Plagiarising Science Fraud

Plagiarising Science Fraud
Newly Discovered Facts, Published in Peer Reviewed Science Journals, Mean Charles Darwin is a 100 Per Cent Proven Lying, Plagiarising Science Fraudster by Glory Theft of Patrick Matthew's Prior-Published Conception of the Hypothesis of Macro Evolution by Natural Selection

Wednesday 24 February 2016

Shocking Fact: Wikipedia Administrators in Disgraceful Revisionist Cover-up of Darwin's Lies About Matthew

Unless they are writing about bias and errors in the Wikipedia encyclopaedia, the reason university students worldwide are forbidden from citing it in their coursework, dissertations and other assessments as a source for facts is because its content is consistently plain wrong, or else fails to include the most important facts.



This blog post reveals the absolute proof that Wikipedia's paid employees are dishonestly and systematically hiding from the wider public the 100 per cent verifiable fact that Charles Darwin lied about the readership of Patrick Matthew's original conception of the theory of macroevolution by natural selection.

Anyone trying to put the facts - with references to their validity in the publication record - on Wikipedia will be blocked by its paid employees. As a money-making  organization, Wikipedia is punterizing us all by fund-begging from the general public for its so called  encyclopedia. The following sorry tale reveals all.

On September 7th  2015, on my Best Thinking blog, I wrote:

I challenge anyone to get the biased Darwinist Wikipedia editors to allow them to include on the Wikipedia 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. Try it. I double-Darwin- dare you!

Tonight, am perturbed to learn from a close friend -  the producer of an undercover TV documentary on the biased behaviour of Wikipedia's paid administrators - that Wikipedia's employees are using the encyclopedia as a private glee club to hide the reality of Charles Darwin's proven lies about who read Patrick Matthew's book, which contained the original theory of macroevolution by natural selection almost 30 years before Darwin's and Wallace's claimed independent replications.

The dreadfully biased behaviour has been taking place on Wikipedia's Patrick Matthew page. Readers will be glad to hear the behaviour was filmed live as a Wikipedia administrator named Dave Souza deleted the proven facts of Darwin's published lies under the pretence that their source was a vanity publication by me. In reality, their source was a peer reviewed British Society of Criminology journal article (Sutton, 2014) Here.

After a battle of deletion and re-insertion Dave Souza was informed his behaviour was being filmed for a documentary. Only then did he cease deleting the facts that were added only today about Darwin's proven lies - the facts that were first disclosed in my peer reviewed journal article.

The independently verifiable published historical facts in question remain on the page at the time of writing. Here they are - cut and pasted from Wikipedia today - for the historical record:

'However, there is no direct evidence that Darwin had read the book, and the fact that he wrote that he sent out for a copy after Matthew's complaint, only if true, meant that he did not have a copy in his extensive library or access to it elsewhere. In subsequent editions of The Origin of Species, Darwin acknowledged Matthew's earlier work, stating that Matthew "clearly saw...the full force of the principle of natural selection". From 1860 onward, Matthew would claim credit for natural selection and even had calling cards printed with "Discoverer of the Principle of Natural Selection". Significantly, new analysis of the literature has called Darwin's legendary honesty into question. Sutton (2014) "[21] presents published evidence from Matthew's and Darwin's 1860 letters in the Gardener's Chronicle that Darwin published a falsehood by claiming in the Gardener’s Chronicle and from the third edition of the Origin of Species onward that Matthew's original ideas went unread, because Matthew had already informed Darwin in print in the Gardener’s Chronicle in 1860 that his original ideas on natural selection were read by the naturalist John Loudon, who reviewed his book in 1831, by an unnamed naturalist who feared pillory punishment if he were he to teach Matthew's ideas on natural selection, and that his book was banned by the public Library of Perth, referred to by Matthew by its nickname in Scotland: "the Fair City". Darwin's citation after 1860, and his published fallacy that Matthew’s ideas went unread before 1860 has done little to garner recognition for Matthew, since he is still generally unknown.'

I've just checked the history page of Wikipedia's Patrick Matthew page and all the recent history has been deleted by Wikipedia administrators back to November 2015! What on Earth are they up to?

