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 August 2016

Shattering the Darwin Myth I. Charles Darwin's Plagiarising Crookery. On Darwin, Robert Grant and Interloping Glory theft

Grant was livid that Darwin had slyly capered off with his - at that time unpublished - original discovery,
found more evidences to support it and presented it at a learned society! Weirdly, Darwin saw no shame in it.

Darwin's successful perpetration of the world's greatest plagiarising science fraud by glory theft, of Patrick Matthew's prior-published discovery (see Sutton 2016) was preceded by an simpler act of the same sly ilk against the Edinburgh University scholar Robert Grant.

'Darwin's sly, thunder-stealing actions made Grant realize he had made a big mistake in sharing the complex details of his discovery ahead of its full publication. The ambitious Darwin, obviously with no original ideas of his own, unexpectedly exploited the information Grant shared in confidence. He wanted "in" on Grant's exclusive breakthrough, and so made sure to get his very own glorious supporting evidence for it. Grant, quite rightly, slapped the capering interloper down. Poor, wee, upset Darwin, indeed!'
Source of text  Mike Sutton (2014) Nullius in Verba: Darwin's greatest secret: Here 

 https://kindle.amazon.com/post/Y0pvUEUWTbevr71HJA3Euw

Darwin's own account of his presentation at the Plinian Society at the of Grant's discovery - supported by Darwin's extra evidences - can be read here. Unsurprisingly, given what we know of Darwin's serial dishonesty, it contains nothing of Grant's fury at Darwin's glory theft.  In that regard, elsewhere, Darwin slyly tried to spin the truth to make it look like Grant had an irrational territorial hissy-fit (see Sutton 2014 for all the details).



When they Delete the Facts and Publish Lies about You, then you Know You've Arrived

Monday, 22 August 2016

The Fact-Wedgie Awards 2016

The 2016 Fact Wedgie Award.  Science Category Winner: The Royal Society.


For failure to accept the new and paradigm busting facts (Sutton, 2014 and 2016), which have been discovered in the history of discovery of natural selection, the annual Fact-Wedgie Award - for being most wedgied by new and uncomfortably embarrassing facts - goes to the Royal Society.



Please act against denials of fact: Vote on the open letter to the Royal Society: Here






Sunday, 21 August 2016

Smoking Gun Evidence: What is it Exactly? Proposing the Concept of "Gunsmoke Evidence"



The term "smoking gun" is generally held to mean an item of of incontrovertible incriminating evidence. My 19th edition of Brewer's Phrase and Fable (2012. p.1253) explains:
 'The phrase acquired a particularly apt association with the widely diverging views, before, during and after the invasion of Iraq in 2003 about whether Saddam Hussain still possessed WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION. Their discovery would have been hailed by the finders as a smoking gun.'    

At the time of writing, Wikipedia is once again wrong in its etymology, this time to claim that the term 'smoking gun' derives from an 1893 Sherlock Holmes story. 

Anyway, better than mere 'smoking gun' incriminating evidence of Wikipedia's mistake exists, because  it is 100 per cent proven to have been used in published print at least as early as 1878 (Appleton's Journal. p. 17):

'Two men approached, the younger with a smoking gun:

"So it's you, is it?" said she as he came up.
"It is I" said he with a smile.
"Well I think you've got very little to do to go round shootin' fleckers. This one in particular. I was just gettin'  used to him."

On Smoking Gun Evidence in the story of who really did read Patrick Matthew's prior published origination of the hypothesis of natural selection.


Darwin and Wallace (1858) and Darwin (1859) replicated Matthew's origination of macroevolution of natural selection. They failed to cite Matthew, and they claimed to have arrived at Matthew's prior-published bombshell concept independently of Matthew. Darwin and Wallace excused themselves for doing so by claiming (as a proven lie in Darwin's case) that Matthew's ideas were unread by any naturalist  / anyone at all before 1860. In reality, as opposed to the credulous zombie-hoard mynah birding of Darwin's lies (e.g. de Beer 1962, Mayr, 1982), by Darwin's followers and promoters, the Darwinists, Darwin's and Wallace's friends, associates, correspondents and facilitators and their influencers influencers, the naturalists Loudon, Chambers, Selby and Jameson all read and cited Matthew's book pre 1858 (see Sutton 2014).

So what constitutes 'smoking-gun' evidence in this case?  I would propose that there are three areas where the usefulness of the phrase needs to be examined.
  1.  Smoking gun evidence that Darwin or Wallace read the original ideas in Matthew's (1831)book themselves or in some other way copied from it.
  2. Smoking gun evidence that, as opposed to the 'no naturalists read it' premise, that other naturalists did read Matthew's orignal ideas pre-1858.
  3. Smoking gun evidence that Darwin lied in 1860, and in 1861 (and in every edition of the 'Origin of Species' thereafter) when he claimed that no naturalist / no one at all read Matthew's orignal ideas before 1858. 
Smoking gun evidence

The 'New Data' discovered in 2014 and first published in Nullius in Verba provides better than mere smoking gun evidence for 2 and 3 above. We know other naturalists did read Matthew's orignal ideas pre-1858, because they cited his 1831 book before that date and mentioned those original ideas. The 100 per cent proof of the matter exists in the print record of the 19th century published literature.  And Darwin's lies are proven because before he wrote them Matthew informed him in print in the Gardener's Chronicle (1860), very clearly and forcefully, that at least two naturalists did read his ideas and that his book was banned by the public library of Perth in Scotland (see Sutton 2015 and also Sutton 2016). But, with regard to point 1, above, we have not discovered a letter to or from Darwin or Wallace, or a notebook or diary entry, anywhere, that indicates Darwin or Wallace read or were told about Matthew's (1831) book before they replicated so much of Matthew's orignal work. But the fact that much of Darwin's and Wallace's and the notebooks and correspondence of other 19th century naturalists is lost or destroyed means that absence of evidence in this regard cannot rationally be considered as evidence of absence it ever happened.

