Given that so many people follow famous people like cattle, if I change my name to Richard Dawkins what would that do for book sales? By the way, Darwin superfan, Richard Dawkins has written empirical fact denial nonsense about Patrick Matthew. As Science Fraud, the book, proves with empirical evidence.
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 |
 |
| 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.
I am glad to see that the discovery of the Spinach and Iron supermyth has been positively cited in the British Medical Journal in 2023 as an important discovery.
As Springer Science has a book chapter that came out in 20203 on the "Patrick Matthew Effect in Science", it is surely only a matter of time before the Darwin and Matthew supermyth is similarly cited in prestigious journals and the Darwin Industry is compelled to officially distance itself from its current corrupt policy of enabling and facilitating dementedly malicious fact denial harassment zombies on the likes of Wikipedia to attack, with blatant lies and malicious misinformation, anyone daring to write or teach the new found empirical facts on Darwin's science fraud by plagiary and supporting lies.
When millions of depressed people were told by the "expert" medical profession to take selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) they were told they had an inbalance in their brain and the drug would restore the balance here (archived page). In reality, that was just an intuitive hypothesis and there is no empirical evidence to support it.
Many billions of people for the last 160+ years were told by so called "expert" biologists and science historians that although Patrick Matthew was first into published print with the full theory of evolution by natural selection that no one had read it and certainly not anyone connected to Darwin and Wallace (1858/59). This zero evidenced claim is used to claim in turn that Darwin and Wallace each replicated it independently of one another and of Patrick Matthew. These "experts" also told the world that Darwin was extraordinarily honest and did not lie when he claimed he had not seen Matthew's theory before replicating it. In reality many people, read and cited Matthew's (1831) book containing his theory years before 1858. Some were key influencer's of Darwin and Wallace and others were their influencer's influencers. Moreover Darwin is absolutely 100% proven to have lied that no one read Matthew's book and the theory in it before he and Wallace replicated it, because before he told that lie Darwin was very clearly informed directly that naturalists he and Wallace knew had read it and one even reviewed it and mentioned the theory in print in 1832.
It is not scientific to make an unevidenced claim to seek to get people to believe it, without admitting you have zero empirical evidence for your claim.
We know it can take years for those duped into taking SSRI to get themselves off the drugs that have very bad side effects. Similarly, it will perhaps take years for many Darwin addicts to be able to get themselves off their mad Darwin dysology habit.
Dysolgy of this unevidenced kind can be absolutely lethal. Just check out the Masks Supermyth to see.
The empirical evidence of the real Patrick Matthew story can be found in the Curtis Press book "Science Fraud". HERE.
 |
| Facts are driving Darwin worshipers raving bonkers |
The newly unearthed empirical data on the Darwin fraud by plagiarism and associated serial lies bring the history of science and science closer to understanding how the breakthrough in human understanding of evolution by natural selection was really made.
The research into who did (contrary to the Darwin Supermyth that none see Sutton 2022) read Patrick Matthew's (1831) theory before Darwin and Wallace (1858 / 59) stole it and lied to call it their own reveals more about the three Scots - David Low, Robert Mudie and Patrick Matthew in the 1830's. My earlier blog on the topic has been updated HERE (archived Here) .
One possible interpretation (hypothesis only) of these new findings is that Matthew (1831) got the idea of his analogy between natural and artificial selection form reading the work of Mudie (1830) and that Mudie then read Matthew's (1831) analogy with regards to timber raised in nurseries v nature and added it into his 1832 book. However, a forthcoming chapter in an academic text book on science fraud by plagiary and research ethics, written by Mike Sutton and Mark Griffiths (forthcoming [in print] 2023), reveals something far more profound regarding another Scottish naturalist writing even earlier - who very clearly influenced Matthew earlier than Mudie's 1830 book could have.
On the inside of the dust jacket to his new book: "The Knowledge Machine: How an Unreasonable Idea Created Modern Science" Professor Michael Strevens writes:
"...science calls on its practitioners to do something apparently irrational: to strip away all previous knowledge - such as religious, metaphysical or political beliefs - in order to channel unprecedented energy into observation and experiment.'
Interestingly, it was certainly his religious heresy and possibly also his membership, as a Scottish regional representative (see here), of the radical political reformist Chartist movement that led 19th century writers, including some natural scientists (such as john Lindley, who despised and feared the Chartists), to do the dirty on Matthew (see here) or else fear to be associated with his bombshell 1831 breakthrough of the origination of the theory of evolution by what he called the 'natural process of selection.'
Then in the 21st century, the breakthrough of Big Data searching in Google's library of millions of books (Sutton and Griffiths 2018) allowed me (see e.g. Sutton 2015) to find and then to observe in the historical publication record that it is a science myth that no naturalist read Matthew's theory before Darwin and Wallace replicated it (along with many of his essential highly idiosyncratic explanatory examples and analogies). Moreover, I then conducted and experiment (here) to reveal how even to this day the quasi-religious cultish Darwin Industry is involved in fact denial of what exists in the printed publication record about what 19th century readers wrote on Matthew and his theory before Darwin (1858, 1859) and Wallace (1855, 1858) plagiarized it and then defended their action by claiming no single person had read Matthew's theory before he claimed it was his in a published letter of 1860.