At the time of writing 22.45 GMT 24/02/2016.  the text below is cut and pasted here from the Patrick Matthew edits "revision history" page in question. They have deleted the entire history for February and January 2016 and December 2015. Wikipedia is, it appears, hiding from us the historical record of what its administrators have been up to.  Thank heavens it's been filmed in the public interest.

I can't wait to see the documentary when it comes out.

Perhaps Wikipedia will eventually restore its Patrick Matthew 'revision  history' page intact, rather than delete the facts of its own dreadfully dishonest behaviour?

The telling question is: Why has Dave Souza - a Wikipedia administrator been busy deleting the facts of Charles Darwin's proven lies about the readership of Matthew's book? Moreover, why has Wikipedia deleted the revision history evidence from public view?

Wikipedia's employment and empowerment of personal hobby-horse fact censoring petty martinet administrators such as Dave Souza is what makes it so untrustworthy.

Wikipedia is ultimately controlled and edited by its paid "hobby-horse" unqualified, biased and gleefully under-educated chip-shouldered administrators.
PLEASE NOTE: The facts that Wikipedia does not want you to know about Darwin's lies about the pre-1858 readership of Matthew's book can be found on my RationalWiki page on Patrick Matthew.

POSTSCRIPT 16.59 GMT 25th Feb 2016

Wikipedia have now restored the deleted Patrick Matthew Revision History Page. Their administrator Dave Souza then once again deleted the facts that Darwin published falsehoods about the readership of Matthew's book. Once again he did so by writing fallacious excuses for his censorship of the facts. He fallaciously claimed this time that Darwin did not write, in the Gardener's Chronicle, that Matthew's ideas were unread.

When the full facts Souza is censoring from Wikipedia were yet again  un-deleted and further full references, including the quote of what Darwin actually wrote, were added to the page to prove Souza wrong, he then deleted that information!

 For the forthcoming TV documentary historical record of pseudo-scholarly "Darwin Worship friendly " fact deletion on Wikipedia, here is the factual information that Souza refuses to allow on the Patrick Matthew page of Wikipedia (full embedded Wikipedia indexed references to the original text were included in the text below - now shamelessly deleted by Wikipedia employees):

However, there is no direct evidence that Darwin had read the book, and the fact that he wrote that he sent out for a copy after Matthew's complaint, only if true, meant that he did not have a copy in his extensive library or access to it elsewhere. But it is a fact Darwin did write falsehoods about the readership of Mathew’s book. Matthew (1860), in his first letter to the Gardener's Chronicle  ,claiming priority for his discovery of natural selection, informed readers that his book had been ‘… reviewed in numerous periodicals, so as to have full publicity… by Loudon, who spoke of it as the book…’ Loudon was a famous naturalist. Darwin knew this, because the ‘books read’ section of his notebook of ‘books read and books to read’ Darwin (1838) proves he read and heavily annotated at least six botanical publications authored by Loudon. Yet, in his published reply to Matthew’s letter Darwin (1860) wrote the falsehood: ‘I think that no one will feel surprised that neither I, nor apparently any other naturalist, had heard of Mr Matthew's views.’ Significantly, the naturalist Loudon, had written in his 1832 review (Loudon, J.C. (1832) ‘Matthew Patrick on Naval Timber and Arboriculture with Critical Notes on Authors who have recently treated the Subject of Planting’, Gardener’s Magazine, Vol. VIII. p.703. of Matthew’s (1831) ) book: ‘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.’ In subsequent editions of The Origin of Species, Darwin acknowledged Matthew's earlier work, stating that Matthew "clearly saw...the full force of the principle of natural selection". From 1860 onward, Matthew would claim credit for natural selection and even had calling cards printed with "Discoverer of the Principle of Natural Selection".

New analysis of the literature has called Darwin's legendary honesty into question. Sutton (2014) [24] presents published evidence from Matthew's and Darwin's 1860 letters in the Gardener's Chronicle that Darwin published two falsehood, by way of claiming in the Gardener’s Chronicle that no naturalist had read Matthew’s ideas and by claiming from the third edition of the Origin of Species onward that Matthew's original ideas went unread, because Matthew had already informed Darwin in print in the Gardener’s Chronicle in 1860 that his original ideas on natural selection were read by the naturalist John Loudon, who reviewed his book in 1831. Then, in his second (1860) letter in the Gardener’s Chronicle, Matthew directly corrected Darwin’s fallacious claim that no naturalists had read his book, by informing Darwin that an unnamed naturalist had informed him that he feared pillory punishment if he were to teach Matthew's ideas on natural selection. In that second published letter, Matthew further informed Darwin that his book was banned by the public Library of Perth, referred to by Matthew by its nickname in Scotland: "the Fair City". Darwin's citation after 1860, and his proven published fallacy that Matthew’s ideas went unread before 1860 has done little to garner recognition for Matthew, since he is still generally unknown.'

