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, 30 December 2015

Darwinists in a State of Synchronized Denial

'The familiar usage of the term 'denial' refers to the maintenance of social worlds in which an undesirable situation (event, condition, phenomenon) is unrecognized, ignored or made to seem normal'.

                                                                  Cohen, s. (2001, p.51)

In my last blog post The States of Denial Spectrum Hypothesis: Does All Biased and Prejudiced Scholarship Cause and Nurture Hate Crime?I asked  whether Sir Gavin de Beer and Ernst Mayr would have been awarded Royal Society Darwin Medals had they published on the topic of the discovery of natural selection by writing the truth they must have known (as the world's leading experts on the topic) that the naturalist botanist and biologist John Loudon did read Matthew's (1831) prior published discovery of natural selection before Darwin's (1858 and 1859) - supposedly independent - replication of it.  Loudon - who was well known to Darwin's best friends - then went on to edit two of Blyth's influential articles on evolution. Blyth was Darwin's most prolific informant. Moreover, Darwin knew Loudon's work well and his personal copies of Loudon's books are heavily annotated with Darwin's scribblings.

Instead, of writing the truth, de Beer and Mayr simply parrotted Darwin's blatant lie that none read Matthew's original ideas on natural selection before Darwin replicated them.

Furthermore, in that last blog post on this topic, I asked also why it is that Mike Weale (2015) in his Linnean Society article elected to steer away from any critical discussion of the significance of the New Data (that pe-1858, in addition to Loudon three more of Darwin's and Wallace's, associates friends, facilitators and influencers had read and cited Matthew's book and original ideas on natural selection). Weale was fully aware of the New Data (data which I uniquely discovered) because we had corresponded at length on the topic. And yet Weale wrote no more than a simple and completely unevidenced evasive statement that  - in his mere opinion - the evidence is weak that Darwin was influenced by Matthew. How such a weak statement was permitted to pass unchecked in a peer reviewed science journal should beggar belief. The fact that many Darwinists no doubt would not agree with me on that point is pertinent to the topic of 'states of denial', in my mere opinion. Would the Editor and peer reviewers for the Linnean Journal have ever allowed Weale to reveal the facts of the New Data about Darwin's lies about Matthew's readership in their publication? Would any biologist dare try?

Stanley Cohen's (2001) book 'States of Denial' provides us with some interesting observations, which
might provide sound explanations for the behaviour of the above biologists and their peer reviewers.

When considering the applicability of Cohen's explanations for why the significance of important uncomfortable facts are ignored or treated with  'canny unresponsiveness' (Cohen, 2001 p.41), readers should perhaps bear in mind the fact that Darwin is considered 'scientific royalty' by both the Royal Society and the Linnean Society organisations and that he was a multiple award winning member of both. Darwin's grandfather and father before him and his close friends and admirers were all members - as were his and their relatives after his death.

Cohen (2001, p.45):

'...distortions and and self-delusions are most often synchronized - within families, intimate relations or organizations. Whole societies have unmentioned and unmentionable rules about what should not be openly talked about. You are subject to a rule about obeying these rules, but bound also by a meta-rule which dictates that you deny your knowledge of the original rule.'

The leading Darwinist who have written to me - in confidence - warning me about how my bold criticism of Darwin and his Darwinists will seriously harm my academic career and that no peer reviewed biology or history of biology Journal would ever publish the New Data  about who we now newly know did read Matthew's ideas before Darwin and Wallace replicated them- will most certainly know exactly what Cohen meant when he wrote (Cohen, 2001, p. 45) generally on such synchronization of individual and organisational 'states of denial': 

'They are playing a game. They are playing at not playing a game. If I show them I see they are, I shall break the rules and they will punish me. I must play the game, of not seeing that I see the game.'

Cohen's work allows us to speculate that no Royal Society Darwin Medal is ever going to be awarded to anyone who publishes the truth about how Darwin lied and cheated Matthew out of the glory due to him for discovering natural selection and influencing other scientists on the topic - who went on to influence Darwin on it. Moreover, the unstated rules of the painful disconfirming facts 'denial game' will dictate that no peer reviewed biology journal will ever publish and allow critical discussion of the dreadfully embarrassing New Data, which punctures all the myths supporting the debunked old premise of Darwin's and Wallace's independent discoveries of Matthew's original prior-published discovery, and his explanatory examples.

