The Nullius in Verba bombshell paradigm change

The Darwinian worship cult's desire to wage war with veracity, verifiable facts, ethics, accurate history, truth and their allies was finally brought to an end by a research weapon of awesome power of supermyth destruction.

The IDD research method dropped Nullius in Verba: Darwin's greatest secret on the fanatical fantasy land of Darwin Word and followed it up with a second bombshell named On Knowledge Contamination.  

.

Science historian Ton Munnich presents a lecture on Darwin's serial lying & plagiarizing science fraud of Patrick Matthew's theory

WORLD-WIDE WE ARE WITNESSING A PARADIGM CHANGE IN THE HISTORY OF SCIENTIFIC DISCOVERY OF THE WORLD'S MOST IMPORTANT THEORY https://t.co/1yKrdGxGEk

— Dr Mike Sutton (@Dysology) January 23, 2020

Let's Bin the Dog's Breakfast History of Discovery Science sold by Darwinians

To date, most historians of science and scientists have credulously swallowed the toff, King Charles Darwin's, serial lies about the discovery of evolution by natural selection and instilled that palpable nonsense into to minds of the general population. But in 2020 we can see a paradigm change taking place. Proper scientists and other veracious scholars are now citing the independently verifiable facts of how Darwin's and Wallace's influencers, friends, Wallace's Sarawak paper editor, and their influencer's influencers red and cited Patrick Matthew's (1831) prior published theory years before Darwin and Wallace even put pen to paper on the topic in a private notebook.

This is what a paradigm change looks like.

Over the past few years, I can’t think of a single conversation that we have had that both Darwin and Nullius in Verba: Darwin’s Greatest Secret (“Nullius in verba” is Latin for “on the word of no one” or “take nobody’s word for it”) and as a result of it has experienced a torrent of verbal abuse on social media. So why has Dr. Sutton been the victim of such abuse? In a nutshell, Sutton has asserted that Darwin is a fraud and that his main thesis on natural selection was stolen from Matthew without any acknowledgement. Furthermore, using a new methodological technique that Sutton developed, he believes Darwin lied about his knowledge of Matthew’s work.

Professor Dr Mark Griffiths

Matthew’s didn’t get talked about at some point. In 2014, Sutton published his book

Over the last few years, I have read over a dozen of Sutton’s online articles about Darwin and Matthew, and I was also one of the first people to read Sutton’s book before it was published. Sutton’s work is meticulous, rigorous, and fully referenced. Most of his critics have never read (or simply don’t want to read) his book. Instead they appear to take potshots at his research and reputation without bothering to read the original source.

The first thing to note concerns Sutton’s methodology. His method – sometimes referred to ‘internet dating’ in his articles (but nothing to with people meeting up online, so apologies if the use of the words ‘internet dating’ in my article lured you to read this blog on false pretences) but called ‘Internet Date-Detection’ (ID) in his book – relies on the 30+ million books and documents that the Google Books Library Project has digitized and dating back centuries. Using the ID method, Sutton has used a search engine to track down obscure books, articles, and letters (and short phrases within these documents) to work out who published what and when with pinpoint accuracy. (For instance, back in the 1990s, I thought I had first coined the word ‘screenager’ but Sutton used his ID method and proved that others before me had used the word in print prior to my own articles).

Page 20 of Fraud and Misconduct in Research:
  ‘Plagiarism may present a particularly difficult challenge because sometimes establishing

deliberate plagiarism is not simple. Issues concerning the nature of giving proper credit, being influenced by ideas vs. “stealing” ideas, simultaneous discoveries, or interpretations may create a gray area where the intent to plagiarize is difficult to establish. While today there is computer text-matching software that can—under certain conditions— identify similar texts and thus raise the suspicion of plagiarism, human examination is always required to actually decide if plagiarism is involved (see also Biagioli 2012). If quotation marks or proper references are provided then matching texts may not necessarily constitute a case of plagiarism. Nevertheless, with so much of the scientific research floating in cyberspace, such text-matching programs can have an important role in identifying plagiarism. Yet even with this technology, establishing bona fide cases of plagiarism may not be simple. One recent illustration involves Mike Sutton, a criminologist, who relied on text-mining software to claim in an e-book he published in 2014 (Nullius in Verba: Darwin’s Greatest Secret) that Charles Darwin and Alfred Wallace plagiarized the theory of natural selection from Scottish naturalist Patrick Matthew. This claim—as could be expected—created much turmoil and remained controversial.3’ Page 174 ‘French astronomer Pierre-Simon, Marquis de Laplace was suspected of stealing ideas “outrageously, right and left, whenever he could,” and German mathematician Gottfried Wilhelm von Leibniz was also suspected of similar acts. Italian physicist and astronomer Galileo Galilei was This document contains independently verifiable evidence from the publication record that the original findings in Mike Sutton’s (2014) book ‘Nullius in Verba: Darwin’s greatest secret’ have been interpreted as being so significant the author’s write that Darwin’s name may now have to be added to a list of plagiarising science fraudsters. 2 said to “shamelessly” have stolen ideas from German astronomer Johannes Kepler and others. Likewise, Graeco-Egyptian mathematician and astronomer Claudius Ptolemy, as well as Dalton, Lavoisier, and Pascal, may have all been involved, and possibly guilty of, some form of deceit in their work. 80’ ‘George Becker (1984) accused Merton of misinterpreting and ignoring sources (to the point of faulty use of evidence), thus calling into question Merton’s conclusions regarding the relationship between German pietism and the rise of science over the past four centuries.81’ Page 217 Notes to Chapter 2 ‘3. For a concise review see 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mike_Sutton_(criminologist) Page 232 notes to pages 172–175 ‘80. Given Sutton’s previously mentioned work, Darwin may have to be added to this list'.

Dr. Mike Sutton, a criminologist, has used a battery of Internet search tools to demolish the main Darwinian argument, which would be either to say that Darwin did not have access to Matthew's work, which is denied by Darwin himself in the paragraph above, or that Matthew had presented his ideas in a very indirect way and with very little diffusion, as Darwin literally says:

"Unfortunately the view was given by Mr. Matthew very briefly in scattered passages in an appendix to a work on a different subject, so that it remained unnoticed until Mr. Matthew himself drew attention to it in the "Gardeners' Chronicle", on April 7, 1860."

In any case, Darwin read Matthew and took his ideas from a book that, certainly was of a different matter, but not less important, since in 1831 naval wood and arboriculture were key issues for the country's economy, and therefore the book had been widely distributed. Matthew predates Darwin but his characteristics (Scottish, sympathetic to the Chartist revolts in London) did not allow him to fit the profile of the new liberal model.'

See other scholarly affirmations of the facts over credulous propaganda beliefs HERE

In 2020, proper academics are now throwing out the dog's breakfast of credulous serial liar and plagiarist #CharlesDarwin toff worship!