Dave Souza - an employee of Wikipedia is systematically deleting all independently verifiable, fully referenced facts that reveal the reality of the importance of Matthew. He and his team consistently delete any information about Matthew being accredited by the World's leading evolutionary biologists as being first with the theory of macroevolution by natural selection - and promote instead the unevidenced and proven wrong biased mere-unbaked-opinions of the Darwin historian James Moore that many others understood natural selection in the 19th century. Moore also claimed, fallaciously,  that I have discovered nothing new about who actually did read the unique ideas in  Matthew's book pre-1858 - as opposed to the old myth started by Darwin and parroted by Darwinists since that no one read them! How do we now newly know they read them? Because thanks to my original research we now newly know they actually cited them!

The facts - contrary to the Darwin glee club claptrap published by Wikipedia on their Patrick Matthew page are:

1. Many writing on the history of the discovery of natural selection and Patrick Matthew, including Charles Darwin (1860)[1], (1861)[2]Alfred Russel Wallace (1879)[3], Donald Forsdyke (2008)[4], Milton Wainwright (2008)[5], Christopher Hallpike (2008)[6], Richard Dawkins (2010)[7] William James Dempster (1983)[8], Mike Sutton (2014)[9], and Mike Weale (2015) [10]conclude that Patrick Matthew (1831) - in his book On Naval Timber and Arboriculture[11] - published the full theory of natural selection many years before Darwin and Wallace put pen to private notepaper on the topic and 27 years before Darwin and Wallace (1858) had their papers read before the Linnean Society. Dempster (1983) [12], Dawkins (2010) [13], Sutton (2014) [14] and Weale (2015) [15] conclude that only Matthew got the entire complex theory of natural selection before Darwin and Wallace (1858) [16] and Darwin (1959) [17] replicated it.

 2. Charles Darwin's biased historian James Moore is 100 % wrong. My research findings are new and, outside of his addled Semmelweis Reflex blurting, have never been interpreted in any opposite way to the independently verifiable facts - simply because it is not rationally possible to do so. But good luck to anyone trying to explain such simple logic to irrational fact deleting donkeys such as Wikipedia's daft-as a-brush administrator David Souza. 

 As opposed to the old Darwinist paradigm that none read Matthew's original ideas before 1858, I have originally proven that the ideas in Matthew's (1831) book in actual fact were read by seven naturalists. Four were known to Darwin and three played major roles at the epicentre of influence and facilitation of the work of Darwin and Wallace, which replicated Matthews original ideas but failed to cite Matthew. My peer reviewed Journal article provides the fully referenced proof that supports these facts, the exact same facts that Wikipedia editors are slyly deleting in order to hide those facts from the wider public.

Patrick Matthew: Revision history

For any version listed below, click on its date to view it. For more help, see Help:Page history and Help:Edit summary.
External tools:
(cur) = difference from current version, (prev) = difference from preceding version,  m = minor edit, → = section edit, ← = automatic edit summary
(newest | oldest) View (newer 50 | ) (20 | 50 | 100 | 250 | 500)



Talk:Patrick Matthew: Revision history

For any version listed below, click on its date to view it. For more help, see Help:Page history and Help:Edit summary.
External tools:
(cur) = difference from current version, (prev) = difference from preceding version, m = minor edit, → = section edit, ← = automatic edit summary


POSTSCRIPT 11.42 am GMT (25/02/2016)

At the time of writing Wikipedia has currently restored the deleted Patrick Matthew History of  Revisions page

Patrick Matthew: Revision history

For any version listed below, click on its date to view it. For more help, see Help:Page history and Help:Edit summary.
External tools:
(cur) = difference from current version, (prev) = difference from preceding version,  m = minor edit, → = section edit, ← = automatic edit summary
(newest | oldest) View (newer 50 | ) (20 | 50 | 100 | 250 | 500)


Posted by at No comments:
Labels: ,

Tuesday 23 February 2016

The Encyclopaedia Britannica's page on Patrick Matthew

Encyclopaedia Britannica Forced by New Facts Discovered with Google to Re-Write Page on Patrick Matthew and Charles Darwin



It is quite heartening to learn by private correspondence today that, following correspondence from Jim Dempster's daughter - Soula Dempster - the Encyclopaedia Britannica  has entirely re-written its Patrick Matthew page to reflect many of the "real facts" as opposed to the old Darwinist "false facts". Nevertheless, at the time of writing they do, unfortunately for veracity, continue with the old "Appendix Myth".

