Poem for a Darwinist

My Dear honest Darwinist,

I don't know how to tell you this. But I feel you should know that we've seen him doing it, and the letters between them.

What he read and then wrote proves he lied about another.

He's been cheating on you, for 156 years! He has a "child" by this other, Matthew, person:

Darwin's 100 per cent proven lies are published in a peer reviewed science journal: http://www.nauka-a-religia.uz.zgora.pl/index.php/pl/czasopismo/46-fag-2015/921-fag-2015-art-05

Letter From Emma Darwin (Wife of Charles Darwin) to Patrick Matthew. 21 November 1863   

Down House (Home of the Darwins). Bromley. Kent.

Dear Sir

Mr Darwin begs me to thank you warmly for your letter which has interested him very much. I am sorry to say that he is so unwell as not to be able to write himself.

With regard to Natural Selection he says that he is not staggered by your striking remarks. He is more faithful to your own original child than you are yourself. He says you will understand what he means by the following metaphor.

Fragments of rock fallen from a lofty precipice assume an infinitude of shapes—these shapes being due to the nature of the rock, the law of gravity &c— by merely selecting the well-shaped stones & rejecting the ill-shaped an architect (called Nat. Selection could make many & various noble buildings.

Mr Darwin is much obliged to you for sending him your photograph. He wishes he could send you as good a one of himself. The enclosed was a good likeness taken by his eldest son but the impression is faint.

You express yourself kindly interested about his family. We have 5 sons & 2 daughters, of these 2 only are grown up. Mr Darwin was very ill 2 months ago & his recovery is very slow, so that I am afraid it will be long before he can attend to any scientific subject.

Dear Sir

Yours truly E. Darwin

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Follow Me on Twitter at Criminotweet: Here   

Darwin Exposed by his Greatest Secret: His lies about routes of knowledge contamination are 100% proven

https://t.co/DxkwuXUhBx pic.twitter.com/bnjWhhOF0I

— BlessedVirginDarwin (@OnNavalTimber) April 23, 2016

Don't be punterized by lies. Get the facts: http://www.nauka-a-religia.uz.zgora.pl/images/FAG/2015.t.12/art.05.pdf

Jim Dempster's Correspondence: The Wavertree Letters [Letter 9]

Wavertree 17.5.98

 Dear Ian,

…

 I wonder if you read the Oldie? Enclosed is Smullen’s article. I hear he contacted you. No offer of an apology is forthcoming and The Oldie pretend they don’t know who he is. …

Only one biologist has taken any interest in my book. A palaeontologist at Bristol University has bought my book and seeks my help with his work on James Hutton! He was a sort of Renaissance man – interested in many subjects – breeding, geology, moral philosophy, chemistry and latent heat (from Black) which started him on vulvanism. He built a house overlooking Salisbury Crags and the view stimulated his interest in geology and now he is recognised as the founder of Geology. John Hunter was the same – anatomist, geologist, surgeon, fossil collector and essays on natural history. There is a bit of all this in my book.

Then Charles Lyell came along with his Uniformitarianism which Hutton and Hunter had recognised so many years before. Penguin has recently reprinted the first edition of Lyell’s Principles with a foreword by Jim Secord of Cambridge (an American who has been here since 1980) which is quite dishonest. The first edition in anti-Lamarck but the 12th edition is pro-Lamarck!

 Hope you are all well

Best wishes,

Jim

Notes and Comments by Mike Sutton 

This looks like someone called Smullen wrote something published in the "oldie" that upset Jim Dempster.

 Here Dempster reveals also that he thinks there is some kind of coordinated deliberate dishonesty afoot to conceal Lyell's move towards Lamarckinsm. 

The First to Be First in the "First to Be Second" Competition

Further information related to this competition can be found on the "Errors & Updates" page on Patrick Matthew.com

I will give one free copy of my book Nullius in Verba: Darwin's Greatest Secret to whoever is first to find each and any other of the terms in the list below  is not a unique Matthewism.

The authors listed in List 2 are those in my book who I found were "apparently first to be second" into published print with apparently unique Matthewisms that were apparently first coined in 1831

In other words, I will give a free copy of my e-book to  anyone who is first to prove that any of the currently remaining terms was published in the literature before January 1st 1831 (the date Matthew's book was first published).

To be clear, a total of 29 free books are currently on offer as prizes in this contest.

One book can be won for each "apparently unique Matthewism" by the person who shows that they first discovered it isn't.

Note: the terms must precisely match those listed below, the same words and in the same order, and they must have been published in English before 1831. Latin or any other language does not count.

 Note: number 22 is now out of the running.

An individual can win as many copies (or redeemable vouchers for the book) as they are able.

The first received correct entry received for each of the remaining terms in the list wins a book for each first to be received correct entry they make.