See what a paradigm change in science and the history of science looks like: https://t.co/O9fyK7t5Vr pic.twitter.com/4jtKo1hpZL

— Dr Mike Sutton (@Criminotweet) January 21, 2020

Tin Foil Darwiboppers

Try as they might, fanatical Darwin worshipers cannot block out the newly unearthed facts on Darwin's science fraud.

At university libraries #Darwibopper's are going around wrapping my book in aluminium ("tin") foil to try to stop the independently verifiable facts from penetrating their brains & yours. Poor fools. There are no evil social scientists making #DarwinWorshipers into idiots 😂😄🤣 pic.twitter.com/Eh1aws5WCv

— Dr Mike Sutton (@Criminotweet) January 17, 2020

.

Who will debunk the sham debunkers? I will. That's who. Will you? https://t.co/wPukI9E5yG

— Dr Mike Sutton (@Criminotweet) January 18, 2020

.

The Google Monster Sniffed-out the Darwin --> Robert Mudie Connection to Patrick Matthew

[Archived: http://archive.is/c65lk]

Archive of updated information (Jan 24 2023) Here https://archive.is/v0ac7

The Google Monster

Dysology.orgAttribution

The Google (1913)

My original work in discovering the links between David Low and Robert Mudie to Patrick Matthew's (1831) Original prior-published discovery of the 'natural process of selection' and Darwin's replication of it would not have been possible without Google Chrome and the ID research method, which enabled me to search through over 30 million books and journals.

So effective is the ID research method that it enabled me to get back further with the Google search engine than Google's own staff - where I used the Google Monster to sniff out its namesake.

In fact, I used Google to discover the original Google! You can read that amusing story about the power of ID here.

Into the forests of the 19th century with Google to find evidence of Darwin's plagiarism

In the year I was born, Loren Eiseley caused a stir in 1959 when he accused Charles Darwin of plagiarizing the work of Edward Blyth (see Smith 1979    for an interesting but somewhat disingenuous overview of Eisleley's collected works of 1979, where Smith, in the general and unfortunately biased fashion of so many typical desperate dysological Darwinists gives the dismissive false impression - deliberate or just remiss - that it is he who has discovered that Blyth took much from Mudie's 1835 "Feathered Tribes" book, when in fact Eiseley (1979, e.g, page 61) labored the point and it is from him that Smith gets it - so long as you bother to read Eiseley carefully.

Unfortunately, at a time when others were far more diligent, neither Mudie nor Matthew were good at citing their influencers (see my blog on Matthew's plagiarism). A key difference between Blyth and Smith is that Blyth was careful to cite his sources. The difference between Blyth and Darwin is just the same! The difference between Eiseley and Smith is that Eiseley was careful to cite his sources. The difference between Eiseley and Darwin the same.

Eiseley's collected papers on the topic of Darwin's plagiarism of Blyth can be found in the Book that contains those collected papers on Darwin. namely, Darwin and the Mysterious Mr X   , which was published in 1979, two years after Eiseley's death.

Loren Eiseley (1979) ably demonstrated (pp 61-62) that Darwin cumulatively borrowed from Blyth's (1835) book 'The feathered tribes of the British islands' and his other published papers, without citing them.

Public Domain

Edward Blyth, twice co-author with Robet Mudie cited Mudie's work that Darwin replicated without citation. Blyth is widely acknowledged to have had a significant Influence on Darwin pre-1858. Blyth's most influential papers were edited by Loudon, who had earlier - in 1832 - reviewed Patrick Matthew's (1831) book and said it might have something original to say on "the origin of species"! Darwin's associate William Hooker (father of Darwin's best friend) knew Loudon and his friends very well!

Much of Darwin's prose, it was ably demonstrated by Eiseley, came from Blyth's papers of 1835 and 1837. But it is true also that nothing much of the full hypothesis of natural selection comes from them (see Smith 1979   ); although they are important papers on variety and habitat etc. But when it comes to his 1837 paper on to topic of "variation" and the "localizing principle" -    (published by Longman and co - Matthew's London publisher - no less) - Eiseley (1979, p. 91) explains that Blyth comes close to the theory on natural selection. On this point, Eiseley- points out the work of De Beer which shows how much Blyth influenced Darwin's writing in his private Zoonomia notebook of 1837-38. What De Beer and Eiseley failed to note is that Blyth's "localizing principle" is heavily dependent upon Matthew's bombshell observations six years earlier of "power of occupancy".

In particular, we must remember that the religious Blyth did not believe in the evolution of species and pulled back from where his prose was leading-back to Matthew's conclusions that species could vary so much that they became new species. See Eiseley (1979 p.58 for an explanation of this fact). And that is a key point about the limitations of stopping at Blyth, as Eiselely did, and of not going back from him to Matthew - who originated and wrote out the entire theory of natural selection and was cited many times and reviewed by Blyth's editor - John Loudon and with whom we can establish collegiate links with Blyth's friend Mudie and others (as explained in great detail in Nullius   ) and particularly Mudie's acknowledged influence on Blyth and the prose and ideas that Darwin copied from Blyth, without any attribution, that Blyth did attribute to Mudie.

Some 55 years later, now that the dust has settled on Eiseley's (1959) work, and his many papers that followed, it is essentially agreed that Darwin did steal much prose from Blyth and no doubt was influenced by the information he provided. However, unlike Matthew - the Originator of Natural selection and the great analogy that explained it, Blyth was well acknowledged by Darwin from the third edition of the Origin of Species onward as an important and highly valued general influence on his work.

Blyth might not have published the hypothesis of natural selection before Darwin, but Patrick Matthew certainly did before them both.

Prior to the reading of Wallace's and Darwin's papers before the Linnean society in 1858, it is widely agreed by the top scholars in the field that Patrick Matthew in 1831 penned the entire hypothesis of natural selection.! See my Rational Wiki essay    for the details and references.

Of great importance, is the fact that it has gone unremarked until I wrote in 2014 these very same words you reading   , that the editor and publisher of Blyth's (1835, 1836) most important papers on organic evolution was John Loudon, who in 1832, reviewed NTA and remarked that Matthew had discovered something unique on the origin of species!

Since Darwin admitted Blyth's influence on his thinking, this discovery of almost certainknowledge contamination, is alone enough to completely demolish the 154-year-old Darwinian myth that Matthew had no influence on Darwin.

Eiseley thought also that in addition to stealing from Blyth that Darwin had read and plagiarized Patrick Matthew's discovery of natural selection. But apart from what Jim Dempster, Milton Wainwright    and Hugh Dower    and myself (Nullius in Verba 2014   ), have written on that topic, Eiseley's discovery in this area has been most conveniently ignored by Darwinists.

Eiseley noted that following Matthew’s letter in the Gardener’s Chronicle of 1860 – claiming his priority – that Darwin (1868) replicated his 1844 private essay replication of Matthew’s unique prior-published analogy – this time citing Matthew.