As early as 1842 - the year Darwin penned his first private essay on natural selection - Wallace's Sarawak paper's editor, and Darwin's Royal Society associate and friend of his father and of his great friend Jenyns - Selby cited Matthew's book many times and wrote that he could not understand why Matthew claimed, incidentally in the main body of his book not in its appendix!, that some trees could thrive in non-native areas. Matthew's explanation was an example of his original natural versus artificial selection explanatory analogy of differences, which both Darwin and Wallace replicated. Selby was like many naturalists at the time a deeply religious man who believed the Christian God placed all of his designed species in the designed place most suited to them. Matthew's accurate observations were heresy. Another naturalist, Jameson - of the East India Company - a regular correspondent of William Hooker - who was the father of Darwin's best friend Joseph Hooker - wrote in 1853 of the importance of the exact same Matthew observation on timber growing - citing Matthew. All these original New Data details - with full independently verifiable references - are in my book Nullius in Verba: Darwin's Greatest Secret   . 

Click to view the Encyclopaedia Britannica page in question. 


Historically, this is an interesting development because in my book Nullius I originally revealed that Matthew's (1831) book was advertised on 3/4 of a prominent page of  Part 5, Volume 2 of the Encyclopaedia Britannica 1842.

It is most ironic that Google technology, which I (Sutton 2014) originally used to show exactly who really did read and cite Matthew's (1831) book and the ideas in it on natural selection pre 1858, allows us to show the Encyclopaedia Britannica that it is wrong to claim Matthew's book and the orignal ideas in it went unread, because as early as 1832 and in 1842 this hugely influential in the 19th century encyclopaedia was citing and advertising Matthew's book!

  • Google, therefore, has helped the Encyclopaedia Britannica to evolve to be veracious on the topic of the discovery of evolution with evidence it should have known about, but clearly did not. 
  • Only because it has recently been "computerised" - and hence discoverable on the Internet - as part of the Google Library Project, was I able to find that evidence on my 14-year old clunky laptop, sitting at home whilst watching TV. Now that's what I call progress, because I don't like paper libraries. 


An advert for Matthew's (1831) book in the Encyclopaedia Britannica 1842

Significantly, the above advert had in fact been in the published literature since 1832 in the Encyclopaedia Britannica. Because, as Dr Mike Weale usefully points out on his Patrick Matthew Project website: 

'Note that although the official publication date for the 7th Edition of the Encyclopaedia Britannica was 1842, in reality it was published in instalments starting in 1827.  Volume 4 was available in bound form in 1832, which explains why all the books in the publishers’ advertising insert (“lately published by Adam Black, Edinburgh, and Longman, Rees, Orme, Brown and Green, London“) are from 1831-2 (for example, Memoirs of the Wernerian Natural History Society, Vol 6).  Coincidentally, Volume 21 (the last volume, which really was published in 1842) contains a citation of Matthew’s book in its article on “Timber”.  The advert is very similar to the Edinburgh Literary Journal (1831) advert, except the quotes from reviews have been updated. Even the aggressively negative review from the Edinburgh Literary Journal is quoted as a “Sample of Venom”, perhaps to pique the reader’s interest!''

