More Evidence of pre-1858 Matthewian Knowledge Contamination of the Brain of Charles Darwin

Today, the evolutionary philosopher Hugh Dower of  http://www.hughdower.co.uk/ very kindly informed me of an article by Susan Sheets-Pyenson on the influence of Loudon on Blyth, as Blyth's editor, and of Selby on Darwin, via the articles Darwin read that were written by Selby. The article is entitled Darwin's data: His reading of natural history journals, 1837–1842 and it is published in the Journal of the History of Biology volume 14, pages 231–248 (1981). Here.

I published a peer reviewed article on the topic of the evidence that before they replicated his 1831 theory in 1858 in the Linnean Journal that Matthew knowledge contaminated Darwin and Wallace  Here.  In that article entitled "On Knowledge Contamination" I show that Selby (1842) cited Matthew's (1831) book - containing the full original theory of macro evolution by natural selection - many times before Wallace published his Sarawak paper on evolution in Selby's Journal in 1855 whilst Selby was chief editor. And we know from his own admission that Darwin read that paper by Wallace pre-1858.

We know that Loudon read and understood Matthew's theory because he reviewed it in 1832 and wrote that Matthew appeared to have something original to say on what he called the "origin of species", no less! So, as my paper on knowledge contamination makes clear, we know that the naturalist Loudon had a clear route to knowledge contaminate Blyth pre-1858 with Matthewian knowledge (as Blyth's editor). And we know that Blyth's articles on species were a huge influence on Darwin, because he admitted as much form the third edition on wards of the Origin of Species, after he had been compelled by critics to finally admit who influenced him. 

What Sheets-Pyenson shows us is that Selby's (1838) article in Loudon's journal was a direct influence on Darwin. And that is something I never knew before today. She tells us p. 235): 'Although Darwin wrote fairly long notes on most of these articles in the notebooks on transmutation, only one reference to the Magazine appeared in the Variation of Animals and Plants under Domestication, quoting a fact taken from Selby’s account of the fauna at his country estate, Twizell.'

So, in fact, Darwin was very clearly interested in Selby when it came to the origin of species question. Given the fascination Darwin had with trees in the Origin of Species it seems, arguably, unlikely he would not have read Seby's 1842 book on forest trees that cited Matthew's (1831) book On Naval Timber and Arboriculture so many times! But there is no certain proof he did read it - only more preponderance of evidence that he surely would have. And clear evidence Darwin's brain was knowledge contaminated on evolution by those who influenced him who we know for certain did read and then cite Matthew (1831) pre-1858.

Conclusion

Darwin's interests in Selby - and Selby's influence on him after Selby had read and cited Matthew means Matthew influenced Selby before Selby influenced Darwin and before Selby edited Wallace's Sarawak paper (or at least published it whilst he was editor).  

Importantly, when it comes to the evidence for routes of Matthewian knowledge contamination of the pre-1858 brains of the plagiarists Darwin and Wallace: 

(1) Loudon - a naturalist very well known to Darwin and and his best friend Joseph Hooker and others - reviewed Matthew's (1831) book in 1831 and said it had something orignal to say on the the "origin of species" long before Darwin adopted that term as the title of hi plagiarising book.

(2) Loudon owned and edited the journal that published Blyth's 1830's and 1840's articles on species and varities that highly influenced Darwin.

(3) Loudon owned and edited the journal that published Selby's (1838) article that highly influenced Darwin.

(4) Selby was a freind of Darwin's great friend and prolific correspondent Jenyns, who along with Darwin's father was a house guest at Selby's house and estate Twizell (see Sutton 2017).

(5) Selby published a book on forest trees in 1844 that cited Matthew's (1831) book - containing the full theory of evolution by natural slection many times.

(6) Selby owned and was Editor in Chief of  the Annals or Magazine of Zoology, Botany, and Geology, which published Wallace's famous Sarawak paper of 1855. Darwin read that paper pre-1858. 

(6) Selby was a close associate of Joseph Hooker. Darwin's best friend. Hooker's father, William Hooker, co-edited Selby's journal for its inception. Selby, in particular, enjoyed a considerable extent of professional involvement with Darwin’s best friend Jenyns and Darwin's mentors: Lyell, Joseph Hooker, William Hooker, Huxley and Strickland - facts here.

(7) Together with the geologist Lyell, Hooker orchestrated the Great Linnean Debacle of 1858 in which Darwin and Wallace committed the world's greatest science fraud by plagiarising Matthew's (1831) prior published theory of evolution by natural selection. Matthew originally called it the 'natural process of selection' and Darwin originally four word shuffled that name to 'process of natural selection'. Darwin had no choice but to steal Matthew's name for his theory it being about selection that was natural and a process. Moreover, he therefore had no choice but to also steal Matthew's essential original explanatory analogy of differences between natural and artificial selection.

(8) The Biological Journal of the Linnean Society - the direct descendant of the journal that published Darwin's and Wallace's disgraceful plagiarism of Matthew's theory, has allowed Weale and Dagg to twice plagiarise my original research revelation that Selby cited Matthew in his book of 1844. Read the disgraceful fully evidenced and referenced facts here.

(9) The editor of the Biological Journal of the Linnean Society thinks that plagiarism of my research finding is not plagiarism. Just how incredibly thick or corrupt  are these biologists?

(10) Selby and Loudon are just two of seven naturalists (six newly unearthed by me) in a list of more than 20 newly discovered (See Sutton, 2014a, 2014b, 2015 and 2017) authors to have read and cited in print, all before 1858, Matthew's (1831) book containing the first full published theory of macroevolution by natural selection. 

Unfortunately, in her article, Sheet-Pyenson makes no mention of Matthew and fails to mention that Loudon reviewed Matthew's book in 1832 and so does not make the important connection between that fact and the fact that Loudon remained editor in chief and owner of the journal that published Blyth's highly influential articles. Hence on the topic of knowledge contamination she misses my precise Matthew to Loudon, Loudon to Blyth, Blyth to Darwin "knowledge contamination" route argument in the case of Loudon being the owner and editor in chief of the journal that published Blyth's articles. But most importantly she does reveal a new (to me at least), second Selby, route for Matthewian knowledge contamination of Darwin's brain via Selby's articles in Loudon's The Magazine of Natural History journal.

The preponderance of evidence for Darwin's and Wallace's plagiarism of the entire theory pf evolution by natural selection just keeps growing, as does the corruption that exists at the heart of our so-called scientific community.

Moreover the @BiolJLinnSoc Biological Journal of the Linnean Society, published by @OxUniPress , a department of @UniofOxford is at the centre of facilitating disgraceful "nonscience" [@brianjford ] plagiarism of research.

Fully referenced facts here: https://t.co/yoUZnO2iZW pic.twitter.com/fmMRkdZ9Zb

— Dr Mike Sutton (@Criminotweet) August 30, 2020

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

The Loudon Brief: Why do Darwinists wilfully suffer from Loudon Naturalist Blindness?

The simple hard and independently verifiable newly discovered facts explain why Darwin and his worshipping Darwinists have fooled us with a complex tissue of lies and fallacies for 155 years. Read the hard facts here: https://kindle.amazon.com/post/hvzAKNvWTdCSpt-Lu2mreg

What is Loudon Naturalist Blindness? See if you have contracted it. Here