An Open Letter to the Royal Society and Linnean Society on Priority in Science and the Arago Rule

 

Do You Really Believe You Can Magically Change the Rules on Scientific Priority?

Charles Darwin (FRS), Alfred Russel Wallace, and Richard Dawkins (FRS) and many others, deceased or alive, amongst whom I include myself, such as Samuel Butler, Raphael Zon, James Dempster, Brian J. Ford, Michael Rampino, Milton Wainwright, Hugh Dower, Loren Eiseley, Ton Munnich, and the Royal Society Darwin Medal Winners Sir Gavin de Beer and Ernst Mayr, have published our full acknowledgement, and the independently verifiable evidence to support it, that Patrick Matthew (1831) - in his book On Naval Timber and Arboriculture - published the full theory of natural selection many years before Darwin and Wallace put pen to private notepaper on the topic and 28 years before Darwin and Wallace (1858) had their papers read before the Linnean Society.

Matthew uniquely coined his discovery the 'natural process of selection' and 29 years later Darwin uniquely shuffled Matthew's term into his own unique re-coinage the 'process of natural selection'. Darwin and Wallace each claimed to have arrived at the same theory, used the same terminology and the same unique explanatory examples, independently of Matthew and independently of one another.

The purpose of my open letter, therefore, is to request the Royal Society publish an official statement to explain whether the Royal Society will affirm that Patrick Matthew, by dint of his achievement at publishing first one of the greatest discoveries in science, should be officially awarded full priority over both Darwin and Wallace for his great unique breakthrough?

In this regard, I presume the Royal Society has not unofficially changed its views on the rules of priority? Perhaps it is necessary to remind the Royal Society of the Arago Effect to which it has adhered in all other disputes over priority for discovery in science - which is that being first into published print with a discovery is everything.

Maybe you have uniquely re-written the rules on priority for scientific discovery, but are keeping that a secret whilst facilitating plagiarism? If so, does that explain why the Royal Society has now plagiarised the unique scientific discoveries of Brian J. Ford? Here are the fully evidenced and independently verifiable toe-curlingly guilty facts on that new debacle. It is called “Watching Integrity Die” and the Royal Society plays a shameless leading role in doing just that: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VWA1tLKQ2L4&feature=youtu.be

Ignoring the convention of priority - specifically ignoring the Arago Effect - Richard Dawkins and others have created a new, unique in the history of scientific discovery - "Dawkins' Demand" that Matthew should not have priority over Darwin and Wallace because it was previously their 'knowledge belief' that Matthew's unique views went unnoticed. However, newly available Big Data research techniques reveal that Matthew's (1831) book was in fact (all pre 1858) cited by other naturalists known to Darwin/Wallace - including Loudon (who edited and published two of Blyth's influential papers), Robert Chambers (who wrote the highly influential book on evolution - the Vestiges of Creation) and Prideaux John Selby (who edited and published Wallace's Sarawak paper). (see: my peer reviewed papers for this new evidence:  http://britsoccrim.org/new/volume14/pbcc_2014_sutton.pdf and https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/42392608.pdf).

As for Brian J. Ford, he has published hundreds of articles on the research the Royal Society plagiarised!

So, please explain, what is your excuse in his case? Surely the Royal Society is not plagiarising Brian J. Ford because he has acknowledged (here) your precious plagiarist Charles Darwin plagiarised Patrick Matthew are you? No, surely not!

In sum, would the Royal Society please make an official statement regarding whether it has abandoned its former acceptance of the Arago Ruling? Here is a reminder, just in case you have forgotten it: http://www.strevens.org/research/scistruc/Prioritas.pdf

If the Royal Society is making an exception to the rule of priority in the cases of Patrick Matthew and Brian J. Ford could it be so good to please explain why and make an official statement to the effect that this is not simply a biased Darwinist 'made for Matthew' and Royal Society ‘Made for Ford’ rule?

Now, perhaps also because I have published new bombshell research on the fully evidenced heresy that Darwin and Wallace knowingly plagiarised Matthew's theory, the Biological Journal of the Linnean Society is repeat victimising me by multiply plagiarising my original research and, whilst using it to fraudulently mislead its readership, refusing to do anything about that. The fully evidenced verifiable facts on that disgraceful nonscience behaviour, with proof that plagiarism is malicious, can be found here: https://patrickmathew.blogspot.com/2020/08/the-worlds-most-ironic-story-of.html

Yours sincerely

Dr Mike Sutton (Author of Nullius in Verba: Darwin’s greatest secret)

.

