No One Expects the Fact Denial Expedition. Well, of course, actually, they should, or not, as the case may be

 Today I put a comment on The Conversation, on an article about Darwin being given more credit than he deserved for research on earthworms. 

I fully expect the empirical fact zombie horde of the Darwin Industry to arrive and write the usual lies and delusional brainless claptrap that characterizes all such passive aggressive, and downright aggressive, credulous authoritarian types.

Here is an image of my comment, in case it gets weirdly deleted. Here is the link to it https://theconversation.com/how-a-little-known-clergyman-studying-worms-by-candlelight-in-the-1700s-inspired-charles-darwin-but-didnt-get-the-credit-he-deserved-227089

How to better spread the empirical evidence led bust of the Darwin Supermyth

Given that so many people follow famous people like cattle, if I change my name to Richard Dawkins what would that do for book sales? By the way, Darwin superfan, Richard Dawkins has written empirical fact denial nonsense about Patrick Matthew. As Science Fraud, the book, proves with empirical evidence.

The Jim Twins V the Matthew, Wallace and Darwin Triplets v Supernatural Explanations v Knowledge Contamination Explanations

 One question that is raised in Science Fraud, the book is: How many multiple coincidences in a  real life story sum to the probability that they are not merely coincidental at all?

Some people think that the sheer number of individual remarkable coincidences in the  Jim Twins story of twins who were separated at birth and led entirely independent lives before being reunited after more than 30 years, surely do sum to raise the hypothesis that some kind of strange unknown force governs the universe.

The Jim Twins (Information taken from the New York Times 1979).

■ Each married and then divorced a woman named Linda. Their second wives were both named Betty.

■ One named his first son James Allan, the other named his first son James Alan.

■ Each man grew up with an adopted brother named Larry.

■ During childhood, each owned a dog named Toy.

■ Both twins had law enforcement training and had worked part time as deputy sheriffs in their Ohio towns 70 miles apart.

■ They shared many common interests, such as mechanical drawing, block lettering and carpentry.

■ Both said their favorite school subject was math, their least favorite, spelling.

■ They vacationed at the same, three‐block‐long beach near St. Petersburg, Fla., both getting there and back in a Chevrolet. (but holidaying at different times from one another).

■ Their smoking and drinking patterns were nearly identical. Same brand of cigarettes smoked for example.

Taken together these coincidences do on the face of it appear extraordinary and many may see them as difficult to explain as mere coincidence.

But coincidences do happen, which is why we have a word for it, and if there really was no single or multiple knowledge contamination routes between the twins leading one to influence the other, or others to influence both, then it seems rational that the story requires a better explanation than genetic inheritance, or at least a more sophisticated explanation than what is currently available.

The Matthew v Darwin and Wallace Story

On this blog site, on the Patrick Matthew website and in the book Science Fraud you will discover how, not just that Darwin and Wallace replicated Matthew's (1831) original full theory of macro evolution by natural selection, but also used the exact four same words to name it and support and then explain it with the same explanatory analogy of differences between natural and artificial selection, replicated much of Matthews original prose but also his expert examples of fruit trees and apple hybridization to explain the importance of ecological niches and new varieties leading eventually to new species.

The Wallace and Darwin multiple replications would surely be as difficult to explain as mere coincidence as the story of the Jim Twins were it not for:

1.  The multitude of examples of newly discovered (independently verifiable empirical data) multiple routes of direct and indirect knowledge contamination between Matthew and the two replicators Wallace and Darwin

2.  The proven serial lies told by Darwin about Matthew's prior readership,

3. Wallace's letter to his mother that he dishonestly altered in his autobiography to conceal the evidence) that Darwin and his pals were paying him to play ball with Darwin's tall tale of independent replications of the same theory. 

And so, what we have in the Matthew v Wallace and Darwin story as opposed to the Jim Twins story is not another supernatural hypothesis case of possible strange unknown forces governing human affairs but a simple case of science fraud by plagiarism and serial lies. And why does nobody really care about this? The answer is in the 2023 Springer Science book chapter by Dr Sutton and Dr Griffiths: The Patrick Matthew Effect in Science.

If you would like to ponder the Jim Twins story further in terms of asking yourself could it be more than pure multiple coincidence, then you might like to see this article on Elon Musk thinking we might be living in one big simulation, governed by aliens. If that explanation is true then perhaps the Jim Twins are a programming error (a The Matrix film type bug in the simulation) and perhaps not a bug, the Matthew v Darwin and Wallace Story is just a creative joke at the expense of the gullible (simulations of scientists and wannabee proper scientists known to those in the know as rabid Darwin worshipers) in the simulation? Have a look at this.

