Patrick Matthew, John Loudon and the Scottish Enlightenment

Being famous and influential Scottish scientists, both Patrick Matthew (generally overlooked true originator of the complete theory of macroevolution by natural selection) and John Claudius Loudon are hailed as having each played major roles in the great Scottish Enlightenment  (Russell 2014).

Both were polymath scientific naturalists. Moreover, both were noted botanists because each had author abbreviations in botanical works. Matthew's (1831) book 'On Naval Timber and Arboriculture' was listed by the Arcana of Science (1832) as among the few new science books published in 1831 and was cited in German as the work of the author whose experiment on the effects of lightning on plants was recorded by Robert Jameson (1831) the famous Professor of Biology at Edinburgh University, who taught Charles Darwin. For his part, Loudon's Magazine of Natural history bore on its title pages (e.g. here) the fact the he was a fellow of the elite scientific naturalist club the Linnean Society, Zoological Society of London and several other naturalist societies overseas. Loudon was a co-author with the famous botanist Professor John Lindley, who was the best friend of William Hooker, who was in turn the father of Darwin's best friend Joseph Hooker. Joseph Hooker once wrote that Loudon was better than many other European naturalists put together. Most importantly, Loudon was Chief Editor of the Magazine of Natural History,

Furthermore, as the fully cited and therefore independently verifiable evidence in my original 1st edition  600 page Kindle e-book 'Nullius in Verba: Darwin's greatest secret'  reveals, the facts show that Matthew and Loudon may have known each other, because in 1803 Loudon designed the landscaped grounds of Scone Palace at the time Matthew, aged 13 years, was living on those grounds at his birthplace Rome Farm. The farm stood on what became the landscaped parkland that exists there to this day. This year, during the Patrick Matthew Festival Weekend Matthew's third great grandson Howard Minnick and I visited Scotland and found the very spot where Rome Farm once stood.

In 1832 Loudon cited Matthew's (1831) book, noting he appeared to have something original to say on the "origin of species", no less.  In 1860, Matthew infomed Charles Darwin that Loudon had written this review of his book. Loudon was subsequently editor of the journal that published two of Blyth's famous pre-1859 influential papers on natural selection. Darwin noted from the third edition of the Origin of Species onward (Darwin 1860) that Blyth was his most prolific informant on such matters.

Pre-1859, John Loudon went on to cite Matthew's (1831) bombshell breakthrough book many more times in his botanical books. Most significantly, Darwin's private notebook of books he read before 1859 reveals he read two of those Loudon books (Loudon 1831 and Loudon (1838)  that cited Matthew's book containing his bombshell breakthrough, the same breakthrough that Darwin would later serial lie (after Matthew had informed him in 1860 that the exact opposite was true) to claim variously went unread by any naturalist, and then by anyone at all, and was unread by himself before he replicated the idea and referred to it forever after as "my theory", even after he was forced by Matthew to admit that Matthew got there first. See my academic journal articles on this topic Sutton 2014 and  Sutton 2015 for the expert independently peer reviewed proof of Darwin's lies and the newly discovered routes for Matthewian knowledge contamination of the pre-1858 brains of Darwin and Wallace.

For the sake of veracity, historians of science, biologists and all of us concerned with veracity should surely move beyond the sly myths started by Darwin about Matthew that are repeatedly regurgitated by credulous myth parroting 'Darwin scholars' and Darwinite worshipping cyberspace "zombie horde" multitudes (see Dr Arlin Stoltzfus on that very topic and use of the term) of their desperate pseudo-scholarly fact-denial behaviour.

 Read the facts you have a right to know and then make up your own mind about the true discovery of evolution by natural selection and Darwin's glory stealing lies and plagiarism.

In addition to the full 600 page Kindle edition, Nullius in Verba is available also as an abridged 200 page paperback (vol 1). Vols. 2 and 3 are forthcoming.

