A Further Investigation of those who were First to Be Second (F2B2): The case of Thomas Laycock

On Matthew's (1831) apparently original phrase "mental of instinctive powers."

 "Science Fraud" not only lists those who actually cited Matthew's 1831 book before 1858, it also lists (List 2) those who BigData research reveals were apparently first (after Matthew 1831) to go into print with apparently unique "Matthewisms". Being apparently "first to be second" with an apparently unique "Matthewism" they are said in short to be "F2B2".

Thomas Laycock is one of the names in my List 2. Not only does "Science Fraud" reveal his works on the theme of organic evolution, it also reveals who he associated with who were associates of Charles Darwin.

But today (11 March 2022) I discovered something more in my continued research into this area. Today, I found that without citing Matthew (1831) Laycock (1832) wrote extensively aping Matthew's work on his observations on the fact that trees that are artificially selected by humans are of inferior quality to those growing in the wild. Here. 

This provides yet more confirmatory evidence to support the F2B2 hypothesis stated in Science Fraud, the book. 

In my most recent book "Science Fraud: Darwin's Plagiarism of Patrick Matthew's Theory" there are many examples where those in List 2 are found to have been interested in the same lines of enquiry as Matthew, or to have later written about observations he first made, but without citing. Some were F2B2 and later in other publications they then actually cited Matthew's bombshell book "On Naval Timber". All before Darwin and Wallace replicated Matthew's theory and claimed it as their own. 

Schacter (2012) Provides further information about Laycock (who first introduced himself to me when I used the IDD method to see if anyone was F2B2 with Matthew's (1831) apparently original phrase "mental or instinctive powers"). Amazingly, although he wrote on Matthew's (1831) topic of organic evolution and used Matthew's apparently original term without citing him Schacter (p.115) reveals that Laycock wrote on the topic of instinct the same concept that Matthew had pioneered. 

Method

Schacter's (2012) book "Forgotten Ideas, Neglected Pioneers: Richard Semon and the Story of Memory" was found simply by typing the following search term into Google's standard search page: "Laycock" "Matthew" "Naval Timber" as in the image below.

The result I got today 13.03.2022 is archived Here. And if you scroll down the Google results first page of hits you will find Schacter's excellent book comes up. 

Next if we take the same three terms as above - in inverted commas exactly as above - but click for Google to search on books we find Schacter's earlier book also covered this topic. The image below reveals all.

As this research continues to reveal more about the previously unknown life of Matthew's 1831 book, namely who read it and was influenced by it, and who that "knowledge contamination" in turn influenced like a meme, it is important to remember that Laycock introduced himself to me because he was conjured up out of the publication record like a human spectre, living in a long forgotten book in the historic publication record. The spell that bought him forward was simply Googling the apparently coined by Matthew (1831) turn of phrase "mental or instinctive powers."

Those self-proclaimed sceptics who write in desperate defense of the "Darwin Industry" such as Professor Shermer all lacked the most basic but necessary skeptical curiosity to check their own bias when writing in support of Darwin's proven lie that Matthew's theory was hidden in the appendix of his book and that no one read it so it can't have influenced Darwin. Shermer's "its not a zero sum game" flim-flam in that regard is dealt with in Science Fraud. But really, Shermer, and all those other acolytes of the bearded God / father substitute Charles Darwin should have used Big Data analysis of the 40+million or more books and articles now scanned and in the Google library. Namely, Shermer (and others like him) should have looked at who was apparently first to be second (F2B2) with apparently original Matthewisms, as I did. Here is what Shermer writes. Note the excruciating fact that Matthew's phrase "mental or instinctive powers' is there in the text Shermer thinks nobody was influenced by (Shermer 2002) Here. 

The plot thickens as we drill down deeper for historical gold in the publication record

When we simply Google "Darwin" "Laycock" the influence of Laycock (who had apparently been influenced by Matthew's 1831 book) on Charles Darwin becomes startlingly clear. Now we see "experts" who were misled by the Matthew Effect in science not to focus their attention on the cultural tracers of Matthew's book explain the influence of Laycock on Darwin: Here

Frank Sulloway (1979) in "Freud, Biologist of the Mind" the writes on the topic here

Archived editions of this page:

13.03.2022 Here

.  . .