Darwin Fanatics and their Malicious Workplace Harassment Campaign: The Case of Dr Mike Weale

 In the Springer Science book chapter on science ethics and academic integrity in the social sciences  The Patrick Matthew Effect in Science (Sutton and Griffiths 2023) Professor of Psychology (Dr Mark Griffiths) and General Editor of The Internet Journal of Criminolgy, (Dr Mike Sutton) write about the ethical requirement not to bury painful empirical data. They also describe what happens to those who upset beloved myths, which are held dear as though they are true facts by the scientific community, by publishing and defending that data. In that chapter, they write:

                                                                                                             

"We know dangerous minds can engage in and create dangerous behaviour. More specifically, that can mean engaging in academic misconduct such as misrepresentation of data, brute censorship, and even criminal malicious harassment for those who dare to put their head above the parapet (see Sutton 2022) for fully evidenced examples of such behaviour by others following his naming of the scientists who cited Matthew pre-1858, vindictive, prolific and systematic workplace harassment behaviour that both authors of this chapter have been subject to because of their published work on this topic). We have been subjected to this disgraceful behaviour for daring to put our heads above the parapet by going into print to more widely disseminate empirical data that seriously questions the honesty and originality of Charles Darwin, arguably the world’s most beloved scientist.

The cultural resistance of the science community to researching this area, or indeed towards others doing so, is manifested by what Merton (1973) called“studied neglect of systematic study of multiples and priority.” Merton (1973 pp.391–392) explains why this is so: 

"...charged with blemishing the record of undeniably great men of science; as though one were a raker of muck that a gentleman would pass by in silence. Even more, to investigate the subject systematically is to be regarded not merely as a muckraker, but as a muckmaker."

It follows, we must not be forced by unethical bias and fear of embarrassing exposure of earlier ignorance of wrongdoing by proclaimed experts to ignore important empirical data, because empirical data are necessarily what defines science (Strevens, 2020)."

The Dr Mike Weale workplace harassment letter

After Charles Darwin super fan Dr John van Wyhe literally told, a Scottish journalist by email, that the new found empirical data on Darwin's lies and plagiarism were a "conspiracy theory" Dr Mike Sutton outed van Wyhe's email for its author's desperate deluded attempt to bury the facts on his Victorian hero with utter and dishonest nonsense. Doubling down on the same stupidity as van Wyhe, Dr Mike Weale, then of Kings College London, tried to have Dr Sutton disciplined and perhaps worse, suspended or sacked from his senior academic position as Reader in Criminology at Nottingham Trent University. 

For the history of science and those interested in the  criminology of  workplace harassment, here is Dr Weal's ludicrous malicious letter. 

Of course, Weal's attempt failed. But it might not have failed what then?

Managerial Vice Chancellor, Professor Edward Peck, perhaps being intellectually or managerially ethically unable or perhaps simply to lazy or being just too unprofessional and impolite to bother to go professionally and respectfully and judge for himself, instead had Dr Sutton very expensively investigated by a professor of criminal justice and the university HR department over a number of weeks. 

"Going forward" "mindfully" Dr Sutton some years later wrote a scathingly humorous poem about the idiotic curse of infantile anti-professional managerialism in universities and elsewhere (here).

Weal's malicious and childish accusations were consequently thrown out and dismissed for being weirdly disingenuous nonsense. No action whatsoever was taken against Dr Sutton. The Nottingham Trent (NTU) Human Resources (HR) letter to Dr Sutton, confirming this, is on file and will be published, initially exclusively, at a later date. Similarly, van Wyhe's childishly unprofessional empirical fact denial email is on file for later exclusive criminology book publication, as are dozens sent by the criminally obscene anal rape threat communication social media troll , workplace criminal harasser (Youth Association Hostel worker! and tacky little Darwin statue dealer) Dr Julian Derry.

Dr Mike Weale has been a prolific editor of the nuance avoidance, fact denial and deliberate misinformation and outright empirical data proven lies about Patrick Matthew that are on the deliberately misleading Patrick Matthew Wikipedia page - as has Julian Derry. 

The Charles Darwin Violin: A Symphony of Lacewood

I have newly acquired a violin that is some 100 years old. The instrument, has scribed purfling, and is made of London plane tree wood AKA lacewood). The internal construction and other characteristics are such that it may well have been made in England. However, it has no makers mark or label. Not yet it doesn't. But I'm going to label it "The Charles Darwin Violin".

