Patrick Matthew and the "New Data" facts

English academic says Scots farmer could be true origin of Charles Darwin’s most famous theory -... https://t.co/Cqb60SfXGb via @supermyths

— Perth Top News (@PerthTopNews) May 20, 2016

Read the Story, Read the Facts, Weigh the Evidence: Spread the News

Read full story https://t.co/y6D1rl1NIy

Read the New Data facts

https://t.co/E8QuuMzsSL

Then weigh the evidence pic.twitter.com/WxZYtiVSDR

— Dr Mike Sutton (@Criminotweet) May 18, 2016

The "New Data" facts are getting in the news

Some will remember Mike Sutton at Teesside SitP last year. He's still working hard for Patrick Matthew. https://t.co/aHSpoGn1aO

— Teesside SitP (@TeessideSitP) May 16, 2016

The Scotsman Cover's Sutton's Hutton Institute Lecture

Darwin may have stolen evolution theory from Perthshire farmer

Reference Stenson, J. (2016) March 17. Darwin may have stolen evolution theory from Perthshire farmer. The Scotsman http://www.scotsman.com/heritage/people-places/darwin-may-have-stolen-evolution-theory-from-perthshire-farmer-1-4074755

Read The Story Here

Please refer to the comments section in The Scotsman where I fill  in the crucial knowledge gaps in the coverage of this story by The Scotsman. 

 I wrote in the comments section on 2 April 2016:

I was only today made aware of the coverage of this story by the Scotsman.

My presentation at the Hutton Institute was followed by a most stimulating debate. Essentially, what has been newly discovered is that - as opposed to the old Darwin-myth story that none read it - the new technology of the internet has worked rather in the same way a metal detector can find things like the Staffordshire Hoard - that could never have been found with a toothbrush - seven naturalists actually cited Matthew's book and the ideas in it before Darwin replicated those ideas and then excused that poor scholarship conduct by claiming none had read them before he did so. Moreover, four of those naturalists were very well known to Darwin, and three played major roles influencing the work of Darwin and Wallace before they replicated those same ideas.

In fact, Darwin is newly proven to have lied about the readership of Matthew's book because he wrote that no naturalists had read it after Matthew informed him in writing that the opposite was true.

Matthew complained bitterly (in his letters to the press) to his dying day about the treatment he received by Darwin's Darwinists in denying him full credit over Darwin.

Matthew to Darwin and Wallace probable "knowledge contamination" is what is newly proven by the New Data. As yet, there is no hard evidence that Darwin or Wallace actually read Matthew's book before 1860. But lies both told in this story mean it would be irrational to continue to assume good faith regarding anything they wrote about Matthew. 

Rationally, the newly discovered facts disconfirm the old Darwinist paradigm of Darwin's and Wallace's supposed miraculous immaculate conceptions of Matthew's prior-published hypothesis.

My book 'Nullius in Verba: Darwin's greatest secret' contains fully referenced evidence to all of the above facts and a great deal more besides.

Edinburgh Evening News 1993

Reference: Thorpe, N. (1993) Back to Basics: New evidence reveals Scot's part in evolution theory: Origin of the thesis. The Edinburgh Evening News. November 6th. 1993.

The East Lothian Courier 1993

Alastair Robertson on Patrick Matthew in the Daily Mail in 1996

Reference: Robertson, A. (1996) Obscure farmer is missing link in Darwin's theory of evolution. Daily Mail. April 15th p.25.