So am I right to conclude @MSWilliams62 @OxUniStudents @SociologyOxford that since @OxUniPress journals weirdly believe they can repeat plagiarise my research that Uni of Oxford now allows all staff and students to commit serious research plagiarism too? https://t.co/gditm4HETc pic.twitter.com/94AQkeS4Qn

— Supermythbuster (@supermyths) August 17, 2020

Not only that but the plagiarism is malicious. Weale wrote to my employer trying to have me sacked for defending my research. NTU enquiry found his complaint hypocritical, weird and disingenuous. No action to be taken. Dagg has a malicious stalker website dedicated to hating me. https://t.co/OA8siv4DVy

— Dr Mike Sutton (@Criminotweet) August 29, 2020

New £50 note and the Royal Society

Patrick Matthew. Because he was first in print with theory of macroevolution by natural selection. And because YOU the @royalsociety have uniquely breached the #AragoRuling for priority in science in claiming it's Darwin's theory. Explain yourselves please https://t.co/v7H5Dx9r5x https://t.co/RUzO5xOxc8

— Supermythbuster (@supermyths) November 13, 2018

Dear Royal Society, about you breaking your own Arago ruling convention

The thumbs up still beating the thumbs down on my open letter to the Royal Society @royalsociety https://t.co/SLmOLiS8Eo

— Dr Mike Sutton (@Criminotweet) October 19, 2017

Royal Society and Linnean Society Promote Belief in Dual Immaculate Miraculous Conception

#LOL Each miraculously immaculately conceived Matthew's prior published theory, Their influencers prior-cited it! https://t.co/2WQGnEqk3X pic.twitter.com/4UuEsyBMqa

— Supermythbuster (@supermyths) August 20, 2017

Royal Society has Long History of Rewarding Sly Plagiarists who Toady to the "Establishment"

Milton Wainwright on unscientifc fact denial paper-blocking by the Darwinite-cult Establishment https://t.co/aTL4q8Pzxs

— Dr Mike Sutton (@Criminotweet) August 3, 2017

+

What Royal Society did to Patrick Matthew closely linked to Roget's early plagiarism & he stars in Matthew's story: https://t.co/7m1bz5jpO3

— Dr Mike Sutton (@Dysology) August 2, 2017

The Egregious Role of the Royal Society in Rewarding Sly Plagiarists!

"Royal Society""kick-back" for plagiarising work of Grant & Nottingham's Marshall Hall
1, https://t.co/yITp2wjq7L
2 .https://t.co/TvnEyJa4sB pic.twitter.com/iVb8SswZXa

— Dr Mike Sutton (@Criminotweet) August 2, 2017

Royal Society want's a book recommendation

Book reports on BigData disproving the mere beliefs of the world's leading scientists that P. Matthew was not read: https://t.co/tb9R0OWK4Q pic.twitter.com/Ky4BYoANLs

— Dr Mike Sutton (@Criminotweet) July 14, 2017

It has all Gone Trump Shaped for the Royal Society

Going Trump Shaped for the Royal Society @royalsociety

1. https://t.co/SBJwPkZ477

2, https://t.co/Ts5EQd4J1m

3, https://t.co/6x3GgP2Jja pic.twitter.com/ijcBKNBkPP

— Supermythbuster (@supermyths) February 17, 2017

Rattling windows and shaking doors

Re The Royal Society: Public Vote on Darwin's priority being set below Patrick Matthew's:https://t.co/oJ7yZgy2iz pic.twitter.com/BPaw95HIBN

— BlessedVirginDarwin (@OnNavalTimber) November 17, 2016

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

— Teesside SitP (@TeessideSitP) August 27, 2016

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

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

Why was Darwin so Revered?

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

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

— BlessedVirginDarwin (@OnNavalTimber) August 27, 2016

Dr Arlin Stoltzfus (2016) explains:

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

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

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

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

And here (Stoltzfus 2016)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Fact-Wedgie Awards 2016

The 2016 Fact Wedgie Award.  Science Category Winner: The Royal Society.

For failure to accept the new and paradigm busting facts (Sutton, 2014 and 2016), which have been discovered in the history of discovery of natural selection, the annual Fact-Wedgie Award - for being most wedgied by new and uncomfortably embarrassing facts - goes to the Royal Society.

Please act against denials of fact: Vote on the open letter to the Royal Society: Here

Royal Society Awarded Thong for Awarding Gongs to Credulous Myth Mongering Fallacy Spreaders https://t.co/LMpbVPMAh6 pic.twitter.com/Z4tyHqOdd5

— Dr Mike Sutton (@Dysology) August 23, 2016

Dear Royal Society About that Darwin Medal

.@royalsociety Can I win @TeessideSitP your "Darwin Medal" for originally proving it's namesake a liar & plagiarist? https://t.co/LMpbVPMAh6

— Dr Mike Sutton (@Dysology) July 19, 2016

Well?

Can Dr Sutton @Criminotweet @Dysology win the "Darwin Medal" for originally proving Darwin to be a liar & plagiarist?

Make your guess...

— Emilio Cervantes (@BiologiaPensamt) July 21, 2016

The Royal Society: An Institution that Celebrates its Great Science Fraudsters with Pride

The respective English and Welsh theft by Fellow of the Royal Society, Charles Darwin (FRS), and Alfred Wallace of the discovery of the theory of natural selection from the Scottish botanist and farmer Patrick Matthew (see Sutton 2014) is not the first time that a Royal Society member from south of the border managed to steal the great discoveries of one their northern neighbours. Darwin and Wallace got away with it for 154 years. However, an earlier science swindler, Sir Charles Wheatstone, was less successful at evading detection.