However, what we do have with regard to point 1 is solid proof that some form of pre-1858 Matthewian knowledge contamination of the minds of Wallace and Darwin could have happened via Loudon, Selby, Chambers, Jameson and others newly discovered to have read and cited Matthew's (1831) book pre-1858.

And we know that knowledge contamination can take place in at least three main ways (see Sutton 2016):
  1. Innocent Knowledge Contamination: The spread of original ideas in a prior-publication via (a) subsequent published sources on the topic, which failed to cite the Originator as their source, or (b) word of mouth and/or correspondence to the replicator by those who read the Originator’s work or communicated with others who did — understood its importance in whole or simply in part — but failed to tell the replicator about its existence. 
  2. Reckless or Negligent Knowledge Contamination: (a) The replicator reads the original publication, absorbs information such as original ideas and examples and terms, but forgets having read it — and never does remember. (b) The replicator reads the original publication and takes notes, but forgets the source of the notes. (c) The replicator is told about original ideas in a publication by someone — who understands their importance in whole or simply in part — who explains they come from a publication, but the replicator fails to ask the name of the author and title of the publication. 
  3. Deliberate Knowledge Contamination (science fraud): The replicator reads the original publication, or is told about its contents, takes notes, or is given notes, remembers this, but pretends otherwise.

Gunsmoke evidence

From the solid evidence from the correspondence and publication record of the 19th century (see Sutton 2104 for the fully cited proof of the following facts) we know that academics talk and share sources and ideas. We know that editors insist on changes and insertions to text and we know that Loudon edited two of Blyth's influential articles - which influenced Darwin and Wallace. We know that Loudon was a friend of Lindley (William Hooker's best friend, who was the father of Darwin's best friend Joseph Hooker) and a correspondent of William Hooker. And we know that William Hooker was Wallace's mentor and correspondent from as early as 1848 and that they met before Hooker wrote a letter of introduction for Wallace in 1848 so that he could set off specimen collecting for cash - some of which came his way from Hooker. We know that Selby edited Wallace's Sarawak paper,  was a friend of Darwin's father and Darwin's good friend and most frequent correspondent Jenyns. We know that Selby was a close associate of William Hooker's circle and we know that Chambers met and corresponded with Darwin pre-1858. Moreover, we know that Jameson was a regular correspondent of William Hooker pre-1858. All this, if not "smoking gun" evidence, is certainly evidence of multiple whiffs of gunsmoke; a type of evidence classed as "circumstantial evidence". In the story of Darwin, Matthew and Wallace there is an awful lot if it - and much more than is covered in this blog post (see Sutton 2014) This circumstantial evidence, combined with more than smoking-gun proof of Darwin's lies, and proof that the original ideas in Matthew's (1831) book were cited by Darwin's and Wallace's influencers and their influencer's influencers pre-1858, completely punctures the 'no naturalists read Matthew's orignal ideas pre-1858' and the 'honest Darwin' myth' - upon which is founded the old paradigm of Darwin's and Wallace's supposed dual independent conceptions of Matthew's prior-published hypothesis.



Conclusion

We do have two important items of better than smoking gun evidence of Matthew's pre-1858 influence on Darwin's and Wallace's work on natural selection. These are points 1 and 2 below. And we do have smoking gun evidence, as well as lots of gun smoke evidence in point 3 below:
  1. We 100 per cent know that the orignal ideas in Matthew's (1831) book were read by Darwin's and Wallace's influencers and their influencer's influencers before Darwin and Wallace replicated them. This is better than 'smoking gun' evidence, because it absolutely disproves the 'no naturalist read Matthew pre-1859' premise that underpins the old Darwinite paradigm of Darwin's and Wallace's dual independent conceptions of Matthew's prr-published hypothesis.
  2. We 100 per cent know Darwin lied when he claimed no naturalist /no one at all read Matthew's prior-published ideas before he replicated them. This is also better than 'smoking gun' evidence, because it completely disproves the honest Darwin premise that also underpins the Darwinite paradigm of Darwin's independent conception of Matthew's prior-published hypothesis.
  3. Due to our rational understanding of the concept and typologies of  of 'knowledge contamination' we have a lot of smoking gun, evidence that those who read Matthew's (1831) orignal ideas had many opportunities to influence Darwin and Wallace and influence their influencers with Matthew's original ideas  many years before 1858. This represents "gun smoke evidence" that such knowledge contamination took place.
  4. We have no smoking gun evidence that Darwin and Wallace did copy Matthew's orignal ideas or were knowledge contaminated by them pre-1858.
From this four-point analysis, it can be argued that insistence upon smoking-gun evidence to substantiate claims of Darwin's and Wallace's probable Matthewian 'knowledge contamination' is based upon a misunderstanding of the better than mere smoking gun paradigm busting facts of the New Data in this story and of the gun-smoke significance of the multiple examples of newly discovered clear routes for Matthewian knowledge contamination of the pre-1858 minds of Darwin and Wallace.


Please note: Wikipedia's corrupt editors are not averse to altering its story-lines by plagiarising my orignal discoveries and passing them off as their own (as they did with my unique discovery of the origination of the term 'moral panic') - so their fallacious account of the origin of the term "smoking gun" will undoubtedly change at some point, but without citation to this blog post. 





Mathew and the DNA Conception Question


Did Matthew really first conceive, by inspired deduction, the idea of DNA?





















On page xiii: of his book, Evolutionary Concepts in the Nineteenth Century, Dempster (1996) writes:

"Patrick Matthew's importance derives from the fact the first naturalist to set correctly the organic history of the world.  To that he added the mechanism of the Natural Process of Selection. And to that he added an inspired speculation: 'Does organised existence, and perhaps all material existence, consist of one protean principle of life capable of gradual circumstance-suited modifications and aggregations, without bound under solvent or motion-giving principle, heat or light?' That principle we now call DNA."