In my earlier blog on Matthew's Artificial versus Natural Selection Analogy I included the text that Eiseley discovered. I now include it again.

Eiseley (1979): "Matthew wrote    ,

'Man's interference, by preventing this natural process of selection among plants, independent of the wider range of circumstances to which he introduces them, has increased the differences in varieties particularly in the more domesticated kinds...' "In his unpublished essay of 1844,

Darwin wrote, 'In the case of forest trees raised in nurseries, which vary more than the same trees do in their aboriginal forests, the cause would seem to lie in their not having to struggle against other trees and weeds, which in their natural state doubtless would limit the conditions of their existence…"

In that later text, to which Eiseley directs us, Darwin (1868) wrote:

"Our common forest trees are very variable, as may be seen in every extensive nursery-ground; but as they are not valued as fruit trees, and as they seed late in life, no selection has been applied to them; consequently, as Patrick Matthew remarks, they have not yielded different races…"

Eiseley knew nothing of David Low's 1844 replication of so much of Matthew's work (seeNullius). Therefore, he wrote that Darwin must have got this example from Matthew by 1844. However, I discovered with ID that Professor David Low replicated Matthew's original analogy in 1844 as well as being the first to second publish unique Matthewisms. Darwin read Low and recommended him to Royal Society. Low was Matthew's Perth Academy schoolmate and shared the exact same Edinburgh and London Publishers as Matthew (see my Position Paper Sutton 2014). How's that for a bunch of mere coincidences?

David Low (1844) wrote enough that was similar to Matthew's text for it to be said, I think, that Darwin could in fact have got the idea - as a form of indirect 'knowledge contamination' from him:

‘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.'

However, another got there before Low. His name was Robert Mudie and he was born in Matthew's county of Forfarshire in Scotland and he published on this topic only a year after Matthew. I came accross Mudie by searching with the ID method (as explained in Nullius, in the section that is free to read on Amazon   ) for specific words terms and phrases that, out of 30+ million books and journals online, Matthew 1831 appears to have coined. Mudie in 1832 was first to be second to use the extremely rare and apparently unique phrase "rectangular branching". This strongly suggests it is more likley than not that Mudie read Matthew's book as soon as it came out.

Only later did I find, from reading Eiseley (1979), that Mudie was a friend and associate of Darwin's great influence, Blyth. See page 171 of Eiseley 1979 - which explains that Blyth and Mudie worked together on an illustrated translation of Cuvier in 1840 - and that Blyth had read and cited much of Mudie's work. Some of the prose within Mudie's considerable output was about the camouflage of birds, Blyth used and cited it. That same prose, Eiselely discovered, was replicated without citation by Darwin.

The fact that I reached Mudie through an entirely different route than Eiseley - and the fact of Mudie's undoubted influence upon Blyth, who had an undoubted influence upon Darwin reveals two things. Firstly, it provides more data to confirm my "First to Be Second Hypothesis" by way of such unexpected and unpredictable triangulation. Namely that it seems more likely than not that Mudie read Matthew's book because he was frst to second publish Matthew's term "rectangular branching" also was first to replicate Matthew's unique "artificial versus natural selection explanatory analogy of differences" ; and secondly, it reveals almost certain knowledge contamination from Matthew to Mudie to Blyth to Darwin.

What was said to whom we may never know, but we do know by way of his correspondence to Joseph Hooker    that Darwin probably met Blyth pre-1848 - because in that year he recommended him to Hooker before he had, himslef, begun corresponding with him. Moreover, we know that Mudie and Blyth met because they collaborated together on two publications pre-1858. Face to face, via correspondence, via publications, or from third party oral information, my typology of knowledge contamination shows the various ways Matthew's prior published work could have entered Darwin's brain pre-1858.

If the internet was available in Eiseley's day there is little doubt that he would have made the same connection that I did, Namely that Mudie - who so influenced Blyth and Darwin - had surely read Matthew by 1832.

The case for Matthewian knowledge contamination of Darwin's brain by Mudie, who read Matthew (1831) and wrote about evolution without citing Matthew, is extremely powerful and it is far more significant than the simple fact discovered by Eiseley and celebrated by his peers, that the prose of Blyth (taken from his associate Mudie) - was replicated by Darwin without citation to its source.

Mudie (1832)     Page 368 wrote:

‘If we are to observe nature, therefore, we must go to the wilds, because, in all cultivated productions, there are secondary characters produced by the artificial treatment, and we have no means of observing a distinction between these, and those which the same individual would have displayed, had it been left to a completely natural state. The longer that the race has been under the domestication and culture, the changes are of course the greater. So much is that the case that in very many both of the plants and animals that have been in a state of domestication since the earliest times of which we have any record, we know nothing with certainty about the parent races in their wild state. As to the species, or if you will the genus we can be certain. The domestic horse has not been cultivated out of an animal with cloven hoofs and horns; and the domestic sheep has never been bred out of any of the ox tribe. So also wheat and barley have not been cultivated out of any species of pulse, neither have Windsor beans at any time been grasses. But within some such limits as these our certain information lies; and for aught we know the parent race may, in its wild state, be before our eyes every day and yet we may not have the means of knowing that it is so. The breeding artificially has been going on for at least three thousand years…’

Mudie (1832)     Page 369-370

‘But there is another difficulty. When great changes are made on the surface of a country, as when forests are changed into open land, and marshes into corn fields, or any other change that is considerable, the changes of the climate must correspond; and as the wild productions are very much affected by that, they must also undergo changes; and these changes may in time amount to the entire extinction of some of the old tribes, both of plants and of animals, the modification of others to the full extent that the hereditary specific characters admit, and the introduction of not varieties only but of species altogether new.

That not only may but must have been the case. The productions of soils and climates are as varied as these are; and when a change takes place in either of these, if the living productions cannot alter their habits so as to accommodate themselves to the change there is no alternative, but they must perish.’

Mudie (1832)     seemed to be recommending that humans engage in trying to approximate a kind of natural process of selection (370-371):

“Cultivation itself will deteriorate, and in time destroy races, if the same race and the same mode of culture be pursued amid general change. Our own times are times of very rapid change, and, upon the whole, of improvement; we dare not, without the certainty of their falling off, continue the same stock and the same seed corn, season after season, and age after age, as was done by our forefathers. The general change of the country, must have change and not mere succession, in that which we cultivate; and thus we must cross the breeds of our animals, and remove the seeds and plants of our vegetables from district to district. There is something of the same kind in human beings..”

The Matthew --> Mudie --> Low --> Blyth --> Darwin Connection

Much of the text that follows is taken from my previous blog on the F2b2 Hypothesis:

The Case of Robert Mudie and Matthewian 'Knowledge Contamination' of Darwin's so called 'independent discovery of natural selection.

