The New Big Problem for Darwinists

My original discoveries create a big problem for Darwinists

Good scholarship in any field involves questioning: '...most the the data that best fit your expectations and focus instead upon the unsolved problems, anomalies, and paradoxes of your field.' (Root-Bernstein 1993).

Consequently, the new problem that Darwinists now have to solve is:

How on Earth did Darwin and Wallace discover Natural Selection independently of Matthew's prior published hypothesis of it, despite the newly discovered fact that they were influenced and facilitated on the same topic by naturalists they knew who had long before read and cited Matthew's book, which contains it? Moreover, why did Darwin lie when, contrary to what Matthew informed him in print in 1860, he wrote that no naturalist had read Matthew's original ideas before 1860? Furthermore, why, after Matthew informed him a second time, in print, of yet another naturalist who read his original ideas, did Darwin continue his lie that no one read Matthew's ideas from the third edition of the Origin of Species onward? And, why in his 1887 autobiography (written with his son Francis) did Darwin make no mention of Matthew, who he knew published the theory in 1831, but instead write: 'I gained much by my delay in publishing from about 1839, when the theory was clearly conceived, to 1859; and I lost nothing by it, for I cared very little whether men attributed most originality to me or Wallace.'?

Finally, is it, or is it not, more likely than not, in light of the New Data of who Darwin new who did read it, that such a newly proven serial lying replicator as Darwin plagiarized Matthew's book, rather than discovered the original ideas in it independently of it? And the same must be asked about the dishonest Wallace - who sneakily altered a letter in his autobiography about favours and services Darwin and his cronies owed him, and claimed, anomalously, to have alighted independently upon the complex and prior-published theory of natural selection whilst suffering from malarial fever, even though we now newly know his famous and influential naturalist editor (Selby), a friend of Darwin's father, associate of Darwin, and friend of many of Darwin's close naturalists friends had, years earlier, cited Matthew's book many times?

If Darwinists can solve, to the advantage of their namesake, these problems, rationally and convincingly, in light of Darwin's self serving lies and other dishonesty about Matthew, along with explaining how it was that so many of Matthew's original ideas and examples Darwin and Wallace replicated, along with his powerful Artificial Versus Natural Selection Explanatory Analogy of Differences, and his terminology,* then, and only then, can they solve - with a solution other than Darwin's and Wallace's plagiarizing science fraud - what we might name the Anomalous Paradox Problem of Darwin's and Wallace's Immaculate Conceptions of Matthew's Prior Published Hypothesis.

Of significant note also, is the fact that the problem of claimed independent replication of a full, complete, appreciable, original and unique prior-published, problem solving and game-changing idea, hypothesis or theory, whilst in contact with those who are 100 per cent proven to have read the publication containing it, is unique in the history of scientific discovery to the story of Matthew, Darwin and Wallace. That makes it a most important anomaly, which has been ignored for the 155 years following the publication of Darwin's Origin of Species, but it is dragged now into the spotlight by my new discoveries.

Kuhn's seminal work on the Structure of Scientific Revolutions explains:  'A shift in professional commitments to shared assumptions takes place when an anomaly subverts the existing tradition of scientific practice.'  Darwinists will need now take note that the anomaly of Darwin's and Wallace's essential immaculate conceptions of a prior published theory has been highlighted by the New Data that their influencers had read it before they replicated it. Moreover, the Darwinist 'anomaly dodging' assumption, of Darwin's and Wallace's remarkable honesty, which they have shared and relied upon in order to deal with Darwin's and Wallace's so-called 'independent' discoveries of Matthew's prior published discovery, is newly bust in the light of Wallace's now proven dishonesty and Darwin's blatant lies.

If exceptional claims do require exceptional evidence, then that is exactly what Darwinists must provide now in light of the New Data presented in Nullius.

Notably, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, which means that, to repeat the point already made, what remains in Darwin's and Wallace's massively decimated private correspondence archives, private diaries, and Darwin's torn apart, missing pages and scribbled out text private notebooks and essays – dated as written in the exact same year, or after, Darwin's influential friends and associates, and Wallace's Sarawak paper editor, read and cited Matthew's work - is quite obviously not extraordinary evidence in support of their claimed 'independent' discoveries of Matthew's prior-published discovery of the natural process of selection.

Moreover, it is a fact that the New Data greatly highlights the anomaly of Darwin’s and Wallace’s supposed ‘independent discoveries’ of Matthew's ‘natural process of selection’. This represents the start of a paradigm change.

 According to Kuhn (1970 p. 62) the characteristics of paradigm changing discoveries include the:

 '... previous awareness of an anomaly, the gradual and simultaneous emergence of both observational and conceptual recognition, and the consequent change of paradigm categories and procedures often accompanied by resistance.'

Paradigm changes in our knowledge of the history of scientific discoveries are not arrived at by making scientific discoveries, although new technologies may be essential facilitators for the discovery of new knowledge about that history. There are, however, usefully analogous factors involved. All Kuhn's elements of paradigm change in science are to be found in the story of Matthew, Darwin and Wallace. There is the anomaly of Darwin's and Wallace's 'immaculate conceptions' (independent discoveries) of Matthew's prior published discovery. There is the new BigData ID hi-technology facilitated observation that influential naturalists, known to Darwin and Wallace, in fact did read, and cite, Matthew's book pre-1858, which represents an original, anomaly highlighting, paradigm shifting, discovery of a great paradox in the history of the discovery of natural selection. Finally, there is the fact that the change of paradigm to Darwin and Wallace having been more likely than not influenced by Matthew's prior-published work long before 1858, and the new research procedures I used to bring it into existence, are meeting resistance from those still wedded to the old 'majority view' of Darwin and Wallace as independent discoverers. See for example Dr Mike Weale's position paper on my discovery of the New Data. Every criticism in it can be rebutted by reference to reason and the newly discovered facts (here).

