Plagiarising Science Fraud

Plagiarising Science Fraud
Newly Discovered Facts, Published in Peer Reviewed Science Journals, Mean Charles Darwin is a 100 Per Cent Proven Lying, Plagiarising Science Fraudster by Glory Theft of Patrick Matthew's Prior-Published Conception of the Hypothesis of Macro Evolution by Natural Selection
Showing posts sorted by relevance for query jameson. Sort by date Show all posts
Showing posts sorted by relevance for query jameson. Sort by date Show all posts

Saturday, 12 January 2019

More Newly Unearthed Unwelcome Facts On Probable Knowledge Contamination: Dr Lauder Lindsay (naturalist), Patrick Matthew and the Jameson's


An interesting new find for Matthewists: Here

In this newly unearthed publication 'Testimonials in favour of W.L. Lindsay ... as a candidate for the office of Conservator of the museum of the Royal College of Surgeons, Edinburgh (1852)' we find Patrick Matthew being asked to vouch for the abilities, character and suitability of the well known naturalist Lauder Lindsay for a senior appointment. Interestingly, Darwin would later cite Lauder Lindsay in his book The Descent of Man. Along with Matthew's testimonial we find further testimonials from naturalists. One is the famous uncle of a naturalist who cited Matthew's book (among over 25 others to cite it pre-1858) before Darwin (1858, 1859) replicated Matthew's discovery, claimed it as his own and then lied (see Sutton 2014 and Sutton 2015) that no naturalist / no one whatsoever had read Matthew's original ideas before Darwin's and Wallace's (1858) supposed independent conceptions and replications of Matthew's ideas, unique terminology and explanatory examples and idiosyncratic analogies. 

Most importantly, in this book, Matthew spells out that he is the Author of: 'On Naval Timber and Arboriculture' 

The relevant text is on page 18




The celebrated naturalist in question is Robert Jameson, whose (it is newly known Sutton 2014) nephew - William Jameson  - cited Matthew's book in 1853, which is a year after Matthew appears in print in this book of testimonials with hs famous uncle.

 William Jameson cited Matthew to point out Matthew's (1831) unique observation that some tree species could thrive even better in areas that were not their natural habitat. This was just one of Matthew's heretical points, which provided disconfirming evidence for the then orthodoxy in science that the Christian "God" put all species in a predestined place that was best and perfectly suited to them and the needs of all humans.  Most notably, Robert Jameson was famously Charles Darwin's tutor at Edinburgh University. Robert Jameson believed in evolution and is widely considered to be the anonymous author of the Edinburgh New Philosophical Journal article of 1826 that contains the first known English usage of the word "evolved" in the context of organic evolution. 

In 1831, citing himself as the author of the book On Naval Timber and Arboriculture (that we know both Matthew, Darwin and Wallace and others since fully admitted contains the first complete theory of macroevolution by natural selection - see Sutton 2015 for the citations to this fact recorded in the historic publication record), Professor Robert Jameson published Matthew's paper on meteorology (here - see image below). Clearly, Jameson would most surely have been fully aware of who Matthew was and of his dangerously heretical work - which had been noted in reviews as such (see Sutton 2014, 2017). On heretical ideas of evolution Jameson, we know - if it was he - would write only anonymously (see Jenkins 2015), as did the best seller author of "The Vestiges of Creation" the naturalist geologist and publisher  Robert Chambers (a correspondent and acquaintance of Darwin and Wallace's' greatest influencer) - who we do know for sure, but only due to my original research (e.g. Sutton, 2014, 2015, and 2017), also cited Matthew's 1831 book long before 1858.



 Matthew's newly discovered (on 12 Jan 2019) juxtaposition and citation of his book in a publication co-contributed to by Professor Robert Jameson is the second I have uniquely unearthed where this occurs. Both examples explain why Robert Jameson's naturalist nephew William cited Matthew's original ideas. Moreover, it is powerful circumstantial evidence that Professor Robert Jameson also read and understood Matthew's theory long before Darwin and Wallace stole it and claimed it as their own on the dishonest and totally wrong grounds that no naturalist / no one at all had read and understood Matthew's (1831) prior-published complete theory.   

 Perhaps Robert Jameson is the eminent naturalist who - as Matthew (1860) patiently explained to the proven lair Darwin -  understood Matthew's bombshell conception and original ideas - yet would not teach nor otherwise share them for fear of pillory punishment?

