The Scottish Forfarshire (now Angus) connection to Patrick Matthew and Darwin's Plagiarism of Matthew's Scottish Theory

The newly unearthed empirical data on the Darwin fraud by plagiarism and associated serial lies bring the history of science and science closer to understanding how the breakthrough in human understanding of evolution by natural selection was really made. 

The research into who did (contrary to the Darwin Supermyth that none see Sutton 2022) read Patrick Matthew's (1831) theory before Darwin and Wallace (1858 / 59) stole it and lied to call it their own reveals more about the three Scots - David Low, Robert Mudie and Patrick Matthew in the 1830's. My earlier blog on the topic has been updated HERE (archived Here) .

One possible interpretation (hypothesis only) of these new findings is that Matthew (1831) got the idea of his analogy between natural and artificial selection form reading the work of Mudie (1830) and that Mudie then read Matthew's (1831) analogy with regards to timber raised in nurseries v nature and added it into his 1832 book. However, a forthcoming chapter in an academic text book on science fraud by plagiary and research ethics, written by Mike Sutton and Mark Griffiths (forthcoming [in print] 2023), reveals something far more profound regarding another Scottish naturalist writing even earlier - who very clearly influenced Matthew earlier than Mudie's 1830 book could have.

Further research on my part reveals more about the importance of Robert Mudie and his likely prior influence on Patrick Matthew before Matthew wrote his 1831 book "On Naval Timber". My latest book "Science Fraud: Darwin's Plagiarism of Patrick Matthew's Theory" covers some of Mudie's (1832) replication of Matthew's (1831) ideas in more depth. In the 1830 text that follows we see Mudie (1830) beginning to articulate the analogy between artificial and natural selection. The fact Mudie, Low and Matthew all lived in the county of Forfarshire (now Angus) in Scotland cannot go unremarked.  The evolution of Matthew's theory of the "natural process of selection" surely happened in this region of Scotland. The exact same region in which Darwin's geological mentor Charles Lyell had his great manor house, just a few miles away form Matthew's house. More research is needed into the possible social relationships between Low, Mudie and Matthew.

Another who used the exact trees grown in nature v those grown in nurseries analogy is Thomas Laycock. He published it the year after Matthew also, in 1832.  In 1835, BigData analysis of the literature reveals Laycock was apparently first to be second (F2B2) with Matthew's (1831) apparently original term/phrase  "mental or instinctive powers." See "Science Fraud (Sutton 2022)", the book, for the details of how Laycock was connected to Darwin and Wallace and their greatest influencers. The Scottish connection in that regard is most profound, once again!

THE BRITISH NATURALIST (Part I)  CHAPTER I  Mudie (1830)

INTRODUCTION 

It may be a trite observation but it is at the same time a true one that there is neither waste nor ruin in nature. When the productions of human art fall into decay they are gone and if the artist does not replace them by new formations the species is gone also but the works of nature are their own repairers and continuers and that which we are accustomed to look upon as destruction and putrefaction is a step in the progress of new being and life. This is the grand distinction between the productions of nature and those of art those in which the same power finds both the materials and the form and those in which the form is merely impressed upon previously existing materials. 

The substances in nature are in themselves endowed with faculties unseen and inscrutable by man in any thing but their results which produce all the varied forms of inorganic and organic being of which the solid earth the liquid sea and the fluid air are formed and by which they are inhabited. The fabrications of man are on the other hand in a state of commenced decay the instant that they are made and without the constant labour of repair and replacing they would perish altogether. The most extensive cities and the strongest fortifications after man abandons them to their fate fade and moulder away so that the people of after ages dispute not merely about the places where they were situated but about the very fact of their existence. It is true that when man takes any of nature's productions out of the place or circumstances for which nature has fitted them and supports them by artificial means they cannot continue to exist after those means are withdrawn any more than a roof can remain suspended in the air after the walls or parts that supported it are withdrawn or a cork will remain at the bottom of a basin of water after the weight that kept it from rising to the surface has been removed. If man will have artificial shelter and food he must keep in repair the house that he has built trim the garden he has planted and plough and sow the field from which he is to obtain his artificial crop but if he would content himself with that which is produced without importation and artificial culture no planting sowing or culture is necessary for whether it be in the warm regions or in the cold in the sheltered valley or upon the storm beaten hill in the close forest or upon the open down nature does her part without intermission or error and while the results are so many and so beautiful the causes are those qualities with which the fiat of the Almighty endowed the elements when it was his pleasure to speak the into existence.