On page 207 of his book, Evolutionary Concepts in the Nineteenth Century, Dempster (1996) writes:

'Molecular biology is a sign of the times. The centre of gravity of evolutionary studies has gradually moved fro the earth sciences to  microbiology. In considering the host of  molecules which are and have been studied, then one can appreciate that DNA given time can create anything. The wonder is that only Patrick Matthew has conceived that there might be a Proteus-like principle: '...capable of gradual circumstance-suited modifications and aggregations (Note F Appendix). Without that speculation he also saw clearly that life was a series of 'diverging .'

And on p. 208 of the same book Dempster has it:

'Today we would combine with time DNA's ability to create any living creature of plant. Patrick Matthew envisaged a Proteus principle of life; DNA would fit that speculation.'




Power of occupancy

I have blogged earlier on how an essay by Benjamin Franklin may have motivated and influenced Matthew to put his original conception of macro evolution by natural slection into a book on naval timber. My book "Nullius in Verba"  explains how the intensely religious naturalist Selby (Wallace's Sarawak paper editor and friend of Darin's father and Darwin's great friend Jenyns) mentioned that he did not understand this when he cited Matthew's book in 1842.  Later, the naturalist Jameson correspondent of (William Hooker, father of Darwin's best friend Joseph Hooker and mentor of Wallace) mentioned its implications as important when he cited Matthew's book in 1853 (some details here) with regard to the fact that timber could in fact thrive better in areas other than those where it was naturally found  where Christians believed .  The reason being that some trees, with a greater power of occupancy, occupy the best soil areas  - in nature - thereby successfully competing against other species.

What follows are text images form Matthew's (1831) book On Naval Timber on the topic of power of occupancy.


Page 302

Page 303






































Page 357



Page 384
















Page 387

Matthew's understanding of the power of occupancy of certain species in nature informed the philosophy of his second book 'Emigration Fields' Matthew (1839) in which he proposed the lower classes of the British take over the lands of others, since the aristocracy enjoyed an unnatural power of occupancy in British society.


Saturday, 20 August 2016

Rational Explanations
















Get the facts, rationally argued. Here


Darwin an Co were shown how to understand macroevolution by natural selection by
 Matthew's (1831) prior-published bombshell heretical conception many years before 
Darwin and Wallace replicated it and then claimed to have done so independently of
 Matthew.

Dr Arlin Stoltzfus on the Credulous Darwin Deification Cult Zombie Hoard

Dr Arlin Dr Arlin Stoltzfus (2016), of the University of Maryland, Institute for Bioscience and
Biotechnology Research on the New Data, teaches brainwashed Darwin worship cult members the importance of objective scholarship and the dangers of fact denial in science (From the Sandwalk blog, August 2016):

 'I would be happy to explain to you what is the point of exploring the evidence regarding who deserves credit for an idea such as natural selection. The point is the same as for any other idea: as a scholar, one wants to get this right, because correct attribution is an important part of the social fabric of scholarship, including science. The correct source for natural selection, under the normal rules of attribution, is Patrick Matthew. If, instead, everyone decides to give credit to some revered figure who came in second-place, then this diminishes scholarship and science, and makes it into more of an elite popularity contest. Here's a rhetorical question for you: would you like credit to go to scientific royalty, or would you like science to be more of a meritocracy?

Everyone agrees that Darwin had more influence. There is no difficulty in adjusting our language to respond to this fact, e.g., consider the case of the Modern Synthesis. Mayr, Simpson and Dobzhansky clearly were the most influential in promoting modern neo-Darwinism, but we attribute the actual combination of Darwinism and genetics to Fisher, Haldane and Wright. We could simply refer to Darwin in the same way-- we could say that natural selection was proposed by Matthew, and perhaps Wells, then popularized by Darwin and his influential social circle.

However, what has happened in this case is that, when the evidence that contradicts misinformation peddled by Darwin and his followers is brought forth, Darwinian zombies lurch forward with the same ignorant dismissals, non sequiturs, and so on, which are then cut down, which just makes room for the next wave of zombies.

So, the point is really about the zombie horde. If there were no zombie horde, then the point would be about attribution, but given that the horde is activated whenever Darwin is criticized, the zombie horde becomes the central issue.'





















A series of flashcards that set out Darwin's proven self-serving and glory-theft plagiarising lies about the pre-1858 readership of Matthew's (1831) original ideas can be found on the Patrick Matthew Blog: Here

Friday, 19 August 2016

Darwinist New Paradigm Resisting Bias Exposed by the Independently Verifiable Facts Rationally Presented

The New Data facts (Sutton 2014) in the history of discovery of natural selection, most of which are
my original discoveries, are proving immensely unpopular with Darwinists at the time of writing, because they have overturned their prior comfortable, yet unevidenced belief system in Charles Darwin's and Alfred Wallace's honesty and originality. For example, as its historical revisions page reveals (see the facts here), at the time of writing, administrator-editors on Wikipedia are systematically deleting them from its Patrick Matthew page. 

The facts, discussed in this article, have also been reported in the national press (Caven 2014, and Daily Telegraph 2014) . but were rejected on the Daily Telegraph science editor's, Sarah Knapton's, science blog site by Charles Darwin's biographer, James Moore, on the stated grounds that he merely believed they may not be original discoveries and his mere belief that they have probably been interpreted in the opposite direction. Given his purported expertise in this field, it is strange that Professor Moore is unaware of the fact that the New Data completely punctures the 155 year old Darwinite knowledge claim, started by Darwin's proven lies (see Sutton 2016 for the full peer-reviewed evidence) that Matthew's (1831) original conception of macro evolution by natural selection went unread by any naturalists /anyone at all, before Darwin and Wallace replicated it and claimed it as their own. Of course, as the published facts in fact prove, Moore was completely wrong and so is perhaps most surprised by that today, because my original discovery that other naturalists in fact did read Matthew's prior-existing publication of the original theory of macroevolution by natural selection, before Darwin and Wallace replicated it without citing Matthew, is new and it disproves the prior believed, unevidenced, claims propounded by the world's leading evolutionary biologists that no one at all or no biologists (e.g. see de Beer 1962 and Mayr 1982) read Matthew's original ideas before 1860. 