• In his Book The Botanic Animal Robert Mudie (1832) was apparently the first to replicate the Matthewism "rectangular branching" - a phrase not used in print again (apparently) until 1855    and next in 1871   .
• Mudie (1832) was first to replicate Matthew's (1831) unique Artificial Selection versus Natural Selection Explanatory Analogy of Differences.
• The Scot, Mudie, like Matthew, was born in Forefarshire Scotland
• Mudie, a prolific author    , worked energetically for borough reform with R. S. Rintoul    , editor of the radical Dundee Advertiser - a newspaper that was very kind to Patrick Matthew - giving him a voice when others would not.
• Mudie was a friend and twice co-author with Blyth    - the naturalist who most assisted and influenced Darwin pre-Orign. And Blyth's two early papers on species variety - that so influenced Darwin - were edited by John Loudon who reviewed Matthew's 1831 book in 1832 and remarked that it may have had something original to say on "The Origin of Species".
• Mudie died in 1842 - leaving his second wife (daughter of a captain in the East India Company) penniless. One report     describes him as an intemperate spendthrift worn out too early by excessive intellectual endeavor and poverty.
• The highly respected anthropologist and science historian Loren Eiseley (1979, p. 214) spotted in a different 1832 publication of Mudie's that this particular Scot had somehow grasped, something, quite significant:

'Long ago when Darwin was still a youth aboard the Beagle, the Naturalist Robert Mudie, faithful to his century, had written:

' "There is a law that maintains the species." Scarcely had he made this assertion before he was busy explaining that all cultivated plants or animals were more or less monsters and that of the appearance of their parentage we know little or nothing. Even of wild forms he ends by hinting ambiguously of the emergence of species "altogether new". Finally he verges on complete heresy. "There is something," he almost whispers, "of the same kind in human beings," '

Eiseley was citing and quoting from: Mudie, R. (1832) A Popular Guide to the Observation of Nature. Whitaker, Constable's Miscellany of Original and Selected Publications of Literature, Science & the Arts. Vol. LXXVII Teacher and Co,     London    , And Waugh and Innes.Edinburgh. pp. 366-371    .

In his own earlier book of 1832, Mudie writes a great deal of text that focuses upon Matthew's topic of forest trees and the effects upon wood of the natural and cultivated circumstances in which it grows.

Conclusion

Did Mudie read his Forefarshire neighbor's - Patrick Matthew's - book, published the year before one of his own replicated a unique Matthewism and another of his books touched upon the same heresy?

Did he influence Blyth with some type of Mathewian knowledge contamination so that Blyth's work - that so significantly influenced Darwin - infected Darwin's brain?

Did Darwin get his knowledge about the difference between trees under artificial selection and those under natural selection directly from Matthew, and/or indirectly from either (or both) Mudie and Low?

Thinker Media IncUsed only with express written permission

Nullius in Verba

Was Blyth, Darwin's great influencer, more likely than not double-dosed with Matthewian knowledge via his editor Loudon, who reviewed Matthew's book, as well as by Mudie? I would say so.

Darwin always maintained that neither he nor any naturalist known to him had read Matthew's 1831 book, which contained the full prior-published hypothesis of natural selection and the most powerful analogy in the world to explain it. Darwin was 100 per cent wrong! He did know four of the seven naturalists who read it. All seven cited Matthew's book it in the literature pe-1858! And three of those naturlaists (Loudon, Selby and Chambers) played major roles at his and Wallace's epicenter of ipre-1858 influence on natural selection.

Seeing Matthew's comparison between artificial selection and nature - not just in terms of the specific examples he used but focusing instead on that analogy - "Artificial versus Nature's Selection Explanatory Analogy of Differences" Matthew was the first person ever to use that analogy. Others had earlier explained what artificial slection did but they never compared varieties selected by man with the fewer number of varieties in the wild (many such as Blaine (1824) came very close - see his footnotes on pages 97 to 98   .) in describing how greyhounds and pointers were not best suited to hunting under certain conditions in the wild. But, as did Matthew's predecessors, he failed to point out the natural selection implications that there are - when we compare artificially selected domesticated with wild species - fewer varieties in the wild, or else specifically stating that they could not survive in competition with wild varieties in any natural conditions

We now know Robert Mudie - in 1832 - was first to replicate Matthew's analogy and he influenced Blyth and Blyth cited him many times and co-authored with him twice. Darwinists accept that Blyth influenced Darwin and that Mudie influenced Blyth. What no one knew until I discovered it in 2014, is that Mudie (1832) was also first to be second with Matthew's unique phrase "rectangular branching". Mudie was also born in the same county as Matthew - Forfarshire in Scotland. Clearly, Mudie read Matthew's book by 1832.

Copyright Dr Mike Sutton. All rights reservedUsed only with express written permission

Their Immaculate Conception. An oil painting by the artist Gabriel Woods

If Mudie did not influence Blyth with intelligence about Matthew's book, then we are expected to believe that so much that Blyth (whose editor Loudon reviewed Matthew's book in 1832) wrote that was similar to what Matthew wrote was conceived independently of Matthew's prior-publication of the same ideas, when only the year before Mudie, who was Blyth's close friend.had read Matthew's 1831 book - a book that contained the very same ideas and that was the original source of those ideas that Blyth replicated before Darwin replicated them next in 1844 and 1859.

Darwin opened the Origin of Species with Matthew's 1831 unique analogy of Artificial versus Natural Selection! The very first words Darwin (1859) wrote are: " ‘When we look to the individuals of the same variety or sub-variety of our older cultivated plants and animals, one of the first points which strikes us is, that they generally differ more from each other than do the individuals of any one species or variety in a state of nature.”

Only when we realize that Matthew coined that analogy do we now see the conclusive evidence of Matthew's massive influence on Darwin. Matthew coined the worlds most powerful analogy to explain his unique discovery the worlds most important scientific theory. So important was the analogy - so influential - so powerful Darwin used it to open "The Origin of Species".

Read my blog on the topic to understand why, by virtue of being biologists, Darwinists failed to realize that Matthew also coined the very same analogy Darwin replicated to explain natural selection 27 years after Matthew originated it!

Not so much a dual immaculate conception by Darwin and Wallace as a case of immaculate deception! Game set and rational match to Matthew!

If such a macabre thing were possible, I expect Loren Eiseley and Patrick Matthew would be singing in their graves.

To find out more:

Read my book Nullius in Verba for more highly detailed information about Darwin's and Wallace's great science fraud.

Further Discussion

A further discussion of this topic can be found on the Patrick Matthew Project   , where, on 22.April 2015 I posted the following comment:

Comment begins

The page numbers in Dempster 2009 are in fact pages114-115

I include here the relevant text from those pages and then I make further comments:

The hard evidence of Matthew’s influence on Darwin via Darwin’s Replication of Matthew’s Unique “Explanatory Analogy of Differences between Artificial and Natural Selection”, not only the replication of the analogy but the similarity of prose.