Oh the Satire of it all: The Daily Squib Nails the Credulous Darwinite Zombie Horde to the floor of their own stupidity

Today (07 March 2022) The Daily Squib sets the record straight on the Charles - The Dirty Plagiarist -Darwin, the "Darwin Industry" and its enablers - such as the fact censoring and malicious disinformation spreading pseudo-scholars of Wikipedia. Here (archived here) .

The cat is out of the bag on Charles Darwin's filthy science fraud by lies and plagiarism and no amount of the traditional fact denial pseudo scholarship of the Darwin Industry can ever get it back in https://t.co/QgQGmQ8wcM @CurtisPress_ @DailySquibs @DAILYSQUIB @SoniaPoulton

— Fear and Loathing in Science (@Idk50074280) March 7, 2022

.

Origin of the Theory of the Origin of Species Was Not the Origin of the Theory of the Origin of the Specieshttps://t.co/FIvSj5NlYy#charlesdarwin #science pic.twitter.com/bhuT7FrbB1

— Daily Squib News (@DAILYSQUIB) March 7, 2022

.

Origin of the Theory of the Origin of Species Was Not the Origin of the Theory of the Origin of the Specieshttps://t.co/FIvSj5NlYy#charlesdarwin #science pic.twitter.com/bhuT7FrbB1

— Daily Squib News (@DAILYSQUIB) March 7, 2022

Empirical facts or conspiracy theory

 

.

Conspiracy theorists are those who claim coverups whenever insufficient data exists to support what they're sure is true.

— Neil deGrasse Tyson (@neiltyson) April 7, 2011

. https://twitter.com/neiltyson/status/56010861382336513?lang=en-GB .

 .

.

This is completely unacceptable ... this fact denial approach to Matthew's theory of natural selection has been pushed for long enough by the likes of Wikipedia. https://t.co/9BwStVqZEj

— Neil Shuttlewood, publisher with Curtis Press (@CurtisPress_) February 19, 2022

Charles Darwin, Alfred Wallace, Patrick Matthew and Mike Sutton - Who is the Beast?

😂 Is Amazon the beast? Is it Sutton? Or is it Darwin? Or Matthew? Or is it Wallace? In the name of God who the Hell is the Beast? Buy the book and read the shocking "revelations" in it to find out. Is this the "end of days" for Charles Darwin? 😈💀 

Buy this bombshell book on Amazon for the price of the "mark of the beast" and exorcise - or else exercise, your demons now. 

Darwin Trust Employee George Beccaloni is about as objective as any brainwashed Darwin fanatic about the New Data and Charles Darwin

Someone using George Beccaloni's pseudonym Megaloblatta on February 16 2022 entered a link to typical Darwin fact hating superfan nonsense on the Wikipedia page for Patrick Matthew (relevant Wikipedia history page archived here.) 

Beccaloni (claims to be employed by the "Darwin Trust") that appears to be true but he also pretends he is an objective scholar on the question of Matthew and Darwin. However, verifiable empirical evidence proves he is the opposite.

Facts about George Beccaloni and Darwin's Plagiarism of Patrick Matthew's theory

Firstly before commenting on my research into the story of Matthew, Darwin and Wallace George Becalloni dismissed it as untrue on a Richard Dawkins fans website and was caught in the act by Bob Butler my then publisher and CEO of Thinker Media. There, caught red handed Beccaloni was confronted by Butler and so was forced to admit he was commenting negatively on an academic book he had not even read. Therefore, anything Beccaloni writes about my research after that serious academic irregularity is worse than just tainted by his proven completely biased and desperate unprofessionally childish fact denial behaviour. It is contaminated by Beccaloni's proven prejudiced pseudoscientific thinking.

The 2022 post "Science Fraud" Darwinite fight-back against the facts is likely to ramp up over the coming months. Already George Beccaloni an employee  of The Darwin Trust, no less, is getting published links on the Wikipedia page of Patrick Matthew to his ludicrous blog site. Wikipedia is not supposed to link to blog sites, under its own rules. But the Darwin horde is running the Patrick Matthew and Charles Darwin pages on Wikipedia, and one of them is proven by his own hand to be not only dishonest but employed by the Darwin Trust!