On the Wikipedia Patrick Matthew page, the agenda driven dishonest editor,  going by the name Dave Souza, is systematically and fraudulently denying the existence of data that is 100 per cent proven to exist, it being in print in the 19th century publication record. Souza (see here ) was actually caught in the act of deleting and denying the existence of what is independently verifiably proven to exist in historic published print. Souza's behaviour is seemingly a result of his dishonest frustration with the facts that prove Matthew's (1831) orignal conception of macroevolution by natural selection in fact was read and understood by others before Darwin and Wallace replicated it, without citing Matthew, claimed to have discovered it independently of Matthew or anyone else, and then excused their behaviour by writing the fallacy that no naturalists / no one at all read Matthew's orignal ideas pre-1858. 
As this essay goes on to to prove, Darwin's and Wallace's influencers, facilitators and their influencers influencers read matthew's prior published idea because they cited them in the literature before Darwin or Wallace so much as put pen to private notepad on the topic of any kind of organic evolution.  Therefore, it is a fact that these New Facts are new and they are facts about what was actually published. It is impossible, therefore, then or now, to interpret them, rationally, in any opposite way. Moore's rejection of this unwelcome 'Darwin and Wallace, Independent Discoverers of a Prior-Published Hypothesis, Paradigm-Busting' New Data was made by him without, apparently, so much as having bothered himself to read a word of it! 

















Similarly proven wrong (see Sutton 2016), is the Darwinist historian, Peter Bowler's now redundant belief that Darwin's private notebooks and essays prove he took nothing from Matthew. Both Moore and Bowler are wrong because I, (Sutton 2014) originally discovered, that Darwin's private notebooks and private essays were started after or in the same year Darwin's associates and influencers, and his influencers' influencers actually read Matthew's ideas and then cited his book in the literature. The hard fact-based evidence that what has been discovered, about the pre-1858 readership of Matthew's original ideas is new, original, independently verifiable and significant is published in my peer reviewed philosophy of science article on this topic (see Sutton 2016).

The unwelcome New Facts are revealed in greater detail in this essay.
Many writing on the history of the discovery of natural selection and Patrick Matthew, including Charles Darwin (1860, (1861), Alfred Russel Wallace (1879), Cock and Forsdyke (2008) Milton Wainwright (2008), Christopher Hallpike (2008), Richard Dawkins (2010)William James Dempster (1983), Mike Sutton (2014), and Mike Weale (2015) conclude that Patrick Matthew (1831) - in his book On Naval Timber and Arboriculture - published the full hypothesis of macroevolution by natural selection many years before Darwin and Wallace put pen to private note paper on the topic and 27 years before Darwin and Wallace (1858) had their papers read before the Linnean Society. 
Dempster (1983), Dawkins (2010) , Sutton (2014)  and Weale (2015) conclude that only Matthew got the entire complex theory of macroevolution by natural selection before Darwin and Wallace (1858) and Darwin (1959)  replicated it. Matthew, the proven originator of this, the unifying theory of biology, took his original ideas on natural selection forward for humankind in his second book Emigration Fields (1839), which was even recommended in the national press of New Zealand as essential reading for Captain Fitzroy of the HMS Beagle (Sutton 2016). 