In 2014, in Nullius in Verba: Darwin's greatest secret , I revealed that several of Darwin's and Wallace's friends and influencers did read Matthew's original ideas and explanatory examples before Darwin and Wallace replicated them and then claimed in their fallacious defence that no one read them before they did so.

I don't expect the dreadfully biased  Royal Society will award me with a Darwin Medal for proving that its namesake was a plagiarizing science fraudster by glory theft and that its past recipients were in a 'state of denial' that enabled them to parrot Darwin's lies in order to continue his corruption of the history of discovery of natural selection from beyond the grave. Neither do I expect any biology journal to publish the facts I originally discovered that so embarrass the published work of its editor/s, peer reviewers and esteemed collected 'expert' authors.

Sad Conclusion

Cohen's States of Denial confirms the Frozen Donkey Hypothesis where the Darwin Industry and all its deluded servants are concerned. Shame on them all! History will not treat them well for their cowardly and pseudo-scholarly dysology.

NOTE If you found this blog post thought provoking you may be interested in seeing how these ideas are taken forward in my later post on blind-sightedness as a neuroscience explanation for how Darwin scholars all missed plain and highly significant facts that were literally right under their noses as they read them (Here) 

Tuesday, 29 December 2015

The Darwinist's Comfort Zone

There is a link to Darwinists on this topic. It is in the conclusion. Before we get there, here is how I arrive at it:

 On Christmas Eve, I commissioned my friend the Nottingham portrait artist Gabe Woods to paint an oil on canvas picture of the metaphorical 'comfort zone'.
I want this picture to use as a teaching device for the small minority of students who complain that we are making
Mike Sutton
In my comfort zone
in Nottingham, England.
them think too hard. Honestly. I'm serious. This actually is a student complaint these days.
"Only when you leave your comfort zone," I always inform such uncomfortably-brain-hurting students, "do you ever learn anything. Be glad, therefore, to be uncomfortable in your university education."
Furthermore, I say:
"Would you otherwise wish to pay so much for what you already know - or could find out without our expert help? We are here not so much to impart knowledge - but to help you think. And good thinking - 'best thinking' is uncomfortable."
Gabe and I discussed some ideas as to how he might fulfil this brief. I've no idea what we are going to end up with. I want it to be something students can be asked to go and pay a visit to. Something they will stand before, contemplate and be - hopefully - moved and inspired by.

Meanwhile, I decided to use the BigData-IDD method    to find the origins of the term.

At the time of writing (28.December, 2015) the shameless plagiarizing editors of the unreliable so-called encyclopedia Wikipedia have no idea when the term was first coined.
I discovered that once again I can get back further than the etymological experts with my BigDada-IDD technique. For example, the best-selling etymologist David Wilton writes   :
'comfort zone, n. When introduced in 1923, this term referred to home heating. It wasn’t until the 1970s that the phrase began to be applied metaphorically.'
Wilton is right about the built environment heating origins. But the term occurred in print at least a decade earlier than his best efforts could detect - in the 'Heating and Ventilating Magazine' Building Systems Design, Volume 10, (1913) on page    30:
ESTABLISHMENT OF A COMFORT ZONE. Before working very long, it became evident that there was a temperature and humidity range within which the occupants of the rooms were comfortable.
In my opinion, far more interesting, however, is that the extremely rare phrase 'comfort's zone' occurred first, and once only, in a poem of 1819. In 'Aonian Hours and other Poems' by W. H. Wiffen:   
Is this the etymological origin of 'comfort zone'?
Oxford Dictionaries online    has a good explanation of the concept of the comfort zone metaphor:
(a) A situation where one feels safe or at ease or settled. (b) Method of working that requires little effort and yields only barely acceptable results: if you stay within your comfort zone you will never improve.'
The notion of the 'comfort zone' is useful for thinking about how 'states of denial' help people live with uncomfortable facts.

An interesting publication on the metaphor of the comfort zone

Conclusion and the way forward for Darwinists

The notion of the 'comfort zone' sits well with Cohen's (2001) explanations of 'states of denial'. My research into Darwin's and Wallace's plagiarizing science fraud by glory theft of Matthew's original prior publication of the full complex hypothesis of natural selection reveals that Darwinists of the present are behaving exactly like those of the past in refusing to leave the comfort zone state of fact denial .

Saturday, 26 December 2015

Mike Sutton's States of Denial Spectrum Hypothesis

What Might Possibly be the Impact of the Current States of Denial of the New Discovery of Matthew's influence on Darwin's and Wallace's Influencers?