Etc Etc

A Further Investigation of those who were First to Be Second (F2B2): The case of Thomas Laycock

On Matthew's (1831) apparently original phrase "mental of instinctive powers."

 "Science Fraud" not only lists those who actually cited Matthew's 1831 book before 1858, it also lists (List 2) those who BigData research reveals were apparently first (after Matthew 1831) to go into print with apparently unique "Matthewisms". Being apparently "first to be second" with an apparently unique "Matthewism" they are said in short to be "F2B2".

Thomas Laycock is one of the names in my List 2. Not only does "Science Fraud" reveal his works on the theme of organic evolution, it also reveals who he associated with who were associates of Charles Darwin.

But today (11 March 2022) I discovered something more in my continued research into this area. Today, I found that without citing Matthew (1831) Laycock (1832) wrote extensively aping Matthew's work on his observations on the fact that trees that are artificially selected by humans are of inferior quality to those growing in the wild. Here. 

This provides yet more confirmatory evidence to support the F2B2 hypothesis stated in Science Fraud, the book. 

In my most recent book "Science Fraud: Darwin's Plagiarism of Patrick Matthew's Theory" there are many examples where those in List 2 are found to have been interested in the same lines of enquiry as Matthew, or to have later written about observations he first made, but without citing. Some were F2B2 and later in other publications they then actually cited Matthew's bombshell book "On Naval Timber". All before Darwin and Wallace replicated Matthew's theory and claimed it as their own. 

Schacter (2012) Provides further information about Laycock (who first introduced himself to me when I used the IDD method to see if anyone was F2B2 with Matthew's (1831) apparently original phrase "mental or instinctive powers"). Amazingly, although he wrote on Matthew's (1831) topic of organic evolution and used Matthew's apparently original term without citing him Schacter (p.115) reveals that Laycock wrote on the topic of instinct the same concept that Matthew had pioneered. 

Method

Schacter's (2012) book "Forgotten Ideas, Neglected Pioneers: Richard Semon and the Story of Memory" was found simply by typing the following search term into Google's standard search page: "Laycock" "Matthew" "Naval Timber" as in the image below.

The result I got today 13.03.2022 is archived Here. And if you scroll down the Google results first page of hits you will find Schacter's excellent book comes up. 

Next if we take the same three terms as above - in inverted commas exactly as above - but click for Google to search on books we find Schacter's earlier book also covered this topic. The image below reveals all.

As this research continues to reveal more about the previously unknown life of Matthew's 1831 book, namely who read it and was influenced by it, and who that "knowledge contamination" in turn influenced like a meme, it is important to remember that Laycock introduced himself to me because he was conjured up out of the publication record like a human spectre, living in a long forgotten book in the historic publication record. The spell that bought him forward was simply Googling the apparently coined by Matthew (1831) turn of phrase "mental or instinctive powers."

Those self-proclaimed sceptics who write in desperate defense of the "Darwin Industry" such as Professor Shermer all lacked the most basic but necessary skeptical curiosity to check their own bias when writing in support of Darwin's proven lie that Matthew's theory was hidden in the appendix of his book and that no one read it so it can't have influenced Darwin. Shermer's "its not a zero sum game" flim-flam in that regard is dealt with in Science Fraud. But really, Shermer, and all those other acolytes of the bearded God / father substitute Charles Darwin should have used Big Data analysis of the 40+million or more books and articles now scanned and in the Google library. Namely, Shermer (and others like him) should have looked at who was apparently first to be second (F2B2) with apparently original Matthewisms, as I did. Here is what Shermer writes. Note the excruciating fact that Matthew's phrase "mental or instinctive powers' is there in the text Shermer thinks nobody was influenced by (Shermer 2002) Here. 

The plot thickens as we drill down deeper for historical gold in the publication record

When we simply Google "Darwin" "Laycock" the influence of Laycock (who had apparently been influenced by Matthew's 1831 book) on Charles Darwin becomes startlingly clear. Now we see "experts" who were misled by the Matthew Effect in science not to focus their attention on the cultural tracers of Matthew's book explain the influence of Laycock on Darwin: Here

Frank Sulloway (1979) in "Freud, Biologist of the Mind" the writes on the topic here

Archived editions of this page:

13.03.2022 Here

.  . .