Matthew's orignal work was followed in print by Wallace and Darwin in 1858, who never cited him and excused themselves for not doing so by writing that Matthew's original ideas went unread until Matthew brought them to Darwin's attention in 1860. However, the facts of the historic publication record, as this essay demonstrates, prove that excuse to be a fallacy. Moreover, it is revealed that the facts prove Matthew to have been a multiple victim of science fraud by Darwin's plagiarising glory theft.
Matthew uniquely coined his discovery the 'natural process of selection', and 28 years later Darwin (1859), in the Origin of Species, uniquely shuffled Matthew's term into his own unique re-coinage the 'process of natural selection'. Darwin and Wallace each claimed to their graves to have arrived at exactly the same theory, independently of Matthew and independently of one another.
As Robert Merton (1957) made clear in the classic and authoritative text on priority in science, the Royal Society has not officially changed its position on the rules of priority since those rules were established in the first half of the 19th century. Since that time, the Arago Effect (Strevens 2003), is the rule that has always been seen as a totally inflexible principle and has been followed as such in all other disputes over priority for discovery in science, except in the Matthew, Darwin and Wallace case. The Arago Effect, described by Merton, and also by Strevens, as a norm in cases of scientific discovery, is that being first to publish to the public, and most importantly in print, is everything when it comes to deciding who has priority for an idea or discovery in cases where one scientist claims to have made the same discovery independently of another.
Totally ignoring the Arago Effect convention of priority for scientific discovery, Richard Dawkins (2010) has built upon prior rationale for denying Matthew full priority over Darwin, for his own prior published idea and as an original great thinker and influencer in science, by creating a new, unique in the history of scientific discovery, "Dawkins's Demand Rule". Effectively, Dawkins demands that Matthew should not have priority over Darwin and Wallace, and his reasoning for that view is based upon the recently proven fallacious premise (Sutton 2014) that Matthew's unique views went unnoticed. Moreover, Dawkins demands also that Matthew should have and would have "trumpeted his discovery from the rooftops" if he understood it properly. However in making this post-hoc demand, Dawkins does not, as other writers (e.g. Desmond and Moore 1991 and Secord 2000) have done with regard to the fears and difficulties of writing on natural selection at this time, which faced Darwin and Chambers, explain that the first half of the 19th century was a time of great social unrest, tension and violent rioting, which made writing on the topic of natural selection a great threat to the social controlling interests of natural theology. Is Dawkins willfully ignorant of the fact that in the year 1794 Pitt passed his notorious Two Acts against 'Seditious Meetings' and 'Treasonable Practices'? In particular, the former curtailed topics of discussion at institutional scientific societies by requiring them to be licensed and proscribing discussion of either religion or politics (Sutton 2015a). Perhaps it is for reasons of historical ignorance that Richard Dawkins, whilst holding forth as an expert on the history of science, fails also to address the issue that Matthew's Chartist political ideas were in his book and that he linked these seditious ideas quite clearly to the implications of his heretical natural selection discovery. Consequently, it should go without saying, that this meant his unique ideas were especially both seditious and heretical in the 1830's and 1840s. How then was Matthew meant to trumpet his discovery when he had effectively silenced himself from doing so under the scientific conventions that followed in the wake of the laws of the land? Matthew explained this very fact to Darwin in 1860, in his second letter in the Gardeners' Chronicle (Matthew 1860b) when he explained that a respected naturalist of an eminent university feared to teach his bombshell ideas for fear of pillory punishment, and that his book was banned by the public library of Perth for the same reasons.  Moreover, leading Darwinists in the field of evolutionary biology and many others are wrong to simply follow Darwin's lead in the Gardeners' Chronicle and in every edition of the 'Origin of Species' after 1861 by claiming that Matthew's (1831) original ideas on natural selection were unread by any naturalists or more specifically any biologists, because newly available Big Data research techniques reveal concrete evidence form the historic 19th century publication record, from the independently verifiable published literature, that Matthew's (1831) book was, in fact, (all pre 1858) cited by a total of seven naturalists, and four of them were known to Darwin/Wallace - including Loudon (1832), who - after writing that he was far from certain that Matthew did Matthew have something original to say on the subject of 'the origin of species', no less, edited and published two of Blyth's influential papers, Blyth (1835) and (1836). Blyth was reported by Darwin (1861) from the third edition of the Origin of Species onwards to be his most prolific and helpful correspondent on the topic of organic evolution of varities. Robert Chambers (1832) also cited Matthew, and he then went on to write (anonymously) the highly influential book on evolution, the Vestiges of Creation, which ran to 12 editions after being first published in 1842 (Chambers 1842).  Prideaux John Selby (Selby 1842), who was the Chief Editor of the journal that published Wallace's (1855) Sarawak paper, on evolution, no less, also cited Matthew's 1831 book, And Selby commented also upon text in Matthew's book on the natural selection relevant subject of pine trees thriving in rich non-native soils if there are no deciduous competitors, as did Jameson (1853), a botanist of the East India Company and regular correspondent of William Hooker - the father of Darwin's best friend Joseph Hooker.
There is no direct evidence that Darwin read Matthew's book pre-1860. The fact that he wrote that he sent out for a copy after Matthew's (1860) complaint in the Gardeners Chronicle, only if true, meant that he did not have a copy in his extensive library or easy access to it elsewhere in 1860. But it is a fact Darwin was dishonest, because he did write falsehoods (Darwin 1860; 1861) about the lack of readership of the original ideas in Mathew’s book. The fact Darwin knew he was writing self-serving falsehoods about Matthew's readership is confirmed by the fact that Matthew (1860a), in his first letter to the Gardeners' 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  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.’
Hence, new analysis of the literature, therefore, robustly calls Darwin's legendary honesty into question with reference to the weirdly neglected disconfirming evidence of the publication record. 
I (Sutton 2014, 2016) present published evidence from Matthew's and Darwin's 1860 letters in the Gardeners' Chronicle that Darwin published two falsehoods, by way of claiming in the Gardeners' 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, to repeat the obvious and significant fact already relayed, Matthew had already informed Darwin in print in the Gardeners' 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 Gardeners' Chronicle,, Matthew (1860b) directly corrected Darwin’s fallacious claim that no naturalists had read his book, by informing Darwin that an unnamed naturalist, a professor of an unnamed prestigious university, 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". See Sutton 2016 for a peer reviewed account of the fact and significance of these plagiarism by glory-theft lies that were written by Darwin, as an excuse for his replication without citation of Matthew's prior-cited orignal ideas. 
From the third edition of the The Origin of Species onwards, Darwin (1861) acknowledged Matthew's earlier work, stating that Matthew :"...clearly saw...the full force of the principle of natural selection", but wrote an outrageous falsehood where he continued: "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 Gardeners' Chronicle, on April 7th, 1860." Because we know Matthew in 1860 told him otherwise, at length and in detail in his two letters to the Gardener's Chronicle. Moreover, the natural selection relevant text that Matthew published from his book came from its main body as well as its Appendix. It is a myth started by Darwin that he hid all his ideas in the book's appendix. Darwin knew the truth was otherwise, despite starting the Matthew Appendix Myth, because he wrote to Joseph Hooker admitting it (Darwin 1860b):  "The case in G. Chronicle seems a little stronger than in Mr. Matthews [sic] book, for the passages are therein scattered in 3 places. But it would be mere hair-splitting to notice that."
From 1860 onward, Matthew would claim credit for originating the concept of natural selection, but it is an unevidenced legend that he had calling cards printed with "Discoverer of the Principle of Natural Selection" on them. The closest reality comes to this myth is the fact that the opening page of his second book contains the strapline 'By Patrick Matthew, author of "Naval Timber and Arboriculture"(Matthew, 1839). And he proclaimed himself as “Solver of the problem of species” on the title page of his political pamphlet “Schleswig-Holstein” (Matthew, 1864).
Matthew was multiply victimised by Darwin and Wallace and their friends. For 13 years, Professor John Lindley, a correspondent of both Darwin and Wallace and best friend of William Hooker, father of Darwin's best friend Joseph Hooker, perpetuated the myth, which he first created, that Lobb was first to introduce the greatly admired and internationally famous California giant redwood trees into Britain, when in fact it was Matthew's son John who first introduced them and named them Wellingtonia (Gardener's Chronicle 1853. See also Sutton 2016a)  and it was Patrick Matthew, not Lindley, who was to first to propagate those trees in Britain. For 13 years, Lindley's Journal had the letter proving this fact. The highly suspicious facts of Lindley's bogus claims came to light only a year after his death, which is six years after Darwin replicated Matthew's ideas and excused himself by describing Matthew as an obscure Scottish writer on Forest Trees (Darwin 1861a) Lindley's highly suspicious glory-theft was first discovered by Sutton (2016a). From the perspective of some form of probable Matthewian knowledge contamination of the pre-1858 brains of Darwin and Wallace, the fact that Lindley was the best friend of William Hooker, father of Darwin's best friend Joseph Hooker, and the fact that William Hooker was Alfred Wallace's mentor and correspondent before he headed off as a specimen collector and before he claimed to have conceived Matthew's prior published hypothesis in a miraculous and unique fit of cognitive enhancement, occurring in a state malarial delirium, should not pass unnoticed. Moreover, it should not pass unnoticed that Lindley was a friend and co-author with Loudon. 