We certainly know a lot of Darwin's correspondence is missing and also scribbled out so as to render it unreadable. Both men had a lot to hide. For example, Hooker knowingly approved Darwin's 1860 lie that no naturalist read Matthew's prior published theory of Natural selection pic.twitter.com/OpZQ22ot0S

— Dr Mike Sutton (@Criminotweet) November 10, 2017

+

As "proof of concept" and "self fulfilling prophecy" my independently expert peer reviewed bombshell discoveries science paper 'On Knowledge Contamination' is now pushing towards 14,000 views: https://t.co/E8QuuMzsSL pic.twitter.com/blsjaypWZ2

— Dr Mike Sutton (@Criminotweet) November 11, 2017

Dr Arlin Stoltzfus on the Great Price Biologists will Pay for Worshipping a Proven Serial liar and Plagiarising Glory Thief

.Odds are shifting in favour of veracity @TeessideSitP See remarks of Dr Arlin Stoltzfus: https://t.co/QEG2x12s5y pic.twitter.com/if2RwLeQEL

— Dr Mike Sutton (@Criminotweet) August 27, 2016

SOURCE:  https://sandwalk.blogspot.co.uk/2016/07/what-is-theory-of-evolution.html?showComment=1470592772548#c5425344406995652816

GET YOU SOME OF THAT (GYSOT) VERACITY 

GYSOT-V

Social Media Comment form Dr Arlin Stoltzfus (2016)

'...to someone who has read parts of what Sutton has written, your reply looks very foolish. Contrary to what you state, Darwin does not "cite Matthew as a source" of his thinking. Instead, Darwin admits that Matthew preceded him, but then claims that no naturalists paid attention, and he indirectly blames Matthew for this (by putting his theory in the appendix of an obscure mis-titled book on naval arboriculture). That is, Darwin continues to take credit for what he calls "my theory", and simply writes himself a set of excuses for *not attributing Matthew as the source*, e.g., by referring to it as "Matthew's principle of selection." 

Sutton gathers the evidence that Matthew's book was not just read by naturalists, but (1) received multiple published reviews and (2) was cited by (3) naturalists in Darwin's circle of acquaintances and influences. Loudon's review actually mentions that Matthew's book contained interesting ideas on the origin of species. To find out why naval arboriculture was so interesting to Brits, you'll have to read Sutton, or just consider the basis of the British Empire in 1831. 

*Clearly*, Matthew has priority by ordinary scholarly standards, and clearly Darwin misrepresented the situation by spinning a yarn about Matthew's obscurity. Sutton points out that Darwin's followers have uncritically repeated that yarn for 150 years. 

The only remaining question is whether Darwin was actually influenced in some way, which might range from vague diffusion of ideas through a personal network, to stealing the ideas and trying to hide it. 

Sutton offers textual evidence that Darwin was influenced by Matthew, and points out personal connections that may have been a conduit for this influence. I have not spent much time reviewing this evidence, but it is based on similarities of phrasing. There is no smoking gun. 

However, now that Sutton has pulled back the curtain on this, it is no longer responsible in scholarly writing to assert that Darwin wasn't influenced by Matthew, or even to assert that there is no evidence-- there is circumstantial evidence, however weak. If you doubt the evidence then the appropriate way of saying it is "I'm not convinced by the evidence that Darwin was influenced by Matthew." 

But again, this only addresses the issue of borrowing. The issue of priority is already settled, in favor of Matthew.'

The Saturday Analyst and Leader and Other Letters of Complaint about Charles Darwin's Glory Thieving

Don't unthinkingly go along with the zombie hoard of myth parroting Darwinite mynah birds, who simply repeat whatever their heroes tell them is so. Because the independently verifiable disconfirming facts for the fallacy that Matthew was content with Darwin's reference to his prior publication in the third edition of the Origin of Species (Darwin 1861), and  in every edition thereafter, are 100 per cent proven to exist by simple virtue of being in print in the independently verifiable 19th century publication record:

• Matthew sent a second letter to the Gardener's Chronicle to politely rebuke and correct Darwin for writing that no naturalist had read Matthew's (1831) orignal ideas before Darwin and Wallace (1858) and Darwin (1859) replicated them without citing Matthew.
• Matthew complained in the The Dublin University Magazine
• Matthew complained in the Saturday Analyst and Leader.
• In 1864 Matthew published a political pamphlet entitled "SCHLESWIG-HOLSTEIN" that proclaimed him as "Solver of the Problem of Species". That was an act of defiance, one that we know, from his personal correspondence on the Matthew problem, really got under Darwin's skin. 
• Matthew's futile fight for recognition against the Darwinists, can be seen in a footnote to his letter to the Farmers Magazine, he wrote (Matthew 1862.page 413):
  
  `The writer has not been has not been much used to speak of what he has done. For more than thirty years after the publication of "Naval Timber and Arboriculture" he never, either by the press or in private conversation, alluded to the original ideas therein brought forward, knowing that the age was not suited for such. And even now, notwithstanding the great teaching influence of our cheap daily press, such is the power of sham, bigotry and prejudice over the editors of these, directly by perverting their own minds, or indirectly by perverting their candour, honesty and truth in accommodation to the reader's prejudices, together with the subserviency of the Editors to power and place that he is not sure the age is yet ripe. He was so far of this opinion, that he did not speak of these original ideas till driven to do so in protecting them as his.'