To submit your evidence, simply cite the source you have found and the relevant page number - along with a clickable link to the relevant publication - in the comments section to the blog post you are currently reading.


List 2 - from Nullius in Verba: Darwin's greatest secret

1.1832 – Mudie: ‘rectangular branching’
2.1833 – Ellerby: ‘plants so far asunder’
3.1835 – Main: ‘luxuriant growing trees’
4.1834 - Conrad: ‘admixture of species’
5.1834 – Roget: ‘living aggregates’
6.1834 – Low: ‘long continued selection’
7.1836 – Rafinesque: ‘evinced in the genus’
8.1837 – Wilson: ‘threatened ascendency’
9.1837 – Anonymous[1]: ‘nature’s own rearing’
10.1837 – Dovaston: ‘sport in infinite varieties’
11.1838 - Anonymous translator: ‘portion of the surface of our planet’
12.1840 – Buel: ‘infirm progeny’
13.1840 – Swackhamer: ‘beat off intruders’
14.1841 – Johnson: ‘adapted to prosper’
15.1841 – Hill: ‘deeper richer soil’
16.1842 – Selby:  ‘greater power of occupancy’
17.1844 – Low: ‘overpowering the less’
18.1846 – Emmons: ‘habits of varieties’
19.1846 – Alabama Supreme Court: ‘Infirmity of their condition’
20.1848: - Charnock: ‘stiffest and most obdurate’
21.1849 – Emmons: ‘deteriorated by culture’
22.1852 – Wilkin: ‘figure is best accommodated’ – Disproven by Grzegorz Malec in 2016
23.1853 - Andrews ‘impressions and habits acquired’
24.1854 – Mure: ‘dogmatical classification’
25.1855 – Fishbourne: ‘power to permeate’
26.1855 – Laycock: ‘mental or instinctive powers’
27.1856 – Gazlay: ‘adaptation to condition’
28.1858 - Powell: ‘restricted adaptation’
29.1858 – Floy: ‘law manifest in nature’
30. 1858 – Leidy: ‘impressions in insects’

Free Lifetime Offer for Darwinists: Cognitive Colonic Irrigation

Don't be punterized like lambs to slaughter @sitp @BiologyAnswers Read the actual FACTS: https://t.co/lYQ0CwPner pic.twitter.com/pQc8UofvF2

— BlessedVirginDarwin (@OnNavalTimber) April 22, 2016

Jim Dempster's Correspondence: The Wavertree Letters [Letter 8]

Wavertree 26.8.97

Dear Ian …

I am beginning to think that Darwinists are people who do not know much about Darwin’s writings. I wrote Ernst Mayr of Harvard (sent him a copy of the book as well) and asked him why he had used an essay by Kentwood Wells (see pages 162-69) rather than Darwin’s statement dealing with Patrick Matthew. He replied in a nice letter and admitted he had never seen Darwin’s statement. That essay of Kentwood Wells is now the received wisdom in England. Poor Norman Simmonds’ essay was turned down by the editor of Biologist because his essay did not conform to that of Kentwood Wells.

We can’t win.

Admittedly Mayr only took a few points from that essay (see page 168).

I have got together an essay on punctuated equilibrium which shows that neither Gould nor Eldredge are aware of what Darwin has in the Origin.

Natural Selection as an Algorithmic process is all the rage now together with self replicating genes! …

The concepts do not seem to me to take us much further in explaining the mystery of speciation or life itself.