Technological progress in internet search engine technology facilitated original Big Data research in Google's Library Project of over 30 million searchable books and other publications. This research led to game-changing discoveries, which have transformed the unique anomaly of Darwin's and Wallace's claimed dual independent discoveries of Matthew's prior-published original ideas. That old anomaly was changed by the New Data in 2014 from a vexation into a crisis of credulous deifying Darwinist belief in a double occurrence of paradoxical immaculate conceptions by Darwin and Wallace, miraculously occurring as each now logically must, whilst they were surrounded by naturalists they knew, who influenced them, and whose minds were fertile with Matthew's original work, having read and then cited his 1831 book decades before Wallace (1855), Darwin and Wallace (1858) and Darwin (1842, 1844 and 1859) replicated the original ideas and explanatory examples within it.

A bombshell in the history of science is that new disconfirming facts bust 155 years of credulous Darwinist mythmongering. The fallout of knowledge contamination now debunks previous versions of the discovery of natural selection, because Matthew's original ideas, in fact, were read and cited by at least seven naturalists, four known to Darwin and two to Wallace, decades before Darwin (1860) deliberately lied when he claimed no naturalist had read them before 1860, and then later lied again (Darwin 1861) by claiming they were read by no one at all. Darwin is proven a liar, because Matthew (1860) had earlier told him in published print about two naturalists who had read his book before 1859.

Consequently, the issue of Patrick Mathew's priority over Darwin and Wallace for his own prior-published and cited discovery is not something that the history of scientific discovery can ethically or sensibly continue to choose to ignore if it is to be of any use in helping us to understand how the discovery of natural selection occurred. Such knowledge is important, because it is fundamental in developing ways to increase the chances of making other great discoveries in the future.

*For the published proof of just how much of Matthew's unique and original 1831 ideas and content Darwin and Wallace replicated see e.g.: Sutton (2014); Dempster (1995); and Dawkins, in Bryson (ed) (2010).

"The Blind Eye is the Backward Eye": The Social Danger of Darwin Scholar Fact Denial Punterizing Propaganda Techniques

I think that allowing any kind of fallacy and myth to be accepted as veracious might just create an enabling environment in which credulous belief in far more serious myths and fallacies might flourish and lead, ultimately, to significant social harms, with murderous hate crimes and genocide being at the far end of a "states of denial spectrum" . 

The dreadful story of August Landmesser - the man who refused
 to salute Hitler - is an example of the blindsight paradox

As founding Director for the Nottingham Centre for the Study and Reduction of Bias, Prejudice and Hate Crime, at Nottingham Trent University, I see this as a particularly important topic worthy of further scholarly research.

In the Public Interest

In the public interest, I have been compelled to write a professionally reviewed essay in response to online obscene and misogynistic abuse, other abuse, and claims, which have been submitted to the Scottish press, about my expert and independently peer-reviewed scholarly science journal publication of my original research findings. You can read it here (Sutton 2016).

To avoid mockery and humiliation in a fact fight fuelled scholarly debate, one needs to bring something more than mere unevidenced opinions. 

The main aim of this blog post is to encourage readers to not let pseudo scholars punterize the public with their unevidenced mere agenda-driven fact denial opinions. I wish to encourage others to do what I do, which is to insist that fact deniers and concealers provide independently verifiable facts of their own if they wish to challenge the significance, or very existence, of independently verifiable and 100 per cent proven facts, which they find uncomfortable. 

In his excellent book "State of Denial" the late Stan Cohen (2001, p. 138) wrote: 

'Collective memory is pressed into shape by being repressed.

'Uncomfortable knowledge, though, can be forgotten without direct state manipulation. Whole societies have an astonishing ability to deny the past - not really forgetting, but maintaining a public culture that seems to have forgotten.The blind eye is the backward eye. When circumstances change -  renewed pressure from victims, the chance opening of an archive - then newspaper editorials (without irony) remind us that 'this is what we always knew'.

The "New Data" fact that seven naturalists - as opposed to the old Darwinist story of "none" - read patrick Matthew's book, containing what leading darwin scholars admit is the full prior published hypothesis of natural selection, before Darwin and Wallace (1858), Darwin (1859) replicated the hypothesis without citing Matthew, was first published in my book Nullius in Verba: Darwin's greatest secret (Sutton 2014). Moreover, I originally discovered that Darwin knew four of the seven naturalists who cited Matthew's book pre-1858 and that three of them played major roles at the epicentre of influence and facilitation of the work of Darwin and Wallace and that of their influencer's influencers (see Sutton 2016).

Every Darwin scholar defence, raised so far against the "New Data" facts has been completely rebutted with reference to independently verifiable facts: Here.

Please note, contrary to the sly and misleading fallacies written about me by Darwin scholars, I have, in fact, never once claimed it is 100 per cent proven that Darwin and Wallace read Matthew's book, as several of the above scholars have claimed or implied. Instead, I have very plainly and deliberately written that, when all the evidence is weighed together, that I personally believe, subjectively, that it is more likely than not proven beyond

all reasonable doubt that they did. And I have very pointedly and clearly insisted that others must read and weigh all the "New Data" facts together to reach their own subjective opinion on the matter (see Sutton 2014). 

