.Actually, @BiologiaPensamt in "Luck and Cunning" Butler accused Darwin of plagiarizing Patrick Matthew most of all.— Dr Mike Sutton (@Dysology) February 21, 2020
I dare anyone to try to get the #Wikipedia Darwinite-paid professional editors to allow that fact about Matthew in the worst Encyclopedia. https://t.co/sYKkVvjZ5b pic.twitter.com/OyWEFrdPnn
Is it a #ConspiracyTheory or significantly evidenced yet painful fact that paid #Wikipedia #DarwinIndustry editors are slyly covering up Darwin's & Wallace's plagiarism of Patrick Matthew's prior published theory? Get the facts and decide for yourselves: https://t.co/MYlC6OyXZa pic.twitter.com/zPo2zGCpCQ— Dr Mike Sutton (@Criminotweet) February 22, 2020
'Mr Patrick Matthew epitomised their doctrine more tersely , perhaps, than was done by any other of the pre-Charles-Darwinian evolutionists.'
What Butler failed to understand without the benefit of my BigData IDD method is that Matthew (1831) was first to coin the term 'natural process of selection' in published print and Darwin (1859) was later first to coin the exact yet slyly four-word-shuffled term 'process of natural selection'. Most importantly, the IDD method also unearthed that Robert Chambers (anonymous author of the best selling Vestiges - see page 249 below), who cited Matthew's book decades before Darwin and Wallace had put so much as pen to private notebook on the subject of evolution, was apparently first to be second in print with Matthew's original term (see the facts newly unearthed in the historic publication record: Sutton 2014, 2015, 2016). Matthew's four word term was plagairised by Darwin because it is so essential to explain the theory of macroevolution by natural selection, it being (a) natural (b) a process and (c) selection by nature. For the same reason of requiring Matthew's essentially necessary components, Darwin and Wallace were also compelled to plagiarise his unique artificial versus natural slection explanatory analogy of differences. Darwin - in a private essay (Darwin 1844) which was later published, even plagiarized Matthew's highly idiosyncratic, arboricultural and foresters, artificial versus naturally selected trees explanatory analogy of differences to make the theory understandable (read that story here).
 |
| Page 87 of Butler's 'Luck or Cunning'
Above we see Butler suggesting (as Darwin's biographer Clarke later did) that Darwin suffered from cryptoamnesia when he plagairised Matthew. (see a relevant blog post on this page of Butler's book Here)
|
On page 249 of his 1887 book 'Luck or Cunning', Samuel Butler quite rightly points out the historic habits of plagiarism among key writers in this particular field. Not only was Darwin a dreadful plagiarist, who passed the theory of others off as his own, but so did Matthew and those who came before both of them.
The key point Butler failed to comprehend, however, is the fact that (as Sir Gavin de Beer, Ernst Mayr and Richard Dawkins all later showed) only Matthew was first in published print with the complete theory of macroevolution by natural selection. Butler also failed to realize precisely what Darwin and Wallace stole from him and the number of their prior-influencers, influencer's influencers, friends, and even Wallace's Sarawak paper editor - Selby - who prior read and cited Matthew's (1831) book and the orignal ideas in it (see Sutton 2016) before Darwin's' and Wallace's great science fraud by plagiary and lies.
Are the questions actually the answer to Darwin's and Wallace's plagiarism of Matthew and Dagg's sly and jealous plagiarism of me?
1. Did Matthew's failure to cite his influencers allow Darwin and Wallace to neutralize their guilt in plagiarizing Matthew's book and lying about who they knew who prior read and cited it?
2. Did the fact Matthew, the regional atheist Scottish Chartism leader, broke all the rules of the scientific community in his heretical mocking of "God" and Christian religion, inclusion of politics and news in his book allow Darwin and Wallace the guilt neutralization excuse not to cite him as their influencer?
3. Does the fact I mock credulous Darwinite cultists, who refuse to face the newly unearthed facts on Darwin's lies about Matthew and plagiarisng science fraud, political leaders, religious folk, and Richard Dawkins for not admitting that he never coined the term selfish gene give Dagg and the dreadful Linnean journal editors the guilt neutralization excuse they need to jealously and slyly plagiarize my Selby cited Matthew original discovery? (see the facts on Dagg the Plagiarist Here). See the facts on Dawkins and the Selfish gene supermyth here and here.
