Over the last 24 hours I was quoted in many national newspapers about Dr. Mike Sutton's new book showing Charles Darwin did not originate the theory of natural selection (including today's issue of The Times): https://t.co/5V1194cYjI @NTUNews @PsychologyNTU @NTUSocSciences pic.twitter.com/UcuXHDLXDc— Mark Griffiths (@DrMarkGriffiths) February 7, 2022
This story is finally getting the coverage it deserves thanks to the research of Dr Mike Sutton and reporting of John Dingwall @johndingwall— Neil Shuttlewood, publisher with Curtis Press (@CurtisPress_) February 6, 2022
Get your copy of Science Fraud: Darwin's Plagiarism of Patrick Matthew's Theory from https://t.co/MOqGM6194G (discount coupon: fraud2022) pic.twitter.com/mB6KJHsdd3
My coverage of Charles Darwin's alleged plagiarism of a Scot's Natural Process of Selection as revealed in Dr Sutton's forthcoming book Science Fraud: Darwin's Plagiarism of Patrick Matthew's Theory #evolution #newspapers #darwin #science @curtispress_ pic.twitter.com/vrvMRN123r— John Dingwall (@johndingwall) February 8, 2022
When it comes to upsetting facts many members of the public do not want the truth to reach them. They would rather live in a cosy state of denial. Then there are those who want to know the facts so they can weigh them rationally, think and act accordingly for their own long-term benefit and for the general good of all humanity. Lastly, there are those who know the facts but want to keep them from you for as long as possible, whilst they seek, or else continue, to reap the rewards of dishonesty and dysology.
30 things DID happen that Darwin myth lovers claimed never happened. Not COULD but DID happen. At least 30 people, some naturalists who Darwin & Wallace both said influenced them DID cite Matthew's Naval Timber book before 1858. @CurtisPress_— Fear and Loathing in Science (@Idk50074280) January 9, 2022
SCIENCE FRAUD: DARWINS PLAGIARISM OF PATTICK MATTHEW'S THEORY ...— Neil Shuttlewood, publisher with Curtis Press (@CurtisPress_) December 18, 2021
A telling snippet from Emma Darwin to Patrick Matthew about Matthew's theory of the natural process of selection ...
"... He is more faithful to your own original child than you are yourself ..." pic.twitter.com/WCBRSrYlyD
This book relies entirely on what Professor Michael Streven's calls the "Iron Rule" of science, namely empirical facts, and new BigData unearthed ones at that, to prove beyond all reasonable doubt that Charles Darwin and Alfred Wallace plagiarised the theory of evolution by natural selection from Patrick Matthew.
Science Fraud: Darwin’s Plagiarism of Patrick Matthew’s Theory by Mike Sutton.
"Science Fraud" reveals how malicious New Data hater Darwin superfans and others, facilitated by members of the Darwin Industry, have committed repeat research plagiarism, tried multiple times without success to have the author fired from a senior academic position, and spread misinformation via Wikipedia and elsewhere in an attempt to re-bury the cast iron bombshell New Data on Darwin's and Wallace's plagiarism and associated lies.
1. Is it true that Darwin and/or Wallace originated the full theory of macroevolution by natural selection?
Answer = No! It's a myth because Charles Darwin and Alfred Wallace, and many other top experts on evolution (such as Matthew himself, de Beer, Mayr and Dawkins) all agreed Matthew (1831) was first into print, decades before Darwin or Wallace with the full theory.
2. Is it true that Matthew must have failed to influence Darwin and/or Wallace with his theory because no naturalists / no single person had read Matthew's theory before he claimed his priority in a published letter of 1860?
Answer = No! It's a myth started as an empirical proven lie by Darwin in all editions of the Origin of Species from third edition onwards and parroted by the credulous and adoring scientific community ever since. In 1860 Matthew's published letter informed Darwin directly that his book had been reviewed by the famous naturalist and biologist Loudon, reviewed in various periodicals and newspapers and was read by an esteemed professor who could not teach it nor write about it for fear of pillory punishment, it being heretical in the first half of the 19th century. Sutton's research originally and uniquely identifies 30+ people who read and then cited Matthew's 1831 book in published print before Darwin and Wallace replicated the original theory in it. This list includes Wallace's admitted greatest influencer, Robert Chambers (who met and corresponded with Darwin pre-1858) and the editor of Wallace's famous Sarawak paper - Selby. Loudon edited and published two of Blyth's most influential papers, read by Darwin, and Darwin admitted Blyth was his most prolific correspondent on the topic of species and varieties.
3. Is it true, what Darwin claimed in the Origin of Species and elsewhere, that Matthew was an obscure writer and that Matthew's theory was only briefly given in the scattered pages of an appendix to an entirely irrelevant book on the topic?
Answer = No! It's a myth. Again this myth was started as a published lie by Darwin. Firstly, if Matthew was an obscure writer then how is it that pre-1858 Matthew was cited in the Encyclopedia Britannica and and elsewhere in that publication his 1831 book enjoyed a prominent 1/2 page block advert and why is it that it is newly proven that before 1858 Darwin held in his own hands at least five publications that cited Matthew's 1831 book. Darwin lied about Matthew's theory being limited to an appendix because his own letter to Lyell on that topic said it would be splitting hairs to admit the truth (he knew, because Matthew had shown him in his published letter of reply to Darwin) was otherwise. Moreover, trees and plants are at the core of the theory of evolution by natural selection. Darwin was obsessed by trees and the private notebook of books he read proves it.