What is 100 per cent proven is that Darwin's friends and influencers, and his and Wallace's influencers and their infuencer's influencers read Matthew's (1831) book (because they cited it and the ideas in it), that Darwin read five books that cited Matthew's (1831) book, knowledge contamination routes from Matthew to Darwin and Wallace are now discovered, Darwin lied about the prior readership of Matthew's book, and he told several more lies besides in order to steal Matthew's glory by way of plagiarising science fraud after 1860, and that Wallace lied in his autobiography by deleting incriminating text in his transcription of a letter he sent his Mother. See Sutton 2014  (and 2016) or all these 100 per cent proven facts and their contextual details. 

Darwinists have no dis-confirming facts to bring to a fact fight to argue against the newly discovered 100 per cent  proof of potential Matthewian knowledge contamination routes of the pre-1858 brains of Darwin and Wallace

For their part, Darwin apologists have no 100 per cent verifiable proof that Darwin or Wallace conceived the

Sutton (2014)
The Bombshell Book that
Re-Wrote the History of
Discovery of Natural Selection

theory of macro evolution by natural selection independently of Matthew's (1831) orignal conception. The best evidence they have is Darwin's private notebooks and essays. But these do not help them a jot, because several of Darwin's and Wallace's associates, and their associate's friends and associates, and their influencers, and their influencer's influencers, had read and cited Matthew's (1831) book, and mentioned the orignal ideas in it, before Darwin even began his first relevant private notebook of 1837-38 (Loudon and Chambers) and in the same year he penned his first private essay of 1842 (Selby). See Sutton 2014 and Sutton 2016 for the fully referenced and independently verifiable fact-led details. The unwelcome "New Data" facts prove also that both Loudon and Chambers, and Wallace's (1855) Sarawak paper's editor Selby, and Jameson - the regular correspondent of Wallace's mentor and correspondent William Hooker (William being the father of Darwin's best friend Joseph Hooker) - all cited Matthew's (1831) book before Wallace made his first private jottings on the topic. Finally, Darwin's pre-1858 notebooks in fact prove that Darwin held in his hands five books that actually cited Matthew's 1831 book!

The newly rendered useless evidence of the existence of his notebooks and essays aside, the only remaining evidence Darwin scholars have that Matthew's (1831) book could not possibly have influenced Darwin pre 1858 is a letter that Darwin wrote to his great friend  Charles Lyell in 1860.

Following Matthew’s (1860) first priority claiming letter in The Gardeners’ Chronicle, of 7th April, Darwin wrote on 10th April to his friend Lyell that he had ordered a copy of Matthew’s book. This might be taken as strong confirmatory evidence that Darwin had never read Matthew’s book or been influenced by its original contents. Rationally, it is nothing of the sort. Darwin’s letter to Lyell merely proves, and only then if the proven liar Darwin was then telling the truth, that he did not have a copy of Matthew’s book in his possession in 1860. Darwin could easily have prior-borrowed a copy from an associate and made extensive notes. Or been supplied by others with such extensive notes. He could just have easily borrowed a copy many years earlier from the London Library, which was founded in 1841, the same year Darwin joined, and the year before he penned his private 1842 essay on natural selection. Or Darwin might have borrowed a copy of Matthew’s book years earlier from Mudie’s Library — founded in 1842 — because he was a noted keen member of both lending libraries

See Sutton 2014 for all of the references to these independently verifiable facts and much more besides that Darwin scholars apparently do not want you to read.

What Possible Motives Might Darwin Scholars have for Propagandising to Deny or Hide Uncomfortable New Facts?

I strongly suspect that professional jealousy and fear of ridicule for their own poor scholarship in failing to find what I originally discovered, in equal proportions, drives the shamefully pseudo scholarly propagandising behaviour and cannily indifferent silence of Darwin scholars who are aware of the "New Data" facts.

Dr John van Wyhe attempted to mislead the Scottish people by claiming my
peer reviewed science paper (Sutton 2016) is a conspiracy theory

I challenge any leading Darwin scholar to debate the "New Data" facts with me before an academic audience, the wider public and the press. 

Dr Mike Weale, who has written (Weale 2015) - with zero evidence to support his mere opinion that the evidence Darwin read Matthew's ideas is weak - adamantly refuses to face me in an academic debate before his peers to defend his completely unevidenced accusations that I have created a supermyth of my own about Darwin and Matthew. Weale writes, by way of excuse, that he fears, despite knowing the fact I have presented and debated  the "New Data" facts before skeptical audiences in universities and elsewhere, that I will mock him in public (Weale 2016) for his unevidenced opinions. The fact of the matter is that Weale's Darwin worship propagandizing opinions are completely disconfirmed by the new hard facts he refuses to engage with in any kind of rational honest open and public debate. 

The "New Data" facts are chasing dishonest propagandising Darwinists

For the sake of veracity in the history of scientific discovery, I will continue to present my research findings and debate them in public before academic audiences and beyond. I am more than willing to debate the facts with any leading fact denying and propagandising Darwin scholar, historian of science, or biologist who cares to do so before video cameras, 

Darwin scholars should consider me and my publications and presentations on the "New Data facts a standing open challenge to all the dishonest scientists and historians lining their pockets by misleading the public in order to promote the pseudo-scholarly publications and  profiteering paraphernalia of the Darwin deification industry.

There is a 156 year old tradition of shameful pseudo-scholarly propagandising fact denial dishonesty and blatant lying in the Darwin industry, beginning with the it's namesake's own 100 per cent proven plagiarising science-fraud by glory theft (see peer reviewed journal article proof: Sutton 2014 and Sutton 2016) sly self-serving lying about the prior readership of the original ideas in Matthew's (1831) book. 

More thoughts on Darwinist states of denial HERE

Why Darwinist Immaculate Conception Miracle Beliefs are Even More Irrational than those Held by Christians

Influential professional Darwinists, such as Richard Dawkins and Michael Shermer, are actively engaged in bragging that they are more rational than those who believe in miracles - such as the one about St Mary's supposed virgin birth.