On the interlaced complexity of Fraud The Charles Darwin Lacewood Violin

The Charles Darwin Violin before restoration

I am going to name this violin "The Charles Darwin Violin", because it is made of London plane timber (AKA lacewood) and Darwin was a plagiarist and serial liar, plain and simple. And as my friend the poet Andy Sutton pointed out to me on this decision today: "So the Darwin violin is born, and like his theory, has not been newly created."

The Charles Darwin Violin

When Doctor Sutton took apart A violin mistreated He didn’t take Darwin’s approach No, Mike has never cheated By sound research and evidence Investigating theses Mike has delved into, carefully The origin of the pieces And Darwin’s fiddle might appear To be more loudly spoken But please note that this instrument Was found to be quite broken The Lacewood body’s not the norm Revealed by fine detection Mike applied the process of Natural dissection Unlike the Patrick Matthew one This instrument’s quite dated And like the Darwin postulate Is not newly created

                   Andy Sutton (Andy Sutton Poetry) March 2024

I already own The Patrick Matthew Violin - made from driftwood, Dolomite's pine and mostly from an ancient apple tree most probably planted by Matthew in the Carse of Gowrie in the grounds of Megginch Castle, owned by his best friend and neighbour). Here: (more to follow on that story later in the year).

The link to the story of Charles Darwin's and Alfred Wallace's plagiarism of Patrick Matthew's (1831) prior published theory of evolution by natural selection is that Matthew's 1831 book "On Naval Timber and Arboriculture" was cited by Robert Chambers (full details here https://archive.is/ShTAV ).

Some bullet points on how Chambers's pruning and training trees for plank wood article links the fact he had read and so quotes from Matthew's 1831 book to his own later work on evolution and how that is proven to have strongly influenced both Darwin and Wallace. Matthew (1831) uniquely named his unique discovery of the full hypothesis of natural selection: 'the natural process of selection' and Darwin The Plagiarist uniquely four=word shuffled that to "Process of natural Selection". Anyone curious to know who clearly influenced Matthew to come up with that term should read Dr Mike Sutton and Professor Mark Griffith's Springer Science book chapter on Sutton's new BigData discovery on that question.

• Chambers (1832) cited Matthew's (1831) heretical and seditious book – although he only mentioned Matthew's expertise on the subject of pruning trees for plank wood.
• Chambers (1840) cited Matthew’s later work, Emigration Fields (Matthew 1839) regarding Matthew's writing on the ill-effects of tobacco smoking. Emigration Fields took Matthew's ideas on evolution forward for (British) human progress at the expense of those in other lands to be occupied by the British.
• In 1841, Gavin Cree cites Matthew's book "On Naval Timber" and cites Matthew's text from On Naval Timber quoted by Robert Chambers in Chambers's 1832 Journal (here).
• Chambers (1844) authored and had published (anonymously) The Vestiges of the Natural History of Creation - the book that 'put evolution in the air' in the mid-19th century (see Millhauser 1959).
• In 1845, Alfred Wallace wrote to Bates to explain that seeking proof of the ideas in the Vestiges was what motivated his interest in the field of research into the problem of solving the origin of species (See Sutton 2104 ).
• Chambers met Darwin 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.
• Darwin's personal copy of the Vestiges was heavily annotated by Darwin.
• Wallace, in 1855, had his Sarawak Paper published. Incidentally, it was published in a journal the chief editor of which was another naturalist named Selby, a man very well and closely connected to Darwin (see Sutton 2014 for all the precise details), who had 15 years earlier purchased a copy of Matthew's book in 1840 and cited it many times in his own book of 1842). So Selby both read and then cited Matthew (1831) in the literature BEFORE Darwin wrote his famous unpublished essay on natural selection of 1842! Darwin read Wallace's Sarawak Paper in 1855. Wallace's Sarawak paper appears to have far too many replications of Matthew's (1831) unique ideas, terms, words and highly unique and idiosyncratic explanatory examples to have been written independently of Matthew's prior published work (see Sutton 2014 for precise details of this complex plagiarism check).
• In 1858, Wallace sent Darwin his Ternate Paper - which had in it evidences to support the hypothesis of natural selection. It was this paper that led Darwin and his cronies, Lyell and Hooker, to arrange - without first seeking any consent from Wallace - for a paper hastily written by Darwin to be presented together with Wallace's Ternate Paper - but read first so it would thereafter be called "Darwin's and Wallace's theory." This all happened in 1858.
• In the Origin of Species (Darwin 1859), Darwin uniquely four-word-shuffled Matthew's unique name for Matthew's 1831 published discovery from 'natural process of selection' to 'process of natural selection.' Darwin used that shuffled phrase nine times in the Origin of Species (1859).
• In 1859, in a book review of Darwin's Origin of Species, Chambers is the 'first to be second' in writing a published replication of Matthew's unique term 'natural process of selection.' This is unlikely to be an amazing coincidence. Because we know Chambers did read Matthew (1831) in 1832 - because he cited him!. More so, because Robert Chambers's brother, William, wrote of Robert in 1872 'And such were his extraordinary powers of memory that whatever he saw or learned he never forgot; everything which could interest the mind being treasured up, as a fund of delightful recollections ready to be of service when wanted.' In fact, Chambers's memory is described by Professor Alan Macfarlane as 'almost photographic'.
• In 1860 Chambers convinced Huxley (Darwin's Bulldog) to stay at the British Association for the Advancement of Science conference at Oxford. Chambers remonstrated with Huxley not to desert the cause but to stay and defend Darwin's Origin of species by engaging in a debate that included Bishop Wilberforce - who attacked Darwin's work for being conjectural regarding the creation of new species.
• In 1861, from the third edition of the Origin of Species onward, Darwin admitted the huge influence of the Vestiges in paving the way for acceptance of his own work on organic evolution..
• In 1871, the year of Robert Chambers's death, but before the revelation that Chambers had authored the Vestiges was formally announced, Darwin wrote to Robert Chambers's daughter, Eliza, to apologise for his earlier treatment in disparaging the Vestiges: 'Several years ago I perceived that I had not done full justice to a scientific work which I believed and still believe he was intimately connected with, and few things have struck me with more admiration than the perfect temper and liberality with which he treated my conduct.'