A typology of knowledge contamination

By way of a proposed typology of possibilities of “knowledge contamination” (Sutton 2016), all of which we now know could have occurred in Darwin’s case, prior published unique ideas may contaminate the minds and work of others in three main ways: 
  1. Innocent Knowledge Contamination: The spread of original ideas in a prior-publication via (a) subsequent published sources on the topic, which failed to cite the Originator as their source, or (b) word of mouth and/or correspondence to the replicator by those who read the Originator’s work or communicated with others who did — understood its importance in whole or simply in part — but failed to tell the replicator about its existence. 
  2. Reckless or Negligent Knowledge Contamination: (a) The replicator reads the original publication, absorbs information such as original ideas and examples and terms, but forgets having read it — and never does remember. (b) The replicator reads the original publication and takes notes, but forgets the source of the notes. (c) The replicator is told about original ideas in a publication by someone — who understands their importance in whole or simply in part — who explains they come from a publication, but the replicator fails to ask the name of the author and title of the publication. 
  3. Deliberate Knowledge Contamination (science fraud): The replicator reads the original publication, or is told about its contents, takes notes, or is given notes, remembers this, but pretends otherwise.
In 1860, after Darwin admitted Matthew had priority for first publishing the full principle of natural selection, his friend and Correspondent David Anstead mocked Matthew, essentially portraying him as a delusional and unoriginal crank in the Dublin University Magazine (Anstead 1860), 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 . Dickens and Darwin were fellow members of the Athenaeum Club, both joined on the same day (see Sutton 2014). In 1867, Matthew was platform blocked at the Dundee meeting of the British Association for Advancement of Science. Darwin's great friend Charles Lyell was guest of honour and papers on natural selection were given at the meeting by Wallace and by Chambers. Matthew's Published Letter - complaining at this gross injustice - was addressed to the Editor of the Dundee Advertiser (see Dempster 1983).
A most telling question in the story of Matthew, Darwin and Wallace is: why did Darwin lie in his 1860 letter in the Gardeners' Chronicle when he claimed no naturalist had read Matthew's unique ideas after Matthew (1860) informed him in that very same publication that John Loudon (one of the most famous botanical naturalists of the first half of the 19th century) had reviewed it? Moreover, why did the botanist Joseph Hooker - who knew the botanist Loudon well, and whose botanist father and botanist friends such as John Lindley knew him very well indeed - approve Darwin's defense letter before sending it on (re-dated) to the Gardeners' Chronicle in which Darwin claimed in his defense that no naturalist had read Matthew's book pre 1860 - when Hooker had earlier read Matthew's letter telling Darwin that Loudon had reviewed it? Why, despite knowing about Loudon, and another (unnamed) naturalist that Matthew told Darwin about in his second letter in the Gardeners' Chronicle did Darwin go on to write the following year, in 1861, in his famous "Historical Sketch", of his precursors and influencers, in third edition of the Origin of Species, and in every edition of it thereafter, that Matthew's (1831) unique ideas on natural selection had gone unnoticed? Moreover, why did he lie about Matthew's ideas being unread to the famous French naturalist Quatrefages de BrĂ©au in his letter of April 25, 1861 when he 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."?
The rules and conventions for determining who has priority for discovery in science have been weirdly ignored in the telling of the story of the discovery of natural selection. According to the Arago effect, Patrick Matthew has full priority over Darwin and Wallace; even if the latter pair did discover natural selection independently of the Originator, Patrick Matthew. Moreover, the fact that the three naturalists, Loudon, Chambers and Selby played such influential roles at the epicenter of influence and facilitation of the pre-1858 work of Darwin and Wallace is arguably sufficient to claim that some kind of knowledge contamination from Matthew to Wallace and Darwin appears more likely than not. That apparent likelihood is surely increased by the fact that Loudon was part of William and Joseph Hooker's friendship network of botanists. In particular he was great friends with John Lindley, who was the best friend of William Hooker. And we know Lindley, most suspiciously, perpetrated the 'first fallacy fuelled glory theft' against Matthew before Lindley's correspondents Wallace and Darwin multiply victimised him by replicating his original ideas on natural selection without citing him and then falsely claiming in their defence that those ideas were unread before 1860. Moreover, Joseph Hooker, being Darwin's best friend once wrote once that Loudon was better than a dozen other naturalists put together and along with Lindley wrote a stunning review of one of Loudon's many botanical books - Arboretum Brittannicum. For his part, Robert Chambers was a geologist associate of Lyell - Darwin's good friend and geological mentor. As early as 1847 Lyell knew Chambers to be the anonymous author of the Vestiges  (Klaver 1997) , Chambers and Darwin met and corresponded in 1847 and thereafter engaged in correspondence. In 1847 Chambers gave Darwin a copy of the Vestiges, leading Darwin to write to his friend Joseph Hooker that he knew Chambers was its secret author. And Prideaux Selby was a good friend of many of Darwin's friends, including Darwin's father (see Sutton 2106 for the fully referenced evidence).