As a social scientist and confirmed atheist, who thinks Natural Selection is the best answer we have for the existence of all species, and and extinction of certain species., I think that the hypocrisy and credulousness of so many atheist Darwiniists - and the accepted 'majority view' that they are right about Darwin and Wallace independently discovering Patrick Matthew's (1831) prior published hypothesis of natural selection - makes a laughing-stock of science. I think this, because, contrary to 155 years of newly proven professional Darwinist myth mongering, I have uniquely proven (Sutton 2014)  that - as opposed to none - seven other naturalists read Matthew's (1831) book containing his original hypothesis of what Matthew (1831) uniquely named 'the natural process of selection' pre- Darwin's and Wallace's 1858 replication and before Darwin's (1859) unique four word shuffling of Matthew's name for his discovery into 'process of natural selection' - and Darwin's and Wallace's replication of so many of Matthew's unique prior-published explanatory examples. Moreover, three of those naturalists (Loudon, Selby and Chambers) were known to Darwin/Wallace and influenced and facilitated their work on the exact same topic of organic macro evolution.

To recap from my earlier blog on Darwin being a newly proven liar:

The facts of Darwin’s lies should be clearly stated and the data clearly presented:

1.  In 1860 in his first letter to the Gardener’s Chronicle, to claim his rightful priority for his prior published the hypothesis of natural selection, which Darwin replicated without citing him. Matthew wrote that his book had been reviewed by the famous naturalist botanist John Loudon.

2. Incidentally, Loudon’s review (1832): of Matthew’s (1831) book contained the following sentence:

‘One of the subjects discussed in this appendix is the puzzling one, of the origin of species and varieties; and if the author has hereon originated no original views (and of this we are far from certain), he has certainly exhibited his own in an original manner.’

Matthew (1860) in his first letter to the Gardener’s Chronicle wrote:

‘In your Number of March 3d I observe a long quotation from the Times, stating that Mr. Darwin “professes to have discovered the existence and modus operandi of the natural law of selection,” that is, “the power in nature which takes the place of man and performs a selection, sua sponte,” in organic life. This discovery recently published as “the results of 20 years’ investigation and reflection” by Mr. Darwin turns out to be what I published very fully and brought to apply practically to forestry in my work “Naval Timber and Arboriculture,” published as far back as January 1, 1831, by Adam & Charles Black, Edinburgh, and Longman & Co., London, and reviewed in numerous periodicals, so as to have full publicity in the “Metropolitan Magazine,” the “Quarterly Review,” the “Gardeners’ Magazine,” by Loudon, who spoke of it as the book, and repeatedly in the “United Service Magazine” for 1831, &c. The following is an extract from this volume, which clearly proves a prior claim. …’

Loudon was a famous naturalist, Yet in his 1860 reply to Matthew’s 1860 letter, Darwin wrote the exact opposite to what Matthew had just informed him. See point 2, immediately below, for the hard evidence.

2. In his 1860 letter in the Gardener’s Chronicle Darwin’s first lie on this specific matter was written by his own hand:

” I think that no one will feel surprised that neither I, nor apparently any other naturalist, had heard of Mr Matthew’s views..."

To necessarily repeat the point already made, Darwin wrote the exact self-serving opposite to what Matthew had just informed him.

3. Naturally concerned that Darwin was denying the truth about the fact that his book had been read by other naturalists, and its unique ideas understood, Matthew (1860) then very clearly, in his second letter in the Gardener’s Chronicle – by way of reply to Darwin’s blatant self-serving lie – wrote:

‘I notice in your Number of April 21 Mr. Darwin’s letter honourably acknowledging my prior claim relative to the origin of species. I have not the least doubt that, in publishing his late work, he believed he was the first discoverer of this law of Nature. He is however wrong in thinking that no naturalist was aware of the previous discovery. I had occasion some 15 years ago to be conversing with a naturalist, a professor of a celebrated university, and he told me he had been reading my work “Naval Timber,” but that he could not bring such views before his class or uphold them publicly from fear of the cutty-stool, a sort of pillory punishment, not in the market-place and not devised for this offence, but generally practised a little more than half a century ago. It was at least in part this spirit of resistance to scientific doctrine that caused my work to be voted unfit for the public library of the fair city itself. The age was not ripe for such ideas, nor do I believe is the present one,..

4. Despite being initially informed that the naturalist Loudon had read and reviewed Matthew's book, Darwin lied in his 1860 letter of reply in the Gardener’s Chronicle by writing that no naturalist had read Matthew’s ideas. As can be seen in point 3, above, Matthew then corrected Darwin by informing him in detail of yet another naturalist who had read his original ideas on natural slection but was afraid to teach them for fear of pillory punishment. So what did Darwin do next? He wrote to a famous and influential naturalist with the self serving lie that no one at all had ever read Matthew’s book! To the famous French naturalist Quatrefages de Bréau in his letter of April 25, 1861 Darwin wrote:

“I have lately read M. Naudin’s paper; but it does not seem to me to anticipate me, as he does not shew how Selection could be applied under nature; but an obscure writer on Forest Trees, in 1830, in Scotland, most expressly & clearly anticipated my views—though he put the case so briefly, that no single person ever noticed the scattered passages in his book.”

5. Then in 1861, in the Third Edition of the Origin of Species – and in every edition thereafter, Darwin continued that exact same great self serving lie about Matthew’s book, and the ideas in it, being unread. That lie corrupted – for 155 years – the history of the discovery of natural selection. Darwin (1861) wrote in the third edition of The Origin of Species - despite being informed of the exact opposite by Matthew only the year before:

'Unfortunately the view was given by Mr. Matthew very briefly in scattered passages in an Appendix to a work on a different subject, so that it remained unnoticed until Mr. Matthew himself drew attention to it in the Gardener’s Chronicle,’ on April 7th, 1860.’