Now here's a thing.

The cantankerous Gavin Cree (1841), who in response to Patrick Matthew's (1831) criticism of his harmful harsh pruning of trees challenged Matthew to a pruning competition. However, any such competition as proposed by Cree would not have proven nor dis-confirmed the fact that harsh pruning makes them "...vulnerable to canker stain and other fungal diseases, especially in the wet Spring months. When left in ideal conditions, Plane trees can live to be 4000 years old." https://www.maisonmirabeau.com/.../under-the-platanes.../....

Next, a question.

When I restore a violin I always look up the instrument's end-pin hole ("ooeer missus") to ensure I align the sound post completely vertically with the instruments top-end block. As the sound post is supposed to be perfectly vertical. However, many sound posts are not vertical because they are often simply fitted and aligned by others who only look at it through the f-hole. They will look perfectly vertical looked at that way but may not be. The Darwin Violin's sound post looks perfectly vertical through its f-hole but as the photograph shows it is actually not when looked at through the end-pin hole. (see photographs below).

All that said, a small number of people who have been experimenting (somewhat scientifically) on single instruments have found that a non-vertical sound post (though less stable) can improve the sound of an instrument : https://maestronet.com/forum/index.php?/topic/330239-skewed-soundpost/&tab=comments#comment-622122

The Lacewood London Plane Tree is well suited as a tree able to adapt to polluted environments and London was really heavily polluted in the 19th century due to amount of coal being burnt for heating etc. One needs only to read Charles Dickens book Bleak House for dreadful accounts of lethal "pea souper smog". Patrick Matthew (1831, e.g. p. 68) wrote of how pine trees thrive in good timber soil but were adapted by nature to grow in spare soil. neither Matthew nor Darwin wrote about why plane trees were so well adapted to very heavily polluted environments such as London. One proposed reason for their being so circumstance suited (a theme Matthew wrote about for many other species) is their thick leathery leaves that allow pollution to be washed away by rain and their regenerative bark.

We have seen how Darwin's and Wallace's great influencer Robert Chambers by 1832 had read and then cited Matthew's (1831) book on the subject of growing and pruning and training trees for plank timber. In On naval Timber and Arboriculture on page 7 Matthew (1831) wrote that plane trees were particularly useful for plank timber:

Empirical data found through original research (Sutton) shows Darwin held in his hands at least five publications that cited Patrick Matthew's 1831 book. One of these was an article by Cree (1832) that responded very defensively to Mathew's criticism of his ideas about tree pruning (here). See Science Fraud for the full empirical data detailed proof. In his 1832 article Cree is particularly upset by Matthew's ideas about how to grow tree for plank timber, the very subject of the 1832 Matthew (1831) text cited by Darwin's great influencer Robert Chambers in 1832!