Conclusion


 Above all else, the unearthing of the fact that both heretical evolutionist Professor Robert Jameson and  his nephew, the botanist William Jameson knew of Matthew and were aware of his work On Naval Timber is confirmation for the concept of knowledge contamination and its applicability in the story of Darwin's and Wallace's plagiarizing replication of Matthew's theory of evolution by natural selection from that book. This is because pre-1858 Matthew twice appeared in print citing himself as the author of On Naval Timber in works edited by and also contributed to by Robert Jameson  (who was, incidentally, Darwin's tutor at Edinburgh University), whose nephew, William Jameson, was a regular correspondent of William Hooker, who was in turn an associate of Charles Darwin, Wallace's mentor and guarantor and father of Darwin's best friend, evolutionary confidant and botanical motor Joseph Hooker. If knowledge contamination is not relevant then anyone claiming so perhaps believes no amount of what might be seen as improbable and closely linked multiple coincidences ever sum to a likelihood that they are not actually coincidental at all? By way of example: Are we to believe that the fact Robert Jameson edited the journal containing an article by Matthew, in which Matthew cited his own 1831 book and where an advert for that book made the subject matter of species and varieties in it plain and clear, and that Matthew appeared in an academic testimonial with Robert Jameson, where Matthew again cited his book has nothing at all to do with the fact William Jameson then cited Matthew's book and mentioned one of Matthew's important observations that supported Matthew's original theory of evolution by natural selection?




Advertisements for Robert Jameson's books were published in the Edinburgh Literary journal along with those for Matthew's Naval Timber. The fact Matthew's book was about species and varities and their location in nature was made very clear indeed (see the example of one advert below in the same publication of 1830, here is one for Jameson. And here, some commentary on one of his publications.




+


+
Archived:  http://archive.is/jkmYZ and http://archive.is/73PqI and http://archive.is/ZHQfs

Note: There was a second (1854) copy of the testimonials as well. It's here

Note: At the 1867 Dundee meeting of the British Association for the Advancement of Science (where Matthew was platform blocked from speaking on his original discoveries) both he and Lauder Lindsay presented papers on other topics - see here.

Note Lauder Lindsay in 1855 citing assistance from who is most probably Patrick Matthew's son, who farmed in Germany here 

Note: In 1861 he was elected a member of the Royal Society of Edinburgh and, earlier, in 1858, Lindsay was elected a fellow of the Linnean Society (Darwin was a member and it was the society that published Darwin's and Wallace's plagiarizing joint article in 1858)  More here.

 Postscript 30. 01. 2019
See a more recent post with further observations on the links between Matthew and Robert Jameson
Posted by at No comments:
Labels: , , , , , ,

Saturday, 4 November 2017

Why the topic of Darwin's and Wallace's Plagiarism is now "owned" by the social sciences

There is an 1831 citation of one item of Matthew’s (1831) published work in a German book. Click here 

The cited work is on the topic of Matthew's lightning rods experiment, and it attributes the Matthew experiment to von Matthew Esquire, author of the treatise On Naval Timber. The fact Matthew's experiment is translated into German for a German readership, and appeared first in Robert Jameson's Philosophical journal is important. It is important because Jameson, who was Regius Professor of Biology, taught Charles Darwin at Edinburgh University in 1827.

  Jameson's nephew William Jameson – a correspondent of William Hooker the father of Darwin’s best friend Joseph Hooker - later cited Matthew's (1831) ideas on natural selection pre-1858. William Jameson did so in 1853 (see Nullius 2017). 

 The 1831 German translation of Matthew's correspondence to Robert Jameson's journal and the fact Matthew's earlier and rather cranky experiment, which found no evidence to support earlier observations of others that lightning conductors improved the growth of trees or other plants in their immediate vicinity, is in Jameson's Edinburgh New Philosophical journal, which is just one more item amongst many of Matthew's prominently published work that proves Matthew was far from an obscure Scottish writer on forest trees. Matthew, reasoned in his observations that the reason for more luxuriant plant growth near lightning conductors might be because the soil had been particularly well turned near where they were sited. Professor William Jameson's journal reproduced a lengthy communication by Matthew on this rather weird and wonderful lightning rod experiment and then noted his 1831 authorship of On Naval Timber and Arboriculture. As early as 1831, Matthew had, therefore, on the basis of this one independently verifiable fact alone, an international reputation as an experimental gentleman agricultural naturalist science author, in an esteemed journal, edited by a most esteemed biologist. 