Small wonder then that Darwin’s Darwinist’s – being named for their lying hero – failed to check the truth of the matter. By way of example, Sir Gavin de Beer – Royal Society Darwin Medal winner – wrote Darwin’s great lie as the “gospel according to Darwin” truth: And – to necessarily repeat the point already made – until I personally put the record straight (Sutton 2014) not a single person corrected de Beer's award winning credulous Darwin deification claptrap:

“…William Charles Wells and Patrick Matthew were predecessors who had actually published the principle of natural selection in obscure places where their works remained completely unnoticed until Darwin and Wallace reawakened interest in the subject.’

Darwin was a self-serving deliberate liar. The record is independently verifiable. Darwin wrote the very opposite to veracious facts that he had twice been informed was the truth by the very trustworthy man whose ideas he replicated without citing their originator’s prior publication of them. And Darwin wrote those falsehoods – because, just as de Beer’s ludicrously acclaimed text goes to prove, they were needed to wrestle priority away form the true biological father of natural selection.

Had the powerfully connected and much revered Charles Darwin , responded in writing, in the Gardeners Chronicle and from the third edition of the Origin of Species onward, for the historical record with honestly, to the correct and honest information supplied by Matthew – as opposed to writing the opposite to it in a series of deliberate Matthew suppressing lies – the history of discovery of natural selection would be a veracious record, and it would be called Matthewism, not Darwinism. Clearly, today, Darwinists, named for Darwin, have a professional academic and ‘Darwin Industry’ interest in saving face and seeking, wormingly, to wriggle-deny by any embarrassing means at their desperate disposal, this obvious – fact-led truth. The pseudo-scholarly shame of it!

Immaculate conceptions by the liar Darwin and dishonest Wallace 

1. The purported "Blessed Virgin" St Mary of  Nazareth (if indeed she ever existed) has never been proven to have told a deliberate lie (deliberate falsehood). But it is, rationally, more likely than not that (if  he ever existed) St Mary's purported son (Jesus of Nazareth) was fathered, not by "immaculate conception" by the deity that the Christians call God, but instead by one of the human men who surrounded Mary - with whom she met and had physical contact over 2000 years ago.

2. The alleged Christian biblical apostle Matthew (if he ever existed) has never been proven to have told a deliberate lie. And the author of the Christian biblical 'Gospel According to Matthew' (whoever that was) has never been proven to have told a deliberate lie (deliberate falsehood). The Gospel According to Matthew is the main source of the holy Roman Catholic Christian story of St Mary's supposed immaculate conception and of wider Christian believe in the virgin birth of their prophet Jesus.

3.  Darwin and Wallace each claimed to have discovered Patrick Matthew's (1831) full prior published hypothesis of natural selection independently (immaculately conceived) of Matthew's prior published work. They each claimed this despite the fact that I have since uniquely discovered - and published in my book 'Nullius in verba: Darwin's greatest secret' - that 25 people actually cited Matthew's book in the published literature before Darwin and Wallace (1858) replicated the original 'bombshell' ideas and examples in it.  Moreover, I have also uniquely proved in my book (with newly discovered independently verifiable published evidence) that Darwin and Wallace knew, and that Darwin and Wallace were assisted and influenced by, influential naturalists who had both read and then cited Matthew's (1831) book pre-1858.

4. Darwin (1860 and 1861 - to his death) wrote and had published his own fabricated falsehoods when he claimed that no naturalists, indeed no one at all, had read Matthew's (1831) book before Matthew informed Darwin about it in 1860 in the Gardener's Chronicle. Darwin - in fact (following from what Matthew informed him) wrote that falsehood after and as the absolute opposite to what Matthew (1860) had twice informed him in print in the Gardener's Chronicle. Because Matthew (1860), on two separate occasions informed Darwin - indeed corrected Darwin once in print in the Gardener's Chronicle in 1860 on Darwin's first published claim that no naturalists had read Matthew's book.  Despite Matthew informing him otherwise - about the famous naturalist Loudon reviewing his book and an unnamed naturalist who feared teaching Matthew's unique discovery of natural selection having read and understood it,  Darwin told a lie when he wrote to the famous French naturalist Quatrefages de Bréau in 1861 about Matthew that "no single person ever noticed the scattered passages in his book".

Darwin further lied when - again writing the exact opposite to what Matthew had twice informed him in print -  by continuing with his big self-serving lie about Matthew's ideas being unread - from the third edition of the Origin of Species (1861) onward.

Darwin's lies about no single person reading Matthew's (1831) unique ideas on the origin of species have been taken as the literal truth by Darwinists for the past 155 years. By way of example, see Sir Gavin de Beer (in de Beer's Wilkins Lecture for the Royal Society (de Beer 1962 on page 333) . I am claiming, from the published evidence, that Darwin deliberately lied.

Loudon went on to edit two of  Blyth's (1855 and 1856) influential papers on organic evolution. Darwin admitted form the third edition of the Origin of Species that Byth was his most valuable and prolific informant.

5. There is no known evidence (on examination of his extensive publications) that Matthew ever deliberately misled anyone about anything. Hence, Darwin - in 1860 - had no reason for not taking Mathew's  word as a gentleman scholar about everything he wrote about who did read his book before Darwin's and Wallace's published dual replication of his prior-published  (1831) discovery in 1858.

6. St Mary was surrounded by - communicated with and was in the presence of - men whose testicles were more likely than not fertile (at least to some unknown degree) with sperm.

