Species (1859).
- In 1859, in a book review of Darwin's Origin of Species, Chambers is the 'first to be second' in writing a published replication of Matthew's unique term 'natural process of selection.' This is unlikely to be an amazing coincidence. Because we know Chambers did read Matthew (1831) in 1832 - because he cited him!. More so, because Robert Chambers's brother, William, wrote of Robert in 1872 'And such were his extraordinary powers of memory that whatever he saw or learned he never forgot; everything which could interest the mind being treasured up, as a fund of delightful recollections ready to be of service when wanted.' In fact, Chambers's memory is described by Professor Alan Macfarlane as 'almost photographic'.
- In 1860 Chambers convinced Huxley (Darwin's Bulldog) to stay at the British Association for the Advancement of Science conference at Oxford. Chambers remonstrated with Huxley not to desert the cause but to stay and defend Darwin's Origin of species by engaging in a debate that included Bishop Wilberforce - who attacked Darwin's work for being conjectural regarding the creation of new species.
- In 1861, from the third edition of the Origin of Species onward, Darwin admitted the huge influence of the Vestiges in paving the way for acceptance of his own work on organic evolution..
- In 1871, the year of Robert Chambers's death, but before the revelation that Chambers had authored the Vestiges was formally announced, Darwin wrote to Robert Chambers's daughter, Eliza, to apologise for his earlier treatment in disparaging the Vestiges: 'Several years ago I perceived that I had not done full justice to a scientific work which I believed and still believe he was intimately connected with, and few things have struck me with more admiration than the perfect temper and liberality with which he treated my conduct.'
 |
| Lacewood: London Plane |
Darwin’s own private notebook of the books he actually read records he read Volumes 7 and 8 of Gardener’s Magazine.. Now, although Darwin’s notebook gives no year for the publication of these two volumes, which is confusing because in every new decade this magazine started a new series with volumes restarting at 1 again.
One volume 7 covers 1831 and anther volume 8 covers 1832. The latter contains Loudon’s all-important review of NTA, in which Loudon (correspondent of Darwin and friend of his best friend's (Joseph Hooker's) father, William Hooker, write that Matthew appeared to have something original to say on the origin of species! Volume 8 also makes reference to observations made by Darwin’s grandfather on pp. 308 and 502 about forest trees—no less!
To be even-handed, however, it seems most likely since Darwin was compiling a list of things to read and things read on March12, 1842 that it was volumes of that decade—Volume 7 of 1841 and Volume 8 of 1842—that he recorded reading in his notebook, although we cannot know that for sure. But even in Volume 7 of 1841 on pp. 440 to 444 Matthew and his 1831 book is the subject of an article by the celebrity arborist Gavin Cree (Cree 1841) on tree pruning. In that volume on p. 216 Charles Darwin is mocked as being delusional regarding his observations on earthworms.
So, whatever decade Darwin was referring to in his notes there is a published reference to Matthew and his 1831 book in both! According to the facts, Matthew was hardly an obscure author of an unread book/theory in the first half of the 19th century.
To underscore the point yet further, Darwin’s private notebooks and his archived library reveal he read at least five publications that either cite or contain articles about Matthew and NTA:
(1) The Athenæum (1839) (block advertisement for Naval Timber and review of Emigration Fields).
(2) Loudon (1831) (citing Matthew in Bibliography).
(3) Loudon (1838) (article citing Matthew).
(4) The Gardener’s Magazine (1841) (article throwing down a challenge to Matthew on tree pruning). Assuming this is the one Darwin refers to and not the 1832 one containing Loudon’s important review of NTA.
(5) Memoirs of the Caledonian Horticultural Society of Edinburgh (1814–1832) (block advertisement for NTA).
This is just one more fact that tells us exactly why Matthew belongs at the very centre of Darwin’s story and not on the fringes, as the Darwin Industry wants you to believe.