 Moreover, it is Robert Jameson who is widely believed to be the anonymous author who was first to use the word "evolved" in 1826 in a biological evolutionary sense (see Dempster 1996.p. 143) for an analysis of competing ideas about who was the author).  As I explain my 600 page Kindle e-book (first edition) of Nullius in Verba:Darwin's greatest secret, the undergraduate Darwin offended Robert Jameson by capering off and presenting his own evidences in Jameson's field of interest ater Jameson introduced him and tutored him in his unpublished pioneering work on sea sponges. 

 The german translation effectively cites The Edinburgh New Philosophical journal v.11 (1831). Matthew's experiment can be found on pages 386 to 388. And in this article in the journal edited by Robert Jameson we see the journal records that Matthew is the author of NTA. 


This adds one more citation to the list of 24 pre-1858 citations of Matthew's book that is contained in Nullius in Verba: Darwin's greatest secret. Read the abridged paperback (vol 1) Nullius in Verba for more of the newly discovered facts. 

 Another citation - bringing List 1 to 26, is added by The Quarterly Review citation of it in 1833 on pages 125 and 126. The author of the piece referred to Matthew's 'Critical Notes' in NTA as pert nonsense Click Here.

 As further evidence he was not an obscure Scottish writer on Forest Trees, as Darwin (1861) sought to portray him in order to downplay Matthew's right to both first and foremost priority for the theory Darwin replicated and referred to fallaciously thereafter as "my theory", Matthew's (1831) NTA was listed among the few new scientific books published in 1831 (here).

 The list of those discovered to have cited Matthew's (1831) book pre 1858 is growing. The Quarterly Review cited it in 1833 on pages 125 and 126. The author of the piece referred to Matthew's 'Critical Notes' in NTA as pert nonsense Click Here
+
+
Posted by at No comments:
Labels: , , , ,

Tuesday, 15 January 2019

Why is the concept of Knowledge Contamination so important?


Conclusion on the topic of 'knowledge contamination' from the latest IDD method bombshell breakthrough in the history of scientific discovery and Darwin's and Wallace's plagiarism of Matthew's prior-published and often-prior cited theory (see related earlier blog post here).

 Above all else, the unearthing of the fact that both heretical evolutionist Professor Robert Jameson and  his nephew, the botanist William Jameson knew of Matthew and were aware of his work On Naval Timber is confirmation for the concept of knowledge contamination and its applicability in the story of Darwin's and Wallace's plagiarizing replication of Matthew's theory of evolution by natural selection from that book. This is because pre-1858 Matthew twice appeared in print citing himself as the author of On Naval Timber in works edited by and also contributed to by Robert Jameson  (who was, incidentally, Darwin's tutor at Edinburgh University), whose nephew William Jameson was a regular correspondent of William Hooker. William Hooker was in turn an associate of Charles Darwin and father of Darwin's best friend, evolutionary confidant and botanical motor Joseph Hooker. If knowledge contamination is not relevant then anyone claiming so perhaps believes no amount of what might be seen as improbable and closely linked multiple coincidences ever sum to a likelihood that they are not actually coincidental at all? By way of example: Are we to believe that the fact Robert Jameson edited the journal containing an article by Matthew, in which Matthew cited his own 1831 book and where an advert for that book made the subject matter of species and varieties in it plain and clear, and that Matthew appeared in an academic testimonial with Robert Jameson, where Matthew again cited his book has nothing at all to do with the fact William Jameson then cited Matthew's book and mentioned one of Matthew's important observations that supported Matthew's original theory of evolution by natural selection? 

 My assumption is that 19th century scientists would as likely as not discuss then if they were aware of the heretical ideas in Matthew's book. And aware of them they were made, not only by the famous naturalist and editor Loudon who wrote in 1831 a very public review that Matthew's (1831) book contained important new information on what he termed the "origin of species", but amongst others by an anonymous reviewer who wrote that he/she disdained so much as rumination on Matthew's writings on law of nature, a fact that Darwin deification fanatical official Wikipedia editors fought desperately to permanently delete by deleting it again and again when its fully referenced source in the historic publication record was put on the Patrick Matthew page on Wikipedia. This desperate Darwinist superfan fact denial behaviour, on the world's worst encyclopedia, with all fully verifiable facts on that disgraceful matter can be seen here. What were those Wikipedia editors so afraid of? And what do they remain afraid of today? I think the answer is they were and remain afraid of 'knowledge contamination' of the wider scientific community and the wider general public with newly unearthed data that disconfirms all Darwin fans mere mythology about Darwin's originality, honesty and disproves the lies Darwin wrote about Matthew and the myth fuelled bias-blinkered and fake-facts claptrap his fanatical followers have written about Matthew since. 