Therefore, it is scientific attitude and techniques that allowed the "knowledge machine" of science, based upon independently verifiable new data, to replace the myth of Darwin's and Wallace's miracle independent conceptions of a prior published theory (that was read and cited by their friends and influencers before they replicated it See Sutton 2017) with the facts of their plagiarism of Matthew and historical and modern day machinations of Darwin fanatics to try to bury the facts of it from the wider public.
Strevens (p. 7) reasons that the fundamental rule of science is that any dispute between people about what is the truth of something must be made made with refence to empirical evidence. However, that said, he points out that the significance of the evidence is a separate matter and must be determined outside of this "Iron Rule" of evidence.
Regarding the new data that I uncovered, which proves all the scientists were wrong to parrot Darwin's lie that no single person read Patrick Matthew's (1831) book On Naval Timber, that data is evidence Matthew's book was read, because at least 30 people are now proven to have cited it in the literature before Darwin and Wallace replicated the theory in it in 1858. To date, the only arguments made against the argument that Darwin plagiarised Matthew are unscientific arguments, because they are based on no evidence. Take for example, Moore's unscientific knee jerk rejection argument against the Darwin Plagiarised Matthew Hypothesis (in Knapton 2014) - a ludicrous argument that is on Wikipedia's Patrick Matthew page as though it is valid rather than unscientific opinion:
“I would be extremely surprised if there was any new evidence had not been already seen and interpreted in the opposite way.”
In reply to Moore, at least according to the hard evidence of his unevidenced reply to the New Data evidence of Darwin's plagiarism and his proven lies about Matthew (Sutton 2017), "I would be extremely surprised if he knows what a scientific argument is, or how to conduct one."
Strevens (p.24) points out that most scientists do not follow any particular paradigm because they believe it is well supported by the evidence, or because it is the "official one" or because it is the one best funded, instead the reason the follow it is because they cannot imagine the truth being different to it. And on p. 25) he explains further:
"Scientists, like anyone else, see and understand things at any one time from a particular worldview ...it shuts down scientists' capacity to comprehend genuine novelty. ...if the old worldview is incompatible with the new, then you can't see the new view from the perspective of the old either. The new view is simply out of sight."
On page 98, Strevens tells us that what works against this problem in science is what he calls "The Iron Rule" and that is data from observations or experiment that confirm or disconfirm current ideas, knowledge claims, hypothesis and theories.
"The iron rule encourages, instructs, obliges, or forces contending scientists to engage each other with observable fact alone. ...The rule thereby harnesses the oldest emotions to drive the extraordinary attention to process and detail that makes science the discriminator and destroyer of false ideas."
And it was by way of my application of this iron rule to bust with newly detected observable facts in the historical publication record the self-serving supermyth started by Darwin that the theory of macroevolution by the natural process of slection that is in Patrick Matthew's (1831) book 'On Naval Timber and Arboriculture' (NTA) was totally unread by anyone whatsoever/any naturalist before Darwin and Wallace replicated it in 1858. I found at least 30 people cited NTA in the literature pre-1858, and that means many more, probably many thousands more besides, read Matthew's 1831 theory before 1858. Because most people who read something do not then go into published print to write about it. Especially not when to do so breaks the scientific and wider establishment strictures against writing anything that questions theological doctrine about the origin of species on our planet, which was the case in the first half of the 19th century, before Robert Chambers (newly discovered to have cited NTA pre 1858) put evolution in the air in his anonymously authored best selling book 'Vestiges of the Natural History of Creation' and was then acknowledged by Wallace as his greatest influencer, and was also avidly read by Darwin pre-1858.
~~~
With apologies to Longfellow, here is a little bit of educational doggerel for all you other fact-hater Darwin super fans out there:
'Charles Darwin... writing his thesis at exactly its most fashionistic time , when everyone was discussing it. He wasn't the first to propose his particular interpretation, of course, but his use of fashionism and the clothing of the argument in detaied observations of animals in general made the whole project an obvious winner.'
Ford, B. J. (1971. p 142) Nonscience, Wolfe Publishing Ltd. London
Ford built upon this critical observation in 2011 in an article entitled Darwin: The Microscopist Who Didn't Discover Evolution. By Brian J. Ford. The Microscope. 59:3, 2011. pp 129-137.
In that article Ford wrote:
'Darwin neither discovered evolution as a general concept, nor did he discover evolution by natural selection.'
And:
'Darwin is set on a pedestal as though he were Einstein or Copernicus, and anyone doubting adherence to this conventional view risks ostracism. In science, as much as in religion, we can find extreme views that fly in the face of realities.' Click here to read that article.