Stanley Cohen's (2001) 'States of Denial: Knowing about atrocities and suffering   ' explains how people deny the significance of sufficient evidence that something is happening or happened in the past. Cohen explains how people do this with regard to a range of things such as marital infidelity, alcoholism, terminal illness, child abuse and genocide:
'One common thread runs through the many different stories of denial: people, organizations, governments or whole societies are presented with information that is too disturbing, threatening or anomalous to be fully absorbed or openly acknowledged. The information is therefore somehow repressed, disavowed, pushed aside or reinterpreted. Or else the information 'registers' well enough, but its implications - cognitive, emotional or moral - are evaded, neutralized or rationalized away.'
Stanley Cohen (2001) States of Denial: Knowing about atrocities and suffering. p. 1.

Linking Cohen's ideas on 'states of denial' with Sykes's and Matza's (1957) Classification of the Techniques of Guilt Neutralization    provides a powerful combination of explanatory frameworks that helps us to understand how bias is the beginning of the spectrum of dysology that leads ultimately to the capacity to create hate crime in human societies.
If the logic of Sutton's 2015 'States of Denial Spectrum Hypothesis' stands up and if it is not disconfirmed by evidence regarding how hate crimes emerge and flourish, then - for example - the current evolutionary biology micro-cultural 'state of denial' of the existence and significance of the New Evidence (Sutton 2014   ) about who did read Patrick Matthew's (1831) original ideas on natural selection before Darwin and Wallace (1858) replicated them is a social problem in need of a solution. And if it is, then dreadfully biased historical scholarship in the field of evolutionary biology is just one among the great multitude of examples of published poor scholarship, in all fields of enquiry, in need of rather urgent attention.
Mike Sutton's (2015) 'States of Denial Spectrum Hypothesis'.

A note on 'states of denial' and the scientific community's belief in the version of events supplied by evolutionary biologists on the discovery of natural selection.

Evolutionary biologists have got themselves into an embarrassing "State of Denial" about the newly discovered sufficient evidence that Matthew did influence Darwin and Wallace..
The literature record proves that Darwin lied by writing the very opposite to the fact we 100% know he knew to be true when. in 1860, Matthew informed him in writing that two naturalists had read Matthew's (1831) original ideas on natural selection. One - the famous naturalist John Loudon - cited him. Darwin's published lie in response to these facts was that Matthew's ideas had been completely unread. And Darwin convinced his readers by that very lie that Matthew could not have influenced him or Wallace or any of their pre-1858 influencers.
Darwin's lie was malevolent (Cohen p, 22) because he knew all the facts but blatantly lied to conceal the truth (here). According to Cohen, such convincing lying reinforces the liar's own denial of the real facts (Cohen, S 2001 'States of Denial' page 31).
Incidentally, besides the fact his 1831 book is newly discovered to have been cited by seven naturalists pre 1858 (as opposed to the Darwinist version that none read his ideas) the originator of natural selection, Patrick Matthew, most likely influenced Herbert Spencer (via Robert Chambers - who is one of those seven naturalists). See here   .
The New Data that proves there were routes for knowledge contamination from Matthew's 1831 ideas to Darwin and Wallace via the four naturalists they knew who read Matthew's book and cited it pre-1858. In fact, they cited it years before Darwin or Wallace published a word on the topic. Cohen (p. 22) helps us interpret what this means:
'Denial is always partial, some information is always registered. This paradox - or doubleness - knowing and not knowing is the heart of the concept. It creates what Wurmser nicely calls 'Pseudo-stupidity.'
And we have seen plenty of pseudo-stupidity so far in the mass media and on various social media with various attempts to spin the obvious significance of the new facts into a Darwinist comfort blanket of denial that they have any significance at all - despite the fact they completely puncture the myth upon which Darwinists have built their paradigm of belief in Darwin's and Wallace's claims to have each independently discovered Matthew's prior-published original ideas. Those same ideas we now newly know did influence Darwin's and Wallace's facilitators, influencers and friends who not only read but cited them in the newly re-discovered literature. See: here   .
It seems to me - after reading Stanley Cohen's excellent book "States of Denial: Knowing about atrocities and suffering' - that such biased scholarship combines to create an enabling environment for all kinds of dangerous quackery and claptrap, as well as a dysological pseudo-scholarly soup in which hate crime can grow and flourish. If this turns out to be the case, then evolutionary biologists - writing disproven fallacies on the history of discovery of natural selection - are just one micro-culture of scholars who are unwittingly (or perhaps half-wittedly) making the world a dangerous and unpleasant place in which to live.See: here. I believe we all have a duty to ensure such pseudo-stupidity does not prevail in the world of science and history of discovery.