7. Both Darwin and Wallace communicated (pre 1858) - and Darwin met and physically associated with (Chambers)  men who had read and cited Matthew's (1831) book. Selby edited the journal that published Wallace's Sarawak paper and sat on several scientific committees with Darwin - and even had Darwin's father and Darwin's great friend Jenyns as house guests. Hence, pre 1858, Darwin and Wallace were in communication with (and Darwin and his friends and relatives in the physical presence of ) men whose brains were fertile (admittedly to some unknown degree) with the ideas published in Matthew's (1831) book.

8. No single other known case exists in the entire history of scientific discovery of someone who was not proven a fraudulent plagiarizer who knew personally and communicated with and/or was assisted by others who had read the work they replicated and then claimed to have discovered the same ideas independently of the prior publication of those by their originator. That makes Darwin's and Wallace's claims of  'independent discovery' a dual vexatious anomaly in the history of science.

9. Wallace claimed that he finally, and independently of anyone, discovered natural selection whilst suffering from Malaria. That makes Wallace's unique malarial cognitive enhancement claim another  vexacious anomaly in the history of scientific discovery. Moreover, Wallace, in his autobiography, doctored the published transcription of  one 1858  letter that he sent to his mother. The deletion of key words in Wallace's transcribed letter concealed the fact that he believed he was owed services and favors from Darwin and his cronies for his role and contribution (in absence and without his permission)  to the Linnean Society presentation of his paper on natural selection alongside Darwin's in 1858.

Conclusion

Darwinists' belief in their namesake's and Wallace's alleged independent discoveries of Matthew's prior published hypothesis, whilst they were immediately surrounded and associating with men whose brains were fertile with it, is allegorically analogous to Christian belief in St Marry's miraculous immaculate conception of Christ whilst she was surround by, and associating with, fertile men. Indeed, the Darwinist miracle belief is even more ludicrous, because Darwin and Wallace are proven to have been deliberately dishonest - whereas there is zero evidence that either St Mary, Matthew the apostle, the author of The Gospel According to Matthew, or Patrick Matthew were ever dishonest. Moreover, the Darwinist miracle belief is arguably rendered even more improbable than the Christian version, because Christians believe in only one immaculate conception. Darwinists, however, to their eternal intellectual shame, believe in two!

The New Data, which I have uniquely discovered, that 100 per cent proves Matthew's prior publication of natural selection was read by influential naturalists known to Darwin and Wallace and their associates, drags the vexatious anomalies of Darwin's and Wallace's claimed dual independent discoveries under the spotlight of probability, ethics, reason, honesty, rationality and veracity as a critical paradox that will lead to a paradigm change in the history of the discovery of natural selection. If not a miracle and if not science fraud, then some kind of  Matthewian knowledge contamination (fertilization) of Darwin's and Wallace's brains is rationally more likely than not.

On this website I have given you the facts. I cannot help with the brains. As an atheist, it irks me that Christians, indeed creationists, at least know that they believe in the miracle of the virgin birth but that weirdly respected scientists do not even have so much as the wherewithal to see past the optical illusion of the name "Darwin" to the fact that their miracle belief is 100 per cent proven even more ludicrously irrational by hard and independently verifiable facts.

I should now add – for the benefit of any biased Darwinists:

The usual response – to the allegorical analogy of “The Blessed Virgins Darwin and Wallace” at this point is along the lines of someone writing or saying: “You have only circumstantial evidence. You have no letter to or from him that proves Darwin was made aware of Matthew before 1860, so your arguments don’t stand up.”

Such a response in light of the discovery of new data that dis-confirms the Darwinist myth that Matthew’s book went unread by anyone known to Darwin or Wallace, is indicative that such Darwinists might be suffering from cognitive dissonance. because they ask for no such kind of “smoking gun” letter by way of a human admission of paternity of Jesus of Nazareth. The reason they don’t is because immaculate conception when surrounded by men who were fertile, though fertile to some unknown degree, is so highly improbable that rational people don’t need one to know it’s nonsense, because such conception would require a supernatural miracle. So why ask for one in the case of Darwin’s claimed immaculate conception of natural selection, when he too was surrounded by men whose brains were fertile, to some unknown degree, with Matthew’s ideas and great discovery after having read and cited him? Do Darwinists now wish to claim – in light of the data I uniquely discovered – that a 20 year long and repetitive Darwinist mental-contraceptive miracle took place?

Sorry Darwinists but the game’s up. You had a good run for 155 years. But hard facts trump claptrap in the end. And we now have new facts that do just that.

Please note: This ultimate fact-led conclusion has been posted for discussion in what might be described as a rather "Darwinist friendly" environment on Dr Mike Weale's website the Patrick Matthew Project.   

I challenge anyone to get the biased Darwinist Wikipedia editors to allow them to include on their Patrick Matthew page    the hard fact led 100 per cent proof that Darwin lied about the reality of who really did read Matthew's book pre 1860.

Sutton's (2014) States of Denial Spectrum

Don't let those brain-numbed by bias tell you truth is minor side issue. Truth is essential http://t.co/YAidOHMnJo pic.twitter.com/BmW1vOHIYz

— BlessedVirginDarwin (@OnNavalTimber) August 24, 2015

Mike Sutton

Dr Mike Sutton is the author of 'Nullius in Verba: Darwin's greatest secret'.