   Secord's book on the Vestiges (its anonymous author Robert Chambers also newly discovered by me to have cited Matthew's 1831 book) in : 'Victorian Sensation' absolutely demonstrates that the heretically delicious topic of organic evolution was on everyone's lips.  Moreover, two acts of Parliament were passed to stop such issues being discussed in public scientific societies. Knowledge contamination is such an important issue. If not, why were all those science clubs and societies formed - if not to bring naturalists together to discuss new ideas? That was one very important reason given for the founding of the British Association for Advancement of Science - for the very reason that others were hypothesising about evolution. So weighing all these facts, a quite reasonable assumption is, I think, that 19th century naturalists might well have discussed the topic of Matthew's book with fellow naturalists, if they were aware of it. Then there are all those letters from these so called "men of letters" - letters kept and even more burned that where is could have been discussed in correspondence. The time is now to look in the archives of those naturalists we newly know did read and cite Matthew's (1831) book (see Sutton 2015) to see what can be found in that regard pre-Darwin's and Wallace's 1858 claimed independent replications of Matthew's prior published - and prior cited by their friends, editors and influencers and their influencer's influencers - complete theory of macroevolution by natural selection, including his name for it and his highly idiosyncratic explanatory example and analogy of differences between artificial and natural selection.

Original expert peer reviewed article:   On Knowledge Contamination: New Data Challenges Claims of Darwin’s and Wallace’s Independent Conceptions of Matthew’s Prior-Published Hypothesis

My book containing more information: Nullius in Verba: Darwin's Greatest Secret (paperback version)


Original e-book will be re-released in or after 2019 after licence with its original (folded) publisher expires




. .
Posted by at No comments:
Labels:

Friday, 25 January 2019

Matthew had an International Reputation Long Before Darwin

In my research on Matthew, the originator of the the theory of macroevolution by natural selection, I have proven many times that contrary to the Darwinite myth, he was not simply an unread obscure writer on forest trees.

Matthew had an international reputation as an agriculturalist and writer on that topic in Europe and the USA (see Woodbury cited at end of his post) long before Darwin. Yet the serial liar Darwin sought to portray Matthew (even after Matthew had informed him that the opposite was true) that he was a mere obscure Scottish writer on forest trees. Credulous neo-religious Darwin and Wallace cultish worshippers have fallen for Darwin's sly propaganda plagiarising cover-up lies ever since.



Here, in this one further example, we see Matthew's (1831) book (which contains the original conception of macro evolution by natural selection) cited and praised in relation to information about spreading soot around plants to improve their growth. My book (Sutton 2014 & 2017) on the topic reveals that years before Darwin and Wallace replicated Matthew's original breakthrough ideas without citation that Matthew was read and cited many times, not only in the Encyclopedia Britannica, but at least 25 times, seven by naturalists, four of whom (Loudon, Chambers, Selby and Jameson) were at the epicentre of their influence.

The Gardener's Magazine and Register of Rural & Domestic Improvement, (1837) Volume 3. pp 517-518

https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=_TdNAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA518&dq=matthew+naval+timber+fertilizer+charcoal&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiIjqfhmbvbAhWLKsAKHQqVAo0Q6AEILDAA#v=onepage&q=matthew%20naval%20timber%20fertilizer%20charcoal&f=false




The historian Ton Munnich kindly translated a Dutch article published in 1832 on Matthew's research (here) that reproduced the text of Matthew's Lightning Rod Experiment. As cited in On Knowledge Contamination see pp. 184-185), The Gardener’s Magazine and Register of Rural and Domestic Improvement, vol. 9, Longman, Rees, Orme, Brown and Green 1833 also published the results of that very same experiment.




Ton also reveals that the same Matthew information had been published in Germany on this topic.  