 Best wishes,

 Jim

~~~

Notes and Comments by Mike Sutton

(Mayr 1982 The Growth of Biological Thought: Diversity, Evolution and Inheritance p.499):

'The person who has the soundest claim for priority in establishing a theory or evolution by natural selection is Patrick Matthew (1790-1874). He was a wealthy landowner in Scotland, very well read and well traveled (Wells 1974). His views on evolution and natural selection were published in a number of notes in an appendix to his work On Naval Timber and Arboriculture (1831). These notes have virtually no relation to the subject matter of the book, and it is therefore not surprising that neither Darwin nor any other biologist had ever encountered them until Matthew brought forward his claims in an article in 1860 in the Gardener's Chronicle.''

The Royal Society Darwin Medal winning Ernst Mayr was completely wrong, and easily discoverable to be so, when he wrote those words. Because naturalists are by definition biologists. And Matthew told Darwin - indeed told us all - of John Loudon's review of his ideas in the Gardener's Chronicle in 1860. And Loudon was a noted botanist - a naturalist - so by default a biologist.

The statement to which Dempster refers is most likely that by Darwin (1860) in the Gardeners Chronicle where he lied by writing the opposite to what Matthew had prior-informed him. The lie was that no naturalists had read Matthew's original ideas pre-1858. 

It is interesting that despite receiving a copy of Dempster's book, which revealed just how dishonest Darwin was, Mayr never corrected the palpable ignorant and pseudo-scholarly nonsense he had written about Matthew.

My recent article on this topic (Sutton 2016) - published in a peer-reviewed science journal - reveals Darwin's sly lying very clearly, step-by-step. The renowned Darwinist historian, John van Wyhe, resigned from the journal's Expert Advisory Board as soon as my article was published.

The article by Kentwood Wells is very ill informed, poorly researched, and contains errors of fact. It is beloved by Darwin scholars simply because it agrees with their mythology. My book, "Nullius" sets the record straight on Well's ludicrously poor scholarship and shameless "Darwin Lobby" anti-Matthew propagandising.

History will not be kind to biased career-Darwin scholars

Jim Dempster's Correspondence: The Wavertree Letters [Letter 7]

Wavertree 17.2.97

Dear Ian

Thank you very much for all the information you have sent me.

….

I have been in a long correspondence with a retired prof. of genetics N W Simmonds, … He is also a PM fan. I helped him write a brief biography for the Biologist; he is a fellow of the Institute. That journal occasionally publish about some distinguished people who have been pushed off the scientific stage. So there is a brief biography of PM awaiting approval for publication. Perhaps he might go to Dundee for the Robert Smith meeting. Who was Robert Smith?

Errol Jones wrote to say she was expecting Min to visit her. I also received the documents you got and which I now return. I sent copies of the books to people recommended by Errol. If all PM’s family had been as loyal one would have much more information about PM.

I am sending you a short essay I got together for my data file on Punctuated Equilibrium. Darwin comes out quite well because Gould and Eldredge, like most academic Darwinists, have no idea about what is in the Origin of Species. All the same I support punctuated equilibrium which is old hat.

 I am also sending you evidence how dishonest Gould can be. I sent him detailed documents about PM but see what he has written. Is dishonest too strong a word?

I mention in my book that Lamarck has been written out of English text books. 1942 Julian Huxley’s Evolution the Modern Synthesis. No mention of Lamarck. Cuvier gets half a sentence. The evidence is that Darwin was a covert Larmarckian and that is why he refused to give his sources in every edition of the Origin. After Lyell’s strong letter to Darwin in 1863 Darwin became a bit more honest as I have indicated in the essay. It is not Darwin’s fault entirely that PM was written out of English text books.

Some time before Christmas an American phoned – W G McCutchin. He had noticed the advert in the New Scientist and bought a copy of the book. Very interested in PM and spent two long phone calls talking about him and the book. He wanted a copy of Naval Timber so I sent him my photocopy. He has now gone back to the States and I have not heard form him since. I hope I hear form him again. Errol Jones sent me her copy of Naval Timber which I photocopied and returned her copy.

So that is the briefing up to date. I feel very guilty encroaching on your time but very grateful for all your kind assistance. Best wishes to all.

Jim

PS I am really worried about Iain Robb. He was a great distributor of the 1st edition and I would like to send him some copies of the 2nd. Would he be in the telephone directory?

Notes and Comments by Mike Sutton

Norman (N.W.) Simmonds was a very well liked botanist, plant breeder and geneticist who was particularly well known for his expert work on bananas.  His biography is here.

Errol Jones is Matthews great granddaughter. She is part of the New Zealand branch of the family. Her book "Shadows on my Wall" provides much family oral history and photographs about Matthew and his sons. 

ABANDON THE BRAND!

https://t.co/v7H5DwRPGX pic.twitter.com/FYum0LS0sl

— Supermythbuster (@supermyths) April 20, 2016

Jim Dempster's Correspondence: The Wavertree Letters [Letter 6]

Wavertree 15.1.97

Dear Ian,

…

 I enclose a letter the NS actually published. So typical of Darwin promoters – they don’t know their Darwin. The chapter mentioned is the one chapter to keep quiet about because the Creator is mentioned twice. Twice again in the Recapitulation. Sometimes the Creator was in sometimes out! The Creator is mentioned four times in all six editions; Lamarck and Cuvier get one mention! I have rewritten many times the article I sent you. It can be heavy reading.

I have another one finished purely on punctuated equilibrium.

Hope all is well with you.

Best wishes to all,

Jim


Notes and Comments by Mike Sutton