Key points from Cohen's 'States of Denial' on the question of the significance of the newly discovered fact that other naturalists known to Darwin and Wallace did read Matthew's prior-published ideas on natural selection before Darwin and Wallace replicated those ideas and then claimed in their defence that no naturalists had read them before 1858.

  • "Why though is it a 'paradox' that denial relieves us from immediate anxiety, but that we must 'renounce its comforts' to remain alert to long-term dangers?" (p.31)[Note: I think my States of Denial Spectrum answers this question].
  • In 1860 Matthew, wrote two letters to the Gardener's Chronicle to inform it editor and readership that he had - 27 years before Darwin and Wallace - had published his original discovery of the entire complex hypothesis of natural selection and his original coining of the artificial versus natural selection 'analogy of differences', which perfectly explains it. Both letters were published. Darwin (1859) and Wallace (1858) replicated both. In his first letter, Matthew informed Darwin that the internationally famous botanist/biologist and polymath naturalist John Loudon had reviewed his book. Darwin knew Loudon's work well. His pre-1858 notebooks are jam packed with references to his work - some of which Darwin heavily annotated. Darwin's best friend Joseph Hooker knew Loudon and his work well - pre-1858 he to referenced that work many times and, reviewed it highly in the press and corresponded in praise of Loudon. That review contained the following line:(Loudon, 1832: 702-703) '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 . Darwin replied to Matthew's letter with a lie - claiming the opposite to what he had informed by Matthew - he wrote that no naturalist had read Matthew's ideas:" I think that no one will feel surprised that neither I, nor apparently any other naturalist, had heard of Mr Matthew's views, "Darwin's 1860 letter of reply was published in the Gardener's Chronicle. Matthew wrote a second letter to Darwin - correcting him by making it very plain that another naturalist had also read his original ideas but feared teaching them because they trespassed on the territory of natural divinity, which dominated science in the first half of the 19th century. Matthew (1860) wrote back and the Gardener's Chronicle published his second letter: 'I notice in your Number of April 21 Mr. Darwin’s letter honourably acknowledging my prior claim relative to the origin of species. I have not the least doubt that, in publishing his late work, he believed he was the first discoverer of this law of Nature. He is however wrong in thinking that no naturalist was aware of the previous discovery. I had occasion some 15 years ago to be conversing with a naturalist, a professor of a celebrated university, and he told me he had been reading my work “Naval Timber,” but that he could not bring such views before his class or uphold them publicly from fear of the cutty-stool, a sort of pillory punishment, not in the market-place and not devised for this offence, but generally practised a little more than half a century ago. It was at least in part this spirit of resistance to scientific doctrine that caused my work to be voted unfit for the public library of the fair city itself. The age was not ripe for such ideas, nor do I believe is the present one,..' Darwin responded to this second letter with his same lie. Following Matthew's detailed information to the contrary he wrote a private letter To the famous French naturalist Quatrefages de BrĂ©au in his letter of April 25, 1861 Darwin lied:"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." Then in 1861 in the Third Edition of the Origin of Species - and in every edition thereafter, Darwin continued that exact same great self serving lie about Matthew's book, and who read the ideas in it. That third lie corrupted - for 155 years - the history of the discovery of natural selection. Darwin (1861) wrote in the third edition of The Origin of Species -despite being informed of the exact opposite by Matthew only the year before - the following lie:' Unfortunately the view was given by Mr Matthew very briefly in scattered pages in an Appendix to a work on a different subject, so that it remained unnoticed until Mr Matthew himself drew attention to it in the Gardener’s Chronicle.' These are clear lies by Darwin because as Cohen (2001,p, 37) explains, in relation to lies in general, they are assertions that are known to be untrue. They were written with an intention to deceive and dupe the world about the facts and the false intentions of the liar - Charles Darwin.
  • Darwin's best friend - Joseph Hooker - approved Darwin's lying letter of reply to the Gardener's Chronicle, signed, re-dated it and forwarded it to the Editor at Darwin's insistence. Hooker, who had earlier in 1858 misled the Linnean Society into believing Wallace gave his permission for his Ternate paper to be read before the society in accompaniment with Darwin's, knew Loudon was an internationally famous naturalist and yet he approved Darwin's lie. Why?. We may speculate that Hooker was possibly engaged in an act of what Cohen p, 40 refers to as ' self-deception'. : "So long as they remained ignorant of the details they could 'say later 'We didn't know'". Perhaps Hooker knew there were facts to the contrary, but was deliberately ignorant of the details of those facts?In this role Hooker played in the story of Matthew and Darwin, he may have sought to ensure he remained willfully ignorant of exactly what Loudon had written in 1832 about Matthew's original ideas.'