From Dempster (2009) pp 114-115:

Darwin actually began The Origin of Species with Matthews unique and powerful analogy of differences! And he used it again on pages 83-84 Darwin (1859, pp. 83-84)

From Dempster (1996) “Evolutionary Concepts in the Nineteenth Century: Natural selection and Patrick Mathew” pp. 114-115:

‘If we doubt that Blyth had any influence on Darwin it is a coincidence, then, that the very first sentence of the Origin runs as follows: ‘When we look to the individuals of the same variety or sub-variety of our older cultivated plants and animals, one of the first points which strikes us is, that they generally differ more from each other than do the individuals of any one species or variety in a state of nature.” Blyth’s essay [1835] begins with a classification of varieties – simple acquired, breeds and true. In the first paragraph of his discussion of simple varieties in this sentence: “These simple variations occur both in wild and domesticated animals, but are much more frequents in the latter, and are commonly observed in all breeds and true varieties.’ The observation was clearly well established years before because Matthew had this to say on the subject in Naval Timber and Arboriculture (1831): Man’s interference, by preventing this natural process of selection among plants, independent of the wider range of circumstance to which he introduces them, has increased the differences in varieties particularly in the more domesticated kinds.’ And yet, Darwin in his Historical Sketch [1861 – third edition of the Origin of Species onwards] stated Matthew’s book was on a different subject!’

—- Dempster’ text ends —

And what was it Darwin wrote in his 1844 unpublished private essay? Here it is:

“In the case of forest trees raised in nurseries, which vary more than the same trees do in their aboriginal forests, the cause would seem to lie in their not having to struggle against other trees and weeds, which in their natural state doubtless would limit the conditions of their existence…’”

Yes forest trees no less!

And yet Professor Jones – a Darwinist “expert” – on the BBC this week says that Darwin could be forgiven for not reading a book on that same topic! How on Earth does he get away with it?

Matthew (1831) used hs unique analogy several times with different examples. Here is just one to compare with Darwin’s (1844) replication of the analogy, Not he also – n this example – uses forest trees and those grown in nurseries (plantations) as an example.

Matthew (1831) pages.107-108

‘… in timber trees the opposite course has been pursued. The large growing varieties being so long of coming to produce seed, that many plantations are cut down before they reach this maturity, the small growing and weakly varieties, known by early and extreme seeding, have been continually selected as reproductive stock, from the ease and conveniency with which their seed could be procured; and the husks of several kinds of these invariably kiln-dried, in order that the seeds might be the more easily extracted. May we, then, wonder that our plantations are occupied by a sickly short-lived puny race, incapable of supporting existence in situations where their own kind had formerly flourished—particularly evinced in the genus Pinus,more particularly in the species Scots Fir; so much inferior to those of Nature’s own rearing, where only the stronger, more hardy, soil-suited varieties can struggle forward to maturity and reproduction?’

If this is “weak evidence” that the Scot Matthew influenced Darwin pre-1858 with his prior published full hypothesis of natural selection (that Darwin’s associates (Selby and Chambers) had actually read and cited” then I’m a Scotsman. And I was born in Kent!

UPDATE 24 January 2023

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.

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 accus tomed 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

Weale's Entanglement Analogy: Dr Mike Weale Discovers a Pure Coincidence, Else Further Confirmatory Evidence of Darwin's Plagiarism of Matthew

During an on-going discussion with me on July 20th 2015 Dr Mike Weale wrote in the comments section of The Patrick Matthew Project:

[ Note:  In the following text, written by Mike Weale to Mike Sutton, NTA refers to Matthew's 1831 book "On Naval Timber and Arboriculture"] This is the book that leading scholars agree contains the original complete hypothesis of natural selection, but that Darwin and Wallace claim not to have read before they replicated Matthew's discovery, his great analogy to explain it and many of his examples of its operation in nature.

Plese note: Forsdyke does not reveal the similarity of the picture drawn in text from Darwin  - that is done by Weale. We might call this item of evidence "Weale's Entanglement Analogy". I am not sure it is particular evidence for plagirism in its own right. But if we add it to the far stronger evidence from my systematic and comprehensive plagiarism check - revealed  in Nullius - it is, at least, rather curiously interesting.

Dr Weale writes: 

Mike, were you aware of the following interesting similarity between a famous passage of Darwin’s, and something that Matthew wrote in NTA? I thank Donald Forsdyke for pointing out the Matthew quote (see the end of his last video in his educational video series (https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL59A9C65FB0DCED9E).

The Darwin quote, from the last paragraph of “On the Origin of Species”, is:

 “It is interesting to contemplate an entangled bank, clothed with many plants of many kinds, with birds singing on the bushes, with various insects flitting about, and with worms crawling through the damp earth, and to reflect that these elaborately constructed forms, so different from each other, and dependent on each other in so complex a manner, have all been produced by laws acting around us.”

The Matthew quote, from pp.229-30 of NTA, is:

 “Look at the broken mound, with its old picturesque trees and tangled bushes; there is the ancient root where the throstle had its nestlings, which are now at large on the leafy boughs, and are tuning their yet unformed notes to melody. Now every twig has raised its new column of foliage to the sun; and branch, and root, and stone, embellished all over in the richest variety of cryptogamic beauty, swarm of insect life.”

The scene is used differently (to contemplate Nature’s laws by Darwin, to contrast beautiful Nature with boring manicured parks by Matthew), but the similarity of the picture is striking.

Publishing so Many Unforgivable Errors of Fact: Professor Bowler and the University of Chicago Press Send Darwinists off on Another Fool's Errand to Play One Last Game of Bury the Scot.

Patrick Matthew

In his book, (Bowler 2013) Darwin Deleted: Imagining a World without Darwin, Professor Bowler – Professor emeritus of the history of science at Queens University Belfast - creates a counterfactual history of how things might have turned out had Darwin died aboard the Beagle and never written about natural selection.

His book is well written and entertaining, once you get beyond the necessarily very thorough caveats about the usefulness of thinking counter-factually in the introduction. However, it contains significant and unforgivable errors. That I am no Darwinist and no science historian and yet the fact that I know them to be 100% erroneous does not bode well for Bowler or the University of Chicago Press and it’s so-called “expert” peer review system!

A book such as Bowler’s takes a lot of work – blood sweat tears and even virtual bone marrow – but his credulous parroting of the Darwinian myth that Matthew’s published discovery of natural selection did not reach the brains of either Darwin or Wallace is his utter downfall. An error of fact that, unfortunately, makes his entire book a fool’s errand. All is not lost of course. He could bring out a second edition with Patrick Matthew as the protagonist.

In this review, I prove my point. On which note, what follows is a brief presentation of Bowler’s errors and the published evidence in the literature that proves him to be 100 per cent wrong.

Error of fact 1:

On page 54 Bowler (2013) writes of Patrick Matthew:

‘Patrick Matthew may well have stated the idea of natural selection as early as 1831, but he did nothing to explore its implications or to persuade his readers that it had the potential to revolutionize biology. His contribution is worth noting, but to suggest that is provides the basis for dismissing Darwin as the true founder of the theory is to misunderstand the whole process of how scientific revolution happens.’