• Bio 1
• Prior Works 1
• Blog 379
• Articles 27
• Topics 1
• Ebooks 1
• Reviews

Recent Posts Categories Archives

Link

Print

Email

Edit

Share

RSS

 

Dysology and Criminology: The Blog of Mike Sutton. All my opinions are my own and may not reflect those of any employer or organisation

Posted in Science / Biology & Nature / Bacteriology

MACFARLANE'S LAW

ShareRetweetSyndicate

Views (947)

Jul. 16, 2015 4:47 am

Categories: Counterknowledge, Dysology

Keywords: Macfarlane's Law, Florey, Fleming, Patrick Matthew, Charles Darwin, lies, Sutton

Public Domain

Gwyn Macfarlane

'When a number of conflicting theories co-exist, any point on which they all agree is the one most likely to be wrong.' (Macfarlane 1984, p. 253   ).

I have no idea about whether or not Macfarlane's Law   has universal applicability. He applied it to the story of the discovery and development of penicillin as a useful myth-busting device in his work to show the Fleming eclipsed role of Macfarlane's Oxford University associate, Howard Florey, in the development of penicillin as systemic medicine.

Macfarlane writes of his law in a footnote on page 253 of his superb book    on Alexander Fleming:

'Dr D. L. Cowen has been kind enough to refer to this principle as 'Macfarlane's Law' but the author cannot claim complete originality, since it emerged during a casual conversation with a now anonymous colleague at a now-forgotten International Congress.'

Macfarlane (1984, p. 253   ) found his law applied to the story of penicillin:

'The one common assumption made by all those who have tried to explain Fleming's lack of success was that he was convinced of the immense potential value of his discovery and did his best to establish this against the odds that proved too great for him.'

Essentially, Macfarlane makes a strong case that Fleming simply failed to personally take his initial discovery of penicillin and its germ killing powers forward, due to a combined lack of pure intuitive experimental curiosity and particular departmental philosophy against undertaking experiments without sufficient evidence to warrant them. Hence, Fleming failed to undertake the experiment to inject penicillin into an infected animal after his only injection experiment (into a rabbit) suggested penicillin would not survive more than four hours inside a patient. Fleming simply saw that penicillin might be usefully developed as a topical medicine to treat local infection sites. Florey, on the other hand, did the experiment by injecting penicillin into an infected mouse. And the rest is a most complex and fascinating history.

I find Macfarlane's law applies also when it comes to the many pre-Sutton 2014   competing explanations for why Charles Darwin supposedly failed to read Patrick Matthew's (1831) prior published complete theory    of natural selection.

Macfarlane's Law Disproves the Majority View about Darwin

What all the insensibly named, because they are competing, 'majority view' Darwinist explanations for why Darwin supposedly never read Matthew's prior-published hypothesis of natural selection, have in common (see Nullius    for the details) for the details) is a common assumption (premise) - often overtly stated as an unquestionable 'knowledge belief' that Darwin was a profoundly honest person. But he wasn't. His private autobiography - written not for publication but for his family - revealed with apparent honesty, ironically, that as a child he was a compulsive attention seeking and self-glorifying liar ( Darwin 1876   ):

'I may here also confess that as a little boy I was much given to inventing deliberate falsehoods, and this was always done for the sake of causing excitement.'

Thinker Media IncUsed only with express written permission

Nullius in Verba

Not much should be made of that, I include it here only to show that there might just have been something pathological about Darwin's serial dishonesty as an adult naturalist.

Darwin’s biographer, Clarke, was convinced that Darwin must have read Matthew’s (1831) book. He wrote (Clarke 1984:    130-131).:

'Only the transparent honesty of Darwin’s character, which shines out so brightly from the archives, makes it possible to believe that by the 1850s he had no recollection of Matthew’s work.'

Every other competing Darwinist excuse for why Darwin supposedly never read Matthew's book is based on the now debunked pre-Nullius    'knowledge belief', which was started by Darwin's proven deliberate self-serving lie that no naturalists had read Matthew's ideas before Matthew told Darwin about them in the press in 1860. Hence, they all agree, on what we now know is the fallacy that Darwin was being honest when he claimed that information was, to his knowledge, the case. We know Darwin was deliberately lying, because before Darwin wrote that fallacy, Matthew had informed him that the naturalist John Loudon had reviewed his book. Moreover, in response to Darwin's blatant lie that apparently no naturalist had read it, Matthew, in the Gardener's Chronicle in 1860, told Darwin about yet another naturalist who was aware of his original ideas but feared to teach them. And yet still Darwin went on to repeat his lie in the third edition of the Origin of Species and in every edition thereafter!

Competing Darwinist 'explanations', all based on the newly proven fallacious premise of Darwin's honesty, for why Darwin supposedly failed pre-1858 to read the one book in the world he most needed to read, include the following:

• Matthew's book was inappropriately titled
• Matthew's book was on an obscure topic
• Matthew's book was on a topic that would not interest a naturalist
• Matthew's ideas on natural selection were limited to a couple of paragraphs in an obscure appendix
• Matthew's book was unread by any naturalists
• Matthew's book was unread by anyone known to Darwin or Wallace
• No one mentioned in the literature Matthew's unique ideas on natural selection
• Matthew's ideas were not clearly written
• Matthew wrote nothing original on natural selection

These competing Darwinist excuses for why Darwin and Wallace were supposedly not aware of Matthew's book, and the easy debunking of them all, with facts and reason, can be read in Nullius   ,, where I prove that Darwin told six lies in order to eclipse Patrick Matthew's prior discovery of natural selection. Here is the biggest of the lot:

The Myth of Darwin's Honesty is Bust by the Facts

There is newly discovered, cast iron, 100 per cent, proof that Charles Darwin, in collusion with his best friend and botanical mentor Joseph Hooker, blatantly and self-servingly, lied, in the Gardener's Chronicle, when he wrote in 1860 that apparently no naturalist had read Matthew's (1831) prior-published ideas, before Matthew brought them to Darwin's attention in 1860. Consequently, Darwin further lied when he wrote in the third edition of the Origin of Species (1861), and every edition thereafter, that Matthew's unique ideas had passed unnoticed until 1860.