Trumpet from the rooftopsPublic Domain

Sir Charles Wheatstone (FRS) convicted science fraudster

In 1840 Sir Charles Wheatstone (FRS   ) dismissed the worth of the invention of the electric clock by the Scottish genius Alexander Bain with a wave of the back of his hand. Bain, who had little money to promote his invention had hoped for Wheatstone's support. Instead, Wheatstone capered off to "independently invent" an electric clock of his own. A few weeks later Wheatstone slyly demonstrated his new invention of the electric clock to the Royal Society, which he claimed to have invented all by himself. Next, Wheatstone followed-up that conscienceless rip-off by trying to have Bain’s patent expunged.

Trumpet from the rooftopsAttribution

Alexander Bain Scottish Inventor Victimised by Sir Charles Wheatstone (FRS) convicted Science Fraudster

Though born a humble crofters son   , Bain litigated and Wheatstone lost and was ordered to make restitution to Bain   .

Unsurprisingly, Wikipedia, at the time of writing (26 May 2014), typically has the facts of this matter nicely Victorian-smog-mixed with another issue and so has conveniently obfuscated the court's finding of guilt very neatly in favour of Sir Charles Wheatstone (FRS   ) Wikipedia page on Wheatstone May 26 2014::   

‘On 26 November 1840, he exhibited his electro-magnetic clock in the library of the Royal Society, and propounded a plan for distributing the correct time from a standard clock to a number of local timepieces. The circuits of these were to be electrified by a key or contact-maker actuated by the arbour of the standard, and their hands corrected by electro-magnetism. The following January Alexander Bain    took out a patent for an electro-magnetic clock, and he subsequently charged Wheatstone with appropriating his ideas. It appears that Bain worked as a mechanist to Wheatstone from August to December, 1840, and he asserted that he had communicated the idea of an electric clock to Wheatstone during that period;but Wheatstone maintained that he had experimented in that direction during May. Bain further accused Wheatstone of stealing his idea of the electro-magnetic printing telegraph; but Wheatstone showed that the instrument was only a modification of his own electro-magnetic telegraph.’

Warning: don’t trust Wikipedia!

As we can see in the above example - some Wikipedians are as biased as Darwinists when it comes to failing to equally weigh and honestly present any evidence against their Royal Society idols. Moreover, in my personal experience, some Wikipedia senior editors are as morally bankrupt as Wheatstone when it comes to stealing the discoveries of others and effectively passing them off as their own - see Sutton 2013 for details.

So what happened to Bain in the end? John Lienhard writes   : 

‘Bain died poor at 67, in a home for the terminally ill. And we're left asking why things work this way. In fact, our sense of justice recoils. Yet creating ideas and making money are two separate human enterprises. Bain managed only the idea part. Yet history might be more just than it first seems. For when we trace the story of these devices, we find Bain wearing the crown for having changed his world after all. And that's really no small reward.’ 

Interestingly, the science swindler Wheatstone can be seen in this picture sitting    close to another famous Royal Society science crook - Charles Darwin (FRS).

Public Domain

Royal Society Fellows and Fellow Science Swindlers

For more details on this and further examples of great science frauds you could do worse than read Grant, J. ( 2007) Corrupted Science: Fraud, ideology and politics in science. Wisley. Artists and Photographers Press Ltd.   

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

Twitter

Follow Dysology on Twitter    for updates and news   

The Royal Society is Nought but a Darwin and Wallace Glee Club!

Sir Gavin de Beer (FRS) wrote in the Wilkins Lecture for the Royal Society (de Beer 1962 on page 333):

"...William Charles Wells and Patrick Matthew were predecessors who had actually published the principle of natural selection in obscure places where their works remained completely unnoticed until Darwin and Wallace reawakened interest in the subject.'

What the expert Royal Society member Sir Gavin Rylands de Beer, British evolutionary embryologist, Director of the British Museum (Natural History), President of the Linnean Society,

Available at Amazon

and receiver of the Royal Society's Darwin Medal for his studies on evolution never knew - that I have uniquely discovered (see Nullius in Verba) - is that  at least 25 people actually cited Matthew's (1831) book before Darwin's and Wallace's papers - which replicated (without citing) Matthew's original ideas and explanatory examples - were read before the Linnean Society in 1858, seven of them were naturalists, four known to Darwin and two to Wallace.

So where's my Darwin Medal for being proven a better scholar than de Beer on his own subject?

Royal Society Darwin Medal

Perhaps the Royal Society needs to improve the quality of its membership and medal winners? Linnean society too. The pseudo-scholarly Darwin glee-club shame of it! 

Visit PatrickMatthew.com to learn the truth about the discovery of natural selection.