  • Alternatively, Hooker knowing colluded in a great cover-up with Darwin in order to help his best friend commit the World's greatest science fraud by way of plagiarising glory theft of the influence of the originator Matthew on the scientific community. This might be so, since I originally discovered in 2014    that Loudon went on to edit two journal articles on the topic of organic evolution written by Blyth (1855, 1856). And Byth was Darwin's prolific informant and influencer. For Darwin or Hooker to admit that Loudon cited Matthew's original ideas would mean admitting that 'knowledge contamination' routes existed between Matthew's 1831 book and Darwin's and Wallace's supposedly independent replications of his original ideas and explanatory examples.
  • We know Darwin acted in 'bad faith' by lying that Matthew's bombshell ideas were unread before he replicated them, and that Hooker may have been acting in similar bad faith. But what of other Darwinists? Cohen (2001, p.40) wrote of how the majority of Germans in WWII must have known that something dreadful was being done to the Jews but that they chose, as an act of 'bad faith', not to want to know the details. In that way, they both knew and did not know that something dreadful was happening. They were in a particular 'state of bad faith denial' Perhaps, by way of analogy, the Royal Society Darwin medal winners Sir Gavin de Beer and Ernst Mayor were acting in bad faith when they simply parroted Darwin's great lie that Matthew's ideas were unread by anyone/any biologist. Being the World's leading experts in the field we might be forgiven for insisting that they must surely have read Matthew's two l1860 letters to Darwin about two naturalists who had read his original ideas. Remaining ignorant of the details whilst parroting Darwin's lie suggests de Beer and Mayr were both in a 'state of denial' - either as an act of deliberate bad faith - or else by 'active denial' (Cohen 2001, p. 32) involving 'plugging leaks' in the story of Darwin's and Wallace's claimed independent discoveries of Matthew's original ideas with deliberate lies. In light of what I have uniquely discovered, it would be an act of bad faith for us not to ask the Royal Society: 'Could de Beer and Mayr (or any other Darwin Medal winner) win the Darwin Medal by writing the dreadful truth about Darwin's lies about who really read Matthew's ideas before Darin replicated them? If not, why not?
  • In light of my original (Sutton 2014)    discovery that, as opposed to the prior 'knowledge claim' that no one known to Darwin or Wallace read Matthew's original ideas on natural selection before they replicated them in 1858, that seven naturalists read them - four known to Darwin/Wallace and three (Loudon, Chambers and Selby) at the epicentre of influence on their work on the same topic - read and cited Matthew's book pre-1858 - it would be an act of bad faith for us to fail to investigate the private journal and correspondence archives of those seven naturalists (and those they knew) to see whether Darwin or any of his closest associates (such as Lyell, Joseph and William Hooker, Wallace, Huxley or Jenyns etc) knew about Matthew's original discovery pre-1858.
  • In light of the 100 per cent proof that - as opposed to none - we now know that there are several newly-unearthed routes of potential knowledge contamination of Matthew's original ideas into the pre-1858 minds of Darwin and Wallace via their influencers, it is arguably an act of bad faith, therefore for other scholars (e.g.Weale 2015   ) to deny the significance of the New Data by simply, without evidence, or critical argument, dismissing its significance by merely claiming that the evidence that Matthew influenced Darwin and Wallace is simply "weak" and not, therefore, worthy of their academic consideration.
  • Darwin's expert biographer, James Moore (2014)    responded in the national press to the original news that I had discovered naturalists who did read and cite Matthew's ideas. His response was the knee-jerk dismissal that he doubted I had discovered anything new that had not already been discovered and interpreted in the oppsite direction. Moore's fallacious dismissal (Cohen 2001, p.31) of the facts being anything new might - depending on his state of mind and intentions - be described as (a) 'a psychotic negation of manifest facts'; (b) a 'plugging of leaks' in the orthodox story by lying (Cohen 2001, p.31) (c) a refusal (state of denial by dually knowing and not knowing) refusal to believe it or an inability to 'take it in' (Cohen 2001, p.24.) because, if true, the facts seriously threaten his sense of personal and professional cultural identity

Conclusion and the way forward

There is much in the behaviour of Darwin and his Darwinists that is worthy of further investigation by social scientists interested in 'states of denial', veracity, and plagiarising science fraud glory theft .