 Megaloblatta publishing on Wikipedia on Beccaloni's recent published activity on to a blog post written by Beccaloni on his own site here

George Beccaloni caught red-handed dishonestly pretending - like any other desperate and panicking pseudoscientific fanatic does - to know the factual content of a book he had not even read here.

Beccaloni's subsequent blog on the topic he clearly proved himself untrustworthy to review. Here.

Why is this being added to Wikipedia today? Is it because Darwin superfans like Beccaloni, the world over, are in a fact denial panic about my new history of science book "Science Fraud" and the mass of press coverage it is receiving?

I geck them with empirical facts. They hate that, these fanatical members of the Darwinite Zombie Horde.

This page is archived for researchers, journalists and anyone else investigating the dishonesty at the core of the so-called "Darwin Industry" and its activities in publishing to promote falsehoods, mischievous misrepresentations of scholarly research and fact-denial censorship   https://archive.is/QHr9H

Full conversation with Dr. Mike Sutton: https://t.co/XMc8ZwWNkP @CurtisPress_ @brandnewtube 25% off for our viewers. pic.twitter.com/ipa67upYEo

— Sonia Poulton (@SoniaPoulton) February 16, 2022

Science Fraud discussed on the Sonia Poulton Show 11th Feb 2022 with Dr Mike Sutton

 

Bombshell new Research Data on Darwin's Plagiarism goes Viral in 2022

.

.
 

Both. Here is the English version. https://t.co/nBvSGRuJ0s pic.twitter.com/hUA6DETTdy

— Fear and Loathing in Science (@Idk50074280) February 7, 2022

. .

 In the week leading up to Darwin Day 2022 Empirical research data proves once and for all that the genie is out of the bottle on Darwin's plagiarism, lies and glory thieving science fraud.

1. The English Mail on Sunday: Here . Archived Here

2. The Scottish Mail on Sunday

.

Just a few bombshell findings from the brand new #Curtis science book (Curtis Press) that blow to pieces the greatest myth and science fraud in the history of our planet! Credulous #DarwinDay organisers need their own #OperationLyingDog now @RichardDawkins @rdfrs @C_MAlexander pic.twitter.com/fl3dJt1VLD

— Fear and Loathing in Science (@Idk50074280) February 6, 2022

3. Sputnick News. Archived HERE

4. Scottish Daily Express 

.

Headline news too right to story inside on #Science Fraud in the #Darwin Industry https://t.co/ku34b2bJz7 pic.twitter.com/ZA6AL5uKG7

— Fear and Loathing in Science (@Idk50074280) February 7, 2022

.

The Times Archived here: https://archive.is/gyZrz

More here:

https://worldakkam.com/charles-darwin-steals-evolution-from-a-fellow-naturalist-claiming-a-new-book/688856/

https://pledgetimes.com/a-new-book-accuses-did-charles-darwin-plagiarize-the-theory-of-evolution/

https://www.africa-press.net/south-sudan/all-news/charles-darwin-stole-his-theory-of-evolution-from-fellow-naturalist-new-book-claims

https://www.turktime.com/haber/charles-darwin-intihal-ile-suclandi/605931

https://www.reqnews.com/memoar/45957/penipuan-sains-terbesar-teori-evolusi-charles-darwin-ternyata-jiplakan

https://pekanbaru.tribunnews.com/2022/02/06/teori-evolusi-darwin-sebuah-karya-plagiat-dr-mike-sutton-ungkap-sejumlah-fakta-penting?page=1

https://ulak.news/haber_charles-darwin-scotun-evrimle-il_sozcu_6937715.html

https://www.sozcu.com.tr/2022/dunya/charles-darwin-scotun-evrimle-ilgili-calismasini-caldi-iddiasi-tarihin-en-buyuk-sahtekarligi-6937715/

Myths v Facts in Science and Science Fraud

 

Is it a myth, a fact or something in-between?

1. Is it true that Darwin and/or Wallace originated the full theory of macroevolution by natural selection? 

Answer = No! It's a myth because Charles Darwin and Alfred Wallace, and many other top experts on evolution (such as Matthew himself, de Beer, Mayr and Dawkins) all agreed Matthew (1831) was first into print, decades before Darwin or Wallace with the full theory in his book On Naval Timber and Arboriculture. 