Ton Munnich via On 24.01.2019 (private email correspondence) kindly provides us with the following intelligence:

: about the magazine
The "Algemeene Konst- en Letter-bode" existed from ca. 1800 until 1862.
It published weekly an issue of ca. 15 pages. 
It was a magazine for the educated general readership.
About developments in science, medicine, agriculture, art, literature, new publications, etc.

: about Patrick Matthew's article
The 52 issues of 1832 are bound in two volumes. Vol. 1 contains issue 1 to 27.
Page-numbering went on throughout the year.
Matthew's article is in issue 8, published on Friday, February 17, 1832.
That issue goes from page 113 to 128. Matthew's article uses ca 70 lines. 
It starts on page 125 (lower half), then 126 (whole page) and 127 (two lines).
  •  "...the article was taken from "Frorieps Notizen", which took it from R. Jameson's "Edinburgh New Philosophical Journal". (the translator's note does not add from which specific issue it was taken, only the names of the German and Scottish magazines). (in Germany Ludwig Friedrich von Froriep edited a kind of science-news magazine : "Notizen aus dem Gebiete der Natur- und Heilkunde". Also known as "Frorieps Notizen".
  • So perhaps the article was translated twice.  First from English into German, and then from German into Dutch."
CONCLUSION

The fact (uniquely noted by Ton Munnich) that Matthew's Lightning Rod Experiment was first published by Robert Jameson is extremely important. Jameson was Darwin's Edinburgh University Tutor! Matthew and Jameson and Jameson's nephew (the naturalist William Jameson) are intricately bound together and - yet again provide many potential routes for 'knowledge contamination' of Darwin's and Wallace's brains via The Hookers of Kew (see important earlier post)

Pre 1859 citations of Matthew in the USA

Woodbury, L. (1832) Live Oak. Report of the Secretary of the Navy. December 15th. House of Representatives. Executive Documents. Duff Green. Washington.

Woodbury, L. (1833) Live Oak Timber for the Navy. Military and Naval Magazine. Vol. 1 Number 3. (here)

Woodbury, L. (1838) Live Oak. House of Representatives. December 15, 1832. Report of the Secretary of the Navy on Live Oak. Navy Department. December 14th. In: Register of Debates in Congress: Comprising the Leading Debates and Incidents of the Second Session of the Eighteenth Congress: Dec. 6, 1824, to the First Session of the Twenty-fifth Congress, Oct. 16, 1837. Together with an Appendix, Containing the Most Important State Papers and Public Documents to which the Session Has Given Birth: to which are Added, the Laws Enacted During the Session, with a Copious Index to the Whole. Volume IX. Washington. (see p. 128).

Woodbury, L. (1852) Writings of Levi Woodbury, LL.D. Political, Judicial and Literary.Volume 3 - Literary. Boston. Little, Brown and Company. p. 361.



Posted by at No comments:
Labels: , , , , ,

Saturday, 10 October 2015

Dishonest Darwinist Dysology

The Darwinist explanation for why they believe Darwin's and Wallace's extraordinary claims to have independently discovered Matthew 's prior published discovery is essentially a paradigm of tri-independent discovery that is built on premises that are now punctured myths:

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.'

 (Darwin 1861: xv-xvi):

 'Unfortunately the view was given by Mr Matthew very briefly in scattered pages 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 Gardener’s Chronicle…'

Disconfirming evidence that proves Darwin and his Darwinists wrong:

Proof = Nullius in Verba: Darwin's greatest secret


Here is what just two naturalists in Darwin's network had to say about Matthew's original discovery.

(1) The economic botanist William Jameson of the East India Company - a correspondent of William Hooker who was the father of Darwin's best friend Joseph Hooker and nephew of Darwin's Edinburgh University professor Robert Jameson (purportedly the first person to use the word evolution in biological sense):

  "This opinion regarding the value of sites where Pine trees are grown is not, we are aware, in accordance with those of many: but we here give facts as exhibited in the Himalayas. Matthew in his treatise on naval timber, states that the Pinus sylvestris, if grown on good or rich soil, attains rapidly large dimensions and its best timber properties."               
                                                                                                        Jameson (1853, p. 307).

Here is clear proof of the relevance of Matthew's book and the orignal ideas in it for economic botany. Matthew's work was highly valuable, and its information was being relied upon by naturalists employed by the East India Company, no less! It was so relied upon because it contained important intelligence for what trees might grow best where. And timber drove the industrial revolution - for building, ship building for commercial and colonial armed forces purposes, and for obtaining essential chemicals needed in the woolen industry.