In point of disconfirming fact for Bowler’s argument:

Other great discoverers, such as Mendel, Fleming, and Higgs, did not take their ideas forward, but others did. The main issue, therefore, in the story of Matthew, Darwin and Wallace is simply to determine whether or not Matthew influenced Darwin or Wallace. Focusing upon that question, we do know that Matthew fully articulated his discovery of natural selection in a publication 27 years before Darwin and Wallace (1858) replicated it. And we know that both Darwin (1859) and Wallace claimed to have also discovered natural selection independently of one another (Darwin and Wallace 1858). Darwin (1860 and 1861) specifically claimed no-prior knowledge of Matthew’s discovery and Wallace (1871; 1905) less specifically, simply claimed to have discovered it independently.

We now know (see Sutton 2014) that Loudon (1832), Selby (1842) and Chambers (1832) each cited Matthew’s book before being at the epicentre of influence and facilitation of Darwin’s and Wallace’ published work on evolution. That fact alone proves that Matthew in fact did influence others of the importance of his discovery. And those others - via 'knowledge contamination' - must most surely have influenced both Darwin and Wallace.

So Nullius in Verba Charles Darwin! Because other naturalists who influenced you actually cited Matthew’s book pre-1858!

(1) Loudon edited and published Blyth’s (1835 and 1836) hugely influential papers on evolution. Blyth's two papers, which Bowler (2013) mentions, did state several key concepts of natural selection. And Darwin (1861) freely admitted the great contribution Blyth made to his own thinking on the topic.

(2) Chambers (1832) cited Matthew’s book and then went on (Chambers 1844) to publish the Vestiges of Creation – a book which Both Wallace and Darwin admitted was a great influence on thinking about natural selection and organic evolution in general.

(3) Selby (1842) cited Matthew's book many times and commented upon his key natural selection notion of power of occupancy. And Selby edited and published Wallace’s (1855) famous Sarawak paper – which contained many examples of key natural selection ideas. Darwin also read that paper pre-1858.

That three of only seven naturalists, newly discovered to have cited Matthew’s book in the literature, should have played such essential roles in influencing, editing and publishing the work of Darwin and Wallace proves beyond all reasonable doubt that Matthew did persuade his readers that natural selection had the potential to revolutionize biology. Bowler is proven wrong, because under the very criteria that Darwinists such as Bowler specifically created to exclude Matthew from his rightful place as an immortal great thinker of science, the new discovery of his certain indirect influence upon Darwin and Wallace, means that as both first discoverer and proven influencer Matthew now has full and complete priority over Darwin and Wallace for the discovery of natural selection. Perhaps Darwinists would now like to exercise their right to cognitive dissonance and invent some new ‘bury the Scot’ criteria to protect their namesake from being knocked off the pedestal he fought to so hard for them to put him on?

Error of fact 2

On page 31 Bowler (2013) writes that Wallace missed the key element of using artificial selection to explain natural selection.

Bowler (2013, p. 31):

‘Alfred Russel Wallace also conceived a basic idea of natural selection, although we shall see that he understood its implications rather differently. Wallace also missed key elements of the case Darwin presented, most obviously the analogy between artificial and natural selection.’

However, Bowler - in writing a book for a popular audience - and, therefore, for all scientists as well as biologists, fails to distinguish between "the biologists' analogy" - which includes only things that are alike - and the general use of the term analogy - which includes comparing things to explain how they are alike, or else comparing them in order to explain why they are unalike.

Adopting as he does, without explanation only the biologists' restricted special use of the term 'analogy', Bowler conveniently fails to mention that Darwin replicated an analogy invented by Matthew in 1831 to explain his discovery of natural selection. Loren Eiseley (1979, pp.71-73) believed Darwin plagiarised Matthew's (1831) prior use of the analogy of artificial selection to explain natural selection and even replicated a specific example of trees raised in nurseries in his unpublished essay of 1844.

By neglecting to distinguish between the "biologists analogy" and the general understanding of the term, Bowler has penned another absolute fallacy by telling us that Wallace did not deploy the artificial selection analogy. Because in his own Linnean Society paper, Wallace (see Darwin and Wallace 1858), whilst specimen hunting in the jungles of the Far East, in actual fact, does incredibly replicate Matthew's prior- discovery that artificial selection is the key to explaining natural selection. Wallace (1858) wrote

And so it is that Bowler very conveniently fails to mention that Eiseley (1979, pp.71-73) believed Darwin plagiarised Matthew’s (1831) prior use of the analogy of artificial selection to explain natural selection and even replicated a specific example of trees raised in nurseries in his unpublished essay of 1844.

Bowler has penned another absolute fallacy by telling us that Wallace did not deploy the artificial selection analogy. Because in his own Linnean Society paper, Wallace (see Darwin and Wallace 1858), whilst specimen hunting in the jungles of the Far East, in actual fact, does incredibly replicate Matthew’s prior- discovery that artificial selection is the key to explaining natural selection. Wallace (1858) wrote:

‘…those that prolong their existence can only be the most perfect in health and vigour - those who are best able to obtain food regularly, and avoid their numerous enemies. It is, as we commenced by remarking, "a struggle for existence," in which the weakest and least perfectly organized must always succumb.’ [And]: ‘We see, then, that no inferences as to varieties in a state of nature can be deduced from the observation of those occurring among domestic animals. The two are so much opposed to each other in every circumstance of their existence, that what applies to the one is almost sure not to apply to the other. Domestic animals are abnormal, irregular, artificial; they are subject to varieties which never occur and never can occur in a state of nature: their very existence depends altogether on human care; so far are many of them removed from that just proportion of faculties, that true balance of organization, by means of which alone an animal left to its own resources can preserve its existence and continue its race.’

By failing to discover who Matthew influenced, who in turn must have influenced Darwin and Wallace, Bowler’s (2013) entire book is a fool’s errand because it is based on the false premise that Darwin and Wallace were independent discoverers of natural selection. To compound that dysology Bowler, creates the fallacy that Wallace did not replicate Matthew’s prior use of artificial selection as an analogy to explain natural selection. Bowler’s deploys that specific fallacy to make the case that Darwin was an original thinker. Clearly, the hard facts prove that nothing could be further from the truth. Because Darwin and Wallace both audaciously replicated Matthew’s use of artificial selection to explain natural selection.

In complete disconfirmation of the Darwinist myth, propagated by Darwin (1861), that Matthew merely enunciated natural selection in the appendix of his book, it is in fact in the main body of his book where Matthew used facts about varieties bred by means of artificial selection as a way to demonstrate how differently nature worked to mankind. Because natural selection results in fewer but more robust varieties.