On Lacewood (Plane tree wood) and interlaced complex evidence

Lacewood: London Plane

In the criminal justice system it is universally accepted that juries are very often unable to comprehend the evidence due to its extreme complexity. The evidence of Darwin's lies about who he actually knew did read and fully understand Matthew's book and the theory in it, before he stole the theory and called it "my theory" thereafter is very involved and interlaced with those in his inner circle who aided and abetted him.

Here we are just examining a small interconnected segment of the evidence (see Science Fraud for the full empirical evidence led story)

The Darwin and Gavin Cree connection to Patrick Matthew's 1831 Theory

Darwin’s own private notebook of the books he actually read records he read Volumes 7 and 8 of Gardener’s Magazine.. Now, although Darwin’s notebook gives no year for the publication of these two volumes, which is confusing because in every new decade this magazine started a new series with volumes restarting at 1 again.

One volume 7 covers 1831 and anther volume 8 covers 1832. The latter contains Loudon’s all-important review of NTA, in which Loudon (correspondent of Darwin and friend of his best friend's (Joseph Hooker's) father, William Hooker, write that Matthew appeared to have something original to say on the origin of species! Volume 8 also makes reference to observations made by Darwin’s grandfather on pp. 308 and 502 about forest trees—no less!

To be even-handed, however, it seems most likely since Darwin was compiling a list of things to read and things read on March12, 1842 that it was volumes of that decade—Volume 7 of 1841 and Volume 8 of 1842—that he recorded reading in his notebook, although we cannot know that for sure. But even in Volume 7 of 1841 on pp. 440 to 444 Matthew and his 1831 book is the subject of an article by the celebrity arborist Gavin Cree (Cree 1841) on tree pruning. In that volume on p. 216 Charles Darwin is mocked as being delusional regarding his observations on earthworms.

So, whatever decade Darwin was referring to in his notes there is a published reference to Matthew and his 1831 book in both! According to the facts, Matthew was hardly an obscure author of an unread book/theory in the first half of the 19th century.

To underscore the point yet further, Darwin’s private notebooks and his archived library reveal he read at least five publications that either cite or contain articles about Matthew and NTA:

(1)     The Athenæum (1839) (block advertisement for Naval Timber and review of Emigration Fields).

(2)     Loudon (1831) (citing Matthew in Bibliography).

(3)     Loudon (1838) (article citing Matthew).

(4)     The Gardener’s Magazine (1841) (article throwing down a challenge to Matthew on tree pruning). Assuming this is the one Darwin refers to and not the 1832 one containing Loudon’s important review of NTA.

(5)     Memoirs of the Caledonian Horticultural Society of Edinburgh (1814–1832) (block advertisement for NTA).

This is just one more fact that tells us exactly why Matthew belongs at the very centre of Darwin’s story and not on the fringes, as the Darwin Industry wants you to believe.

The interlaced (like lacewood) facts prove Matthew wasn’t obscure in the 1830s and 1840s, and neither was NTA. Therefore, Darwin’s excuse-claim that Matthew's (1831) was unread is demolished by verifiable facts proving books about Matthew were held in Darwin’s own hands before he replicated the theory in NTA.

A prolific author, fellow of the Linnean Society and the Royal Society, and a corresponding member of the Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences, Loudon was a friend and correspondent of William Hooker and co-published with Hooker’s close friend and fellow economic botanist John Lindley.

Lindley crops as a devious and malicious anti-Matthew character throughout the Patrick Matthew v Charles Darwin story in Science Fraud, the book. But here we have seen just one small segment related to Cree and his palpably intense dislike for his pruning critic Patrick Matthew.

The Gavin Cree to David Low connections to Charles Darwin via the 1831 book of Patrick Matthew

In 1834 David Low was apparently First to be second  into published print (F2B2) with the apparently original Naval Timber and Arboriculture (NTA) phrase “long continued selection” in his book Elements of Practical Agriculture: Comprehending the Cultivation of Plants, the Husbandry of Domestic Animals and the Economy of the Farm.

Although he never personally cited Matthew (1831), he was founding editor of the Quarterly Journal of Agriculture at the time it published Gavin Cree’s (1832) letter on pruning that criticised NTA. Thus it was Low who ruled as editor in favour of Cree against Matthew in that edition of the journal (Canadian Agriculturalist 1859, p. 32). Low (1844) wrote about naval timber on pp. 583–585 of his book on “landed property” and did so again on p. 88 of his book on forest trees (Low 1853).