The notion of the 'comfort zone' is useful for helping us understand why Darwinists have chosen to be in a 'state of denial' of the uncomfortable facts about their ludicrously deified namesake.  

Friday, 25 December 2015

Newly Discovered Routes for Knowledge Contamination between Patrick Matthew, Robert Chambers, Herbert Spencer and Alfred Wallace

Spencer began writing n the topic of evolution in his 1851 book 'Social Statistics', London. John
Herbert Spencer

Patrick Matthew - the originator of natural selection theory - most likely influenced Spencer. As yet there is no evidence he did so directly, but he probably did so via Robert Chambers, who cited Matthew's 'On Naval Timber in 1832' (Sutton 2014).  And we know also that Spencer read Chambers' (1844) Vestiges of Creation before writing on the same topic of evolution.

Afer reading and citing Matthew's book, which contained the full hypothesis of natural selection,  Chambers wrote (anonymously) the best selling book  Vestiges of Creation- which put evolution in the air in the first half of the 19th-century - and had it published in 1844 - seven years before Spencer penned a word on the topic of evolution.

Although he later rejected it in the 1860's, Spencer's earliest work in science, in the 1840's, was on the topic of phrenology.  In this regard, like Wallace he was greatly influenced by Chambers's popularisation of this pseudo-scientific doctrine. For example, in the same year (1844) Chambers's Vestiges was first published, Spencer wrote an article on phrenology for the Medical Times (Spencer, H. (1844) The Situation of the Organ Amativeness. The Medical Times. Vol.10. pp, 305-306).

In 1852, Spencer informed his father that he met with Robert Chambers (see Duncan, D. The Life and Letters of Herbert Spencer (Cambridge Library Collection p. 64. This was the year after Spencer's first work that touched upon evolutionary ideas:  Spencer, H. (1851) Social Statics, or the Conditions Essential to Human Happiness.

Routes of Mathewian Knowledge Contamination to Herbert Spencer's Brain

Here then we see a clear possible route of knowledge contamination from the originator Matthew to Chambers - to Spencer from Chambers's published work and also from Chambers to Spencer via anything Chambers may have said to him about Matthew's 1831 book. Moreover, we know that Darwin read Spencer's work before publishing his ideas on natural selection.

Just as Chambers - whose brain is known to have knowledge contaminated by Matthew's original ideas (because he cited Matthew's book in 1832) - was Wallace's greatest influence and an admitted influence on Darwin and wider society on the topic of organic evolution, he is acknowledged as a great influence on Spencer.

Spencer coined the term 'survival of the fittest' in 1864.

Spencer, H. ( 1864) The Principles of Biology, Volume 1. p. 444. London. Williams and Norgate.

Spencer's term (1864) 'survival of the fittest' is simply a re-hash of Matthew's (1831, p. 387) original phrase  'selection by the law of nature', which Darwin (1859) shortened to 'selection by nature' on page 224 of the Origin of Species. Spencers re-hash is more elegant but less precise than Matthew's (1831, p.385) original prose:

'Nature tests their adaptation to her standard of perfection and fitness to continue their kind by reproduction.'

Matthew wrote further about the natural process of selection on pages 364-365 using examples of fierce strength, cunning and swiftness being present in naturally selected species:
'This law sustains the lion in his strength, the hare in her swiftness, and the fox in his wiles.'
Furthermore, Matthew (pp 307-308 wrote of the survival of 'the best circumstance suited for reproduction', which is a far more precise phrase than Spencer's, which has been wrongly taken by non-experts to imply that the most athletic survive in competition.

Moreover, Matthew uses his phrase in the context of his original Artificial versus Natural selection analogy of Differences, that Wallace used in his 1858 Ternate paper, Darwin used in his unpublished essay and then to open Chapter One of the Origin of Species (Darwin 1859).