Matthew (1831 Page 67):

‘Our common larch like almost every other kind of tree consists of numberless varieties, which differ considerably in quickness of growth, ultimate size, and value of timber. This subject has been much neglected. We are, however, on the eve of great improvements in arboriculture; the qualities and habits of varieties are just beginning to be studied. It is also found that the uniformity in each kind of wild growing plants called species may be broken down by art or culture and that when once a breach is made, there is almost no limit to disorder, the mele that ensues being nearly incapable of reduction.’

Matthew, 1831 Page 76):

‘The consequences are now being developed of our deplorable ignorance of, or inattention to, one of the most evident traits of natural history, that vegetables as well as animals are generally liable to an almost unlimited diversification, regulated by climate[1], soil, nourishment, and new commixture of already formed varieties. In those with which man is most intimate, and where his agency in throwing them from their natural locality and dispositions has brought out this power of diversification in stronger shades, it has been forced upon his notice, as in man himself in the dog, horse, cow, sheep, poultry.- in the apple, Pear, plum, gooseberry, potato, pea, which sport in infinite varieties, differing considerably in size, colour, taste, firmness of texture, period of growth, almost in every recognisable quality. In all these kinds man is influential in preventing deterioration, by careful selection of the largest or most valuable as breeders; but in timber trees the opposite course has been pursued. The large growing varieties being so long of coming to produce seed, that many plantations are cut down before they reach this maturity, the small growing and weakly varieties, known by early and extreme seeding, have been continually selected as reproductive stock, from the ease and conveniency with which their seed could be procured; and the husks of several kinds of these invariably kiln dried, in order that the seeds might be the more easily extracted! May we then wonder that our plantations are occupied by a sickly short lived puny race, incapable of supporting existence in situations where their own kind had formerly flourished - particularly evinced in the genus Pinus more particularly in the species Scots fir; so much inferior to those of Nature's own rearing, where only the stronger, more hardy soil, suited varieties can struggle forward to maturity and reproduction?

We say that the rural economist should pay as much regard to the breed or particular variety of his forest trees, as he does to that of his live stock of horses, cows, and sheep. That nurserymen should attest the variety of their timber plants, sowing no seeds but those gathered from the largest, most healthy, and luxuriant growing trees, abstaining from the seed of the prematurely productive, and also from that of the very aged and over mature; as they, from animal analogy, may be expected to give an infirm progeny, subject to premature decay.’

Matthew (1831, p. 308):

‘Man’s interference, by preventing this natural process of selection among plants, independent of the wider range of circumstances to which he introduces them, has increased the differences in varieties particularly in the more domesticated kinds…’

In his unpublished essay of 1844, Darwin privately wrote about Matthew's expert area on this topic:

‘In the case of forest trees raised in nurseries, which vary more than the same trees do in their aboriginal forests, the cause would seem to lie in their not having to struggle against other trees and weeds, which in their natural state doubtless would limit the conditions of their existence…’

We should not actually be in the least bit surprised to find Wallace and Darwin replicating Matthew’s artificial selection analogy to explain his discovery, because Selby, the editor and publisher of Wallace’s (1855) Sarawak paper, and a Royal Society Associate of Darwin, and friend of his father (see Sutton 2014) cited Matthew’s book many times in his own book on forest trees (Selby 1842), which is an irrefutable case of Matthewian knowledge contamination of Wallace’s pre-Origin work. I made that particular discovery in 2013. It was completely undetected by anyone until I published it here on Best Thinking (Sutton 2014).

Sticking with fact-based veracity, Matthew (1831) used the analogy of artificial selection to explain why there are more examples of human-bred varieties in existence than of the same species bred by the natural process of selection in Nature. This is an observation that some, including Shermer (2002,) have weirdly misinterpreted in order to make the ludicrously self-serving fallacious claim that Matthew meant species were immutable.

In reality, as most evolutionary biologists who have actually read NTA agree, Matthew's artificial selection analogy was used in that book to show that he uniquely discovered, before anyone else, that the reason why there are fewer naturally selected varieties is because those bred by nature are alone selected over vast periods of time to be best circumstance suited to their environment. Whereas human-bred varieties are selected for whatever characteristics humans desire, regardless of any effect that might have on making the variety less robust in terms of competition with others or other physical defects. Wallace's (1858) use of the analogy was exactly the same. As was Darwin's (1844) in his unpublished essay - using the exact same example used by Matthew of trees bred in nurseries being less robust than trees bred by nature.

In an effort to prosecute his own thesis, Bowler (2013, p.271) unintentionally gets himself in a bias-muddle and so genre-switches from biological evolution to historical fiction when he writes:

'One could argue that the role played by death in Darwin's theorizing about nature came not from Malthus but from the influence of the breeders.'

And since, Bowler does nothing to disabuse us of the utter nonsense of such an argument, it appears he thinks it is sound. In reality the role of death in Darwin's theorizing is exactly the same as the role of death in Matthew's and Wallace's theorizing. And that role is quite simply natural selection!

So much then for Bowler’s uncritical parroting of the Darwinist myth that Matthew never influenced anyone with his discovery.

Error of fact 3: Bowler Deploys Darwin’s Sly Appendix Myth

Darwin knew full well that Matthew’s unique ideas were in both the main body of his book and in its Appendix. Indeed, he wrote to his friend Joseph Hooker admitting as much (Darwin 1860b). Yet still Darwin went on to lie (Darwin 1861) that Matthew’s ideas were brief and buried in his book’s appendix as an excuse for not having read them and for his fallacious claim that those ideas went unnoticed pre-Origin of Species. Bowler merely parrots Darwin’s great lie, flying in the face of the fact that Matthew’s ideas run throughout the book where they take up many pages – including Matthew’s artificial selection analogy, and the unique name for his discovery. Indeed, as outlined above; the very artificial selection analogy that Bowler (2013 – pp. 56-58) admits Matthew used is in the main body of his book – not its appendix. See Sutton 2014 for just some examples of hard proof of how page after page of Matthew’s (1831) text on natural selection is in the main body of his book.

Another Darwinian Myth in the Making

In the weird unscholarly Darwinist tradition of writing that you are personally naming or calling something, when it has already been thus named by others, Bowler gives the false impression that he is uniquely coining his own term and its concept (see my blog on Richard Dawkins doing the exact same thing). In this case, Bowler (2013, p 139) writes:

'The formalist perspective encouraged a more structured progressionism that I call "developmentalism". '

But Bowler never coined the term developmentalism, because its been used by natural scientists since 1869. For example, see the Anthropological Review (1869, p.ixxxix):

‘He dissented from developmentalism, we believe decidedly it has been said by Professor Welcker that although he was sceptical upon the descendance hypothesis he reserved himself expectant but the readers of the well argued exposition of his views entitled. Some Remarks on the Succession and Development of Animal Organisation on the surface of our globe, in the different periods of its existence, would rather conclude that he had decided against developmentalism after careful and thorough investigation.’