The interlaced (like lacewood) facts prove Matthew wasn’t obscure in the 1830s and 1840s, and neither was NTA. Therefore, Darwin’s excuse-claim that Matthew's (1831) was unread is demolished by verifiable facts proving books about Matthew were held in Darwin’s own hands before he replicated the theory in NTA.
A prolific author, fellow of the Linnean Society and the Royal Society, and a corresponding member of the Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences, Loudon was a friend and correspondent of William Hooker and co-published with Hooker’s close friend and fellow economic botanist John Lindley.
The Gavin Cree to David Low connections to Charles Darwin via the 1831 book of Patrick Matthew
In 1834 David Low was
apparently First to be second into published print (F2B2) with the apparently original Naval Timber and Arboriculture (NTA) phrase “long continued selection” in his book Elements of Practical Agriculture:
Comprehending the Cultivation of Plants, the Husbandry of Domestic Animals and
the Economy of the Farm.
Although he never personally cited Matthew (1831), he was
founding editor of the Quarterly Journal
of Agriculture at the time it published Gavin Cree’s (1832) letter on
pruning that criticised NTA. Thus it
was Low who ruled as editor in favour of Cree against Matthew in that edition
of the journal (Canadian Agriculturalist
1859, p. 32). Low (1844) wrote about naval timber on pp. 583–585 of his book on
“landed property” and did so again on p. 88 of his book on forest trees (Low
1853).
63
Just four years older than Matthew, Low was a highly
esteemed professor of agriculture at the University of Edinburgh. Most
importantly, like many who cited NTA—or
else apparently first duplicated apparently original Matthewisms from NTA—Low was a fellow of the Royal
Society of Edinburgh. He was also a member of the Royal Academy of Agriculture
of Sweden.
Darwin adopted the exact same original NTA Matthewism in his essay of 1842 (Darwin 1842, pp. 32 and 33)
where he writes in secret:
“Now according to analogy of domesticated
animals let us see what would result. Let us take case of farmer on Pampas,
where everything approaches nearer to state of nature. He works on organisms
having strong tendency to vary: and he knows only way to make a distinct breed
is to select and separate. It would be useless to separate the best bulls and pair
with best cows if their offspring run loose and bred with the other herds, and
tendency to reversion not counteracted; he would endeavour therefore to get his
cows on islands and then commence his work of selection. If several farmers in
different regions were to set to work, especially if with different objects,
several breeds would soon be produced. So would it be with horticulturist and
so history of every plant shows; the number of varieties increase in proportion
to care bestowed on their selection and, with crossing plants, separation. Now,
according to this analogy, change of external conditions, and isolation either
by chance landing a form on an island, or subsidence dividing a continent, or
great chain of mountains, and the number of individuals not being numerous will
best favour variation and selection. No doubt change could be effected in same
country without any barrier by long continued
selection on one species: even in case of a plant not capable of crossing
would easier get possession and solely occupy an island.”
Then in Origin
(Darwin 1859, p. 192) he used it again:
“As every one would be surprised if two
exactly similar but peculiar varieties of any species were raised by man by long continued selection, in two different
countries, or at two very different periods, so we ought not to expect that an
exactly similar form would be produced from the modification of an old one in
two distinct countries or at two distinct periods.”
Low published a number if
notable books such as Elements of
Practical Agriculture (1834), The
Breeds of Domesticated Animals (1840), and An Enquiry into the Nature of the Simple Bodies of Chemistry
(1848).