63

Just four years older than Matthew, Low was a highly esteemed professor of agriculture at the University of Edinburgh. Most importantly, like many who cited NTA—or else apparently first duplicated apparently original Matthewisms from NTA—Low was a fellow of the Royal Society of Edinburgh. He was also a member of the Royal Academy of Agriculture of Sweden.

Darwin adopted the exact same original NTA Matthewism in his essay of 1842 (Darwin 1842, pp. 32 and 33) where he writes in secret:

“Now according to analogy of domesticated animals let us see what would result. Let us take case of farmer on Pampas, where everything approaches nearer to state of nature. He works on organisms having strong tendency to vary: and he knows only way to make a distinct breed is to select and separate. It would be useless to separate the best bulls and pair with best cows if their offspring run loose and bred with the other herds, and tendency to reversion not counteracted; he would endeavour therefore to get his cows on islands and then commence his work of selection. If several farmers in different regions were to set to work, especially if with different objects, several breeds would soon be produced. So would it be with horticulturist and so history of every plant shows; the number of varieties increase in proportion to care bestowed on their selection and, with crossing plants, separation. Now, according to this analogy, change of external conditions, and isolation either by chance landing a form on an island, or subsidence dividing a continent, or great chain of mountains, and the number of individuals not being numerous will best favour variation and selection. No doubt change could be effected in same country without any barrier by long continued selection on one species: even in case of a plant not capable of crossing would easier get possession and solely occupy an island.”

Then in Origin (Darwin 1859, p. 192) he used it again:

“As every one would be surprised if two exactly similar but peculiar varieties of any species were raised by man by long continued selection, in two different countries, or at two very different periods, so we ought not to expect that an exactly similar form would be produced from the modification of an old one in two distinct countries or at two distinct periods.”

Low published a number if notable books such as Elements of Practical Agriculture (1834), The Breeds of Domesticated Animals (1840), and An Enquiry into the Nature of the Simple Bodies of Chemistry (1848).

On p. 546 in another of his books On Landed Property, and the Economy of Estates (1844) Low was once again apparently F2B2 with an apparently original NTA expression—once again without citing Matthew. In this later book he uses Matthew’s apparently original phrase “overpowering the less.” This discovery of Low twice replicating Matthew’s unique phrases in different books appears to confirm the veracity of the F2B2 hypothesis, the value of the method in identifying plagiarism of ideas, and the influence that such plagiarism has on others. This conclusion is further confirmed by the fact that in his F2B2 use of this NTA phrase Low replicated Matthew’s exclusive theme that trees grown by means of artificial selection in nurseries were inferior to those naturally selected by nature. The exact same highly important theme that Eiseley (1979) discovered Darwin replicated in his 1844 private essay! Low (1844, p. 546) writes:

“The Wild Pine attains its greatest perfection of growth and form in the colder countries, and on the older rock formations. It is in its native regions of granite, gneiss and the allied deposits, that it grows in extended forests over hundreds of leagues, overpowering the less robust species. When transplanted to the lower plains and subjected to culture, it loses so much of the aspect and characters of the noble original, as scarcely to appear the same. No change can be greater to the habits of a plant than the transportation of this child of the mountain to the shelter and cultivated soil of the nursery; and when the seeds of these cultivated trees are collected and sown again, the progeny diverges more and more from the parent type. Hence one of the reasons why so many worthless plantations of pine appear in the plains of England and Scotland, and why so much discredit has become attached to the culture of the species.”

It is of paramount importance at this juncture to note that this newly discovered evidence in fact provides Darwin with a defence against Eiseley’s (1979) claim that Darwin’s use of artificially selected trees to explain natural selection in his unpublished 1844 essay is clear evidence of plagiarism directly from NTA. Although Low almost certainly got it from Matthew (1831), Darwin could just possibly have got it from reading Low (1844).

Whatever the case, again we see Matthew’s progeny in the relevant literature as influencing the man who influenced the man. Moreover, and most importantly, we should note that Low published his book containing the analogy in 1844, which is the very same year Darwin’s private essay replicated the exact same highly idiosyncratic tree analogy.

This is strong evidence of NTA influencing Low and passing it on to Darwin, or of NTA directly influencing Darwin, or both.