In 2015 Dr Mike Weale discovered an additional individual -  who cited Matthew's book before Darwin and Wallace replicated the original ideas and explanations in it without citing Matthew - bringing the known total to 26.  Weale writes on his Patrick Matthew Project website: 

Selected citation #4. Augustin Francis Bullock Creuze. Article on “Timber” Encyclopaedia Britannica, 7th Edition (1842), Vol. 21, p.291

This brief citation is noteworthy for confirming that Matthew’s book was regarded as “valuable” by the author of the 1842 Encyclopaedia Britannica article on “Timber”. Note that Volume 21 really was published in 1842, unlike the other volumes which although they stated “1842” on their title pages were in reality published in earlier years. The article is signed “(B.Z.)”, identifiable as Augustin F. B. Creuze (1800-1852) via the Table of Signatures in Volume 1. Creuze also authored other articles for the Encyclopaedia Britannica, including a lengthy one on “Ship-building” that was published as a separate treatise, but Matthew is not cited in it. The article reproduces a table from Matthew’s book on the “number of concentric layers of sap-wood”. The citation is also noteworthy for making a reference to the “many things irrelevant to its subject” in the book. A similar opinion was expressed in the 1860 review of the book, likely by James Brown.
The following table of the number of concentric layers of sap-wood observed in various species of timber trees is extracted from a valuable work on Naval Timber by Patrick Matthew; a work which abounds in much sound practical information, though mixed up with many things irrelevant to its subject.'

More on the significance of what was written in the Encyclopedia Brittanica advert for Matthew's (1831) book  can be read here.
Posted by at No comments:
Labels: ,

Monday 22 February 2016

Patrick Matthew: Diligent research proves the "majority view" 100 per cent wrong!

Old, credulous, Darwin scholar, endlessly parroted, "majority view", based on Darwin's 100 per cent proven lies:

Sir Gavin de Beer (FRS), Royal Society Darwin Medal winner, wrote in the Wilkins Lecture for the Royal Society (de Beer 1962 on page 333):

 "...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.'

100 per cent proven and independently verifiable dis-confirming facts:

Please note. You can read more on the concept of knowledge contamination and further details regarding the "real facts" of the history of discovery of natural selection: here. 

The independently verifiable newly discovered facts that prove the above information 100 per cent correct can be found in my book Nullius in Verba: Darwin's greatest secret.

A psychology study ( Nyhan et al 2014)  reveals that new facts, which debunk old myths, are most likely to be rejected when the “real facts” undermine beliefs strongly linked to a sense of identity. Darwinists – named for Darwin – fit this description more than most.

Darwinists are currently unable to accept the newly discovered 100 % proven facts that Darwin lied and the facts that those he knew in fact read and cited Matthew’s (1831) book before he replicated the original ideas in it. This would explain why the statistical geneticist Mike Weale, in defence of Darwin, seeks to re-define the dictionary definition of originate (so a replicator becomes the originator of what is replicated), why plain lies (where Darwin wrote the very opposite to what he was told by Matthew in order to convince the world of his lie that Matthew’s original ideas went unread before he replicated them) are not classed by Weale as lies. It explains also why Mike Weale absolutely refuses to accept the 100 % proven fact that Matthew originated the explanatory analogy of differences between natural and artificial selection that both Darwin and Wallace also replicated. He even denies it is an analogy – in the teeth of the Oxford dictionary definition of what constitutes an analogy can be an analogy of differences.

Of course, being named for the proven lying plagiarist Darwin, Nyhan et al's research would predict Darwinists will continue to deny the facts, because the facts completely undermine their sense of identity as traditionally Darwin worshiping evolutionary biologists. Once Darwinists admit to the veracity of the "real facts" and to the fact that the academic community has been promoting myths about the readership of Matthew's original ideas - myths started, incidentally, by Darwin, then, like a stack of dominoes when just one is removed, the entire Darwin Worship Industry will fall into intellectual disgrace.

It’s all rather perturbing. But at least Darwinists are not alone when it comes to "real fact" denial and the reasons for it.


Posted by at No comments:
Labels: , ,

Saturday 20 February 2016

The Patrick Matthew Family Tree


                                                     


Alexander Duncan I

                                                                         to
   
                 Alexander Duncan  II                          George Duncan ( P.M.'s G.G.Grandfather)
                                        to                                                         to

      1st Viscount Admiral Adam Duncan          Francis Duncan ( P.M."s G. Grandfather)
                                                                                                    to
                                                                              Alexander Duncan  (P. M.'s Grandfather)    
                                                                                                    to
                                                                              Agnes Duncan  (Patrick Matthew's Mother)
                                                                                                    to
                                                                                   Patrick Matthew  
                                                                                                    to
           (P.M.'s 5th son) James Matthew   ***            Alexander Matthew  (P.M.'s 3rd Son)
                                        to                                                         to

                         Jones & Smith families                     The Minnick & Macy families
                                   in New Zealand                            in the United States
                                                                                                   &                                                          
                                                                                   The Gerdts family in Germany


This  family tree has been provided by the original research conducted by Major Howard Minnick US Army (retired) who is the third great grandson of Patrick Matthew. Please note: Dates are forthcoming.