4. Is it true that Darwin originated the term "process of natural selection"
Answer = Something in between. Big Data research does reveal he was apparently first into print with that term. But it is a four word shuffle of Matthew's 1831 original term of the very exact same meaning "natural process of selection". And Chambers (who cited Matthew's 1831 book before writing his own influential 1844 book on organic evolution) was apparently first to be second into print in 1859 with Matthew's original four word term.
5. Is it true that Darwin was the first to use artificial selection as an analogue of natural selection as an analogical explanation to explain the process of natural selection?
Answer = No! It's a myth. Matthew was first to do that. He was then followed by Wallace who used it in his Sarawak paper. Darwin replicated Matthew's explanatory analogy in his private essay of 1844 and to open Chapter One in the Origin of Species. In that private essay Darwin even replicated Matthew's highly idiosyncratic analogy of difference between trees raised in nurseries versus trees growing wild in nature.
6. Is it true that Darwin was a remarkably honest man and genius original thinker?
Answer = No! It's a myth, proven by each and every one of the empirical fact led five answers to the questions above. Darwin (and Wallace too) was a replicator of a prior published theory and all paths of those who read and cited Matthew's book lead to Darwin and to Wallace and to their known and admitted influencers, friends and to their influencer's influencers. Darwin, with assistance from Wallace, and others, facilitated and enabled by the bone-headed bias and credulity of the scientific community, committed the worlds greatest science fraud by plagiary and lies.
New Big Data research has uncovered Darwin’s science fraud by plagiarism to reveal new evidence, to prove at least on the balance of reasonable probability, and surely beyond all reasonable doubt, that Charles Darwin (1858/59) and Alfred Wallace (1858) plagiarised the theory of evolution by natural selection from Patrick Matthew’s (1831) book ‘On Naval Timber and Arboriculture’ (hereafter NTA).
Facts, newly unearthed in the publication record, overturn currently accepted ‘knowledge beliefs’ on who has complete priority for this hugely important scientific theory.
What are the main currently accepted scientific consensus ‘knowledge claims’ in this area?
How do irrefutable newly unearthed facts overturn the above points 2, 3 and 4?
Point 2 – refuted by the facts
(a). Big Data analysis (see Sutton and Griffiths 2018 for the method used) reveals Matthew was first to coin the term ‘natural process of selection’. He did so because his theory is about what happens: naturally as a process leading to selection of favourable inheritable characteristics making an organism most circumstance suited to survive and pass on those favourable characteristics to its offspring. Matthew wrote that entirely new species could emerge in this way. Darwin (1859) was first to four-word-shuffle Matthew’s exact same four words to essentially re-brand it: the ‘process of natural selection.’ Thereafter, in every edition of the Origin of Species, Darwin referred to it as “my theory.”
(b). Eiseley (1979) discovered that in a private unpublished essay, Darwin (1844) replicated Matthew’s highly idiosyncratic important explanatory analogy of the difference between plants raised in nurseries versus those growing wild in "nature". So important is that analogy between artificial and natural selection, Wallace (1855) used it in his famous Sarawak paper and Darwin used it to in the first paragraph of the opening chapter of the Origin of Species to make the theory understandable.
(c). Selby, a naturalist well-networked with Darwin’s friends and influencers, was Chief Editor of the journal that published Wallace’s (1855) Sarawak paper on evolution. Most importantly, it is newly discovered and revealed that Selby cited NTA in 1842!
This major research finding on Selby has been repeat plagiarised. Twice in the disgraced Biological Journal of the Linnean Society (see details here). Joachim Dagg who plagiarised the Selby research finding in the Biological Journal of the Linnean has a malicious and very peculiar obsesive blog site, (here) (archived here). The Selby data has also been plagiarised in the Journal of Creation (here), meaning the Biological Journal of the Linnean Society is not alone in its disgraceful pseudo-scholarly plagiarism facilitation.
Point 3 – refuted by the facts
Point 4 – refuted by the facts
de Beer G (1962) The Wilkins Lecture: The Origins of Darwin’s Ideas on Evolution and Natural Selection. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series B. Biological Sciences 155 (960). pp.321-338.
Chambers, W. and Chambers, R (1832). Chambers's Edinburgh Journal. William Orr. Saturday March 24th. p. 63: http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=IRIoAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA63&dq=matthews+on+naval+timber&hl=en&sa=X&ei=JodhUf_WGseK0AWjzYDoBQ&ved=0CDUQ6AEwATgU#v=onepage&q=matthews%20on%20naval%20timber&f=false
Darwin. C. R. (1859) On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection. Or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life. London. John Murray.
Darwin, C. R. and Wallace, A. R. (1858) On the tendency of species to form varieties, and on the perpetuation of varieties and species by natural means of selection. Journal of the Proceedings of the Linnean Society of London.
Darwin, C. R. (1860a) Natural selection. Gardeners' Chronicle and Agricultural Gazetteno. 16 (21 April): 362-363. (This is
Darwin's letter in response to Matthew's in the Gardeners Chronicle where Darwin clearly indicates he had no prior knowledge of Matthew's book). See Darwin online: http://darwin-online.org.uk/content/frameset?itemID=F1705&viewtype=text&pageseq=1
Darwin, C. R. (1861) On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection. Or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life. (Third Edition) London. John Murray.
Dawkins, R. (2010) Darwin's Five Bridges: The Way to Natural Selection. In Bryson, B (ed.) Seeing Further: The Story of Science and the Royal Society. London. Harper Collins.
Eiseley, L. (1979) Darwin and the Mysterious Mr X: New Light on the Evolutionists. New York. E. P. Dutton.
