Supermyths are myths about myths that are created and compounded by experts, spread by pseudo-skeptics and destroyed by evidence. Braced myths are a sub-type of supermyth, created by orthodox expert authorities that are so powerful they are believed to be true by respected scholars who unwittingly promote them as examples of the need to be healthily sceptical of counterknowledge and then, with unintended irony, use them as argument winners to refute other fallacious knowledge.
Showing posts with label Darwin. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Darwin. Show all posts
Thursday, 7 May 2020
Veracity v Myth and Matthew V Darwin in the invention of terraforming
Based on the Supermyth that Darwin and Wallace uniquely and independently discovered the natural process of selection, there is a related, daughter, myth that Charles Darwin, together with his botanical mentor and best friend Joseph Hooker uniquely invented terraforming by way of what they did on Ascension Island (e.g. that story here).
In reality it is Patrick Matthew, the plagiarized and cheated 1831 originator of the theory of natural selection, whose research and observations of nature provided the factual and theoretical base for terraforming.
When, in 1831, Matthew published his theory in his book On Naval Timber and Arboriculture, it contained, amongst other religious heresy at the time, the heresy that trees could grow better in other than their "natural" habitats when transplanted there by humans. This heresy was heretical because it went against then Christian doctrine that "God", as designer and creator, placed every living thing in its ideal location. Matthew's heresy here is probably just one of those that led his bombshell breakthrough book to be banned by Perth public Library in Scotland and for reviewers to demand readers not even think about his ruminations on the laws of nature. Indeed, Selby (a regular church-going Christian naturalist, who I, in 2014, 2014a, 2015 see my later 2016 paperback) uniquely discovered cited Matthew's book in 1842 and wrote that he could not understand this idea before going on to be chief editor of the journal that published Wallace's 1855 Sarawak paper. NOTE: My Selby discovery was later plagiarized in the Linnean Journal by Dagg The Jealous and Sly Plagiarist - facts here) and earlier by Weale who - though citing my help with his paper - failed to cite my research as the origin of the fact we now know the famous naturalist Selby cited Matthew's (1831) and the orignal ideas in it.
Selby wrote that he could not understand how it could be so that Matthew said trees could do better when grown outside their natural habitat. See Prideaux John Selby, A History of British Forest-Trees: Indigenous and Introduced, Van Voorst, London 1842. In this way, whether he really could understand it (but pretended otherwise to appease the powerful church) or not, Selby drew attention to Matthew's heresy. Later it was picked up upon as no more than an important fact for economic botany and cited prominently by William Hooker's (William being Joseph Hooker's father and also a friend of the Darwin and his wife) correspondent William Jameson in 1853 (facts here).
The United Service Journal and Naval and Military Magazine published an extended review in the 1831 Part II and 1831 Part III numbers of the magazine:
"But we disclaim participation in his ruminations on the law of Nature, or on the outrages committed upon reason and justice by our burthens of hereditary nobility, entailed property, and insane enactments."
In 1843, a year after Selby (1842) noted what Matthew had written abut some trees doing well outside their natural habitat, Joseph Hooker landed on Ascension Island (see here and here) and arranged for an abundance of different species of tree to be planted there.
Darwin and his cronies capitalized upon the opportunistic fact Matthew had been earlier silenced in the first half of the 19th century when the church was still in its ascendancy to steal his ideas. Indeed, while Matthew mocked the church and priests, in many editions of the Origin of Species Darwin kept the notion of "The Creator" in as a supernatural deity that created evolution by natural selection.
Saturday, 13 August 2016
Irony of Cranks in Science
Those who discover paradigm changing and independently verifiable new data are often portrayed by desperately biased scholars, with vested career and in-group establishment interests in the old but newly myth-punctured paradigm, as cranks. But, with painful irony, the real cranks are those who let their bias interfere with their critical reasoning.
Dr Arlin Stoltzfus, referring to discussions between Dr Mike Weale and I on Weale's BlogsiteThe Patrick Matthew Project explains why Weale's loyal 'belief-based' Darwinite bias cannot trump the fact-based uncomfortable - newly discovered - truth in the story of the history of discovery of natural selection.