Despite the numerous strained arguments in that direction made by George Beccaloni (2016) in the comments section of the Patrick Matthew blog, the fact that Matthew was himself more likely than not influenced by earlier thinkers on organic evolution (see Sutton 2015 for the evidence) is not any kind of rational argument against the evidence that Darwin and Wallace were probably knowledge contaminated by Matthew's prior publication of the full complex hypothesis of macro evolution by natural selection. Moreover, the fact that Darwin uniquely four-word shuffled Matthew's unique name for his conception from Matthew's (1831) "natural process of selection" into "process of natural selection", and that both Darwin and Wallace replicated Matthew's artificial v natural selection analogy of differences and more besides. See Sutton 2016 for the fully cited evidence and for greater details of the naturalists in Darwin's and Wallace's social networks who, it is newly discovered, read Matthew's book before 1858.

The Missing Smoking Gun 

Some commentators on the new data have rightly noted that there are no classic  'smoking gun'  objects of physical evidence in the form of a letter or note in a diary etc that Darwin or Wallace definitely read and copied the work of Matthew, or were definitely told about Matthew's work pre-1858. However, we do have some significant better then smoking gun evidence, because have two important items of better than smoking gun evidence of Matthew's pre-1858 influence on Darwin's and Wallace's work on natural selection.These are points 1 and 2 below. And we have smoking gun evidence (point 3) of who really did read Matthew's ides pre-1858:
  1. We 100 per cent know that the orignal ideas in Matthew's (1831) book were read by Darwin's and Wallace's influencers and their influencers before Darwin and Wallace replicated them. This is better than 'smoking gun' evidence, because it absolutely disproves the 'no naturalist read Matthew pre-1859' premise that underpins the old Darwinite paradigm of Darwin's and Wallace's dual independent conceptions of Matthew's prr-published hypothesis.
  2. We 100 per cent know Darwin lied when he claimed no naturalist /no one at all read Matthew's prior-published ideas before he replicated them.This is also better than 'smoking gun' evidence, because it completely disproves the honest Darwin premise that also underpins the Darwinite paradigm of Darwin's independent conception of Matthew's prior-published hypothesis.
  3. Due to our rational understanding of the concept and typologies of of 'knowledge contamination' we have a lot of smoking gun, evidence that those who read Matthew's (1831) orignal ideas had many opportunities to influence Darwin and Wallace and influence their influencers with Matthew's original ideas may years before 1858. This represents "gun smoke evidence" that such knowledge contamination took place.
  4. We have no smoking gun evidence that Darwin and Wallace did copy Matthew's orignal ideas or were knowledge contaminated by them pre-1858.
From this four-point analysis, it can be argued that insistence upon smoking-gun evidence to substantiate claims of Darwin's and Wallace's probable Matthewian 'knowledge contamination' is based upon a misunderstanding of the better than mere smoking gun paradigm busting facts of the New Data in this story and of the gun-smoke significance of the multiple examples of newly discovered clear routes for Matthewian knowledge contamination of the pre-1858 minds of Darwin and Wallace.

Conclusion

The paradigm of Darwin's and Wallace's supposedly dual independent conceptions of Matthew's prior-published orignal conception of macro evolution by natural selection is bust and completely overturned by the newly discovered fact other naturalists in fact did read and cite Matthew's book, containing the orignal conception of macro evolution by natural selection. The old Darwinite paradigm of tri-independent discovery of this, the unifying theory of biology, was built on the now newly fact-punctured premise (eg. de Beer 1962 Mayer 1982), which was started by the lie told by Darwin that became the credulously parroted myth that no naturalist read Matthew's (1831) orignal ideas before Darwin and Wallace replicated them and claimed them as their own independently conceived ideas. In fact, as the New Data 100 er cent proves, as opposed to none, Darwin's and Wallace's influencers, and their influencer's influencers did read and cite Matthew's book, and the orignal ideas in it, before either Darwin or Wallace put so much as private pencil to private notepad on the the topic of organic evolution. 

Discussion and the way forward

The newly discovered phenomena of who Darwin and Wallace knew, and who their friends and influencers knew, really did read Matthew's prior publication of the hypothesis of macroevolution by natural selection, cannot be explained by the old and credulous Darwinite paradigm of tri-independent discovery of Matthew's prior published conception. 

In Mazur (2015), The Paradigm Shifters: Overthrowing the hegemony of the culture of  Darwin, citing Kuhn, James Shapiro explains how paradigm changes in the study of are first met with resistance by those with a vested interest in old debunked paradigms. But the themes he mentions of the power of human nature as driven by love and the love of power are most fitting to resistance paradigm changes in the history of scientific discovery:

'...over time and as technology develops, partly as a consequence of what the scientific enterprise is doing, new phenomena come up and can't be explained away any longer in the same way. In the end there are always a group of people who defend the existing belief system more than is justified by the empirical observations.' 

At the time of writing, leading Darwinists are actively engaged in shameful online obscene abuse of the author, lies and pseudo-scholarly fact denial. See the fully cited proof of this dreadful behaviour here.  History will not be kind to such pseudo scholarship and those disseminating it, because society relies upon the highest standard of scholarship, honesty and integrity from scientists and historians. As the Dysology hypothesis proposes, lies, fraud and other pseudo scholarship in these areas, if tolerated, may well lead to a spiraling decline of veracity in academic scholarship and education. 

