Darwin was fooled by total quackery and Wallace was a total idiot too: But we don't have to be

Darwin fell for that quackery - hook line and sinker. Mind you his co-plagiarising science fraudster Alfred Wallace believed in spirits and mediums and was an ardent moronic anti-vaxxer.
1. https://t.co/18mAp7rAa9
2. https://t.co/muy4S2llD3
3. On fraud: https://t.co/zflwNCG4Zd pic.twitter.com/IPgwXM4nwT

— Dr Mike Sutton (@Dysology) February 6, 2019

Mind you, Darwin and Wallace worshippers are as bad. They credulously believe in Darwin's and Wallace's claims to have miraculously conceived Patrick Matthew's prior published theory (Darwin from the literature and Wallace from the first and only claimed case of malarial fever cognitive enhancement) after their friends and influencers and influencer's influencers cited Matthew's book and the bombshell theory in it: https://www.amazon.co.uk/Nullius-Verba-Darwins-greatest-secret/dp/1541343964

Matthew the Botanist

In 1850 the famous naturalist and publisher John Loudon listed Patrick Matthew (here) as an acknowledged botanist.

After Darwin and Wallace plagiarised his work, Matthew was also listed as a noted botanist in the 1881 Jackson's Guide to the Literature of Botany (here) and again (noting that "Jacks" reference) as a noted botanist here on page 116 of than 1898 Biographical Index of British and Irish Botanists, in which the authors of that guide write in its preface that they excluded inclusion of obscure or trivial writers on the topic).

In order to get away with plagiarising Matthew's prior published theory of evolution by natural slection, the proven serial liar and plagiarist Charles Darwin, however, slyly portrayed Matthew as an obscure Scottish writer on forest trees. Despite the ridiculous myth perpetuated by cult-like credulous Darwin worshipers, the reality is that  Matthew enjoyed an international reputation as a noted botanist and expert on the topic of hybridizing and cultivating fruit trees.

Emigration Fields and the Artificial Selection of Humans by Social Class

Re question. Britain was overpopulated. Patrick Matthew (Chartist leader & landowner) saw emigration as solution to the artificial selection by career & marriage blocking of best of the lower classes by the upper. He was against such dysfunctional artificial selection of humans. pic.twitter.com/JlyCjey0bF

— Dr Mike Sutton (@Dysology) January 31, 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.

Emilio @BiologiaPensamt Hugh @HughDower For #veracity: Further intelligence on Patrick Matthew's pre-1858 international reputation. Supplied from the Netherlands last night.

Don't tell #RichardDawkins or credulous Darwin #cultists. They might explode🤪 https://t.co/M9nkoT2Wm3

— Dr Mike Sutton (@Dysology) January 25, 2019

Charles Darwin Har Ha ha

Whatever the case on the theory, it's not Darwin's theory (despite what credulous neo-religious Darwin worshipping cultists would have us swallow). All the evidence proves he stole it from its originator Patrick Matthew 1. https://t.co/LMpbVPuYSw
2. https://t.co/yZSRhv40YX & Lied https://t.co/i5ObQPqFiH

— Dr Mike Sutton (@Dysology) January 24, 2019

+

Darwin became convinced by Lamarckism in later life, believing Blacksmiths passed on the muscles gained through their occupation to their offspring. Wallace believed in the woo-woo spirits of parlour room mediums and was an avid anti-vaxxer. The ha ha ha heroes of Darwin worship!

— Dr Mike Sutton (@Dysology) January 24, 2019

+

Just as Darwin & his latterday credulous worshippers sought to censure truth about Matthew - the extent of his theory & who prior read it who influenced Darwin & Wallace - before Darwin & Wallace replicated it, & then claimed no one had read it as a lying excuse for plagiarism.

— Dr Mike Sutton (@Dysology) January 25, 2019

The Lindley Files

Interesting, is it not that in a host of otherwise massive mere multiple coincidences that John Lindley, who would later steal Matthew's priority rights to Giant Redwood importation, first UK growing and planting fame, had his work reviewed in Loudon's journal immediately below Matthew's (1831) in which Loudon (1832) wrote Matthew had something original to say on "the origin of species". See the facts of that Here . And the facts of Lindley's aforementioned apparent Giant Redwood fame fraud Here.

NOTE Lindley was a friend and co-author with Loudon, and ....wait for it...a great friend of William Hooker - him again - (acquaintance of the proven serial liar and plagiarist Charles Darwin, and Father of Darwin's best friend Joseph Hooker).

Full facts in Nullius in Verba: Darwin's greatest secret

William Hooker

Many links have been found between William Hooker (Darwin's acquaintance and father of Joseph Hooker who was Darwin's best friend and botanical mentor) and Patrick Matthew - in terms of who cited Matthew who William Hooker knew (see Sutton 2017). This is because the Hookers were economic botanists. In this 1838 anonymously authored essay (cited in Sutton 2014) we find Matthew and Hooker each cited in the very same essay on economical uses of the Willow : https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=E1oFAAAAQAAJ&pg=RA1-PA435&dq=%22Mathew%22+%22naval+timber%22&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjohti42YPgAhXKQxUIHRKHC5YQ6AEIMTAB#v=onepage&q=%22Mathew%22%20%22naval%20timber%22&f=false

The many newly discovered routes for pre-1858 Matthewian knowledge contamination of the replicating brains of Darwin and Wallace just just keep on heading toward the Hooker's of Kew (father William Hooker and his son Joseph - both leading economic botanists) - particularly William Hooker who was also Wallace's sponsor, mentor, specimen customer and correspondent. The question is - how many such possible multiple coincidences do we need to to sum to the probability that they are not coincidental at all?

How many otherwise multiple "route for knowledge contamination" coincidences sum to the probability they are not coincidental at all? Here Matthew and William Hooker cited in same essay on economic botany https://t.co/DrNwB6VaEF Clearly, Matthew was not an obscure author at all. pic.twitter.com/k3x3iYg6Yn

— Dr Mike Sutton (@Dysology) January 23, 2019

2019 Further Newly Unearthed Citations of Matthew's (1831) Book

Following the many newly unearthed citations of Matthew's (1831) book "On Naval Timber and Arboriculture " revealed in  'Nullius in Verba Darwin's: greatest secret' (Sutton 2014, 2017), here are some newly discovered others that I  found in Jan 2019

1. The anonymous essayist (1843) "S G 2" pp 226-227. "Economical uses of the Larch" in  Knight's Penny Magazine, Volume 3, [edited by Charles Knight.] https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=W-E2AQAAMAAJ&pg=PA227&dq=%22Mathew%22+%22naval+timber%22&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwizr_2xvIPgAhURtnEKHRn9BQwQ6AEIXjAJ#v=onepage&q=%22Mathew%22%20%22naval%20timber%22&f=false

2. Patrick Matthew citing his (1831) book in  '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). - Note in this same publication we find a testimonial by Robert Jameson (Darwin's Geology professor no less!Moreover the testimonials are for a naturalist whose work Darwin later relied upon!) (Click here for the details) 

Darwin Art

The Evolution of Fraud

Natural selection aids species in fraud. Darwin was a plagiarising science fraudster by glory theft of that theory. His abilities in deception aided him enormously. Only now, is new technology unweaving his tangled web of lies & science fraud by plagiarismhttps://t.co/yMLRSHW8Vc pic.twitter.com/DKQ2uZoi7k

— Dr Mike Sutton (@Dysology) January 18, 2019