Matthew was the first to use the powerfully simple Artificial versus Natural Selection Analogy of Differences to explain the complexity of natural selection. This is probably the most important explanatory analogy ever published in the history of humanity. Loren Eiseley (1979) had earlier discovered that Darwin's unpublished (1844) replicated Matthew's (1831) plants grown in nurseries versus those growing wild analogy of differences to explain the operation of natural selection. What none before me picked up on is that Darwin (1859) opened Chapter 1 of the Origin of Species with Matthew's unique explanatory analogy:

'When we look to the individuals of the same variety or sub-variety of our older cultivated plants and animals, one of the first points which strikes us, is, that they generally differ much more from each other, than do the individuals of any one species or variety in a state of nature. When we reflect on the vast diversity of the plants and animals which have been cultivated, and which have varied during all ages under the most different climates and treatment, I think we are driven to conclude that this greater variability is simply due to our domestic productions having been raised under conditions of life not so uniform as, and somewhat different from, those to which the parent-species have been exposed under nature.'

Matthew (1831) had earlier written on page 308 - in the main body of his book:

Thursday, 24 December 2015

Patrick Matthew: The New Data

Pay a Visit to 


 Big Data technology enabled me to newly 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 their replications of both.

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  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, study the New Data, and make up your own mind.

                                                          Dr Mike Sutton (2015)

Saturday, 19 December 2015

A Message to Isis in Syria from beyond the grave

The Replicator Response Cocktail

My research is in the area of priority and multiple independent discovery is in its early stages, but so far in the case of Darwin, Wallace and Matthew and others I have found a pattern appears to be emerging.

The Cocktail of Responses from Replicators when Confronted by Originators

Friday, 18 December 2015

Sunday, 13 December 2015

Prezi on Darwin's Lying, Plagiarising Science Fraud by Glory Theft

Click here and then click the arrows below the slide to run the presentation to see exactly how Here
Darwin lied and misled the world for 155 years about the influence of the originator of natural selection theory:

Saturday, 12 December 2015

The Royal Society Darwin Medal Scandal: You won't win a Darwin Medal for writing the truth about the discovery of natural selection

Darwin Medal
It is universally accepted by leading evolutionary biologists that Patrick Matthew was first to go into  print with the full and detailed hypothesis of natural selection almost three decades before Wallace and Darwin repeated the same ideas and explanatory examples but failed to cite the originator even though his greatest influencer Blyth had his work edited by a famous naturalist (Loudon) who cited Matthew's original ideas in 1832. Wallace's (1855) Sarawak paper was edited by Selby, another who read and cited Matthew's ideas. And Robert Chambers - who influenced both Darwin and Wallace on evolution - cited Matthew's book before writing the Vestiges of Creation (see Sutton 2015).

In an earlier blog, I revealed that the Royal Society Darwin Medal winners Sir Gavin de Beer and Ernst Mayr both published the nonsense-on-stilts that Matthew's ideas were not read by any naturalists of biologists before 1860 - a year after Darwin replicated the in the Origin of Species (See my blog of 26th August 2015 for the hard facts).

In this blog post, I reveal the totally fallacious Darwin deification claptrap on this topic published by a third Royal Society Darwin Medal Winner - his name is William D. Hamilton. 

Narrow Roads of Gene Land: The Collected Papers of W. D. Hamilton Volume 2: Evolution of Sex: Evolution of Sex Vol 2 (Evolution of Sex, 2) - page 211:

'Darwin, not Patrick Matthew gets the full credit for evolution by natural selection because Darwin wrote his ideas clearly and persistently with extreme multiplicity of illustrations, not a few paragraphs (clear though those paragraphs also were) of note F of an appendix to a book on naval timber and arboriculture.'

Hamilton's biased fallacy spreading confirms the proposition that Royal Society Darwin Medals are not given out to those who write the truth. It seems they are earned by those who write easily discoverable falsehoods to prop up the reputation of  the Royal Society's science royalty darling Charles Darwin at the glory theft expense of the truth that Matthew should be considered the originator and most eminent author on the topic of natural selection.

As Matthew's 1860 letters to Darwin in the Gardener'a Chronicle - and even a cursory examination of his book -  prove Matthew's ideas were spread throughout his 1831 book and not just concentrated in its Appendix. In disconfirmation of the Darwinist myth, propagated by Darwin (1861)  from the third edition onwards of the Origin of Species, that Matthew merely enunciated natural selection in the appendix of his book, it is in fact in the main body of his book where Matthew used facts about varieties bred by means of artificial selection as a way to demonstrate how differently nature worked to mankind, because natural selection results in fewer but more robust varieties.