'Darwin, by repeating the idea that no naturalist read or noticed Matthew's book, repeated a self-serving statement that he knew to be factually incorrect, because Matthew himself had pointed this out. These facts are not in dispute. Sutton describes these facts by saying it is "100% proved" that Darwin "lied".In the cited web site, the case made by author Mike Weale is entirely based on quibbling about "lied" and "100 % proved", while bending over backward to give His Holiness Charles Darwin the benefit of the doubt. According to Weale, when His Infallible Holiness Charles Darwin says that "nobody read it", we must interpret this as the kind of harmless exaggeration that occurs every day-- of course His Holiness must have known that the book would have been read by *someone*, so obviously he wasn't intending to be taken literally (*). To accuse his holiness of "lying" would be to impute deception, which cannot be proved "100 %" because it requires an inference of motives (according to Weale).Thus, Weale's case against Sutton rests on the same kind of scholarly double standard that we are now accustomed to seeing: (1) insisting on a literal interpretation of a rhetorically loaded version of Sutton's argument, while Darwin gets off easy precisely because Weale *refuses to hold Darwin to a literal interpretation*, and (2) insisting that Sutton can't rely on inferences or touch on the issue of intentions by invoking "lied", while Weale is free to defend Darwin precisely by appeal to inferences about Darwin's knowledge and motives (sentence above with *). '
Read the New Data that has so upset the brains of the biased Darwinite community in my latest peer reviewed science journal article on the topic
here
. Alternatively, as proof of the simple concept explained in my paper, simply Google (using double speech quotes just as I do here) the term "on knowledge contamination".
The way forward
Please do something (no matter how small) to support veracity in the war for veracity over claptrap in the story of the discovery of natural selection. Because Darwinites currently dominate the scientific community, but they are behaving like an authoritarian religious deification cult.
Modern advanced societies will be harmed by having an inaccurate history of scientific discovery, disseminated through the propagandising machinations of palpably biased salaried academics and other powerful establishment in-group members. Only a crank could not see that.
Follow me on Twitter: Here
Wednesday, 29 July 2015
Hey Royal Society: So Where's My Darwin Medal?
The Royal Society is Nought but a Darwin and Wallace Glee Club!
Sir Gavin de Beer (FRS) wrote in the Wilkins Lecture for the Royal Society (de Beer 1962 on page 333):
"...William Charles Wells and Patrick Matthew were predecessors who had actually published the principle of natural selection in obscure places where their works remained completely unnoticed until Darwin and Wallace reawakened interest in the subject.'
de Beer just wrote very silly nonsense on the Matthew matter in order to hoodwink his readers. Because Matthew's book did no pass completeltely unnoticed at all.
What the expert Royal Society member Sir Gavin Rylands de Beer, British evolutionary embryologist, Director of the British Museum (Natural History), President of the Linnean Society, and receiver of the Royal Society's Darwin Medal for his studies on evolution
never revealed is that Darwin knew the naturalist John Loudon had reviewed Matthew's book in 1832 and that before 1860 another (a naturalist professor) feared to teach Matthew's heretical idea on evolution.Furthermore, I have uniquely discovered (see Nullius in Verba) that at least 25 people actually cited Matthew's (1831) book before Darwin's and Wallace's papers - which replicated (without citing) Matthew's original ideas and explanatory examples - were read before the Linnean Society in 1858, seven of them were naturalists, four known to Darwin and two to Wallace.
So where's my Darwin Medal for being proven a better scholar than de Beer on his own subject?
What the expert Royal Society member Sir Gavin Rylands de Beer, British evolutionary embryologist, Director of the British Museum (Natural History), President of the Linnean Society, and receiver of the Royal Society's Darwin Medal for his studies on evolution
 |
| The book that re-wrote the history of the discovery of natural selection |
So where's my Darwin Medal for being proven a better scholar than de Beer on his own subject?
 |
| Royal Society Darwin Medal |
Visit PatrickMatthew.com to learn the truth about the discovery of natural selection.
Monday, 1 June 2015
Irrational Darwinists Beleive in Darwin's and Wallace's Dual "Independent" Conceptions of Matthew's Prior Published Theory
What has been newly discovered in Nullius in Verba: Darwin's greatest secret that changes everything we thought we knew about the discovery of natural selection?
Before the publication of Nullius, Darwinists simply believed their namesake and Alfred Wallace when each claimed to have discovered natural selection "independently" of Patrick Matthew's prior published theory. They held this mere belief because none had looked behind Darwin's (1860) excuse for replicating Matthew's prior published unique discovery that : "I think that no one will feel surprised that neither I nor apparently any other naturalist had heard of Mr Matthews’ views..."