Interestingly, in his notebook of “Books Read and Books to Read” Darwin writes in December 1839, “Advertised. David Low Treatise on Domestic Animals; also Illustrations of the Domestic animals of Gt. Britain—must be read carefully.” However, in that same notebook Darwin makes no mention of having read Low’s Elements of Practical Agriculture or of On Landed Property. In Origin, however, we know Darwin went on to use the same apparently NTA-coined phrase “long continued selection” as several other writers did following Low’s 1834 first replication of it. Whereas Low  hyphenated the phrase, Darwin used it without the hyphen just as Matthew had it in NTA. This is suggestive Darwin got the phrase from NTA, not from Low, who probably got it from NTA. But we cannot be sure one way or the other.

Twice replicating phrases apparently first coined in NTA is unlikely to be purely coincidental given that Low was apparently twice to be first with these apparently original Matthewisms in different publications and, most significantly, was a former Perth Academy schoolmate of Patrick Matthew.

Professor David Low of Edinburgh University might even be the unnamed professor that Matthew (1860a) referred to in the Gardeners’ Chronicle as the professor at an esteemed university who could not teach NTA’s heretical hypothesis of natural selection for fear of pillory punishment on the cutty stool.

Conclusion

The evidence of Darwin's science fraud by plagiarism is extremely interlaced, like lacewood. In just this very small snippet of the empirical evidence in "Science Fraud" the book we can see how this complexity has protected Darwin and his fact denial superfans and authoritarian supermyth supporting and facilitation toadies.  

The Darwin Lacewood Violin is a perfect tool to help explain the facts.

Visit the Darwin Violin page on the Patrick Matthew website for more updates on Darwin's great science fiddle. Do you see what I did there? 

Amoral Wikipedia and Linnean Journal Deliberately Publishing Disinformation to Misinform Society

Get the empirical independently verifiable facts.

Remember you should not simply accept what you read or watch on TV.

The Patrick Matthew Effect in Science. Read the Springier Science published facts and the naming and shaming : 

Wishful Thinking Beliefs versus Verifiable Empirical Facts

 Scientists, and indeed all educators of science and history should not teach as facts their own (or groupthink) mere beliefs or wishful thinking. They should (indeed must) teach verifiable facts only as facts. And it is a verifiable fact that, as opposed to the old mere belief that no one whatsoever/none known to Darwin or Wallace pre-1860 read Patrick Matthew's (1831) prior publication of the full and complete theory of macroevolution by natural selection, over 30 people actually read Matthew's book before Darwin's and Wallace's claimed independent replications of Matthew's theory pre-1858/1859. How do we know this? Because they cited it in the literature years before Darwin's and Wallace's work. Moreover several were Darwin's and Wallace's admitted greatest influencers on the topic!

We are currently here at the intersection between the dishonest/delusional art of the Darwin Industry and the genuine science behind history and the fact led history behind science. 

Get the facts. read "Science Fraud". Available directly from Curtis Press HERE

Proper science and history is determined by setting a very high bar for the quality of evidence it will accept. Some pseudo-scholars, particularly those who are part of the Darwin deification industry and its enablers in the world of publishing, think sources such as Wikipedia or published words in books or articles that support the cherished old belief, which is now a proven falsehood, that none known to Darwin or Wallace read Matthew's 1831 theory pre-1858, are evidence that none did so. But scientists know that all pictures and photos, including claims written in words, are merely anecdotal evidence. By way of explanatory contrast, the published (anecdotal) evidence in "Science Fraud: Darwin's Plagiarism of Patrick Matthew's Theory" is verifiable as tangible evidence you can hold in your hands and observe. This is because it directs you, by way of publication information of the references to the actual physical historic printed books and articles of the actual proof that Matthew's book and the ideas in it were read because they are cited in that same historic original printed matter that you can hold in your very own hands and read in a library. This means the evidence in Science Fraud can be directly studied and tested by scientists and historians. The spurious and opinionated and debunked or else unevidenced claims made on the likes of Wikipedia and Darwin deification articles and books will never attain such a high bar of evidence.

People have been accepting bad evidence in the story of Darwin and Wallace v Matthew with the result that they are wrong! Even though people such as Richard Dawkins may appear trustworthy we have to remind ourselves not to merely believe what we see on television or read in books, on the Internet or in articles. We need to check for ourselves. We have to force ourselves to be open to information that is not what we want to hear. This is how we improve our knowledge, And our knowledge has been improved by the fact we have now falsified the prior mere wishful thinking belief claim (spuriofact) that no one known to Darwin of Wallace read Matthew's theory before 1858/59. 