In October 2020 Ford's Nonscience was updated and re-published by the science publisher Curtis Press
'Some 27 years earlier, the theory had been published by someone Darwin didn't know - Patrick Matthew. ... Darwin omitted mention of these earlier investigators when he wrote his book. ...Matthew on reading Darwin's words was was horrified and he complained. Charles Darwin wrote back: "I freely acknowledge that Mr Matthew has anticipated by many years the explanation which I have offered on the origin of species under the name of natural selection. If another edition of my book is called for, I will insert a notice to the foregoing effect." He didn't. Three editions of Darwin's book came out before Matthew's name crept in - and that is the secret of Darwin's success. His theory wasn't original, but he didn't say so. The earlier publications had caused growing interest in evolution, so that - by the time the Origin of Species appeared - everybody wanted to know more. That's the rule. Fashionism is what matters. Not originality. And certainly not integrity.'
In 2020 Ford purchase, read, and then reviewed Nullius in Verba: Darwin's greatest secret on Amazon. Here.
Darwin in his (1860) reply to Matthew in the Gardener's Chronicle fully admitted he had replicated Matthew's prior published theory: "" I have been much interested by Mr. Patrick Matthew’s communication in the Number of your Paper, dated April 7th. I freely acknowledge that Mr. Matthew has anticipated by many years the explanation which I have offered of the origin of species, under the name of natural selection." Darwin (1861) did the same from the third edition onwards of his book the Origin of Species: Darwin replicated and admitted it when he wrote: "In 1831 Mr Patrick Matthew published his work on Naval Timber and Arboriculture in which he gives precisely the same view on the origin of species as that presently to be alluded to propounded by Mr Wallace and myself in the Linnean Journal and as that enlarged on in the present volume." Moreover, as if that is not enough to show what utter tripe the Dagg and Derry Show is Darwin himself, being one of the world's three foremost experts of all time on natural selection (those three being Matthew. Darwin and Wallace), acknowledged this in a letter to Patrick Matthew dated 13th June 1862: “I presume I have the pleasure of addressing the author of the work on Naval Architecture and the first enunciator of the theory of Natural Selection.”
For his part, Wallace in (1879a) fully admitted that he knew Matthew got there first with the entire thing he and "To my mind your quotations from Mr. Patrick Matthew are the most remarkable things in your whole book, because he appears to have completely anticipated the main ideas both of the "Origin of Species" & of "Life & Habitat".Aso in 1879b Wallace wrote: "Mr. Matthew apprehended the theory of natural selection, as well as the existence of more obscure laws of evolution, many years in advance of Mr. Darwin and myself, and in giving almost the whole of what Mr. Matthew has written on the subject Mr. Butler will have helped to call attention to one of the most original thinkers of the first half of the 19th century."
In their desperate fact denial smog-article Dagg and Derry - arguably - misrepresent what I wrote on page 6 of my book. They write:
"Sutton (2017: 6) asserted that Matthew’s theory only differed from Darwin’s and Wallace’s in the occurrence of global catastrophes"
What I actually write on page 6 of my 2017 book is (bold and underlined emphasis added here):
"Matthew, quite correctly allowed for geological and meteorological catastrophes in his model, but Darwin and Wallace never. Matthew's original theory of macroevolution by natural selection is, in every other relevant way, apart from that great superiority, virtually the same as Darwin's and Wallace's later versions."
And relevant here - in the context of my entire book and even the rest of the content of that page - is its relevance to the evidence that Darwin and Wallace plagiarised Matthew's 1831 original theory, his original terminology and his original and highly idiosyncratic explanatory analogies.
Leading Biologist Brian J Ford @brianjford read and then reviews my book "Nullius in Verba: Darwin's greatest secret" https://t.co/CLKiPRJoQT
— Dr Mike Sutton (@Criminotweet) October 4, 2020
Proper academics like Brian J. Ford know what plagiarism is. Fact denial Darwin fanatics don't want you to know the bombshell 💣facts. pic.twitter.com/r9frnv8O0U
The image of page 6 of my book below sets the record straight on what Dagg and Derry are up to in misrepresenting my research in their desperate 2020 article
The disgraced plagiarism facilitating @BiolJLinnSoc published by @OxUniPress is at it again. This time allowing a malicious, serially dishnobscene cyberstalker & his plagiarist associate to misrepresent my research in order to keep the Patrick Matthew Supermyth going: https://t.co/8xWt2ilXnV
— Dr Mike Sutton (@Criminotweet) October 4, 2020
.
Indeed, we know plagiarism from (ahem) personal experience. Plagiarists unwittingly admit two key facts: first, they can't think of anything to do by themselves, and secondly, they know your ideas are far better than theirs. Backhanded it may be, but it's a compliment!
— brianjford (@brianjford) October 4, 2020