   References:
  • Alexander Hastie Millar. The Historical Castles and Mansions of Scotland: Perthshire and Forfarshire (here).
  • W. Gerdts.: ‘Die Matthew Saga 1 (1790 – 1918) and Die Matthew Saga 2 (1918-2003). Self published history of the Matthew family.

Please note: This is the first definitive evidence that Patrick Matthew was related to the great British naval hero Admiral Duncan.

 The dual themes and title of Patrick Matthew's (1831) book 'On Naval Timber and Arboriculture' was most likely influenced by his bloodline to Admiral Duncan. As the opening words of his book indicate....



... the importance of understanding the principle of natural selection with regards to where and how to grow the best naval timber was fully and originally understood by Matthew (1831) and then some others after they read and cited his book. Those others - such as Jameson (1853) of the East India Company (a regular correspondent of William Hooker) - cited Matthew and wrote of his original ideas that timber could fare better in a non-native environment if native species were kept at bay by human interference with nature before Darwin and Wallace replicated Matthew's original discoveries and explanatory examples without citation to their source. Jameson understood it perfectly. Alternately, Selby (1842), the editor of Wallace's 1855 Sarawak paper, read it also, but he wrote that he did not understand it.

Appendix A of On Naval Timber and Arboriculture (Matthew 1831) 



Matthew's original ideas about the difference between trees grown in nurseries and those in the wild were replicated by both Darwin and Wallace. Darwin had the precise example in his private 1844 essay. Wallace replicated the same example in his Ternate paper of 1858 with Matthew's general original analogy of differences between natural and artificial selection. Darwin opened Chapter One of the Origin of Species with the exact same thing.

Once again the "real facts" are news to Darwin scholars, who have a 155 year long legacy of credulously maintaining Darwin's self-serving fallacy that Matthew's original ideas were unrelated to the title and related theme of his book. Of late, one of the worst propagators of this ludicrous myth is Richard Dawkins (2010) whose pseudo scholarly history, context and "real fact-free" biased Darwin worship proclamations include the following line about Matthew's On Naval Timber and Arboriculture - a book he surely can't have bothered himself to read before implying expertise on it:

‘Did he see the explanation for all of life, the destroyer of the argument for design? If he had, wouldn’t he have put it in a more prominent place than the appendix to a manual on silviculture?
In the real world of immortal great ideas, as opposed to Darwin Myth Land, where Dawkin's credulously resides, Matthew's ideas were not merely contained in his book's Appendix. Matthew's (1860) letter to Darwin explained as much, and Darwin's (1860) private letter to Joseph Hooker acknowledged the truth. But Darwin. like his acolytes after him, pretended otherwise to successfully punterize the rest of the world in order to rob Matthew of his right to be considered an immortal great thinker and influencer in science. Visit the Appendix Myth page of PatrickMatthew.com for the fact-based details, as opposed to the unevidenced Darwin Worship Industry rhetoric.

More on Richard Dawkins's history and context free pseudo-scholarship here.

A more detailed account of the new findings regarding Patrick Matthew's genealogical links to Admiral Duncan can be found on the Family Tree page of PatrickMatthew.com. Here

Posted by at No comments:
Labels: , ,

Wednesday 17 February 2016

Timeline of Patrick Matthew's Multiple Victimization by Darwin, his Friends, and the Darwin Worship Industry

Evolutionary biologists generally agree that Patrick Matthew was first to conceive the full theory of macroevolution by natural selection. So why is he not celebrated as an immortal great thinker and influencer in science?

To provide fact-based answers, I thought it might help Darwin scholars to see  -  laid bare - this very succinct sample (with clickable links to the independently verifiable published data) of exactly what was done to Patrick Matthew in order to steal by glory theft his right to be celebrated as an immortal great thinker and influencer in science.


1. Darwin's and Wallace's friend, John Lindley's (1853) Matthew glory stealing giant redwood seeds bogus priority claiming fallacy.

2. Wallace's replicating plagiarism of Matthew's original conception and unique explanatory examples in his 1855 and 1858 papers.