Dempster's Punctuated Equilibrium article can be read on this website here. 

NS refers to the New Scientist magazine. Dempster is referring to a letter of his that was published in the New Scientist.  Dempster's New Scientist letter of 1996 can be read on this blogsite - here.

Jim Dempster's Correspondence: The Wavertree Letters [Letter 5]

Wavertree 8.11.95

 Dear Ian …

I have finished correcting the final proofs. The indexing is a tedious job. One has to be so accurate otherwise the critics spot is deficiencies. The book is 360 pages long.

There is a crisis in Darwinism caused by the fact that he would have nothing to do with catastrophes and mass extinction. Since there has been great interest in the catastrophe of 70 million years ago that destroyed the dinosaurs catastrophes are back. They never went away so far as PM was concerned. It was, however, scientifically incorrect at the time and Darwin delivered the coup de grâce, “he seems to consider the world was nearly depopulated on successive occasions and then restocked”. That is what it is all about today. The Americans who have resurrected the catastrophe business are ignorant of the fact that PM has it down in black and white!

…

All the best and regards to Min Hunter

Sincerely,

Jim

Notes and Commentary by Mike Sutton

In this fifth letter from Jim Dempster to Ian Hardie (one of the three trustees for the Patrick Matthew Trust) Ian is informed that the final drafts are completed of Jim's second book on the story of Matthew and Darwin and the discovery of natural selection  Dempster (1996)" Evolutionary Concepts in the Nineteenth Century: Natural selection and Patrick Matthew". The production of the book was substantially funded by the Patrick Mathew Trust. This book was vanity published because Dempster was unable to find a professional publishing house willing to publish a book on Matthew (I experienced the exact same difficulty when I tried. Fortunately, the new American publishing house ThinkerMedia published my book on Matthew and Darwin as an e-book, but they were not around in Dempster's time). All of the funds for the Patrick Matthew trust came from the estate of John Matthew, the last living direct Scottish descendant of Patrick Matthew to bear the surname.

John Matthew was the last surviving direct descendant of Patrick Matthew
in Scotland to bear the surname Matthew

Notes supplied by Ian Hardie on the Patrick Matthew Trust

• Ian Hardie together with Min Hunter were the two principal trustees of the Patrick Matthew Trust backed by a third being a solicitor from the Edinburgh law firm Robson McLean.
• The second Jim Dempster book was “substantially funded” by the Patrick Matthew Trust
• All of the funds for the PM Trust came from the Estate of John Matthew.
• Ian Hardie and Min Hunter were jointly appointed as co-executors of the John Matthew estate
• Ian Hardie approached Dempster.  Ian does not  recall Jim Dempster ever writing to Min Hunter.
• The PM Trust was formed sometime after first contact / discussion with Jim Dempster – once it was determined that with financial help Jim Dempster was possibly persuadable to write the second book.

Dempster's first book
on Matthew

Ian Hardie was appointed to assist in the execution of John's estate. Ian has informed me in writing recently that among John's papers they found Dempster's first book (Dempster 1983) on Matthew - "Patrick Matthew and Natural Selection". With it were original letters from Darwin to Matthew, the contents of which were not then in the public domain. Dempster's first publisher went bankrupt shortly after publication of this, his first book on this topic, (details here). Realising what they had stumbled upon,  Ian Hardie approached Jim Dempster to see if the executors of John's will, might commission him to re-visit the topic of the discovery of natural selection in a second book. Once Dempster appeared possibly willing, they set up The Patrick Matthew Trust. At one point - as chapter drafts were presented to them to show progress -  Ian Hardie and Min Hunter sought to advise Jim against being too critically confrontational, because they wanted the facts to be fully embraced by "The Darwin Lobby"  (see my notes on an earlier letter - here), but Jim was having none of that - so they backed-off and gave him free academic rein.

John Matthew and Min Hunter

In this fifth letter to Ian Hardie, Jim Dempster again makes it clear that he has identified that Matthew got extinction events right in his original conception of macroevolution by natural selection and that Darwin (being a Lyell loyal uniformitarian) got it completely wrong and mocked Matthew in his "Historical Sketch" in the Origin of Species (from the third edition of 1861 onwards), implying Matthew was some kind of biblical flood believing crank, because at the time Matthew's view was not "the majority view" held by scientists. Dempster notes that the Americans are aware that meteorological events appear to explain species extinctions, but that they are unaware of Matthew's earlier work on the topic. See my notes on Letter No. 2 regarding Dempster being way ahead of the American Professor Rampino on this issue (here).

Dempster's second book on Matthew,

This book that was substantially funded by the Patrick Mathew Trust. 

The funds of the Trust, coming from the estate of 

John Matthew, establishes a neat line of enabling descent from 

Patrick Matthew to Jim Dempster's book about him. 

John Matthew's House in Scotland

I would like to take this opportunity to thank Ian Hardie and Min Hunter for having the imagination, ethical wherewithal, intellectual curiosity and forward-thinking gumption to approach Jim Dempster to write a second book on Matthew and Darwin.  Dempster's  first book was very good, but it wasn't detailed enough to enable me to grasp the field adequately to understand and appreciate the significance and nuanced context of my own discoveries about the pre-1859 -readership of Matthew's book.  I absolutely needed that second Dempster book in order to know how and what I needed to know in order to write my own (Sutton 2104) to build upon existing knowledge.


Further Photographs of Robert Matthew, who was John Matthew's father

Robert Matthew the lower left picture is dated 1925