References


Anstead, D. (1860) The Dublin University Magazine, Vol. 55, January to June, 717-718
All the Year Round, Volume 3 edited by Charles Dickens, June 1860, p. 177



Blyth, E. 1835. An attempt to classify the “varieties” of animals. The Magazine of Natural History. (8) (1), Parts 1-2.



 Blyth, E. (1836) Observations on the various seasonal and other external Changes which regularly take place in Birds more particularly in those which occur in Britain; with Remarks on their great Importance in indicating the true Affinities of Species; and upon the Natural System of Arrangement. The Magazine of Natural History: Volume 9. p. 393 – 409. 



Caven, B, (2014) Did Darwin copy ideas for Origin of Species. The Scottish Daily Mail. April 11th. p. 21.


Chambers, W. and Chambers, R (1832). Chambers's Edinburgh Journal. William Orr. Saturday March 24th . p. 63.

Chambers, R. (anonymous) (1844) Vestiges of the Natural History of Creation. New York. Wiley and Putnum."



Cock, A. G. and Forsdyke, D. R. (2008). Treasure your Exceptions: The Science and Life of William Bateson. Springer.



Darwin (1838) "Darwin’s Notebooks of Books to Read and Books Read"

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 Linnaean Society of London. Zoology 3 (20 August) pp. 45-50.

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, First Edition, London. John Murray.

Darwin C. R. (1860). Natural selection. Gardeners' Chronicle and Agricultural Gazette no. 16 (21 April): 362-363.

Darwin, C.R. (1860b) Letter to Hooker. 13th April, Darwin Correspondence Project, Available at: http://www.darwinproject.ac.uk/entry-2758

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, First Edition, London. John Murray. Third Edition.

Darwin, C. (1861a) Letter to Jean Louis Armand de Quatrefages de Br´eau. 25 April

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.

de Beer, G. (1962)- Royal Society Darwin Medal winner - Wilkins Lecture for the Royal Society page 333. 

Dempster, W. J. (1983) Patrick Matthew and Natural Selection. Edinburgh. Paul Harris Publishing.

Desmond, A. and Moore, J. (1991). Darwin. London. Penguin Books.

The Gardeners' Chronicle, 1853 , July, Vol. 14 page 373.

The Gardeners' Chronicle & New Horticulturist, 1866 Volume 26 p. 1191

Hallpike, C. R. (2008) How We Got Here: From Bows and Arrows to the Space Age. Author House. Milton Keynes.

Klaver, J. M. I. (1997) Geology and Religious Sentiment: The Effect of Geological Discoveries on English Society and Literature between 1829 and 1859. Brill publishing. (see page 66 footnote 16.)

Loudon, J.C. (1832) Matthew Patrick On Naval Timber and Arboriculture with Critical Notes on Authors who have recently treated the Subject of Planting. Gardeners' Magazine. Vol. VIII. p.703.

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. London. Longman and Co.

Matthew, P. (1839) Emigration fields: North America, the Cape, Australia, and New Zealand; describing these countries, and giving a comparative view of the advantages they present to British settlers. Adam Black. Edinburgh. Longman and Co.London.

Matthew, P. 1860a. Letter to the Gardeners Chronicle. Nature's law of selection. Gardeners' Chronicle and Agricultural Gazette (7 April): 312-13.

Matthew, P. (1860b) ‘Letter to the Gardeners' Chronicle. Nature's law of selection’, Gardeners' Chronicle and Agricultural Gazette, (12 May) p. 433.

Matthew, P. (1864) Schleswig-Holstein. Spottiswoode and Co. London.

Mayr, E. (1982) - Royal Society Darwin Medal winner - The Growth of Biological Thought: Diversity, Evolution and Inheritance. p.499. Harvard University Press.

Mazur, S (2015)The Paradigm Shifters: Overthrowing the hegemony of the culture of  Darwin, Caswell Books, New York.

Merton, R. K. (1957) Priorities in Scientific Discovery: A Chapter in the Sociology of Science. American Sociological Review. Volume 22. No.6. December. pp. 635-659.

Secord. J. A. (2000) Victorian Sensation: The Extraordinary Reception, and Secret Authorship of Vestiges of the Natural History of Creation. Chicago and London. The University of Chicago Press.

Selby, P. J. (1842) A history of British forest-trees: indigenous and introduced. London. Van Voorst.

Strevens, M. (2003) The Role of Priority in Science. Journal of Philosophy. pp:55-79.

Sutton, M. 2014 Nullius in Verba: Darwin's greatest secret. Cary NC. USA. Thinker Media inc.

Sutton, M. (2014a) The hi-tech detection of Darwin’s and Wallace’s possible science fraud: Big data criminology re-writes the history of contested discovery..Note: This is a peer reviewed British Society of Criminology journal article.

Sutton, M. (2015) On Knowledge Contamination:New Data Challenges Claims of Darwin’s and Wallace’s Independent Conceptions of Matthew’s Prior-Published Hypothesis. Philosophical Aspects of Origin Volume 12.

Sutton, M. 2015a Darwinist Defenses Simply Can't Stand Against the Powerful New Data.

Sutton, M. (2016a) Race for Giant Redwoods Fame. The Patrick Matthew Blog.

Telegraph (2014) Darwin "Stole" Theory of Natural Selection. The Daily Telegraph, page 12. May 28th 2014
Wainwright, M. (2008) Natural Selection: It’s Not Darwin’s (Or Wallace’s) Theory. Saudi Journal of Biological Sciences 15 (1) 1-8 June, 2008.

Wallace, A. R. (1855) On the law which has regulated the introduction of new species. The Annals and Magazine of Natural History. Series 2. 16. 184-196.

Wallace, A.R. (1879) 9 May. Letter to Samuel Butler. Unique WCP identifier: WCP1586. Wallace Letters Online. Natural History Museum.
Weal, M. (2015) Patrick Matthew's Law of Natural Selection. Biological Journal of the Linnean Society.