• Matthew complained to the Dundee Advertiser in 1862 that he had been platformed blocked from speaking on his origination of natural selection by organisers of the annual meeting of the British Association for Advancement of Science: 

'Sir,— The conduct towards me of the soi-disant British Association for the Advancement of Science has been such that I consider it right to lay the subject before the public. I gave in to their Assistant-General Secretary nine papers to be read. Of these they rejected seven and admitted two, one of the latter, on Botany, I withdrew, as I thought it required the rejected to appear along with it. 

The other I did not withdraw, as it had an immediate importance, but which the Society managed, by delaying the reading till the last, not to read.I will match the importance of these nine papers, in a national point of view, against all that was read at the Dundee meeting, of which the public will have an opportunity to judge. With regard one of these papers, on what is termed Darwin’s Theory of Natural Selection, but which theory was published by me about thirty years before Darwin (honourably acknowledged in his last edition by Darwin), at a time when man was scarcely ready for such thoughts, I surely had the best right to be heard upon this subject. Yet others were allowed to speak upon it, and its parent denied to do so. Such is the conduct of a Society terming itself the British Association for the Advancement of Science.— l am, &c.,' 

Francis Darwin wrote, perhaps implying his father's anger, over the Saturday Analyst and Leader article: 

"In spite of my father's recognition of his claims, Mr. Matthew remained unsatisfied, and complained that an article in the 'Saturday Analyst and Leader' was "scarcely fair in alluding to Mr. Darwin as the parent of the origin of species, seeing that I published the whole that Mr. Darwin attempts to prove, more than twenty-nine years ago."—Saturday Analyst and Leader, Nov. 24, 1860.

Mike Sutton still fighting the corner of Patrick Matthew against great odds. https://t.co/JPcUPqpnzV

— Teesside SitP (@TeessideSitP) August 27, 2016

Darwin was always considered to be scientific royalty - that is why Robert Grant, being enhanced to meet the grandson of Erasmus Darwin, made the mistake of entrusting, Charles Darwin with his discovery about sea sponges. Charles was, after all, the grandson of Erasmus Darwin, that great proven repeat plagiarist fellow of the Royal Society.

 Darwin got away with plagiarism and was able to "crankify" the originator, Matthew, because he was supported in that self-interest glory thieving endeavour by many influential peers - such as Charles Lyell, the Hookers of Kew and David Anstead who were prepared to sink to great depths to deceive the scientific community and wider society on his behalf (see Sutton 2014).

Why was Darwin so Revered?

 Why has the Darwin and Wedgwood family (into which Darwin married via his first Cousin Emma) been so honored by the mighty Royal Society - having at least 10 family members receiving prestigious fellowships? Why does the Royal Society refuse to accept the originator Patrick Matthew as having full and complete immortal great thinker, influencer and originator status over Darwin and Wallace for his own prior published, and pre-1858 cited, conception of macroevolution by natural selection?

The Royal - in-Bred - Royal Society Family #juxtasupposin https://t.co/OA2lGSuMaK pic.twitter.com/2GJHyrCa1U

— BlessedVirginDarwin (@OnNavalTimber) August 27, 2016

Dr Arlin Stoltzfus (2016) explains:

'I would be happy to explain to you what is the point of exploring the evidence regarding who deserves credit for an idea such as natural selection. The point is the same as for any other idea: as a scholar, one wants to get this right, because correct attribution is an important part of the social fabric of scholarship, including science. The correct source for natural selection, under the normal rules of attribution, is Patrick Matthew. If, instead, everyone decides to give credit to some revered figure who came in second-place, then this diminishes scholarship and science, and makes it into more of an elite popularity contest. Here's a rhetorical question for you: would you like credit to go to scientific royalty, or would you like science to be more of a meritocracy? 

Everyone agrees that Darwin had more influence. There is no difficulty in adjusting our language to respond to this fact, e.g., consider the case of the Modern Synthesis. Mayr, Simpson and Dobzhansky clearly were the most influential in promoting modern neo-Darwinism, but we attribute the actual combination of Darwinism and genetics to Fisher, Haldane and Wright. We could simply refer to Darwin in the same way-- we could say that natural selection was proposed by Matthew, and perhaps Wells, then popularized by Darwin and his influential social circle. 