The extraordinary claim made by Darwin, after being confronted by Matthew in the press in 1860, and the further exaggerated claims made by Darwin writers since, that no single person read Matthew's 1831 prior published theory before 1860 can be dealt with and debunked as falsehoods by going back to original published evidence sources. And the book "Science Fraud" reveals, by way of the original published letters of Darwin and Matthew in the Gardeners Chronicle in 1860 that Matthew informed Darwin in published print of just who actually did read his theory and why it was deemed heretical and his ideas therefore suffered much brute censorship in in the first half of the 19th century. Furthermore, the new found evidence presented in Science Fraud of who else read and cited Matthew's 1831 book before 1858 is also a series of original accounts representing empirical evidence.

Conclusion

When we look for the extraordinary hard evidence to support the extraordinary claim made by Darwin after 1860, and parroted and exaggerated since by Darwin so-called "experts", that no one read the original ideas in Matthew's prominently published book before 1860, what we actually find is no extraordinary evidence at all. Instead original sources prove the claims to be false. Moreover, the newly discovered evidence that Matthew's 1831 book was cited over 30 times in the published literature pre-1858 literature.

This is is why I claim that on a balance of reasonable probability, and almost certainly beyond reasonable doubt, it can today be shown that Matthew's 1831 theory did influence its replicators Darwin and Wallace to replicate it before they replicated it. 

Furthermore, because original sources show he was prior told in print by Matthew in 1860 that others such as John Loudon, and a prominent professor, had read it Darwin lied when he claimed the exact opposite was true. Original sources prove therefore that Darwin was a serial liar about the man whose theory he replicated and thereafter referred to as "my theory" until the day he died.

The Dead Darwin Copycat Thought Experiment

 I was thinking about how so many people have misinterpreted/misunderstood/parroted the myth that the Shrodinger's cat thought experiment proves that any cat in a box with a 50/50 chance of being killed by a toxin inside is both either alive or dead until the outcome is observed by a conscious being.  As LiveScience.com explains:

 "Schrödinger's cat cut to the heart of what was bizarre about Bohr's interpretation of reality: the lack of a clear dividing line between the quantum and everyday realms. While most people think it provides an example in support of particles lacking clearly-defined properties until they are measured, Schrödinger's original intention was the exact opposite—to show that such an idea was nonsensical. Yet, for many decades, physicists largely ignored this problem, moving on to other quandaries. "

Maybe the use of a human in a Shroedinger influenced thought experiment would help explain the absurdity of applying quantum (subatomic) physics theory to the everyday observable world of larger objects will help things along? 

Here goes.: If you wish to misunderstand the Dead Cat thought experiment then consider the idea that Both Darwin and Wallace both did not and did plagiarise Patrick Matthew's prior published full theory of macroevolution by natural selection until the creation of Google's BigData library revealed to the world that on both the legal notion of balance of "reasonable probability" and "beyond all reasonable doubt" the new found empirical data (added to existing already found data) reveals, by way of conscious observation of the empirical data, now beyond all reasonable doubt, that they most certainly did. 

Let us call the explanatory analogy  "Sutton's Dead Darwin Copycat Thought Experiment".

Tyranny of the Fraudulent Empirical Fact Denial Darwin Industry and Darwin Worshipping Superfans

Empirical facts are facts. They are intrinsic truth. And it is a truism that "truth is truth". Moreover, lies are lies and falsehood are not truth, they are the enemy of truth and the enemy of history and science.

If you want a veracious history of science then you need to stop being boring.

If you think the Darwin Industry, and its crumb from their table begging harassment toadies, are ethical, honest and reasonable people then you are mistaken.

You have to think and then act like an inventive and innovative originator if you wish to overcome the brute censorship of the empirical data in the story of Matthew v Darwin and Wallace.

The Wikipedia Page on Patick Matthew

 

The Wikipedia page on Patrick Matthew has been substantially written by irrational fact denial Darwin superfans. These toxic spuriofact creation individuals have desperately sought to deny and delete facts and misrepresent unique research data by lies, other mischievous falsehoods, plagiarism and stalker malicious harassment behaviour. Wikipedia brute censorship of the classic and newly unearthed empirical data of what Matthew wrote, what Darwin replicated from Matthew's work and the proven lies Darwin wrote about who read Matthew's 1831 breakthrough before Darwin and Wallace (1858/59) replicated his 1831 breakthrough is a total fake-news long-running disgrace.