Jameson was referring to a most important area of text taken from the main body of his book (Note: it is a myth that natural selection was just in the appendix of Matthew's book) contained important intelligence for what trees might grow best where. But most importantly, Matthew provided a new explanation as to why that might be (1831, p. 302): 

"The natural soil and climate of a tree is often very far from being the soil and climate most suited to its growth and is only the situation where it has greater power of occupancy than any other plant whose germ is present."

 In that one sentence, Matthew provides a crucial new hypothesis to guide the progress of economic botany, but his claim is heretical because its natural conclusion is that everything is not living where a worshipful and divine creator placed it to be best circumstance-suited to succeed, according to that god's design of everything being placed in its designated place.



(2) The naturalist John Loudon - a noted botanist - who was well known to both William and Joseph Hooker - reviewed Matthew's (1831) book in 1832. He then went on to be editor of the magazine that published two of Blyth's influential articles on organic evolution, which significantly influenced Darwin: 

'An appendix of 29 pages concludes the book, and receives some parenthetical evolutions of certain extraneous points which the author struck upon in prosecuting the thesis of his book. This may be truly termed in a double sense, an extraordinary part of the book. One of the subjects discussed in this appendix is the puzzling one, of  the origin of species and varieties; and if the author has hereon originated no original views (and of this we are far from certain), he has certainly exhibited his own in an original manner.'

(See Nullius:  Kindle reference 
38).




Visit Patrick Matthew.com for more details.

BRAIN WARNING
Posted by at No comments:
Labels:

Saturday, 25 January 2020

On Navel Timber: Plants as technologies and artificial selection

Darwin fanatics have parroted their bearded deity's lies for years that no naturalist/no one at all read Patrick Matthew's prior published theory untill after Darwin and Wallace replicated it in 1858 /59 completely independently of Matthew's book 'On Naval Timber and Arboriculture' of 1831.

We now know - thanks to what I uncovered with the Big Data IDD method - that in addition to the anonymous citations of it and many advertisments for it, that at least 24 named and known people cited Matthew's 1831 book pre-1858. One of these 24 is the economic botanist William Jameson.

From my orignal unearthings in the historic literature  we now newly know that Darwin's and Wallace's friends and mentors William and Joseph Hooker, father and son top UK economic botanists, were in regular contact with William Jameson (see Sutton 2014 2017), who we also now newly know cited Matthew's (1831) book in 1853. Jameson wrote about how Matthew explained that trees could grow better in environments that were not their "natural" habitat.  This was a religious heresy that confused (at least he conveniently claimed he was confused by it) Selby (Wallace's Sarawak paper editor), who cited Matthew's book on that topic and others back in 1842. It was heresy because Christian doctrine dictated that "God" placed every living thing in the best place (natural habitat) possible for it to be exploited for the benefit of humankind.

Today - as we enter a new paradigm on the history of discovery of evolution by natural selection that views Darwin and Wallace as serial lying, glory thieving, science fraud plagiarizers - there is an interesting book chapter published on the 19th century importance of Matthew's radical economic botany thinking.

 Histories of Technology, the Environment, and Modern Britain
by Jon Agar and Jacob Ward. UCL Press, 9 Apr 2018   
See Chapter 12 by Mat Paskins: pp. 230-232 on Patrick Matthew. Read the relevant text Here.


"Histories of Technology" demonstrates just how important Matthew's book was in the 19th century for economic botanists such as Darwin's close friends the Hookers of Kew. Indeed Joseph Hooker was Darwin's best friend! Of course Joseph Hooker read Matthew's book before 1858 and told Darwin about it. Of course others such as Wallace's mentor William Hooker, and his editor Selby, told Wallace about it before Wallace wrote a word about natural selection. What planet are radical fact denial Darwiboppers on? demented Planet Darwin Fantasy World, that's where. 

Back in the real world, Matthew (1831) used artificial selection as an explanatory analogy of differences to explain his theory of what the IDD method reveals he uniquely coined the 'natural process of selection'.  Darwin then uniquely four word shuffled Matthew's term to its only possible grammatically correct equivalent 'process of natural selection'. Darwin had no choice but to so plagiarize Matthew's term because the theory  he stole is about a process, that is natural and involves nurture's selection of the best circumstance suited varieties and species. Likewise, Darwin opened Chapter 1 of the Origin of Species by plagiarizing Matthew's analogy of differences between artificial and natural selection. Earlier in 1844, in a private essay, Darwin even used Matthew's highly idiosyncratic forester, botanist,agriculturalist, abroriculturalist, trees raised in nurseries versus those grown in the wild unique analogy of differences (see the facts here). 