However, what has happened in this case is that, when the evidence that contradicts misinformation peddled by Darwin and his followers is brought forth, Darwinian zombies lurch forward with the same ignorant dismissals, non sequiturs, and so on, which are then cut down, which just makes room for the next wave of zombies. 

So, the point is really about the zombie horde. If there were no zombie horde, then the point would be about attribution, but given that the horde is activated whenever Darwin is criticized, the zombie horde becomes the central issue.'

And here (Stoltzfus 2016)

'OMG, this is not an "extraordinary claim"! First of all, it is not a claim about evolution, but a claim about scholarship regarding evolution. This is just one of a gazillion cases in which a particular claim with scarcely any foundation is repeated until it becomes part of orthodoxy, e.g., read Ghiselin about how evolutionary biologists endlessly repeat the false trope of a conflict between Lamarck and Darwin. 

Literally, if we stack up the evidence in the two pans of a balance, on one side *all we have* is Darwin's assertion that naturalists can all be excused for not noticing Matthew's ideas because they appeared only in the appendix of a book on naval arboriculture. 

In the other pan of the balance, we have the evidence that naturalists read Matthew's work, that the ideas about evolution were not just in the appendix, that the work was reviewed publicly, and that the ideas on evolution were noticed. This evidence shows that Darwin's statement was literally incorrect. 

Then, there is evidence on a further point: we know that Matthew informed Darwin that, in fact, naturalists had read the book, and we know that Matthew provided verifiable evidence, i.e., he pointed to a citation. If Darwin had cared to ascertain the truth that Loudin reviewed the book, he could have verified Matthew's claims. Matthew made a second, more obscure, claim about an anonymous colleague who was afraid to repeat his radical views, but there was no way for Darwin to verify this. 

In science, a statement backed by citing a source trumps a mere assertion. 
[I'm not sure if this is still true, but there was a time when ACS journals instructed reviewers that they could not contradict an author's referenced statement without providing a citation. ] When Matthew wrote his open letter to Darwin citing a source that contradicted Darwin's claim, Darwin was officially trumped. The proper response would have been to rebut Matthew's evidence, or else to retract or withdraw the claim. 

The incredible amount of heat being generated here is not an indication that this is some kind of extraordinary unicorn-in-the-garden claim. It is simply a sign that Sutton has committed lese majeste, and the defenders of scientific royalty are coming out to defend His Majesty King Darwin. 

This behavior has become a major curse on evolutionary biology. We're all going to pay a price for the generations of short-sighted hero-worshipping evolutionary biologists who built a brand identity on the reputation and status of a dead person whose views would by no means survive today.' 

Dr Arlin Stoltzfus on the Credulous Darwin Deification Cult Zombie Hoard

Dr Arlin Dr Arlin Stoltzfus (2016), of the University of Maryland, Institute for Bioscience and

Biotechnology Research on the New Data, teaches brainwashed Darwin worship cult members the importance of objective scholarship and the dangers of fact denial in science (From the Sandwalk blog, August 2016):

 'I would be happy to explain to you what is the point of exploring the evidence regarding who deserves credit for an idea such as natural selection. The point is the same as for any other idea: as a scholar, one wants to get this right, because correct attribution is an important part of the social fabric of scholarship, including science. The correct source for natural selection, under the normal rules of attribution, is Patrick Matthew. If, instead, everyone decides to give credit to some revered figure who came in second-place, then this diminishes scholarship and science, and makes it into more of an elite popularity contest. Here's a rhetorical question for you: would you like credit to go to scientific royalty, or would you like science to be more of a meritocracy?

Everyone agrees that Darwin had more influence. There is no difficulty in adjusting our language to respond to this fact, e.g., consider the case of the Modern Synthesis. Mayr, Simpson and Dobzhansky clearly were the most influential in promoting modern neo-Darwinism, but we attribute the actual combination of Darwinism and genetics to Fisher, Haldane and Wright. We could simply refer to Darwin in the same way-- we could say that natural selection was proposed by Matthew, and perhaps Wells, then popularized by Darwin and his influential social circle.

However, what has happened in this case is that, when the evidence that contradicts misinformation peddled by Darwin and his followers is brought forth, Darwinian zombies lurch forward with the same ignorant dismissals, non sequiturs, and so on, which are then cut down, which just makes room for the next wave of zombies.