On p. 546 in another of his books On Landed Property, and the Economy of Estates (1844) Low was once again apparently F2B2 with an apparently original NTA expression—once again without citing Matthew. In this later book he uses Matthew’s apparently original phrase “overpowering the less.” This discovery of Low twice replicating Matthew’s unique phrases in different books appears to confirm the veracity of the F2B2 hypothesis, the value of the method in identifying plagiarism of ideas, and the influence that such plagiarism has on others. This conclusion is further confirmed by the fact that in his F2B2 use of this NTA phrase Low replicated Matthew’s exclusive theme that trees grown by means of artificial selection in nurseries were inferior to those naturally selected by nature. The exact same highly important theme that Eiseley (1979) discovered Darwin replicated in his 1844 private essay! Low (1844, p. 546) writes:
“The Wild Pine attains its greatest
perfection of growth and form in the colder countries, and on the older rock
formations. It is in its native regions of granite, gneiss and the allied
deposits, that it grows in extended forests over hundreds of leagues, overpowering the less robust species. When
transplanted to the lower plains and subjected to culture, it loses so much of
the aspect and characters of the noble original, as scarcely to appear the
same. No change can be greater to the habits of a plant than the transportation
of this child of the mountain to the shelter and cultivated soil of the
nursery; and when the seeds of these cultivated trees are collected and sown
again, the progeny diverges more and more from the parent type. Hence one of
the reasons why so many worthless plantations of pine appear in the plains of
England and Scotland, and why so much discredit has become attached to the
culture of the species.”
It is of paramount importance at this juncture to note that
this newly discovered evidence in fact provides Darwin with a defence against
Eiseley’s (1979) claim that Darwin’s use of artificially selected trees to
explain natural selection in his unpublished 1844 essay is clear evidence of
plagiarism directly from NTA.
Although Low almost certainly got it from Matthew (1831), Darwin could just
possibly have got it from reading Low (1844).
Whatever the case, again we see Matthew’s progeny in the
relevant literature as influencing the man who influenced the man. Moreover,
and most importantly, we should note that Low published his book containing the
analogy in 1844, which is the very same year Darwin’s private essay replicated
the exact same highly idiosyncratic tree analogy.
This is strong evidence of NTA influencing Low and passing it on to Darwin, or of NTA directly influencing Darwin, or
both.
Interestingly, in his notebook of “Books Read and Books to
Read” Darwin writes in December 1839, “Advertised. David Low Treatise on Domestic Animals; also
Illustrations of the Domestic animals of Gt. Britain—must be read carefully.”
However, in that same notebook Darwin makes no mention of having read Low’s Elements of Practical Agriculture or of On Landed Property. In Origin, however, we know Darwin went on
to use the same apparently NTA-coined
phrase “long continued selection” as several other writers did following Low’s
1834 first replication of it. Whereas Low
hyphenated the phrase, Darwin used it without the hyphen just as Matthew
had it in NTA. This is suggestive
Darwin got the phrase from NTA, not
from Low, who probably got it from NTA.
But we cannot be sure one way or the other.
Twice replicating phrases apparently first coined in NTA is unlikely to be purely
coincidental given that Low was apparently twice to be first with these
apparently original Matthewisms in different publications and, most
significantly, was a former Perth Academy schoolmate of Patrick Matthew.
Professor David Low of Edinburgh University might even be
the unnamed professor that Matthew (1860a) referred to in the Gardeners’ Chronicle as the professor at
an esteemed university who could not teach NTA’s
heretical hypothesis of natural selection for fear of pillory punishment on the cutty stool.
Conclusion
The evidence of Darwin's science fraud by plagiarism is extremely interlaced, like lacewood. In just this very small snippet of the empirical evidence in "Science Fraud" the book we can see how this complexity has protected Darwin and his fact denial superfans and authoritarian supermyth supporting and facilitation toadies.
The Darwin Lacewood Violin is a perfect tool to help explain the facts.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Spam will be immediately deleted. Other comments warmly welcome.
On this blogsite you are free to write what you think in any way you wish to write it. However, please bear in mind it is a published public environment. Stalkers, Harassers and abusers who seek to hide behind pseudonyms may be exposed for who they actually are.
Anyone publishing threats, obscene comments or anything falling within the UK Anti-Harassment and the Obscene Communications Acts (which carry a maximum sentence of significant periods of imprisonment) should realize Google blogs capture the IP addresses of those who post comments. From there, it is a simple matter to know who you are, where you are commenting from, reveal your identity and inform the appropriate police services.