Posted by at No comments:
Labels: , , , , , , ,

Monday, 8 August 2016

Greater power of occupancy in the literature of lies, myths and other falsehoods strangles veracity



A lot of the environment is in fact organic life itself.

The originator of macroevolution by natural slection, Patrick Matthew (1831) wrote about what he coined the "natural process of selection", In part he explained as evolution by natural selection with regard to what he called a "power of occupancy". Matthew used this example to explain that a tree might in fact grow better outside its "natural" environment (the soil and climate in which it is found in nature) but is prevented from doing so by other tree species that would overwhelm it through having a "greater power of occupancy".  And he backed up his claim with real examples, This point was picked up by Jameson, So much for the myth that Matthew never backed up his ideas with examples of observations from nature. 

William Jameson was a botanist, deputy surgeon-general and superintendent of the East India Company. He cited NTA in 1853 noting Matthew's original findings that trees could grow better outside their "natural environments". 

  In 1854, the year after Jameson cited Matthew's original discovery, William Hooker (friend of Darwin, Mentor of Wallace, and father of Darwin's best friend Joseph Hooker) who was empowered to make such decisions for the East India Company from Kew, blocked his application for promotion. See my book Nullius in Verba for the fully referenced details.

Darwin and Wallace would later replicate Matthew's original prior-published ideas - including replicating his original explanatory analogies - and claim them as their own. To date, their deceptions have a greater power of occupancy in the literature than veracity, because Darwin's and Wallace's newly discovered lies about the non-existence of any prior-readership of Mathew's book are being strangled by a hostile environment known as The Darwin Industry.

The evidence to support this is in my latest peer reviewed article: http://www.nauka-a-religia.uz.zgora.pl/index.php/pl/czasopismo/46-fag-2015/921-fag-2015-art-05 where you can lean just how many people in fact did read Matthew's ideas (because they are newly discovered to have cited Matthew's book pre-1858)  - and their relationshops to Dariwn and Walace - before that pair replicatred them in 1858.
Posted by at No comments:
Labels: ,

Wednesday, 26 August 2015

Leading Evolutionary Biologists are Newly Proven to have Published Dreadfully Biased-Darwinists Errors and Fallacies about the History of Discovery of Natural Selection

Darwinist and Patrick Matthew's
champion Jim Dempter was
wrong about who read
 Matthew's book before 1858
Before the publication in 2014 of the first edition of my book 'Nullius in Verba: Darwin's greatest secret'  Darwinists have been misleading the public and other scholars into believing that Patrick Matthew's full prior published (in 1831) hypothesis of natural selection was unread by anyone in the field who mattered before Matthew brought his book to Darwin's attention by way of the first of two letters he had published in 1860 in the Gardener's Chronicle.

Even my personal Darwinist hero, Jim Dempster, the man Richard Dawkins (2010 in Bryson (Ed.)) calls Patrick Matthew's champion, was misled by the Darwinist literature, and a failure to discover the truth, into believing (Dempster 1983 'Patrick Matthew and Natural Selection' p. 21):

"Matthew's book and its Appendix went unread except by a few reviewers who praised it.'

In 1983, what Dempster wrote  was an easily discovererable fallacy, because it runs counter to what Matthew (1862) wrote to Darwin in his second letter to to the Gardener's Chronicle about an unnamed naturalist who had read his original ideas on natural selection but feared to teach them for fear of pillory punishment. Moreover, Dempster's claim was also even more erroneous, but only so in light of the fact that it is newly discovered (Sutton 2014) that, outside and beyond book reviews, quite a few others did, in fact, read Matthew's book, cite it, and mention the original, yet heretical, ideas in it. Among that number we can count Loudon who, after his 1832 review of Matthew's 1831 book, cited the same book many more times in books on trees and gardening and botany. Before my research everyone appears to have failed to realize that Loudon was a naturalist. Furthermore, I uniquely discovered that, including him, seven naturalists read and cited Matthew's 1831 book before 1858. They are: Loudon, Chambers, Murphy, Johnson, Selby, Norton and Jameson.