So, the point is really about the zombie horde. If there were no zombie horde, then the point would be about attribution, but given that the horde is activated whenever Darwin is criticized, the zombie horde becomes the central issue.'

A series of flashcards that set out Darwin's proven self-serving and glory-theft plagiarising lies about the pre-1858 readership of Matthew's (1831) original ideas can be found on the Patrick Matthew Blog: Here

Belief is the Root of all Delusion: Dr Arlin Stoltzfus on Dr Mike Weale's Arguments that Darwin is Innocent of Lying and Plagiarising Glory Theft

Interestingly, those who discover paradigm changing and independently 
verifiable new data are often portrayed by desperately biased scholars
 with vested career and in-group establishment interests in the old but newly
myth-punctured paradigm as cranks. With painful irony, the real cranks are
 those who let their bias interfere with their critical  reasoning.

Dr Arlin Stoltzfus, referring to discussions between Dr Mike Weale and I on Weale's Blogsite The Patrick Matthew Project explains why Weale's loyal 'belief-based' Darwinite bias cannot trump the fact-based uncomfortable - newly discovered - truth in the story of the history of discovery of natural selection.

Stoltzfus, A. Friday, August 05, 2016 (Writing on the Sandwalk blog site).

'Darwin, by repeating the idea that no naturalist read or noticed Matthew's book, repeated a self-serving statement that he knew to be factually incorrect, because Matthew himself had pointed this out. These facts are not in dispute. Sutton describes these facts by saying it is "100% proved" that Darwin "lied".

In the cited web site, the case made by author Mike Weale is entirely based on quibbling about "lied" and "100 % proved", while bending over backward to give His Holiness Charles Darwin the benefit of the doubt. According to Weale, when His Infallible Holiness Charles Darwin says that "nobody read it", we must interpret this as the kind of harmless exaggeration that occurs every day-- of course His Holiness must have known that the book would have been read by *someone*, so obviously he wasn't intending to be taken literally (*). To accuse his holiness of "lying" would be to impute deception, which cannot be proved "100 %" because it requires an inference of motives (according to Weale).

Thus, Weale's case against Sutton rests on the same kind of scholarly double standard that we are now accustomed to seeing: (1) insisting on a literal interpretation of a rhetorically loaded version of Sutton's argument, while Darwin gets off easy precisely because Weale *refuses to hold Darwin to a literal interpretation*, and (2) insisting that Sutton can't rely on inferences or touch on the issue of intentions by invoking "lied", while Weale is free to defend Darwin precisely by appeal to inferences about Darwin's knowledge and motives (sentence above with *). '

Appeal for a Rational Way Forward

Please do something (no matter how small) to support veracity in the war for veracity over claptrap in the story of the discovery of natural selection. Because Darwinites currently dominate the scientific community, but they are behaving like an authoritarian religious deification cult. 

https://www.amazon.co.uk/Nullius-Verba-Darwins-Greatest-Secret-ebook/dp/B00M5DP46U

Modern advanced societies will be harmed by having an inaccurate history of scientific discovery, disseminated through the propagandising machinations of  palpably biased salaried academics and other powerful establishment in-group members. Only a crank could not see that.

Belief is the Root of all Delusion: Dr Arlin Stoltzfus on Dr Mike Weale's Arguments in favour of Darwin's Innocence: https://t.co/sFRKTIQmBz

— Dr Mike Sutton (@Dysology) August 13, 2016

Dr Arlin Stoltzfus on the Darwinite Mynah Bird Parroting Zombie Horde

Read Dr Arlin Dr Arlin Stoltzfus , of the University of Maryland, Institute for Bioscience and Biotechnology Research on the New Data. 

I particularly approve of his term "zombie horde' to refer to the mynah bird parroting Darwin deification cult: Here.

'Sutton gathers the evidence that Matthew's book was not just read by naturalists, but (1) received multiple published reviews and (2) was cited by (3) naturalists in Darwin's circle of acquaintances and influences. Loudon's review actually mentions that Matthew's book contained interesting ideas on the origin of species. To find out why naval arboriculture was so interesting to Brits, you'll have to read Sutton, or just consider the basis of the British Empire in 1831. '

Most "education" involves accepting the squawkings of obedient myna birds. Get the facts: https://t.co/UUpZjTHO3e pic.twitter.com/Xm8aFqQiSY

— Dr Mike Sutton (@Criminotweet) August 11, 2016