Hamilton, W. D. (2001) Narrow Roads of Gene Land, Volume 2: Evolution of Sex. Oxford. Oxford University Press.
Jameson, W. (1853) Contributions to a History of the Relation between Climate and Vegetation in various parts of the Globe. On the Physical Aspect of the Punjab its Agriculture and Botany. By Dr. Jameson Superintendent of the Botanic Garden Saharunpore. In The Journal of the Horticultural Society of London. Volume 8. p. 273-314.
Johnson, C. W. (1842) Plantation. The Farmer's Magazine January to June. Vol. 5 pp. 364-368.
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. https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=uma.ark:/13960/t30295b1r&view=1up&seq=7
Matthew, P. (1831) On Naval Timber and Arboriculture; With a critical note on authors who have recently treated the subject of planting. Edinburgh. Adam Black.
Matthew, P. (1860a) Letter to the Gardeners Chronicle. Nature's law of selection. Gardeners' Chronicle and Agricultural Gazette (7 April): 312-13. Darwin Online: http://darwin-online.org.uk/content/frameset?itemID=A143&viewtype=text&pageseq=1
Matthew, P. (1860b) Letter to the Gardeners Chronicle. Nature's law of selection. Gardeners' Chronicle and Agricultural Gazette (12 May) p. 433: Available free online here: http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=yiQ1AQAAMAAJ&pg=PA433&dq=Letter+from+Patrick+Matthew+in+The+Gardeners'+Chronicle+12+May+1860&hl=en&sa=X&ei=u5bRUfrEKabF0QXGmIC4CA&ved=0CDkQ6AEwAg#v=onepage&q=Patrick%20Matthew&f=false
Mayr, E. (1982) The growth of biological thought: diversity, evolution, and inheritance. Cambridge, Mass. Harvard University Press.
Murphy, E. (1834) Irish Farmer's and Gardener's Magazine and Register of Rural Affairs. Volume 1.
Norton. In: Stephens, H. (1853) With assistance from Norton, J. P. The Farmer's Guide to Scientific and Practical Agriculture. Volume 2. New York. Leonard Scott.
Rampino, M. R. (2011) Darwin's error? Patrick Matthew and the catastrophic nature of the geologic record. Historical Biology: An International Journal of Paleobiology. Volume 23, Issue 2-3.
Selby, P. J. (1842) A history of British forest-trees: indigenous and introduced. London. Van Voorst.
Strivens, M. (2003) The Role of the Priority Rule in Science. Journal of Philosophy. 100 (55) pp. 1-33.
Sutton, M. (2014a) Nullius in Verba: Darwin’s Greatest Secret. Thinker Press. Thinker Media Inc.
Sutton, M. (2014b) The hi-tech detection of Darwin’s and Wallace’s possible science fraud: Big data criminology re-writes the history of contested discovery. Papers from the British Criminology Conference. Vol. 14: pp. 49-64. http://britsoccrim.org/volume14/pbcc_2014_sutton.pdf
Sutton, M. (2015) On Knowledge Contamination: New Data Challenges Claims of Darwin’s and Wallace’s Independent Conceptions of Matthew’s Prior-Published Hypothesis. Filozoficzne Aspekty Genezy. Issue No: 12. Pp.167-205. http://cejsh.icm.edu.pl/cejsh/element/bwmeta1.element.desklight-b491611b-baca-4ac7-8124-4cdeb96d75ec
Sutton, M. and Griffiths, Mark. D. (2018). Using Date Specific Searches on Google Books to Disconfirm Prior Origination Knowledge Claims for Particular Terms, Words, and Names. Soc. Sci. 7, no. 4: 66. https://doi.org/10.3390/socsci7040066
Wallace, A. R. (1858b) On the Tendency of Species to Form Varieties; (and by Darwin, C , “On the Perpetuation of Varieties and Species by Natural Means of Selection”), Journal of the Proceedings of the Linnaean Society of London. Zoology 1858, vol. 3, pp. 45-50.
Wallace, A. R. (1879) Butler's "Evolution, Old and New." Nature. Volume 20 June 12th. https://archive.org/details/naturejournal20londuoft/page/141/mode/1up?view=theater
Wallace, A. R. (1879a) 9 May. Letter to Samuel Butler. Unique WCP identifier: WCP1586. Wallace Letters Online. Natural History Museum. http://www.nhm.ac.uk/research-curation/scientific-resources/collections/library-collections/wallace-letters-online/1586/1365/T/details.html#2 Archived: https://archive.is/Ql3cc
Are you an independent rational, objective person able to weigh independently verifiable facts? Or are you just one of the zombie horde stumbling blindly, obeying authority because certainty is more comforting than disturbing new disconfirming evidence? https://t.co/xBGGof5eY7— BentSociety @The Veracity Institute (@OnNavalTimber) December 30, 2020
"There is truth and there are lies. Lies told for power and for profit."
Joe Biden (US President's inaugural speech January 20th 2021)
In light of independently verifiable newly discovered facts, published in peer reviewed social and natural science academic journals, members of the scientific establishment community, enabled, abetted and facilitated by employees and other agents of mainstream publishers, are Trumpesquely arguing that the truth is a lie and lies are the truth. These people continue to give oxygen to the 100 per cent proven deliberate lies published by Charles Darwin that the theory of evolution by natural selection is his theory because, he lied, no one read Patrick Matthew's book that published the entire theory years before he wrote a word on the topic anywhere.
Darwin is proven to have known other naturalists read and cited Matthew’s (1831) book and wrote about the original ideas on macroevolution by natural selection in it, decades before Darwin or Wallace each claimed it as their own original dually independent conceptions.
More so, those naturalists who had earlier read and cited Matthew’s book were at the very epicentre of influence on the dishonest replicating work of Darwin and Wallace.
Post-truth is pre-fascism, Trump's big election steal lie had major consequences for the USA. Darwin's big "my theory" lie had major consequences for the entire world and probably led to the holocaust.
What is the best way to weigh the veracity and value of new discoveries that challenge orthodox, mainstream, establishment, majority, expert, current knowledge beliefs? The answer is to look at all the new evidence objectively and honestly to see if it has validity. We must not cherry pick only little bits of it and pretend all of it does not exist to hoodwink ourselves and others with half-baked cheap, dishonest, and easy arguments. Honesty and integrity are the right way to go about examining and weighing it. If you do it in any other way than that then there will be a cost. Because the truth always comes back around. Why then do people take the dishonest and corrupt route instead? The answer is because most people, especially weak people - who make poor politicians, awful scientists, and dreadful scholars - like certainty. And they like that certainty because certainty is their comforter. Their certaintly is a story they were told and re-tell themselves and others, because the more complex reality of the world outside their head is too much for them to handle. Those who deny the existence of verifiable facts that disconfirm their cherished "stories" have never and will never grow up. They will never be complete adults or scientific scholars.
‘But there it was, the whole history of science, a clear story of continuously new and changing explanations of old facts. The time spans of permanence seemed completely random, he could see no order in them. Some scientific truths seemed to last for centuries, others for less than a year. Scientific truth was not dogma, good for all eternity, but a temporal quantitative entity that could be studied like anything else.’
(Pirsig, R. M. 1974, Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance: An Inquiry Into Values, p. 108).
The science books, history books, university lecture theatres, the school classroom all teach that Darwin and Wallace independently discovered the theory of evolution by natural selection and first published on it in their separate papers of 1858, with Darwin’s Origin of Species following in 1859. The very best of them will show you that recognised member of the great Scottish Enlightenment, Scottish farmer, listed botanist, arboriculturist and forester, Patrick Matthew, got there first in 1831 with the original fully published theory, which is something both Darwin and Wallace would later be compelled to fully admit. But where you have been misled, and where they continue to try to mislead you with lies and nonsense (have a look at the Wikipedia page on Patrick Matthew, for example, more on that here) is with Darwin's proven deliberate alternate lies that no one whatsoever / no naturalist read Matthew's theory before he and Wallace amazingly replicated it. The list below, List 1 from my book Nullius in Verba: Darwin's greatest secret (2014, 2017) reveals who we now newly know did cite Matthew's (1831) book in the published literature pre-1858. Apart from the famous naturalist Loudon, who Matthew told Darwin had cited his work and the review in the United Services Magazine and in the Metropolitan, these men (NOTE: several such as Selby, Chambers and Jameson were famous 19th century naturalists), anonymous authors, publications and their citations were detected in 2013-14 (with some even newer additions, labelled accordingly). All were detected in the historic publication record using the IDD big data detection method. Moreover, besides being first released in my 2014/ 2017 book these discoveries from my research have been disseminated at many high profile public lectures since 2014 (e.g. here in Conway Hall London) and published in expert peer reviewed articles (e.g. here and here), and in the national press (see the list of press articles here). Others have since plagiarised my Selby (who was a friend of Darwin's father, editor of Wallace's Sarwak paper and close friend of Darwin's friend and regular correspondent, Jenyns, amongst many other Darwin connections) cited Matthew's 1831 book in 1842 discovery. That research finding has been twice plagiarised in the Biological Journal of the Linnean Society, which - now with great shameful irony is the re-named yet direct descendant journal where Darwin and Wallace, in 1858, first plagiarised Matthew's prior-published theory (latest facts here).
If allowed to get away with such gross academic misconduct and science fraud by cherry picking plagiary, what original and groundbreaking data next from my research will such jealous people effectively pass off as their own discoveries in order to gain false glory and so corrupt the history of the history of scientific discovery?
The longer scientists, historians of science, others, and their pseudo scholarly platforms - such as Wikipedia and some academic journals - publish their lies, slyly omit and delete the important newly unearthed independently verifiable facts and publish instead other deliberately obfuscating falsehoods on this topic, the greater their embarrassment and loss of intellectual capital will be. Others will gain from that anti-scientific and unethical, unprofessional sly dysology.
List 1 (From Nullius in Verba: Darwin's greatest secret 2014 See blog here)
Those who/that cited Matthew (1831) before Darwin's (1858) and Wallace's (1858) plagiarism of Matthew's thoery in the Linnean Journal, where they further stole his unique terminology and explanatory examples, and before Darwin's plagiarisng 'Origin of Species' (1859)
1. Matthew's (1831) Edinburgh publisher Adam Black
2. Matthew's (1831) London publisher Longman, Rees, Orme, Brown and Green
3. The Farmer’s Journal – Currently unknown reviewer (1831)
4. The Perthshire Courier - Currently unknown reviewer (1831)
5. The Elgin Courier - Currently unknown reviewer (18311)
6. The Country Times - Currently unknown reviewer (1831)
7. The United Service Journal and Naval and Military Magazine (1831) – unknown reviewer
8. The Edinburgh Literary Journal – unknown reviewer (1831)
9. The Metropolitan – unknown reviewer (1831)
10. John Claudius Loudon (1832) (And cited many times by Loudon thereafter. All refs in 'Nullius').
11. Robert Chambers (1832)
12. The Quarterly Review (here) Unknown reviewer on topic of dry rot. (Newly added here 14th March 2021)
13. John Murray II in (1833)
14. John Murray III (1833) personally or by association – via the same publishing house as John Murray II
15. Edmund Murphy (1834)
16. Thomas Horton James (1839) [Newly added: Discovered May 2020] (and here)
17. Gavin Cree (1841)
18. John William Carleton (1841)
19. Cuthbert William Johnson (1842)
20. Prideaux John Selby (Selby 1842)
21. Augustin Francis Bullock Creuze. Article on “Timber” Encyclopaedia Britannica, 7th Edition (1842), Vol. 21, p.291 (This one discovered by Dr Mike Weale)
22. The Penny Magazine of the Society for the Diffusion of Useful Knowledge (1838) (1842) – Anonymous
23. Publishers - Cradock and Co. (1843) in ‘British Forest Trees’
24. Henry Stephens (1851)
25. John. P. Norton (1851)4 (Co-published with Stevens above)
26. Levi Woodbury (1832) (1833) (1852)
Hello, my name is Mike Sutton. I set up this website about Patrick Matthew in the interests of the veracious history of scientific discovery and for those working in the field of plagiarising science fraud research. I have a BA (hons) law and PhD in the social sciences from the University of Central Lancashire (formerly Preston Polytechnic). I worked for 14 years as a senior researcher (criminologist) in the London Home Office branch of the UK civil service Policing and Research Unit and for 17 years as a senior academic at Nottingham Trent University before retiring in 2018. I am currently rated by artificial intelligence and human experts (on December 2020) the 25th most influential academic of all time in Criminal Justice and, likewise, the 22nd most influential criminologist of all time. And for the record, for what any of that is worth, I was in 2020 rated by the same artificial intelligence and human experts as the 96,790th most influential person who ever lived - to date at least. Charles Darwin is rated 1st. Patrick Matthew is not even rated. So much for ratings then.
Since some fanatical fact denial Darwin worshipping authors, journals and websites appear extremely biased and have a cultish tendency to ignore disconfirming verifiable facts for their cherished beliefs, based on the biased belief that anyone criticising them is religious, for the record I have been an atheist since the age of 14 years. But leaving aside all arguments about religious belief, the telling scientific and history of science question I would like you to consider when assessing the evidence presented on this website is what tends to first happen when the spirit of critical research provides new data that takes the place of much loved but mere authoritative beliefs, which people believe in only because other people they admire believe them? I expect you know the answer to that, and so it is in that spirit of veracity that I ask you to explore the many pages of this website to examine the difference between reasoned and difficult to obtain new independently verifiable hard evidence, and the rational thinking that follows it, versus beliefs in the story of the discovery of evolution by natural selection that have now been debunked by newly unearthed, independently verifiable data in the historic publication record.
Top ethical research biologist at USA National Institute of Standards and Technology Dr Arlin Stoltzfus writes on the heat generated among fact denial Darwin worshippers by the New Data on Darwin's science fraud by plagiary and serial lying.
Get the Facts, Not the Fact Denial Rhetoric of Biased Childlike Charles Darwin Superfans
The world's leading Darwinists, including Royal Society Darwin Medal Winners Sir Gavin de Beer and Ernst Mayr, informed the World that no one whatsoever / no biologist read Patrick Matthew's (1831) original prior-published theory of evolution by natural selection before Darwin and Wallace (1858) and Darwin (1859) replicated it and claimed it as their own. They are all wrong.
Whilst on this website, you can read newly unearthed findings on what is not, as credulous or dishonest Darwin Industry fans and scholars, want you to believe, just an innocent amazingly co-incidental dual replication, but Charles Darwin's and Alfred Wallace's deliberate plagiarising science fraud by glory theft of Patrick Matthew's original prior published theory, unique terminology, supporting examples and essential explanatory analogy of differences between natural and artificial selection.
You may be interested to learn about my remarkable new discovery that Darwin’s and Wallace's friends, associates, influencers and influencer’s influencers both read and then cited Matthew's (1831) book containing his theory, before Darwin or Wallace so much as wrote a word on the topic in their private notebooks. That unique discovery was made with the IDD Big Data research method. Furthermore, you can assess the evidence that means it is proven, with reference to the historical publication record, that Darwin lied when he claimed alternately that no naturalists / no one whatsoever read Matthew’s original ideas before Darwin and Wallace replicated them. Matthew had already informed him that the exact opposite is true. Therefore, if the remarkably simple yet precise method used to make these discoveries is of interest, 'Distinguished Professor of Psychology' Dr Mark Griffiths and I have written an expert peer reviewed academic article for you. It describes the IDD method and provides further examples of its unmatched myth busting power. Most importantly, we now know of the previously buried literature on who read and cited Matthew pre-Darwin's and Wallace's replication in 1858 and Darwin's more detailed replication of 1859. Thankfully, we now know at last where to find that literature and what it contains. However, the IDD method no longer works. We don't know why. Perhaps the loss will not be permanent and is due to Google handing its search engine over to its autonomous deep-learning AI program, Rank Brain. You can read about all of that, and the IDD method, in our article here.
In the interests of a veracious history of scientific discovery and influence, I feel very lucky that I was able to exploit the window of opportunity Google provided before that window was closed to us. The easily independently verifiable references to the newly unearthed historic literature, where Matthew's 1831 book and the ideas in it, were in fact cited before 1858 can be found in my book Nullius in Verba: Darwin's Greatest Secret. The list has grown. Read "Science Fraud" for the latest research findings
Ok, so that's the "how I did" it bit explained. Now let's continue from the top. The simple fact is that new Big Data analysis has uncovered dreadfully unwelcome facts in the publication record. Those independently verifiable facts completely disconfirm prior "expert knowledge" claims that no naturalist / no one whatsoever read Patrick Matthew's (1831) prior published original theory of evolution by natural selection before Charles Darwin and Alfred Wallace replicated and then each claimed it as their own supposedly independent conception.
As a result of my original research, we now newly know that excluding many prominent advertisements for it, at least 25 people cited Matthew's book before Darwin's and Wallace's 1858 and Darwin's 1859 replications. Seven were naturalists. Darwin knew four of those seven and three of those four played well known prominent roles influencing Darwin and Wallace. Furthermore, to necessarily repeat the point already made, it is proven that Darwin lied when he claimed Matthew's theory as his and Wallace's own on illicit grounds, being against the Arago Principle in science, that no one read it before they replicated it. In fact, in 1860, Matthew had informed Darwin in the published press that the exact opposite was the case and that naturalists, including the famous John Loudon, had read it.
What we newly know from the 19th century publication record is that other now named naturalists besides Loudon cited Matthew's book before 1858.
Loudon edited Blyth's influential papers of 1835 and 1836 (which influenced both Darwin and Wallace) their friends, influencers, influencer's influencers - including Selby the journal editor of Wallace’s famous Sarawak paper (which we know from his letters Darwin read before penning the Origin of Species in 1859) cited Matthew pre-1858. Moreover, the geologist and famous editor and author of the Vestiges of Creation, Robert Chambers (Wallace's greatest influencer, who also influenced and met with Darwin pre-1858) had read and prior cited Mathew's (1831) book and mentioned the ideas in it in the published literature. Moreover, Loudon's journal also published an article by Selby, which Darwin made great note of pre 1858 (details here). And we now newly know Selby (1844) cited Matthew's book many times. The routes for Matthewian knowledge contamination of Darwin's plagiarising brain are legion.
All those prominent citations (and many more besides) of Matthew's 1831 book by naturalists and others were published long before Darwin or Wallace so much as wrote a word on the topic in their private notebooks, never mind anything they had published on it.
These two expert peer reviewed academic journal articles set the record straight with the 'New data':
A verifiable timeline Power Point presentation on scientists and historians who have reacted to the Supermyth of Darwin's originality and on Darwin's lies about, and plagiarism of, Matthew's original breakthrough, including the New Data on who we now newly know read it who Darwin and Wallace knew and was influenced by, can be found here.
Mike Sutton November 2018.
Read the newly discovered paradigm puncturing facts about who Darwin and Wallace knew and were influenced by, and who their influencers were influenced by, who really did read Patrick Matthew’s (1831) prior published original conception of macroevolution by natural selection before Darwin and Wallace (1858) and Darwin (1859) replicated it years later. See the absolute proof that Darwin deliberately lied in his own defence by claiming Matthew's original breakthrough went unread until after his and Wallace's claimed independent conceptions and, otherwise, amazingly miraculous dual independent replications of the full theory, supporting examples, unique analogies and highly idiosyncratic original terminology 27 years later.
Abridged and updated, the new paperback (Vol. 1) of Nullius in Verba: Darwin's greatest secret is now available from all good bookshops and libraries and from all Amazon stores worldwide.
Surpassing the failure of traditional Darwin scholar rubber thimble paper turning in the libraries of the world, the cutting edge BigData IDD research method, exploiting the high technology of the Google library project of some 35 million searchable publications, enabled me to originally discover facts that 100 per cent prove Charles Darwin and Alfred Wallace fallaciously claimed that no one read Matthew's prior-published discovery and explanatory examples of natural selection before they replicated both. And the "New Facts" 100 per cent prove it, because the proof is in the previously undiscovered 19th century printed words in publications that absolutely prove Matthew's book, and the original ideas in it, were cited by influential naturalists known both to them and their influencers, before they replicated those same ideas - claiming they alighted upon them independently of Matthew's prior publication of the same. Darwin would later fallaciously excuse himself from 1860 onward by claiming those ideas were unread before he and Wallace replicated them. Darwin wrote that lie after Matthew had informed him of two influential naturalists who read and understood his original ideas, and their significance, and that his book had been banned, because of those same bombshell ideas, by Perth Public Library in Scotland.
This website explains the significance of the New Data about who Darwin and Wallace each knew who really did read Patrick Matthew's (1831) original and full prior published hypothesis of natural selection, and then influenced their thinking on the topic, before Darwin and Wallace (1858) replicated and claimed Matthew's ideas as their own independent discovery.
Evolutionary biologists appear to be in a classic 'state of denial' over the new facts about who Darwin and Wallace knew who did read and then cite Matthew's ideas before 1858.
You are invited to peruse what I have written on this website, study the New Data, and make up your own mind.
Dr Mike Sutton (2015)
In 1831, Patrick Matthew's book 'On Naval Timber and Arboriculture' was published. It contained the first full conception of the theory of macroevolution by natural selection. Matthew uniquely named it 'the natural process of selection'. Then, 27 years later, Darwin replicated Matthew’s original idea and many of his explanatory examples. Darwin claimed to have done so independently of anyone else, failed to cite Matthew and uniquely four-word-shuffled Matthew’s unique term into 'process of natural selection' – which is the only possible grammatically correct equivalent use of the same four words in Matthew's original term for his discovery. The naturalist John Loudon - a world renowned and noted botanist whose work was well known to Darwin and his best friend Joseph Hooker, his father William Hooker and their mutual friend John Lindley - published his review of Matthew's book. Loudon (1832) wrote that Matthew appeared to have something original to say on 'the origin of species' no less!
Loudon’s (1832, p.703) review of Matthew’s book, where he writes [my underlined emphasis]:
“One of the subjects discussed in the 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.”
On 9th January 2016, (Sutton 2016) it was discovered that, for 13 years, at great reputational expense to Matthew, Professor John Lindley - a correspondent of both Darwin and Wallace with a deep interest in evolution of species - hoodwinked the world that he and Lobb and Veitch were the first to introduce the hugely admired giant Californian redwood into Britain and the first to propagate them. The Lindley-Lobb Myth was only debunked in the press in 1866 - three years after Veitch died, two years after Lobb's demise and exactly a year after Lindley's death. In fact, Patrick Matthew and his son John are proven to be first to introduce the giant redwoods into Britain. They did so in 1843. And Patrick Matthew was first to propagate them. Most significantly, the magazine, of which Lindley was Editor, had long held a letter from Matthew that proved it!
The obvious and significant facts reveal that Patrick Matthew was a repeat victim of glory theft by fallacy coining - first by Lindley (1853) then by his correspondent Alfred Wallace (1855; 1858), then by their mutual correspondent Darwin (1858, 1859). In addition, in 1867, Matthew was victimized again. This time by unknown members of the British Association for Advancement of Science - who platform blocked him from giving his conference-accepted paper on his prior-published discovery of macroevolution by natural selection at the Annual Meeting, held that year in Dundee (See: Sutton 2016). Because he was prevented from presenting his paper, the rules of the 'British Association' ensured it could not be included in the published conference papers. Notably, Lindley (then deceased), Wallace and Darwin were all members of the 'British Association' as were Darwin's friends and associates, who were also present. Wallace was present, as was Charles Lyell (guest of honour) and Robert Chambers. This multiple victimisation of Matthew, at different times, but for the same academic 'crime' of significant and delinquent 'immortal great glory theft ', by Lindley, Wallace, Darwin and members of the 'British Association' - three keenly co-operative co-correspondents and a science institution, with a shared understanding that species evolved, is most remarkably unique in the history of scientific discovery if it is only a mere multiple coincidence.
The 155 year old paradigm that Darwin and Wallace discovered natural selection independently of Matthew's (1831) prior and original publication of the full hypothesis is in fact premised on credulous Darwinist belief in the self-serving lie written by their namesake in his own defence in the Gardener's Chronicle in 1860, and in his subsequent lies from the third edition of the Origin of Species onward (Darwin 1861), that no naturalist read Matthew's original ideas on natural selection until he brought them to Darwin's attention in 1860.
The independently verifiable facts take us in the opposite direction from disconfirmed Darwinist spin.
In point of fact, Darwin knew otherwise when he wrote his lies, about Matthew's ideas being unread, because Matthew clearly informed Darwin, before he wrote them, that naturalists - such as John Loudon, for example - had read those ideas. Indeed, as Matthew further explained to Darwin in 1860, an unnamed naturalist, a professor of an esteemed institution, told Matthew that he was afraid to teach the scientific ideas in his 1831 book for fear of pillory punishment for religious heresy. Moreover, Matthew had also prior-informed Darwin that because of his original and heretical ideas on natural selection that his book was banned by the Public Library of Perth in Scotland. Curiously, at the time of writing these words (September 2015), these are disconfirming facts among many others selectively ignored by cherry-picking Darwinists in the highly specific context of their strategic and successful one-sided-spin telling of the story of their namesake's claimed 'independent' discovery of Matthew's prior published ideas. In sum, ludicrous though their claims are, because Matthew's book would have been read in its entirety by many people, including naturalists, Darwinist published spin on this topic, written in the context of denying the existence of any probable routes of Matthewian knowledge contamination of the pre-1858 works of Darwin and Wallace, is premised upon misrepresenting the significance of the suitability of the title of Matthew's book 'On naval Timber and Arboriculture' as one that naturalists would not read, and that even if they did read it they would not appreciate the significance of Matthew’s discovery within its pages, or else would not read the arguments where they were placed within it. Those fallacies were published to prop-up further fallacious yet unequivocal arguments made by Darwin and leading Darwinists that, variously, no naturalists, no biologists, no one known to Darwin or Wallace, or even - apparently most stupidly of all - no one whatsoever, read Matthew's (1831) unique ideas on natural selection before 1860.
Prior to the publication in 2014 and 2016 publication of the original findings in my book - Nullius in Verba: Darwin's greatest secret - the history of discovery of natural selection was founded upon the fixed-false-belief that no biologists, no naturalists and certainly one known to Darwin or Wallace had read Patrick Matthew's(1831) full prior published hypothesis of natural selection before Darwin's and Wallace's (1858) and Darwin's (1859) claimed independent discoveries of the same explanation for all life on Earth.
In fact, prior to their replication of Matthew's 'natural process of selection', along with many of his confirmatory examples and his unique explanatory analogy, Darwin/Wallace corresponded with, were editorially assisted by, admitted to being influenced by and met with other naturalists who - it is newly discovered - had read and cited Matthew's book long before 1858. Of that number, several mentioned Matthew's original ideas on natural selection and one who cited the book, Robert Chambers, went on to write the best-selling book on evolution - the Vestiges of Creation in 1844, which influenced Darwin and Wallace on the topic and was said to have put evolution 'in the air' in the mid 19th century. Hence, probable Matthewian knowledge contamination of the minds of Darwin and Wallace creates a new paradigm in the history of scientific discovery,
To find out about the new hi-tech, BigData research method that discovered the New Data, which debunks, with independently verifiable hard facts, the old unevidenced 'expert' majority view of Darwin's and Wallace's supposed dual, vexatiously anomalous and paradoxical immaculate conceptions of Matthew's prior published hypothesis of natural selection you have arrived at the right website. Please read on and then explore the other pages.
Charles Darwin lifted his theory of natural selection from the book by a Scottish fruit farmer, a researcher has claimed.
Decades before On the Origin of Species appeared in 1859, Patrick Matthew wrote of “the natural process of selection”, explaining how “a law universal in nature” ensured the survival of the fittest.
Darwin, although accepting that Matthew “anticipated” the theory, always denied plagiarism, maintaining that he arrived at the theory indpendently.
But Dr Mike Sutton, a criminolgy expert at Nottingham Trent University believes that Darwin must not only have been aware of Matthew's 1831 book, On Naval Timber and Arboriculture, but borrowed from it heavily.
He has spent years cross-referencing passages in both books, checking citations and studying the figures who influenced both men, and claims to have unearthed information which proves the naturalist lied.
“I have no doubt, based on the weight of new evidence, that Darwin read Matthew's book and then went on to replicate his discovery and key themes.” Dr Sutton said. “Without Patrick Matthew, The Origin of Species would never have been written.”
Note that one typically ludicrous Darwin worshipping foot washer's fact denial article on a website, which I have archived via the clickable link directly above, masquerades as being open minded yet fails to mention the newly unearthed, verifiable in the historic publication record, data about who Darwin and Wallace knew who cited Matthew's 1831 book and the ideas in it before their replications of his work. This same site then claims my work on these uncomfortable newly unearthed facts is some kind of conspiracy theory and further claims I have made the above image as a faked headline, even though in the 2014 achieved article where I used it I refer my readers to the fact the newspaper story is on page 21, not the front page at all! Furthermore, those with an honest/rational mind will note that the page you are currently reading is the exact same page the desperate and closed-minded Darwin foot washer author references, with a link to my archived 2014 article, that specifically explains the story is on page 21 of the newspaper in question.
I am clearly not, then, claiming it as a headline at all. But the Darwinist zombie horde, whose members use demented lead eating squirrels for brains, are stupid and desperate enough to transparently do anyththing they can try to bury the facts they don't want you to read by trying to discredit their discoverer.
Charles Darwin's success at creating a persona of respectability and great honesty is proof of the old adage that it is not what and who you really are that matters. All that counts in society is what and who you appear to be.
Cast iron proof that Charles Darwin, in collusion with his best friend and botanical mentor Joseph Hooker, lied in the Gardener's Chronicle when he wrote in 1860 that apparently no naturalist had read Matthew's (1831) prior-published ideas, and 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.
New 200 page abridged and updated paperback. Available on all Amazon sites: e.g. UK (here). Available only from all Amazon sites, good Bricks and Mortar Bookshops and Libraries World Wide. Bogus fake versions are being sold on various other websites online by criminal book pirates and identity fraudsters
Nullius in Verba: Darwin's greatest secret 600-page Kindle e-book. Currently unavailable due to ongoing investigations into criminal book piracy, copyright fraud, cyberstalking, criminal malicious communications, malware dissemination and ID fraud by cybercriminals who have hacked it and those who are disseminating the illegal hacked files. Amazon.com reviews page archived here
From November 2017, you are advised not to download any version of this e-book, because the file is likely to be infected with hacker malware by those sharing and disseminating hacked versions. Moreover, the content is likley to have been altered by the criminals involved.
Please purchase the official paperback abridged version from Amazon here. Paperback volumes 2 and 3 are forthcoming
Contrary to the myth started by Darwin's deliberate self-serving lie, told in 1860 in the Gardener's Chronicle, and from the third edition of the Origin of Species onward, credulously parroted by influential Darwinists, such as Gavin de Beer, ever since Mike Sutton (2014 and 2016) uniquely discovered that Matthew's (1831) original ideas on natural selection in fact were read and discussed by naturalists and others. The book containing them was cited, and the ideas on natural selection in it, commented upon, years before Matthew brought them to Darwin's attention after the publication of Darwin's Origin of Species in 1860.
Sutton proved that Matthew's book, containing the full hypothesis of natural selection, was cited by at least 25 people before 1858. Seven were naturalists, four were known to Darwin and two to Wallace and three (Loudon, Sellby and Chambers) played major roles at the epicenter and influence of the pre-1858 work work of Darwin and Wallace on natural selection.
Therefore, in 2014, the neglected anomaly of the Darwinist myth of Darwin's and Wallace's independent discoveries of Matthew's prior published hypothesis is disconfirmed by the discovery of the New Data.
Fact-led reason suggests now that Matthewian knowledge contamination more likely than not took place.
Prior to the publication of this book, it was universally believed that Charles Darwin told the truth when he wrote in 1860 that apparently no naturalist had read Patrick Matthew's 1831 book, which contained the full theory of natural selection.
Nullius in Verba: Darwin's greatest secret is the hard-fact-led mythbusting book that re-wrote the history of the discovery of natural selection with new BigData made discoveries of the once hidden books that reveal who Darwin and Wallace knew who really did read Patrick Matthew's prior publication of the full theory of natural selection before Darwin and Wallace supposedly 'independently' replicated it in 1858 with, supposedly, no knowledge of what Matthew had discovered that their friends and influencers had read and actually cited in the literature before influencing them on the same topic!