So what did I uniquely discover to prove the rational improbability that either or Darwin or Wallace discovered natural selection independently of Patrick Matthew's prior publication of the full hypothesis? And what did I uniquely discover to prove Darwin and Wallace were not at all the honest and humble scientists portrayed in the literature - but were instead egotistical self-serving liars?
1. Darwin lied when he wrote in his defense in the Gardeners Chronicle in 1860 that :"...neither I nor apparently any other naturalist had heard of Mr Matthews’ views..." because Matthew told him in the letter to which Darwin responded with that lie that John Loudon had written a review of his book. Loudon - a noted botanist and fellow of the Royal Society and the Linnean Society (amongst others) had been dead 16 years by then. But Darwin knew he was a naturalists because his notebook of books read was jam packed with Loudon's books (often heavily anotated). And that same notebook showed that Darwin had held in his hands at least five publications that cited Matthew, two of which were written by Loudon. Moreover, Darwin had his best friend the botanist Joseph Hooker approve his letter containing this lie and then send it on his behalf to the Gardener's chronicle. Joseph Hooker also knew Loudon was a naturalist. In fact he had earlier written that Loudon was better than any other in Europe. This is the same Joseph Hooker who had in 1858 worked with Darwin's other great friend and mentor Charles Lyel to slyly mislead the Linnean Society into believing Wallace had given his consent to have his paper read before them and then published with Darwin's. Wallace's paper they read along with (but after) Darwin's so that it would thereafter be called Darwin's and Wallace's theory. Darwin continued his lie that Matthew's book had gone unread (despite Matthew telling him in his second letter to the Gardener's Chronicle of other naturalists besides Loudon who had read it) from the third edition of the Origin of species and in a letter to the eminent French naturalist Quatrefages de Bréau (April 25, 1861 ).
2, Had any Darwinists - who society relies upon to tell the veracious story of the discovery of natural selection - not simply swallowed Darwin's story- hook, line and "Hooker" - noticed Darwin's great lie that no naturalist had read Matthew's book pre 1860 then they might have investigated whether or not what Loudon did as a naturalist might be important in the veracious story of the discovery of natural selection. Had they done that then they would have discovered that Loudon did far more than write in his 1832 book review that Matthew may have written something original on "the origin of species", because they would also have found what I uniquely discovered: namely, that Loudon edited two of Edward Blyth's influential papers on the evolution of species and varieties of organic life; papers which definitely influenced Darwin - because he wrote from the third edition of the Origin of Species onward that Byth was his most important and prolific informant on the topic.
3. To further uniquely bust the myth that no naturalist read Matthew's (1831) prior published hypothesis, I uniquely discovered six more naturalists actually cited it in the literature before Darwin's and Wallace's papers were read before the Linnean Society in 1858. Darwin knew four of them. And Darwin and Wallace were influenced and facilitated by two of those naturalists.
- Selby cited Matthew's book many times in 1842 and then went on to edit Wallace's (1855) Sarawak paper - which Darwin also read pre 1858. Darwin and his friends knew Selby very well. Darwin sat on committees with him and his father and friends had even stayed at Selby's home - where Matthew's book sat in the library.
- Chambers cited Matthew's book in 1832 and then in 1842 wrote 'The Vestiges of Creation' the best seller on evolution that was Wallace's greatest influence and a great influence on Darwin for famously putting evolution "in the air" in the first half of the 19th century. Darwin was a friend and correspondent of Chambers. And Lyell was a member of the same Geological society as Chambers and heard him speak on more than one occasion. It is well known that both Darwin and Lyell knew that Chambers was the anonymous author of the heretical Vestiges.
4. Wallace misled the world in his autobiography by slyly deleting incriminating text in his transcription of his letter to his mother where he had written that following what Darwin, Lyell and Hooker had done at the Linnean Society with his work that he was owed "assistance" by Darwin and his associates. And he did indeed receive a great deal of financial and social "assistance" from them thereafter.
5. Darwin told a further five lies that mislead the world into crediting him with priority over Matthew for the Originator's unique discovery.
6. Matthew was the first to use 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.'
7. Wallace replicated that exact same analogy of differences in his 1858 Ternate paper, which was read after Darwin's before the Linnean Society in 1858.
8. Using new technology of Big Data analysis, I was able to determine - out of over 30 million publications in Google's Library Project - which terms and phrases in his 1831 book were apparently coined by Matthew and who was then apparently first to be second to use them in print. I discovered many naturalists well known to Darwin and his closest associates who were apparently first to be second with apparently unique Matthewisms. Surprisingly, five out of only 25 people in the entire world discovered in this way were naturalists well known to Charles Lyell. This method also uniquely revealed that Chambers was first to be second to replicate Matthew's unique term for his discovery 'natural process of selection' and that Darwin uniquely four-word-shuffled that term into its only grammatically correct equivalent 'process of natural selection', which he used nine times in the Origin of Species(1859).
Conclusion
In addition to these unique discoveries that mean highly influential knowledge contamination from Matthew to Darwin and Wallace is now rationally proven far more likely than not, I have uniquely unearthed a plethora of clues as to where to look next for printed or hand-written 19th century evidence that Darwin was aware of Matthew's book pre 1858. Namely, in the correspondence, notebooks, published and unpublished work, and private diary archives of those I discovered cited or else were apparently first to be second with apparently unique Matthewisms before 1858 - and also in the diaries, notebooks, published and unpublished work and private correspondence archives their friends and associates.
Sunday, 24 May 2015
Immaculate Conception: An Analogy in Oils by Gabriel Woods
This oil painting, by the Nottingham based British portrait artist Gabriel Woods, showing Darwin holding Patrick Matthew as his own child.
Paying satirical homage to religious pictures of the Virgin Mary and child, this is a mesmerizing pictorial analogy of Darwin's and Wallace's claims to have each conceived the theory of natural selection independently of Patrick Matthew's (1831) prior published book, which expert Darwinists agree contained the full theory 27 years before Darwin's and Wallace's papers were read before the Linnean Society in 1858.
In the words of the artist Gabriel Woods (May 2015) in his explanation for his portrait "Immaculate Deception":
"The picture represents Charles Robert Darwin and Alfred Russel Wallace who both claimed, they each independently discovered the theory of natural selection with no prior knowledge of Patrick Matthew's earlier work. Patrick Matthew is represented in the allegorical painting as the infant "
The picture was commissioned, in light of new data (Sutton 2014) that proves naturalists well known to Darwin and Wallace read and then cited Matthew's book before going on to play roles at the very epicenter of influence on the pre-1858 work of Darwin and Wallace on natural selection.
The Blessed Virgin St Mary's conception of Jesus of Nazareth, is a miracle because she became pregnant with the child of "God" whilst surrounded by men who were fertile to some unknown degree. The analogy is perfect because so too were Darwin and Wallace surrounded by man whose brains were fertile - to some unknown degree - with Matthew's unique ideas. Therefore, in the final analysis, if Darwin and Wallace did not conceive Matthew's unique discovery, name for it, examples of it in nature, and his artificial versus natural slection analogy of differences to explain it, by some kind of 'knowledge contamination,' then they must surely have each been mysteriously endowed with a miraculous and divine cognitive contraceptive device (MAD CCD).
Sunday, 17 May 2015
Thursday, 23 April 2015
Stephen J. Gould Just Makes up a Self-serving Supermyth about the term 'Natural Selection'
Kindle Notes from Nullius (1)
(1979) was quite reasonably convinced that Charles Darwin had plagiarized 's (1831) discovery that artificial selection is the key to understanding natural selection - What I have named "The Artificial versus Natural Selection Explanatory Analogy of Differences". (First recognised as an analogy by W. J. Dempster 1996, p. 85).
In Desperate Defense of his Namesake, "Darwin", Famous Leading Set Out on a Crusade to "Rubbish" Eiseley's Findings
Most notably, Eiseley's particular piece of compelling evidence was never addressed by the famous Darwinist Gould (1983, 2002), who selectively criticized Eiseley's other evidence of Darwin's plagiarism of Edward Blyth, who - my blog post yesterday explained - cited many times the fact that he was influenced by Robert Mudie - who I discovered in 2014 (see Nullius) was first to replicate in 1832 (1) Matthew's unique term "rectangular branching" and (2) his unique and most powerful explanatory analogy.
Such selective omission lays Gould wide open to accusations of one-sided pseudo-scholarship.
Gould's biased omission is important because ID uniquely reveals that both Low (1844) and Darwin (1844 and 1859) replicated Matthew's (1831) use of this key example, Darwin did so in his private and unpublished 1844 essay - using the exact same examples, and later in the Origin of Species (1859) - using different examples, without citing Matthew (1831), or Low (1844).