Read the hard facts here

My original discoveries create a big problem for Darwinists

Good scholarship in any field involves questioning. And so I think the best application of Macfarlane's law is that given by Root-Bernstein who writes that we should question: '...most the the data that best fit your expectations and focus instead upon the unsolved problems, anomalies, and paradoxes of your field.' (Root-Bernstein 1993).   

The new problem that Darwinists now have to solve is:

How on Earth did Darwin and Wallace discover Natural Selection independently of Matthew's prior published hypothesis of it; despite the newly discovered fact that they were influenced and facilitated on the same topic by naturalists they knew who had long before read and cited Matthew's book, which contains it?

If Darwinists can solve this new problem, rationally and convincingly, in light of just how many of Matthew's original ideas and examples Darwin and Wallace replicated, along with his powerful Artificial Versus Natural Selection Explanatory Analogy of Differences, and his terminology,* then, and only then, can they solve what we might name the Anomalous Paradox Problem of Darwin's and Wallace's Immaculate Conceptions of Matthew's Prior Published Hypothesis.

Of significant note also, is the fact that the problem of claimed independent replication of a full, complete, appreciable, original and unique prior-published, problem solving and game-changing idea, hypothesis or theory, whilst in contact with those who are 100 per cent proven to have read the publication containing it, is unique in the history of scientific discovery to the story of Matthew, Darwin and Wallace. That makes it a most important anomaly, which has been ignored for the 155 years following the publication of Darwin's Origin of Species, but it is dragged now into the spotlight by my new discoveries.

Kuhn's seminal work on the Structure of Scientific Revolutions explains   : 'A shift in professional commitments to shared assumptions takes place when an anomaly subverts the existing tradition of scientific practice.' Darwinists will need now take note that the anomaly of Darwin's and Wallace's essential immaculate conceptions of a prior published theory has been highlighted by the New Data that their influencers had read it before they replicated it. Moreover, the Darwinist 'anomaly dodging' assumption, of Darwin's and Wallace's remarkable honesty, which they have shared and relied upon in order to deal with Darwin's and Wallace's so-called 'independent' discoveries of Matthew's prior published discovery, is newly bust in the light of Wallace's now proven dishonesty and Darwin's blatant lies.

If exceptional claims do require exceptional evidence, then that is exactly what Darwinists must provide now in light of the New Data presented in Nullius   .

Notably, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, which means that, to repeat the point already made, what remains in Darwin's and Wallace's massively decimated private correspondence archives, private diaries, and Darwin's torn apart, missing pages and scribbled out text private notebooks and essays – dated as written in the exact same year, or after, Darwin's influential friends and associates, and Wallace's Sarawak paper editor, read and cited Matthew's work - is quite obviously not extraordinary evidence in support of their claimed 'independent' discoveries of Matthew's prior-published discovery of the natural process of selection.

Moreover, it is a fact that the New Data greatly highlights the anomaly of Darwin’s and Wallace’s supposed ‘independent discoveries’ of Matthew's ‘natural process of selection’. This represents the start of a paradigm change.

According to Kuhn (1970 p. 62)    the characteristics of paradigm changing discoveries include the:

'... previous awareness of an anomaly, the gradual and simultaneous emergence of both observational and conceptual recognition, and the consequent change of paradigm categories and procedures often accompanied by resistance.'

Paradigm changes in our knowledge of the history of scientific discoveries are not arrived at by making scientific discoveries, although new technologies may be essential facilitators for the discovery of new knowledge about that history. There are, however, usefully analogous factors involved. All Kuhn's elements of paradigm change in science are to be found in the story of Matthew, Darwin and Wallace. There is the anomaly of Darwin's and Wallace's 'immaculate conceptions' (independent discoveries) of Matthew's prior published discovery. There is the new BigData ID hi-technology facilitated observation that influential naturalists, known to Darwin and Wallace, in fact did read, and cite, Matthew's book pre-1858, which represents an original, anomaly highlighting, paradigm shifting, discovery of a great paradox in the history of the discovery of natural selection. Finally, there is the fact that the change of paradigm to Darwin and Wallace having been more likely than not influenced by Matthew's prior-published work long before 1858, and the new research procedures I used to bring it into existence, are meeting resistance from those still wedded to the old 'majority view' of Darwin and Wallace as independent discoverers. See for example Dr Mike Weale's position paper    on my discovery of the New Data. Every criticism in it can be rebutted by reference to reason and the newly discovered facts (here).

Progress in search engine technology, combined with Google's Library Project of over 30 million searchable books and other publications, has transformed the anomaly of Darwin's and Wallace's claimed dual independent discoveries of Matthew's prior-published original ideas from a mere vexation into a crisis in the history of scientific discovery.

The issue of Patrick Mathew's priority over Darwin and Wallace for his own prior-published and cited discovery is not something that the history of scientific discovery can ethically or sensibly ignore if it is to be of any use in helping us to understand how the discovery of natural selection occurred. Such knowledge is important, because it is fundamental in developing ways to increase the chances of making other great discoveries in the future.

*For the published proof of just how much of Matthew's unique and original 1831 ideas and content Darwin and Wallace replicated see e.g.: Sutton    (2014); Dempster    (1995); and Dawkins, in Bryson    (ed) (2010).

(c) Darwin and WallaceAttribution

Miracle Double Immaculate Conceptions of the Blessed Virgins Darwin and Wallace of Matthew's prior published hypothesis of natural selection