The following texts represent just three examples among many others that could be used to prove just how completely fallacious was Hamilton's (1998) claim that Matthew's ideas were brief, unclear, and solely in note F of the appendix of his book: For example, in the main body of his book, he wrote (Matthew 1831)

Matthew (1831 Page 67):
‘Our common larch like almost every other kind of tree consists of numberless varieties, which differ considerably in quickness of growth, ultimate size, and value of timber. This subject has been much neglected. We are, however, on the eve of great improvements in arboriculture; the qualities and habits of varieties are just beginning to be studied. It is also found that the uniformity in each kind of wild growing plants called species may be broken down by art or culture and that when once a breach is made, there is almost no limit to disorder, the mele that ensues being nearly incapable of reduction.’

Matthew, 1831 Page 76):
‘The consequences are now being developed of our deplorable ignorance of, or inattention to, one of the most evident traits of natural history, that vegetables as well as animals are generally liable to an almost unlimited diversification, regulated by climate[1], soil, nourishment, and new commixture of already formed varieties. In those with which man is most intimate, and where his agency in throwing them from their natural locality and dispositions has brought out this power of diversification in stronger shades, it has been forced upon his notice, as in man himself in the dog, horse, cow, sheep, poultry.- in the apple, Pear, plum, gooseberry, potato, pea, which sport in infinite varieties, differing considerably in size, colour, taste, firmness of texture, period of growth, almost in every recognisable quality. In all these kinds man is influential in preventing deterioration, by careful selection of the largest or most valuable as breeders; but in timber trees the opposite course has been pursued. The large growing varieties being so long of coming to produce seed, that many plantations are cut down before they reach this maturity, the small growing and weakly varieties, known by early and extreme seeding, have been continually selected as reproductive stock, from the ease and conveniency with which their seed could be procured; and the husks of several kinds of these invariably kiln dried, in order that the seeds might be the more easily extracted! May we then wonder that our plantations are occupied by a sickly short lived puny race, incapable of supporting existence in situations where their own kind had formerly flourished - particularly evinced in the genus Pinus more particularly in the species Scots fir; so much inferior to those of Nature's own rearing, where only the stronger, more hardy soil, suited varieties can struggle forward to maturity and reproduction?

We say that the rural economist should pay as much regard to the breed or particular variety of his forest trees, as he does to that of his live stock of horses, cows, and sheep. That nurserymen should attest the variety of their timber plants, sowing no seeds but those gathered from the largest, most healthy, and luxuriant growing trees, abstaining from the seed of the prematurely productive, and also from that of the very aged and over mature; as they, from animal analogy, may be expected to give an infirm progeny, subject to premature decay.’

Matthew (1831, p. 308):
‘Man’s interference, by preventing this natural process of selection among plants, independent of the wider range of circumstances to which he introduces them, has increased the differences in varieties particularly in the more domesticated kinds…’

Thursday, 10 December 2015

Pierre Bourdieu, Darwinist Cultural Concealment and Patrick Matthew

On Patrick Matthew
Pierre Bourdieu famously wrote 'The function of sociology, as of every science, is to reveal that which is hidden'. This book reveals that which was once hidden.
'Nullius in Verba: Darwin's greatest secret' is based on new discoveries that I made using hi-tech Big Data research methods.
Long neglected publications, now re-discovered, re-write the history of the discovery of natural selection. In light of what has been unearthed in these publications, the orthodox Darwinist account for why we should believe Charles Darwin's and Alfred Wallace's stories of their independent discoveries of Patrick Matthew's prior published hypothesis is newly proven to be completely wrong. The Darwinist account is wrong simply because the premises upon which it rests are newly punctured myths.
It doesn't matter how beautiful the theory of natural selection is. It doesn't matter how smart Charles Darwin, attributed with its independent discovery was. It doesn't matter what the majority view is. If it doesn't agree with the independently verifiable facts about who really did read Patrick Matthew's prior published discovery and hypothesis of natural selection, and when, the Darwinist story that no such people read it is wrong. And that means the story of Darwin's independent discovery of natural selection is wrong. And it is wrong because it is based on the newly disproven premise that no one Darwin knew, or was influenced by, or who his influencers were influenced by, read Matthew's original ideas and explanatory examples before he replicated them.
Prior to the publication of the original findings in my book, the history of the discovery of natural selection was founded upon the fixed-false-belief that no one known to Darwin or Wallace had read Patrick Matthew's (1831) full prior published theory 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 (1844), which influenced Darwin and Wallace on the topic and 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,
Further newly discovered evidence, including a detailed plagiarism check, six lies Darwin told, and Wallace's doctoring of a letter in his autobiography, strongly suggests that Darwin and Wallace more likely than not plagiarised Matthew's ideas and so committed the World's greatest science fraud.
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, please visit the website: