I have newly acquired a violin that is some 100 years old. The instrument, has scribed purfling, and is made of London plane tree wood AKA lacewood). The internal construction and other characteristics are such that it may well have been made in England. However, it has no makers mark or label. Not yet it doesn't. But I'm going to label it "The Charles Darwin Violin".
On the interlaced complexity of Fraud The Charles Darwin Lacewood Violin
 |
| The Charles Darwin Violin before restoration |
When Doctor Sutton took apart A violin mistreated He didn’t take Darwin’s approach No, Mike has never cheated By sound research and evidence Investigating theses Mike has delved into, carefully The origin of the pieces And Darwin’s fiddle might appear To be more loudly spoken But please note that this instrument Was found to be quite broken The Lacewood body’s not the norm Revealed by fine detection Mike applied the process of Natural dissection Unlike the Patrick Matthew one This instrument’s quite dated And like the Darwin postulate Is not newly created
Andy Sutton (Andy Sutton Poetry) March 2024
- Chambers (1832) cited Matthew's (1831) heretical and seditious book – although he only mentioned Matthew's expertise on the subject of pruning trees for plank wood.
- Chambers (1840) cited Matthew’s later work, Emigration Fields (Matthew 1839) regarding Matthew's writing on the ill-effects of tobacco smoking. Emigration Fields took Matthew's ideas on evolution forward for (British) human progress at the expense of those in other lands to be occupied by the British.
- In 1841, Gavin Cree cites Matthew's book "On Naval Timber" and cites Matthew's text from On Naval Timber quoted by Robert Chambers in Chambers's 1832 Journal (here).
- Chambers (1844) authored and had published (anonymously) The Vestiges of the Natural History of Creation - the book that 'put evolution in the air' in the mid-19th century (see Millhauser 1959).
- In 1845, Alfred Wallace wrote to Bates to explain that seeking proof of the ideas in the Vestiges was what motivated his interest in the field of research into the problem of solving the origin of species (See Sutton 2104 ).
- Chambers met Darwin in 1847 and thereafter engaged in correspondence. In 1847 Chambers gave Darwin a copy of the Vestiges, leading Darwin to write to his friend Joseph Hooker that he knew Chambers was its secret author.
- Darwin's personal copy of the Vestiges was heavily annotated by Darwin.
- Wallace, in 1855, had his Sarawak Paper published. Incidentally, it was published in a journal the chief editor of which was another naturalist named Selby, a man very well and closely connected to Darwin (see Sutton 2014 for all the precise details), who had 15 years earlier purchased a copy of Matthew's book in 1840 and cited it many times in his own book of 1842). So Selby both read and then cited Matthew (1831) in the literature BEFORE Darwin wrote his famous unpublished essay on natural selection of 1842! Darwin read Wallace's Sarawak Paper in 1855. Wallace's Sarawak paper appears to have far too many replications of Matthew's (1831) unique ideas, terms, words and highly unique and idiosyncratic explanatory examples to have been written independently of Matthew's prior published work (see Sutton 2014 for precise details of this complex plagiarism check).
- In 1858, Wallace sent Darwin his Ternate Paper - which had in it evidences to support the hypothesis of natural selection. It was this paper that led Darwin and his cronies, Lyell and Hooker, to arrange - without first seeking any consent from Wallace - for a paper hastily written by Darwin to be presented together with Wallace's Ternate Paper - but read first so it would thereafter be called "Darwin's and Wallace's theory." This all happened in 1858.
- In the Origin of Species (Darwin 1859), Darwin uniquely four-word-shuffled Matthew's unique name for Matthew's 1831 published discovery from 'natural process of selection' to 'process of natural selection.' Darwin used that shuffled phrase nine times in the Origin of Species (1859).
- In 1859, in a book review of Darwin's Origin of Species, Chambers is the 'first to be second' in writing a published replication of Matthew's unique term 'natural process of selection.' This is unlikely to be an amazing coincidence. Because we know Chambers did read Matthew (1831) in 1832 - because he cited him!. More so, because Robert Chambers's brother, William, wrote of Robert in 1872 'And such were his extraordinary powers of memory that whatever he saw or learned he never forgot; everything which could interest the mind being treasured up, as a fund of delightful recollections ready to be of service when wanted.' In fact, Chambers's memory is described by Professor Alan Macfarlane as 'almost photographic'.
- In 1860 Chambers convinced Huxley (Darwin's Bulldog) to stay at the British Association for the Advancement of Science conference at Oxford. Chambers remonstrated with Huxley not to desert the cause but to stay and defend Darwin's Origin of species by engaging in a debate that included Bishop Wilberforce - who attacked Darwin's work for being conjectural regarding the creation of new species.
- In 1861, from the third edition of the Origin of Species onward, Darwin admitted the huge influence of the Vestiges in paving the way for acceptance of his own work on organic evolution..
- In 1871, the year of Robert Chambers's death, but before the revelation that Chambers had authored the Vestiges was formally announced, Darwin wrote to Robert Chambers's daughter, Eliza, to apologise for his earlier treatment in disparaging the Vestiges: 'Several years ago I perceived that I had not done full justice to a scientific work which I believed and still believe he was intimately connected with, and few things have struck me with more admiration than the perfect temper and liberality with which he treated my conduct.'
 |
| Lacewood: London Plane |
Darwin’s own private notebook of the books he actually read records he read Volumes 7 and 8 of Gardener’s Magazine.. Now, although Darwin’s notebook gives no year for the publication of these two volumes, which is confusing because in every new decade this magazine started a new series with volumes restarting at 1 again.
One volume 7 covers 1831 and anther volume 8 covers 1832. The latter contains Loudon’s all-important review of NTA, in which Loudon (correspondent of Darwin and friend of his best friend's (Joseph Hooker's) father, William Hooker, write that Matthew appeared to have something original to say on the origin of species! Volume 8 also makes reference to observations made by Darwin’s grandfather on pp. 308 and 502 about forest trees—no less!
To be even-handed, however, it seems most likely since Darwin was compiling a list of things to read and things read on March12, 1842 that it was volumes of that decade—Volume 7 of 1841 and Volume 8 of 1842—that he recorded reading in his notebook, although we cannot know that for sure. But even in Volume 7 of 1841 on pp. 440 to 444 Matthew and his 1831 book is the subject of an article by the celebrity arborist Gavin Cree (Cree 1841) on tree pruning. In that volume on p. 216 Charles Darwin is mocked as being delusional regarding his observations on earthworms.
So, whatever decade Darwin was referring to in his notes there is a published reference to Matthew and his 1831 book in both! According to the facts, Matthew was hardly an obscure author of an unread book/theory in the first half of the 19th century.
To underscore the point yet further, Darwin’s private notebooks and his archived library reveal he read at least five publications that either cite or contain articles about Matthew and NTA:
(1) The Athenæum (1839) (block advertisement for Naval Timber and review of Emigration Fields).
(2) Loudon (1831) (citing Matthew in Bibliography).
(3) Loudon (1838) (article citing Matthew).
(4) The Gardener’s Magazine (1841) (article throwing down a challenge to Matthew on tree pruning). Assuming this is the one Darwin refers to and not the 1832 one containing Loudon’s important review of NTA.
(5) Memoirs of the Caledonian Horticultural Society of Edinburgh (1814–1832) (block advertisement for NTA).
This is just one more fact that tells us exactly why Matthew belongs at the very centre of Darwin’s story and not on the fringes, as the Darwin Industry wants you to believe.
The interlaced (like lacewood) facts prove Matthew wasn’t obscure in the 1830s and 1840s, and neither was NTA. Therefore, Darwin’s excuse-claim that Matthew's (1831) was unread is demolished by verifiable facts proving books about Matthew were held in Darwin’s own hands before he replicated the theory in NTA.
A prolific author, fellow of the Linnean Society and the Royal Society, and a corresponding member of the Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences, Loudon was a friend and correspondent of William Hooker and co-published with Hooker’s close friend and fellow economic botanist John Lindley.
The Gavin Cree to David Low connections to Charles Darwin via the 1831 book of Patrick Matthew
In 1834 David Low was
apparently First to be second into published print (F2B2) with the apparently original Naval Timber and Arboriculture (NTA) phrase “long continued selection” in his book Elements of Practical Agriculture:
Comprehending the Cultivation of Plants, the Husbandry of Domestic Animals and
the Economy of the Farm.
Although he never personally cited Matthew (1831), he was
founding editor of the Quarterly Journal
of Agriculture at the time it published Gavin Cree’s (1832) letter on
pruning that criticised NTA. Thus it
was Low who ruled as editor in favour of Cree against Matthew in that edition
of the journal (Canadian Agriculturalist
1859, p. 32). Low (1844) wrote about naval timber on pp. 583–585 of his book on
“landed property” and did so again on p. 88 of his book on forest trees (Low
1853).
63
Just four years older than Matthew, Low was a highly
esteemed professor of agriculture at the University of Edinburgh. Most
importantly, like many who cited NTA—or
else apparently first duplicated apparently original Matthewisms from NTA—Low was a fellow of the Royal
Society of Edinburgh. He was also a member of the Royal Academy of Agriculture
of Sweden.
Darwin adopted the exact same original NTA Matthewism in his essay of 1842 (Darwin 1842, pp. 32 and 33)
where he writes in secret:
“Now according to analogy of domesticated
animals let us see what would result. Let us take case of farmer on Pampas,
where everything approaches nearer to state of nature. He works on organisms
having strong tendency to vary: and he knows only way to make a distinct breed
is to select and separate. It would be useless to separate the best bulls and pair
with best cows if their offspring run loose and bred with the other herds, and
tendency to reversion not counteracted; he would endeavour therefore to get his
cows on islands and then commence his work of selection. If several farmers in
different regions were to set to work, especially if with different objects,
several breeds would soon be produced. So would it be with horticulturist and
so history of every plant shows; the number of varieties increase in proportion
to care bestowed on their selection and, with crossing plants, separation. Now,
according to this analogy, change of external conditions, and isolation either
by chance landing a form on an island, or subsidence dividing a continent, or
great chain of mountains, and the number of individuals not being numerous will
best favour variation and selection. No doubt change could be effected in same
country without any barrier by long continued
selection on one species: even in case of a plant not capable of crossing
would easier get possession and solely occupy an island.”
Then in Origin
(Darwin 1859, p. 192) he used it again:
“As every one would be surprised if two
exactly similar but peculiar varieties of any species were raised by man by long continued selection, in two different
countries, or at two very different periods, so we ought not to expect that an
exactly similar form would be produced from the modification of an old one in
two distinct countries or at two distinct periods.”
Low published a number if
notable books such as Elements of
Practical Agriculture (1834), The
Breeds of Domesticated Animals (1840), and An Enquiry into the Nature of the Simple Bodies of Chemistry
(1848).
On p. 546 in another of his books On Landed Property, and the Economy of Estates (1844) Low was once again apparently F2B2 with an apparently original NTA expression—once again without citing Matthew. In this later book he uses Matthew’s apparently original phrase “overpowering the less.” This discovery of Low twice replicating Matthew’s unique phrases in different books appears to confirm the veracity of the F2B2 hypothesis, the value of the method in identifying plagiarism of ideas, and the influence that such plagiarism has on others. This conclusion is further confirmed by the fact that in his F2B2 use of this NTA phrase Low replicated Matthew’s exclusive theme that trees grown by means of artificial selection in nurseries were inferior to those naturally selected by nature. The exact same highly important theme that Eiseley (1979) discovered Darwin replicated in his 1844 private essay! Low (1844, p. 546) writes:
“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. Hence one of
the reasons why so many worthless plantations of pine appear in the plains of
England and Scotland, and why so much discredit has become attached to the
culture of the species.”
It is of paramount importance at this juncture to note that
this newly discovered evidence in fact provides Darwin with a defence against
Eiseley’s (1979) claim that Darwin’s use of artificially selected trees to
explain natural selection in his unpublished 1844 essay is clear evidence of
plagiarism directly from NTA.
Although Low almost certainly got it from Matthew (1831), Darwin could just
possibly have got it from reading Low (1844).
Whatever the case, again we see Matthew’s progeny in the
relevant literature as influencing the man who influenced the man. Moreover,
and most importantly, we should note that Low published his book containing the
analogy in 1844, which is the very same year Darwin’s private essay replicated
the exact same highly idiosyncratic tree analogy.
This is strong evidence of NTA influencing Low and passing it on to Darwin, or of NTA directly influencing Darwin, or
both.
Interestingly, in his notebook of “Books Read and Books to
Read” Darwin writes in December 1839, “Advertised. David Low Treatise on Domestic Animals; also
Illustrations of the Domestic animals of Gt. Britain—must be read carefully.”
However, in that same notebook Darwin makes no mention of having read Low’s Elements of Practical Agriculture or of On Landed Property. In Origin, however, we know Darwin went on
to use the same apparently NTA-coined
phrase “long continued selection” as several other writers did following Low’s
1834 first replication of it. Whereas Low
hyphenated the phrase, Darwin used it without the hyphen just as Matthew
had it in NTA. This is suggestive
Darwin got the phrase from NTA, not
from Low, who probably got it from NTA.
But we cannot be sure one way or the other.
Twice replicating phrases apparently first coined in NTA is unlikely to be purely
coincidental given that Low was apparently twice to be first with these
apparently original Matthewisms in different publications and, most
significantly, was a former Perth Academy schoolmate of Patrick Matthew.
Professor David Low of Edinburgh University might even be
the unnamed professor that Matthew (1860a) referred to in the Gardeners’ Chronicle as the professor at
an esteemed university who could not teach NTA’s
heretical hypothesis of natural selection for fear of pillory punishment on the cutty stool.
Conclusion
The evidence of Darwin's science fraud by plagiarism is extremely interlaced, like lacewood. In just this very small snippet of the empirical evidence in "Science Fraud" the book we can see how this complexity has protected Darwin and his fact denial superfans and authoritarian supermyth supporting and facilitation toadies.
The Darwin Lacewood Violin is a perfect tool to help explain the facts.
Unfortunately for you, you are being dishonest once again George.
Firstly, as you well know, the points you repeat here have - in an attempt to formulate an argument against the New Data - been dealt with and dismissed with disconfirming evidence over the past two days. Therefore, your rather odd yet consistently unprofessionally rude and desperate desire to start all over again here is possible evidence that you may have some kind of biased memory issue, or worse some kind of a professional self-harm agenda. Please go back George and re read the facts, and study in detail how and why they deal with your plainly biased attempts at formulating arguments against them. Please begin from your comment here: https://sandwalk.blogspot.co.uk/2016/07/what-is-theory-of-evolution.html?showComment=1470225722485#c899399375252544722
Secondly, it appears to me the reason you are only dishonestly claiming you were fully aware of the facts in my book (which you had not read when you did so) in your shameful public defence here and now, in published social media, is because the full details of who exactly reviewed Matthew's book, who cited it, their relationship and influence to Darwin and Wallace, Darwin's and Wallace's proven lies were not in the public domain at the time of your deliberate and misleading faux review of my book that contains all those details. So you cannot have known then what you only now claim you did know then. So please, George, don't continue to dig yourself in even deeper than you already have done with your dishonesty.
You really are a multiple victim of your own serial dishonesty George.
Why not discuss this behaviour with a chartered psychologist who can help you work things through in this regard?
With respect, might I kindly suggest you take a trip to the friendly blogsite of Professor Mark Griffiths to discuss this issue and what we know about such bias. Here: https://drmarkgriffiths.wordpress.com/2016/07/11/selective-memories-charles-darwin-obsession-and-internet-dating/
Also I see the Royal Society of Biology is similarly taking an interest in such biased behaviour and how it will hold you back: http://blog.rsb.org.uk/is-bias-holding-you-back/
For the public record. On the Sandwalk blog you claim to be George Beccaloni - Curator of the of the Natural History Museum of London. Is that still who you claim to be / or think you are today?
As you failed to see, I have explained it. And as you further failed to see, I explained to you that I explained it. And as you thrice failed to see, I directed you to the precise comment where I explained where I explained it to you. Anyway, your apparent bias blindsight problem aside:
Common sense - and simple everyday observations of how ideas spread among academic colleagues - tells us that one does not need to fully understand something to simply pass it on manually or verbally- or to recommend it as reading material - to another (such as Darwin) who you know to be working on the exact same complex and taboo problem. Moreover, Darwin and Chambers met and corresponded. Sadly, however, much of Darwin's correspondence is missing - for various reasons including the fact he burned much of it himself.
Moreover, George (unlike in your own proven case and that of Darwin and that of Wallace), there is no evidence that Chambers was dishonest. So he we should not be so ready to wonder why he never plagiarised another scholar's work just because he could have. Darwin and Wallace are proven liars. Chambers is not.
Furthermore, Matthew was a Chartist and Chambers was an outspoken critical of political suffrage. Perhaps he wished not to cite a Chartist leader on such an important scientific conception? Who knows? Particularly after Matthew wove Charism into his original explanation of natural selection that may have bothered him. But we just don't know. But we do know that Chambers and Lyell (Darwin's mentor) were geological associates of the Edinburgh Geological society.
Chambers' honesty is marked, for example, by the fact that he resigned from running for public political office rather than have to deny he was the author of the Vestiges when leaked claims that he was haunted his political campaign.
Once again George. Knowledge contamination is explained in my peer reviewed science paper on the topic - and that paper has now received nearly 6000 views, which in some way is "proof of concept". For example, John van Wyhe has read it. The paper is here: http://www.nauka-a-religia.uz.zgora.pl/index.php/pl/czasopismo/46-fag-2015/921-fag-2015-art-05
And since you don't like reading (according to you) here is the typology:
A three-fold typology of knowledge contamination:
1. Innocent Knowledge Contamination: The spread of original ideas in a prior-publication via (a) subsequent published sources on the topic, which failed to cite the Originator as their source, or (b) word of mouth and/or correspondence to the replicator by those who read the Originator’s work or communicated with others who did — understood its importance
in whole or simply in part — but failed to tell the replicator
about its existence.
2. Reckless or Negligent Knowledge Contamination: (a) The replicator reads the original publication, absorbs information such as original ideas and examples and terms, but forgets having read it — and never does remember. (b) The replicator reads the original publication and takes notes, but forgets the source of the notes. (c) The replicator is told about original ideas in a publication by someone — who understands their importance in whole or simply in part — who explains they come from a publication, but the replicator fails to ask the name of the author and title of the publication.
3. Deliberate Knowledge Contamination (science fraud): The replicator reads the original publication, or is told about its contents, takes notes, or is given notes, remembers this, but pretends otherwise.
Chambers comes out well in this story - as does Loudon - because both men have a reputation for incredible honesty that survives the centuries. It's a pity you blotted YOUR copy-book George. Who would trust you now?
It is obvious that what you read and what your biased brain makes you think you read are obviously two very different things. You keep proving that for us. Because, what I have written is that Wallace was influenced by Chambers. Surely even you know that. Wallace wrote as much in his private correspondence to his best friend.
Chambers wrote on both organic and geological evolution - although not the theory of natural selection.Chambers is accredited by many noted scholars (including Darwin) with "putting evolution in the air" in the mid 19th century. I have never written that Wallace was influenced specifically on the topic of natural slection by Chambers. But Chamber's work obviously influenced him to think about organic evolution. This is most significant because Chambers read Matthew - indeed he cited both his books pre 1858 - and was apparently "first to be second" out of a search of over 35 million publications (later in his review of Darwin's 1859 "Origin of Species") to use Matthew's apparently original term "natural process of selection".
You really should stop imagining things that are not in the publication record George, and not seeing what is there. Were you not so apparently severely afflicted with the psychologically recognised bias of cognitive blindsight in your research efforts you would know that. But more importantly you might have made an original discovery in your own field like I have, rather than trying desperately to magic the findings I have made away with either stupidity or dishonesty.
Does that help George?
Who was the chief editor of the Journal that published Wallace's 1855 Sarawak paper - the one that must be read alongside his Ternate paper of 1858? Yes. Bingo! Get-you-some-of-that discovery George! Selby! Selby, who I originally discovered cited Matthew in 1842! Are you jealous George? Well it's obvious you are. How did you miss making such a discovery in your own field George? That stings I can tell.
And before you trolltypically seek to get me to re-hash all our old discussions on this - in which you are always soundly beat until you squeel - might I kindly refer your apparently cognitively blndsighted self back to them here: http://evolutiontalk.com/case-patrick-matthew/
Oh yes...just one more thing, you asked another silly question.You asked me about how loudon could have influenced Wallace, and so here is your asnwer George. It should be blindingly obvious but YOU and all the Darwinite worship cult of zombie parrot hordes missed it, like they miss so much disconfirming evidence for their cultish belief in Darwin's and Wallace's miraculous immaculate conceptions of Patrick Matthew's prior publication of the full complex hypotheses of macro evolution by natural selection, along with the same original examples and original idiosyncratic analogies to explain and confirm it, and the same four words to name it - whilst surrounded and influenced by naturalists who DID read it before they replicated so much of it and then claimed it as their own with the 100 per cent proven (proven originally by me) fallacious excuse that no one at all/no naturalists read it before they did so.
So are you ready? Here it comes:
As Selby edited Wallace's famous Sarawak paper, so Loudon edited two of Blyth's highly influential papers of 1835 and 1837 on species variety and organic evolution! WOW! Get-you-some of-that original discovery George. Yeah baby! K-POW!
I bet you wish it was you who discovered that doncha George. Of course you do.
It shows how jealous you are that you keep on scuttling after it George. But scuttling after me all over the Internet like a cockroach after my leftovers with your green-gilled insults and gumptionless questions won't help take your foul pain away. The discovery is mine George and it always will be.
It's going into the history books George. along with all my many other original discoveries in your field - including the discovery of Wallace's dishonesty by slyly doctoring a letter in his autobiography to conceal he was after money and favours from Darwin and his cronies for what they did to him at the Linnean Society in 1858 (see my book 'Nullius in Verba: Darwin's greatest secret' for the original-to transcription 100 -per cent proof and all citations to sources.
What original discoveries have you ever made George?
If you would like to know more in your own field - that you have obviously failed to learn (otherwise you would not ask such silly gumptionless and jealous questions), George, then look up the relationship between Loudon and William and Joseph Hooker (it's in my book 'Nullius in Verba: Darwin's greatest secret'). If your brain allows you, you will then learn that they were so close George. And what do normal folk do when they are really close and scholars George. Wait for it. This is going to be a really big one for you. Are you ready for this intellectually amazing revelation? Here it comes... BLAM! YES! They TALK GEORGE.
And what was the relationship between Wallace and William Hooker George? BAM! Here it comes George - and it's hard to believe a self-proclaiming Wallace expert missed this one: because William Hooker, father of Darwin's best friend Joseph Hooker, was Wallace's personal mentor, and correspondent!
BLAM! Howdya like dem crab apples George? They met and corresponded before 1858.
Do I have to spell it out to you yet again that people talk and that many of their letters from the 19th century are - just like those of the 20th - known to have been thrown out, routinely destroyed or lost?
Does that help to answer your latest jealous and silly troll question George?
This is contradicted by the following statement you made some time ago:
"Knowledge contamination from Matthew to Darwin and Wallace is thus uniquely proven in ‘Nullius in Verba: Darwin’s greatest secret’ – the ground-breaking book, which 100 per cent proves that Matthew influenced both Darwin and Wallace through three major naturalist who cited his 1831 book: John Loudon, Prideaux John Selby and Robert Chambers." (see http://thedailyjournalist.com/theinvestigative/world-s-greatest-science-fraud-darwin-and-wallace-newly-proven-to-have-plagiarised-theory-of-natural-slection/).
So what's going on in your mind Mike? Did Chambers pass on the idea of natural selection to Wallace or not? If not then it is a total irrelevance to mention that Wallace was influenced by Chambers' book "Vestiges". So what that he was - we are talking about how Wallace got the idea of natural selection, not why did Wallace become interested in the idea of evolution in the first place...
But the objective and very hard fact is that I (not you) have discovered independently verifiable hard facts that completely puncture the "no naturalist read Matthew's original ideas pre-1858" premise upon which is built the paradigm of Darwin's and Wallace's independent conceptions of Matthew's prior published hypothesis. And this explains your clear jealousy and outrageously dishonest publications on social media regarding those discoveries.
More peer reviewed science journal articles are in progress George and your unscientific behaviour is fully documented and cited to published sources in social media in one.
It's not time for you to do anything now George. You've done it all to yourself already.
Happy explaining old chap.
"I have received letters from Mr. Darwin & Dr. Hooker, two of the greatest most eminent Naturalists in England which have highly gratified me. I sent Mr. Darwin an essay on a subject in which he is now writing a great work. He shewed it to Dr. Hooker and Mr Darwin Sir C. Lyell, who thought so highly of it that they immediately read before the Linnean Society. This insures me the acquaintance and assistance of these eminent men on my return home."
Most importantly, please note that in the book you are currently reading my transcription of this excerpt from the original, scanned and uploaded version of Wallace's letter. Hence, the text above retains its original grammatical imperfections, along with the most crucially telling words—"immediately" and "assistance"—in its last sentence. More incriminating than that is the fact that these same two words are deleted on page 365 of Wallace's (1905) autobiography.
Wallace's deletion of those two words is evidence he wanted to hide the fact that he extorted money and position from Darwin and his cronies. Wallace's editorial deceit was no doubt to seek to ensure that the general public should never learn of how he perceived Darwin's dishonesty and ungentlemanly, unethical behavior as an opportunity to be milked for all it was worth. Wallace knew that the word "immediate" would be taken as evidence that he had not been first consulted prior to the joint presentation of his paper. And "assistance" means that he was going to get what he now considered his pecuniary and professional dues from Darwin and his two cronies.
Wallace's carefully doctored, published version of his own letter loses its sinister undertone that was in the last two sentences of the original (Wallace 1903, p. 365):
"I have received letters from Mr. Darwin and Dr. Hooker, two of the most eminent naturalists in England, which have highly gratified me. I sent Mr. Darwin an essay on a subject upon which he is now writing a great work. He showed it to Dr. Hooker and Sir Charles Lyell, who thought so highly of it that they had it read before the Linnean Society. This ensures me the acquaintance of these eminent men on my return home."
It is not surprising that Wallace removed the word "assistance" in his autobiography, because in addition to being assisted by way of various payments from Darwin and Lyell for help with their works, he was assisted by way of introductions to all the right societies and clubs."
You are replying to the hard - newly discovered - facts with nothing more than subjective mere opinion George.
You provide zero independently verifiable evidence to support your claim that such key word deleting editing by naturalists, of their own transcribed letters, in their autobiographies, was deemed appropriate and acceptable in the 19th century, let alone now.
The hard fact is that Wallace deleted incriminating words from his own transcription of his own letter. Moreover, and most significantly, those very words he deleted revealed he expected payment and services from Darwin and his cronies. The fact is those same people - Darwin and his cronies Lyell and Hooker - then made cash payments to him and secured him others.
NEWS FLASH: Matthew a "Knowledge Contaminated" Plagiarist and Liar!
Using "Big Data" research methods (i.e. Google Books) I have proved (sensu Mike Sutton) that Patrick Mathew stole the idea of natural selection from fellow Scott, James Hutton. Matthew was "knowledge contaminated" by one of "Hutton's greatest supporters" Matthew’s lecturer at Edinburgh University, Thomas Charles Hope, who taught Matthew in 1808. So Matthew can no longer be credited as an independent originator of the concept of evolution by natural selection and Sutton should change the name of his website from "Patrick Matthew: Originator, Immortal Great Thinker and Proven Influencer on Natural Selection" (http://patrickmathew.blogspot.co.uk/) to "Patrick Matthew: Plagiarist and Liar".
For the full sordid details of my "independently verifiable, evidenced" "bombshell discovery" see http://wallacefund.info/content/did-patrick-matthew-independently-discover-natural-selection
Apart from many other problems with your thinking, one big problem you have with your latest attempt to make any argument - in this particular latest incompetent effort of yours - is that only Matthew was first with the full prior published idea of maroevolution by natural selection.
Everyone - apart from you it seems is well aware that we use the term "natural selection" to mean the more precise term "macro evolution by natural slection" unless we specifically state otherwise. I have explained the well know fact to you several times before. But you keep forgetting it.
Sadly, in your continued obsessively seemingly jealous desperation to discover something in this field, you keep overlooking the facts that make you look so silly for being so fundamentally wrong in the field in which you claim to be expert. For what you miss in your biased cherry picking is this: I cite one Thomas Hope in my book "Nullius in Verba: Darwin's greatest secret" (which you have read - but this is a different Thomas Hope) - fully explaining that in 1831 - the same year that Matthew published his book on 1st Jan 1831 (what day and month was Hope's published on George?) it seems fair to say (from an analysis of 35 million books) that both Matthew and Hope were first with the phrase that year "diverging ramifications". Hope used it in hs essay 'The Origins and Prospects of Man'. Now please do try to keep up George because, as I explain in my book:
"...Hope's explanations for the observable differences between Black Africans, White Europeans and Malay peoples is that each different [so called by Hope] "original type" of human was created separately as [he believed] were all species - serves to reveal how much further and uniquely advanced were Matthew's original ideas than those of his Regency contemporaries, who were trying also to understand the problem and variety of species in organic lifeforms.'
And as you know George - also in my book "Nullius" I reveal that Matthew, like Darwin - was taught by Thomas Charles Hope at Edinburgh University.
Everyone knows Matthew - and with great and profound heretical mockery - clearly rejected the other Thomas Hope's idea of individual miraculous creation of species George. That's why he and no Thomas Hope, of any variety, is attributed the originator of natural selection by the world's leading Darwin scholars.
I "hope" this helps you understand that you failed again George. But this latest record of your further failed attempts, due to ignorance and apparent cognitive blindsight, is excellent data. Thank you for that.
For this to follow my line of reasoning George, you would need to show that Hutton conceived the hypothesis of macro evolution by natural selection and published it. He did no such thing. We've been over this George. You know that.
All the world's leading Darwinists agree that only Matthew was first to conceive the idea of macro evolution by natural selection.. You keep cherry stepping away from the facts that don't fit your deliberately biased and personal career serving faux-history George.
Your history is as fake as the review you wrote and trolled across the internet of my book when you had not even read it.
So it is YOU who is deceptive George. Any it is you who is proven to be so. Your dishonesty is the subject of this blog post.
Where do I pretend I never read Dempster? I dedicated my book Nullius to him.
Nowhere do I claim that I discovered Hope taught Matthew George - so don't try your silly and typically dishonest trollish tricks here.
Your thinking is shown to wrong again George. I hope this reply helps you to see that.
Darwin, Wallace and modern biologists realise that evolution is a continuum from micro- to macro- evolution. So natural selection might lead to evolutionary change within a species (e.g. a population of mice with pale fur living amongst dark rocks might evolve dark fur to better camouflage them against predators), and the same mechanism may lead to two parapatric populations evolving into new species. It's the same mechanism Mike. Mathew did not discover natural selection.
Here is a hypothetical analogous example to help you better understand the argument I am making Mike:
Jim Hutton was a clock maker in the 17th century who invented a new mechanism to drive the mechanism of a clock - the hairspring. He believed that clocks couldn't be made any smaller than the one-foot tall examples he produced - and the idea of a tiny device which could be slipped into a pocket was scoffed at by him and his fellow clock makers. A few years later a farmer named Pat Matthew speculated that a tiny hairspring-driven timepiece was possible, but he didn't make one. Technological developments in the following decades led to partners Alf Wallace and Chas Darwin actually designing and constructing the first pocket watch, which was driven by the same design of hairspring that Jim Hutton had invented. So Pat had a nice idea which he never followed through, whilst Chas and Alf actually created the device which Jim couldn't conceive of using the mechanism that Jim had actually invented!
George you are hilarious. Thank you. The laughter you provide is very much appreciated. You have a great gift. Very special George.
Your hairspring dishonesty or confusion - it is hard to tell which, may one day become legendary. Well done.
I respectfully suggest you read the peer reviewed articles and books of the leading Darwinists - all of whom write simply "natural selection" to refer to the general principle of macro evolution by natural selection. I have explained this well known fact to you many times. But you don't seem to be able to admit the truth. How strange.
Once you have done so, I suggest you read to books that may help you with your dishonesty difficulties:
They are "On Honesty" and "On Bullshit". Both books are written by the University of Princeton philosopher Professor Harry. H. Frankfurt. I shall certainly be referencing them in my future work, where I use the data you have provided - by way of your most professionally embarrassing abusive foul-penned desperate and palpably jealous comments in the comments section of this blog site and elsewhere on the Internet (screen shots are great evidence) to reveal how my original New Data discoveries (as published in peer reviewed academic journals and my book Nullius) have so incensed you - because they are made in your field of expertise, but where you and your similarly desperately jealous and dishonest troll friend friend Dr Dagg have made no original discoverers of your own. Not one single discovery. How strange is that? Can you explain it for us George? What have you been doing?
So once again - "Thank you for the valuable data - published in the public domain of social media". Much appreciated.
No wonder you now seek to continue to deny these newly discovered facts and their significance, given your transparent propagandising behaviour.
Moreover, Darwin is a proven replicating and glory thieving science fraudster liar because he is proven to have known his sly "no naturalist / no one at all" read Matthew's prior-published conception was a lie when he wrote that tall-tale in 1860 and in 1861 - and in every edition of the 'Origin of Species' thereafter. That Myth, coined by Darwin, was a lie because Matthew had already told him in print in 1860 in the Gardener's Chronicle of two naturalists who did read his 1831 book pre-1858 and that it was banned by the public library of Perth in Scotland, because of the heretical work in it on the origin of species.
Wallace is also proven to have been shamefully dishonest by deleting incriminating text in his transcriptions of his private letters in his autobiography.
You George are proven to have been shamefully dishonest as well. Because this very blog post 100 per cent proves, by way of a screenshot, that you published a faux review of my book and then were caught, hilariously red handed, in that act of pseudo scholarship by my publisher. The shame of it George! The book that has so incensed you and made you so - apparently jealous and, arguably, professionally unethical - is 'Nullius in Verba: Darwin's Greatest Secret' (Sutton 2104). Just Google "Wallace Science fraud" and all the top hits will lead anyone straight to the facts that have so upset you, they have made you behave so shamefully. Is it because you are Curator of the Wallace Collection at the Museum of Natural History, London, George? Is that why you have so disgraced yourself, forever, George?
The New Data facts that have so upset you George prove there were many opportunities for Matthewian knowledge contamination of the brains of the the shameless replicators Darwin and Wallace pre-1858.
You - George need to move with the New Data - adapt or perish George.
All the peer reviewed and published in a science journal - as opposed to his biased and his painful facts free ramblings on a silly little personal blog shrine to proven liars and science fraudsters, glory thieving sly replicators of prior-published work can be read here: http://www.nauka-a-religia.uz.zgora.pl/index.php/pl/czasopismo/46-fag-2015/921-fag-2015-art-05
That peer reviewed article has now been read by over 6000 people - as proof of concept of it's title.
Beware the Frozen Donkey Hypothesis George:
On one harsh 19th century winter night, a donkey froze where it stood on a Parisian boulevard. At daybreak, the people seeing it so lifelike, tried to shoo and beat it out of the way, not realizing it could not move on because it was dead!
Oh, as a start to your understanding of the history of natural selection I recommend you read Zirkle, C. 1941. Natural Selection before the "Origin of Species". Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society, Vol. 84 (1): 71-123
Adiós Mike.
I'm afraid no one can take anything you write at face value as an honest opinion, not anymore. Because of your own dreadfully unethical and dishonest published behaviour, which has blotted your copy-book in that regard.
The screenshot of this very blog post 100 per cent proves what you have been dishonestly up to on published social media.
I strongly suggest you stop trying to invent ever more silly tall tales to now try to deal with the New Data that has bust the old Darwinian myth-excuse for denying Matthew's influence (the myth that Matthew's ideas went unread before Darwin and Wallace replicated them and claimed them as their own) and that you read the child's fairy story "The Boy Who Cried Wolf". It definitely will teach you something George. After that you should progress to Pinocchio. If you would like some help reading that one, perhaps an honest child might explain the morality of the message to you.
I am very familiar with Zirkle George.
You can't even educate yourself, so stop being silly by deceiving yourself about educating me about anything other than your most insightful incredible dishonesty.
I have a third peer reviewed journal article under review right now that cites Zirkle and expands and polishes his sound definition of natural selection. Moreover, amongs other things, his work led me to write this blog post in 2015: http://patrickmathew.blogspot.co.uk/2015_07_01_archive.html
'...over time and as technology develops, partly as a consequence of what the scientific enterprise is doing, new phenomena come up and can't be explained away any longer in the same way. In the end there are always a group of people who defend the existing belief system more than is justified by the empirical observations.'
George Beccaloni is clearly one of the current "group of people" who cannot accept the significance of the new data that has punctured the premise of the Darwin and Wallace Independent Discovery Paradigm. His behaviour on social media reveals the depths to which he has sunk in his desperate efforts to resist the new Matthewian Influence Paradigm.
The newly discovered phenomena of who Darwin and Wallace knew, and who their friends and influencers knew, really did read Matthew's prior publication of the hypothesis of macroevolution by natural selection, cannot be explained by the old and credulous Darwinite paradigm of tri-independent discovery of Matthew's prior published conception.
A rational explanations page has been created on PatrickMatthew.com to present the facts and rational rguments that topple the tall tales told by Darwin and his deifictioncult of credulous wordshippers: http://patrickmatthew.com/rational%20explanations.html