2. Is it true that Matthew must have failed to influence Darwin and/or Wallace with his theory because no naturalists / no single person had read Matthew's theory before he claimed his priority in a published letter of 1860?

Answer = No! It's a myth started as an empirical proven lie by Darwin in all editions of the Origin of Species from third edition onwards and parroted by the credulous and adoring scientific community ever since. In 1860 Matthew's published letter informed Darwin directly that his book had been reviewed by the famous naturalist and biologist Loudon, reviewed in various periodicals and newspapers and was read by an esteemed profesor who could not teach it nor write about it for fear of pillory punishment, it being heretical in the first half of the 19th century. Sutton's research originally and uniquely identifies 30+ people who read and then cited Matthew's 1831 book in published print before Darwin and Wallace replicated the original theory in it. This list includes Wallace's admitted greatest influencer, Robert Chambers (who met and corresponded with Darwin pre-1858) and the editor of Wallace's famous Sarawak paper - Selby. Loudon edited and published two of Blyth's most influential papers, read by Darwin, and Darwin admitted Blyth was his most prolific correspondent on the topic of species and varieties.

3. Is it true, what Darwin claimed in the Origin of Species and elsewhere, that Matthew was an obscure writer and that Matthew's theory was only briefly given in the scattered pages of an appendix to an entirely irrelevant book on the topic?   

Answer = No! It's a myth. Again this myth was started as a published lie by Darwin. Firstly, if Matthew was an obscure writer then how is it that pre-1858 Matthew was cited in the Encyclopedia Britannica and and elsewhere in that publication his 1831 enjoyed a prominent 1/2 page block advert and why is it that it is newly proven that before 1858 Darwin held in his own hands at least five publications that cited Matthew's 1831 book. Darwin lied about Matthew's theory being limited to an appendix because his own letter to Lyell on that topic said it would be splitting hairs to admit the truth (he knew, because Matthew had shown him in his published letter of reply to Darwin) was otherwise. Moreover, trees and plants are at the core of the theory of evolution by natural selection. Darwin was obsessed by trees and he notebook of books he read proves it. 

4. Is it true that Darwin originated the term "process of natural selection"

Answer = Something in between. Big Data research does reveal he was apparently first into print with that term. But it is a four word shuffle of Matthew's 1831 original term of the very exact same meaning "natural process of selection". And Chambers (who cited Matthew's 1831 book before writing his own influential 1844 book on organic evolution) was apparently first to be second into print in 1859 with Matthew's original four word term.

5. Is it true that Darwin was the first to use artificial selection as an analogue of natural selection as an analogical explanation explain the process of natural selection? 

Answer = No! It's a myth. Matthew was first to do that. He was then followed by Wallace who used it in his Sarawak paper. Darwin replicated Matthew's explanatory analogy in his private essay of 1844 and to open Chapter One in the Origin of Species. In that private essay Darwin even replicated Matthew's highly idiosyncratic analogy of difference between trees raised in nurseries versus trees growing wild in nature.

6. Is it true that Darwin was a remarkably honest man and genius orignal thinker?

Answer = No! It's a myth, proven by each and every one of the empirical fact led five answers to the questions above. Darwin (and Wallace too) was a replicator of a prior published theory and all paths of those who read and cited Matthew's book lead to Darwin and to Wallace and to their known and admitted influencers, friends and to their influencer's influencers. Darwin, with assistance from Wallace, and others,, facilitated and enabled by the bone-headed bias and credulity of the scientific community, committed the worlds greatest science fraud by plagiary and lies.

Get the facts: from Curtis Press Here. Use the code fraud2022 for a discount or else buy from Amazon here

.

#FactvMyths (1) Darwin originated theory of natural selection = myth (2) No one read Matthew's prior published origination = myth (30+ cited it pre Darwin's replication) (3) Matthew never influenced Darwin = myth (Darwin's & Wallace's main influencers cited Matthew). pic.twitter.com/plyskg0CI8

— Fear and Loathing in Science (@Idk50074280) February 4, 2022

.