3. Darwin's (1858 and 1859) plagiarism and his Gardener's Chronicle (1860) and Origin of Species (1861) glory theft lies.



4. Darwin's friend, Professor David Anstead - or at the very least his anonymous editor weirdly added footnotes on his article - mockingly rubbishing Matthew in the Dublin University Magazine (January to June in 1860) effectively writing that he was an over opinionated crank who had written nothing original. The footnote can be read here. The Saturday Analyst and Leader (1860) then did the same thing.

5. In a gushing review of Darwin's Origin of Species. Charles Dickens's Magazine 'All the Year Round' (1860) quoted a paragraph of Matthew's (1831) original prose yet never cited Matthew as its source. The uncited quote is to be found here.


6. The Dundee platform blocking of Matthew at the 1867 meeting of the British Association for Advancement of Science.

7. Royal Society Darwin Medal winners Ernst Mayr's and Sir Gavin de Beer's published glory stealing fallacies that the original ideas in Matthew's book went completely unread/unread by any biologists - before Matthew brought them to Darwin's attention in 1860.

8. Richard Dawkins's pseudo-scholarly history and context free typical "state of denial" victim blaming of Matthew for what Darwin and his adoring Darwinists did to him.




Posted by at No comments:
Labels: , ,

Monday 15 February 2016

The Etymological Origins of Darwinist and Darwinian

ONCE AGAIN, THE BIGDATA-IDD METHOD CUTS THROUGH UNINFORMED CLAPTRAP LIKE A BUZZSAW IN BALONEY

Vogt
Carl Vogt was, apparently “first to be second” with the term Darwinist in 1863. It was first coined in 1861
Vogt (1863) was apparently the first to be second to use the term Darwinist, which was first coined in 1861
I’ve noticed, since the publication of my myth busting book Nullius in Verba: Darwin’s greatest secret,    that many commentators really don’t like being referred to as Darwinists, although they have no problem with ‘Darwinism’. Many Darwinists consider the word ‘Darwinist’ as a term of abuse, and they attribute it to irrational arguments made against Darwin and the theory of natural selection. On which note, according to Jonathan Wells, of the “intelligent design” community, the terms ‘Darwinism’ and Darwinist’ are interchangeable and Darwinists are wrong to believe the term ‘Darwinist’ is meant to be derogatory.

Darwinist or Darwinian, They’re One and the Same   by Jonathan Wells    August 31, 2007:

image“Darwinian” is the name preferred by modern evolutionary biologists, who use it widely in the scientific and popular literature. Yet this is a distinction without a difference. Whether such people call themselves Darwinists or Darwinians, they apparently haven’t heard the news that “evolutionary biology has advanced way beyond Darwin’s 19th-century tracts.”
Could Scott be following the lead of Harvard sociobiologist Edward O. Wilson, who claims that the word “Darwinism” was coined by creationists to make Darwin look bad? “It’s a rhetorical device to make evolution seem like a kind of faith, like ‘Maoism’,” said Wilson in Newsweek in November 2005. “Scientists,” he added, “don’t call it Darwinism.” 
Nice try, but Wilson’s revisionist approach to the history of biology doesn’t fit the facts. According to the Oxford English Dictionary, Thomas Henry Huxley (Darwin’s most famous defender in Britain) used “Darwinism” in 1864 to describe Charles Darwin’s theory. In 1876, Harvard botanist Asa Gray (who was Darwin’s most ardent scientific defender in America) published Darwiniana: Essays and Reviews Pertaining to Darwinism, and in 1889 natural selection’s co-discoverer Alfred Russel Wallace published Darwinism: An Exposition of the Theory of Natural Selection. Two of Wilson’s former Harvard colleagues, evolutionary biologists Ernst Mayr and Stephen Jay Gould, used the word extensively in their scientific writings, and recent science journals carry articles with titles such as “Darwinism and Immunology” and “The Integration of Darwinism and Evolutionary Morphology.”
The reason that “Darwinism” and “Darwinian” — even “Darwinist” — are used by modern evolutionary biologists is that they are more precise than “evolution” and “evolutionist.” The latter have many meanings, most of them uncontroversial.
The OED has detected the use of the word Darwinism to refer to either the poetry of Darwin’s grandfather Erasmus Darwin, or else, presumably, Erasmus’s belief in the development theory of evolution  (that all things are evolving to perfection – which is not natural selection theory). Here the first usage discovered by the OED is 1840:
.1840 Brit. & Foreign Rev. 10 105 The blank verse of Queen Mab differs little from that measure as it appears in the poems of Akenside, who exercised considerable influence over such poets as escaped from the popular vortex of Darwinism.’
And at the time of writing, the OED has the use of the modern meaning of the term Darwinism dated to Darwin’s friend Thomas Huxley (AKA Darwin’s Bulldog), who was apparently first to use the word Darwinism in this regard in 1860. Huxley used the word in his 1860 book review (published in the Westminster Review) of Darwin’s Origin of Species published in the Westminster Review, (see Darwin Online):
image
Huxley was apparently the first to coin the word “Darwinism” in 1860
And so we see that the OED is today accurate, if not when Wells wrote on the topic in 2007, with regards to the earliest discoverable use of the word Darwinism. Moreover, here Wells is right, because the term most certainly was not coined in a derogatory context for either Erasmus or Charles. .