By giving such a powerfully false impression that he has coined the term "developmentalism", Bowler engages in exactly the same type of Darwinist dysology that led so many Darwinists to go into print with their erroneous beliefs that Darwin coined the term and concept `natural selection' and that Richard Dawkins coined the terms and concepts of the `selfish gene' and, most ironically, `replicator'. Of course, Darwin and Dawkins did no such thing. But, just like Bowler in 'Darwin Deleted', they sure as hell gave the self-serving impression that they are being original by naming terms and ideas that are, in fact, pre-named and pre-owned.

Discussion and conclusions

Bowler’s weird error of fact, in claiming that Wallace, pre-1858, did not use the artificial selection analogy first used by Matthew to explain natural selection, led him ultimately to draw the 100 per cent wrong conclusion to crucially inform his ultimate prediction about what would have happened had Darwin drowned pre-Origin (Bowler 2013, p170):

‘Wallace would not have used the analogy between natural and artificial selection…’

Surely this amazingly massive error, and the failure of any Darwinist to spot it before I, is further evidence that leading Darwinists are suffering from dreadful bias when it comes to assessing the originality of their namesake?

That Bowler's book passed peer review, and has been highly praised by fellow biologists and science historians, is indicative of a widespread and very deep-seated scientific monopoly on 'knowledge' that is facilitated by conflict of interest when it comes to judging who has priority for the discovery of natural selection. Failing to apply the scientific principle of nullius in verba (on the word alone of no one), it seems that Darwinists have been unable to see that their namesake is only their namesake due to their own failure to investigate Darwin’s (1861) impudent claim that Matthew’s ideas went unnoticed until he called Darwin’s attention to them in 1860.

If Darwinists refuse to accept now that they are named after the wrong scientist, then we should not be surprised. It is important to understand that those calling themselves a Darwinist will have a colossal conflict of interest when it comes to judging whether someone not called Darwin should have priority over their hero for the very idea that made him famously their namesake. In light of the new discovery, that Matthew did influence Darwin and Wallace pre-1858, we should expect Darwinists to experience cognitive dissonance and set about making a number of implausible arguments along the lines that Matthewian knowledge contamination from Loudon, Chambers and Selby cannot be 100 per cent proven to have occurred. Failing that, we should expect them to create a new made-for Matthew excuse to deny his priority.

Perhaps Darwinists will now newly create a third criteria for priority? Perhaps they will argue next that it is not the originator who influenced others to take a discovery forward that has priority for a discovery but whoever more famously convinced the wider world of the veracity of that discovery? After all that is exactly what appears to have happened by default in the case of Richard Dawkins and the 'selfish gene' and - with exquisite backside biting irony - the 'selfish replicator' (See Sutton 2013).

The Darwinist Bowler is very far from alone in creating his own and spreading old fallacies, lies and myths to keep Patrick Matthew buried in relative obscurity. One cannot help wondering, how Professor Bowler – an expert historian of science – could have unwittingly made so many glaring factual errors? More so, his book is published by the prestigious University of Chicago Press, which means that it will have undergone expert peer review. How could the reviewers possibly fail to spot those obvious errors of fact? Surely it cannot be because they serve to perpetuate the myth that Darwin and Wallace each discovered natural selection independently of Matthew, can it?

Bowler’s (2013) dysology sits among many other examples, by other authors, publishing with prestigious scientific publishers, which confirms the Dysology Hypothesis that poor scholarship facilitates and encourages others to get away with publishing further poor scholarship. Moreover, it is yet another example from a long list of scientific publications, by major science publishers, which are written by Darwinists who have, since 1860, managed to contain the threat of Patrick Matthew by publishing numerous downright fallacies, lies and myths.

Click here to read the book that dropped the bombshell on the history of science. Big data analysis proves Darwin and Wallace stole the theory of natural selection from Patrick Matthew:

Thinker Media IncUsed only with express written permission

Nullius in Verba

NOTE: Visit the Patrick Matthew website PatrickMatthew.com for more information and news about the real father of natural selection

References

The Anthropological Review (1869) Volume 7.

Bowler, P. J. (2013) Darwin Deleted: Imagining a World without Darwin. Chicago. University of Chicago Press.

Blyth, E. 1835. An attempt to classify the “varieties” of animals. The Magazine of Natural History. (8) (1), Parts 1-2.

Blyth, E. 1836. Observations on the various seasonal and other external Changes which regularly take place in Birds more particularly in those which occur in Britain; with Remarks on their great Importance in indicating the true Affinities of Species; and upon the Natural System of Arrangement. The Magazine of Natural History: Volume 9. p. 393 – 409.

Chambers, R. 1832. Chambers's Edinburgh Journal. William Orr. Saturday March 24th p. 63.

Chambers, R. 1844. Vestiges of the Natural History of Creation. New York. Wiley and Putnum. (published anonymously).

Darwin, C. R. and Wallace, A. R. (1858) On the tendency of species to form varieties; and on the perpetuation of varieties and species by natural means of selection. Journal of the Proceedings of the Linnaean Society of London.

Darwin, C. R. (1860a) Natural selection. Gardeners' Chronicle and Agricultural Gazette no. 16 (21 April): 362-363.(This is Darwin’s letter in response to Matthew’s in the Gardeners Chronicle where Darwin clearly indicates he had no prior knowledge of Matthew’s book).

Darwin, C. (1860b) Letter to Hooker. 13th April. Darwin Correspondence Project. Darwin Correspondence Database.

Darwin, C. R. (1861) On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection. Or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life. (Third Edition) London. John Murray.

Eiseley, L. (1979) Darwin and the Mysterious Mr X: New Light on the Evolutionists. New York. E. P. Dutton.

Loudon, J.C. (1832). Matthew Patrick On Naval Timber and Arboriculture with Critical Notes on Authors who have recently treated the Subject of Planting. Gardener’s Magazine. Vol. VIII. p.703.

Matthew, P (1831) On Naval Timber and Arboriculture; With a critical note on authors who have recently treated the subject of planting. Edinburgh. Adam Black. London. Longman and Co,

Selby, P. J. (1842) A history of British forest-trees: indigenous and introduced. London. Van Voorst.

Shermer, M. (2002) In Darwin's Shadow: The Life and Science of Alfred Russel Wallace: A Biographical Study on the Psychology of History. Oxford. Oxford University Press.

Sutton, M. (2013) The Selfish Gene Myth is Bust: Richard Dawkins is an Invented Originator. BestThinking.com

Sutton, M. (2014) Internet Dating with Darwin: New Discovery that Darwin and Wallace were Influenced by Matthew's Prior-Discovery. BestThinking.com

Wallace, A. R. 1855. On the law which has regulated the introduction of new species. The Annals and Magazine of Natural History. Series 2. 16. 184-196

Wallace, A. R. (1871) Contributions to the Theory of Natural Selection. A Series of Essays. New York. Macmillan and Co.

Wallace, A. R. (1905) My Life: A Record of Events and Opinions, Volume 1. Cambridge. Cambridge University Press. Note: Taken here from digitally printed version (2011), Cambridge University Press.