The much revered leading
 Darwinist Ernst Mayr was
 totally wrong about who read
Patrick Matthew's  (1831)
book before 1858
The year before Dempster's classic book on Matthew, another top Darwinist - widely proclaimed to be on of the 20th century's leading evolutionary biologists, Ernst Mayr published a more specific fallacy abut Matthew's book and the unique ideas in it going unread by those who mattered.  (Mayr 1982 The Growth of Biological Thought: Diversity, Evolution and Inheritance . p.499)

'The person who has the soundest claim for priority in establishing a theory or evolution by natural selection is Patrick Matthew (1790-1874). He was a wealthy landowner in Scotland, very well read and well traveled (Wells 1974). His views on evolution and natural selection were published in a number of notes in an appendix to his work On Naval Timber and Arboriculture (1831). These notes have virtually no relation to the subject matter of the book, and it is therefore not surprising that neither Darwin nor any other biologist had ever encountered them until Matthew bought forward his claims in an article in 1860 in the Gardener's Chronicle.'

Biologists include  zoologists, botanists, ornithologists, malacologists, naturalists and other specialties - and the Oxford English Dictionary (OED) dictionary definition of what constitutes a biologist has it that a biologist is an expert, specialist or student in biology, and the OED also has it that biology is 'The branch of science that deals with living organisms as objects of study, apart from any utilitarian value they may have, and now comprising more specialized disciplines such as zoology, botany, and bacteriology.' Therefore, Loudon (1832), Chambers (1832), Murphy (1834), Johnson (1842), Selby (1842), Norton (1851) and Jameson (1853) were most certainly all biologists. Indeed  (for what it is worth) Loudon and Selby are listed as such in the Wikipedia page of famous biologists.

The most highly esteemed Darwinist Ernst Mayr is today also proven to have been 100% wrong about the readership of Matthew's book. He is proven wrong by the newly discovered facts fist published in Nullius, because Mathew's 1831 work in fact was read by other biologists. And Loudon (a biologist) - who everyone - including Mayr - seems to have failed to realize was a naturalist (and therefore, being one who studied and wrote about the evolution of animals and plants, as well as geology, that makes him a biologist) until the publication of my work Nullius  in 2014, we can be sure definitely read Matthew's appendix, because Loudon commented upon the original ideas in it by noting that it appeared to have something original to say on what he referred to as 'the origin of species' no less!

Furthermore, it is important to note that Mayr - like so many Darwinists - misleads his readers by failing to mention that Matthew's (1831) original ideas on natural selection were not merely contained in the notorious appendix. As the excerpts included in Matthew's first 1860 letter to Darwin in the Garderner's Chronicle prove - his original ideas on natural selection were also in the main body of his book. And ideas from these were mentioned - albeit  briefly -  by Selby (1842) and Jameson (1853) - both can most certainly be deemed to be naturalists and biologists.

Top Darwinist Sir Gavin de Beer
was totally wrong to write that
Matthew''s ideas went totally unread 
before 1860
As I explained in an earlier blog,  but not earlier than Dempster's and Mayr's work where both read and cited the work that contains de Beers's fallacious claim with no comment upon it - Royal Society Darwin Medal winning Darwinist expert Sir Gavin de Beer (1962) wrote the following absolute claptrap:

 '…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.’

As I explain in depth in Nullius, and have explained in an earlier blog post (Sutton 2015), these fallacies about Matthew's prior published discovery of natural selection being unread were started by Darwin as deliberate lies in the Gardener's Chronicle in 1860 and from the third edition of the Origin of Species onward.

For more original and newly discovered concrete facts that bust Darwinist claptrap, and in so doing drag the vexatious anomaly of Darwin's and Wallace's self-serving claims to have discovered natural selection independently of Matthew's (1831) prior published hypotheses, and independently of those naturalists they knew who actually cited it before they replicated it, under the spotlight of veracity as a ludicrously biased Darwin worshiping belief in a completely unique and paradoxical dual miracle of immaculate conception of a prior published hypothesis - you could do worse than read Nullius in Verba: Darwin's greatest secret. For instance, you might alternatively - if you don't care for hard and independently verifiable facts - read anything at all written on the topic by a top Darwinist!




Posted by at No comments:
Labels: , , ,
Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)