So what of the Etymological Origins of the term Darwinist?

The Oxford English Dictionary OED (at the time of writing 23.11.15) has it that it means one or both of two things::
A follower of Charles Darwin; a person who accepts or promotes Darwinism (in scientific and extended use).
And the earliest date the so-called etymological “experts” at the OED can get back to for the word is:
“1864 J. Hunt tr. C. Vogt Lect. on Man xvi. 464 No Darwinist [Ger. Darwinist],” ” if we must call them so, has either raised that question or drawn the above inference.”
Once again BIgData-IDD gets us back further than the OED’s experts
When it comes to the term Darwinist – no matter how it is used and perceived by different people today – the same BigData-DD method that found the data that re-wrote the history of the discovery of natural selection (Sutton 2014   ) allows us to uncover the fact that ‘Darwinist’ was, apparently, first coined – in 1861 in a Dutch Book entitled “The Agony of the Popes” by Edmond Lafond, and Adrianus J. Bemmel.    Here the context is somewhat supportive of Darwinism.
image
First coining of the word Darwinist by Edmond Lafond, and Adrianus J. Bemmel in 1861
As we can see in the image of the text below, where Vogt is quoted by James Hunt (1866), who two years earlier edited Vogt’s 1864 book, which is simply the English translation of Vogt’s 1863 original German version, the term Darwinist was used by Vogt in what is a fairly derogatory way. The term is used also, seemingly, in a rather begrudgingly way by Vogt, who seems reluctant to comply with using the prior-published group identifying label for Darwin’s faithful followers. See Vogt in 1864    in English and in 1863 in the original German.    Perhaps this is because the German Vogt was not at all happy at the idea of natural selection. He certainly disliked its natural conclusions regarding the divergent ramifications of life, since they undermined his beliefs about species.

image
Vogt in 1863 was, apparently, “first to be second” in a German publication with the term Darwinist.
Natural selection was first explained by Patrick Matthew (1831) in his first book ‘On Naval Timber and Arboriculture’ where he explained the origin of species being defined as those that ramified from but could no longer breed with a common ancestor, meant there were no different species of human beings – only different varieties. But Carl Vogt believed – contrary to the sound knowledge of Thomas Huxley on this topic – that Black people and White people are distinct species. Of course, Matthew knew the very same thing that Huxley later concluded as early as 1831 when he first published his original ideas on ‘the natural process of selection’.
Thanks to Big Data analysis of the literature comprising the books scanned in the Google Library Project, we now know that – contrary to the beliefs of many Darwinists – the term used to name them was apparently originally penned in a book written in Dutch in 1861, where it was first coined in print as a compliment.
image
Patrick Matthew: The biological father of the theory of natural selection
Matthew took the original ideas of 1831 forward in his second book ‘Emigration Fields’ (Matthew 1839) where he recommended white British colonists interbreed with the Maori people of New Zealand and was apparently first to coin both the phrase and concept of the modern Peace Corps (here) .
See PatrickMatthew.com    for the full details of Darwin’s and Wallace’s plagiarism and the dreadful ‘culture of concealment’ dysology of Darwin’s Darwinists on the topic since 1860 to the present day.

Tags: , , , , , , 
Posted by at No comments:
Labels:
Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)