Kindle Notes from Nullius (2)
Steven J Gould (2002) claimed also that: "ranked as a standard item in biological discourse." The implication being that it can't have been coined by way of influence from Matthew's unique term "natural process of selection."
Despite providing zero evidence to support it, Gould's winning argument has been innocently accepted by credulously biased Darwinist schnooks as proof that Eiseley was naively mistaken in thinking "natural selection" was a rare term.
In fact, the BigData facilitated ID research method proves Gould was absolutely wrong. Gould was "bulls**tting" in the philosophical sense generally described by Frankfurt (2005) . Because In his attempt to keep Matthew buried in oblivion with one-sided, Darwin-friendly inquiry, Gould (2002) essentially wheeled out a myth to accuse Eiseley of committing what he called an "etymological mistake", In reality, with the benefit of BigData technology that faciitates the ID research among over 30 million publications, we now know Eiseley was right and Gould was just being a biased baloney mongering pseudo-scholar - by way of simply making stuff up to suit his own ends. What is most disgraceful is that Darwinists - being so bone bullheadedly greedy to believe anything in their namesake's defense, swallowed Gould's bulloney without even chewing! And they continue to swallow it today.
Proper analysis of the data - as opposed to making stuff up to suit your own ends - reveals that out of over thirty million publications, the precise term 'natural selection' can be found in the literature only four times before Darwin first used it in 1858.
The first known use of the term 'natural selection' had nothing at all to do with science - the term being used by William Preston (1803) to describe how an artist would select a scene to paint. The second usage was by Darwin's fellow member, Frances Corbaux (1829) (this use was discovered first by Professor Milton Wainwright), in a very vaguely survival of the fittest human centenarian sense. The third usage was an anonymously authored piece of 1837 to describe how a a hypothesis was chosen as the best - a 'natural selection' over others.
When asked to account for his use of the term by his publisher "John Murray", Darwin claimed he found the term "natural selection" in the literature on breeding, but could never show where. If he got it from Corbaux then he told another lie. But of that, in this case, we cannot be at all sure. To give Darwin the benefit of the doubt, we must stick to the facts. We know for a fact he used the term in his 1844 private essay. We know for a fact he said he got it from the work of breeders - so let's assume he did get it from the work of breeders. Out of 30+ million publications, which pre-1844 publication by breeders comes close to using the term 'natural selection'? Only Matthew's 1831 book, coincidentally containing the full theory of natural selection , and - incidentally - a book on breeding trees! Matthew's is the book that Darwin's associate Chambers read and cited in 1844 and the book that his associate Selby read and cited in 1842. The dates are significant - are they not?
Although he never used the precise term, out of over 30 million publications we know that Matthew 1831 was the first to use the term: 'natural process of selection' and in 1859 Darwin was first to shuffle those same four words into 'process of natural selection'.
For the full story of all the strong evidence in favor of the Originator's, Patrick Matthew's, influence on Darwin and Wallace pre-1858 see Nullius in Verba: Darwin's greatest secret.That is my book - a book that pseudo scholarly leading Darwinists and their sheep like followers have read (I know because I am in correspondence with so many) but will not cite in their literature, because they don't want you to read it! They don't want you to read it because it absolutely proves that much of the literature - authored by them and their idols - churned out by the mighty and hugely profitable "Darwin Industry" -- is newly proven with hard and independently verifiable new data to be completely disproven claptrap!
When one leading Darwinist has the courage to abide by the motto of the Royal Society (Nullius in Verba - "On the word alone of no one") and engage fully with new hard data revealed in Nullius, only then will Darwinists thaw out from their current state of being pseudoscholarly Darwin worshiping -like frozen asinine donkeys.
The Enlightenment
Brodie, A. (2007):
'The enlightened person accepts the word of authority not as something to which he has to say ‘yes’, but as something to which it is appropriate to subject to critical analysis. The question for the enlightened person therefore is whether the word of authority can stand up to cross-examination before the tribunal of reason. If it can then it is accepted because it is sanctioned not by authority but by reason. If on the other hand it cannot withstand the cross-examination then it has to be discarded, however exalted the source.'
From: Brodie, A. (2007) The Scottish Enlightenment: The Historical Age of the Historical Nation. Edinburgh. Birlinn Ltd.
A selection of my blog posts and articles on this topic can be found on my website Patrickmatthew.com
Matthew and the Google Monster
The Google Monster
My original work in discovering the links between David Low and to 's (1831) Original prior-published discovery of the 'natural process of selection' and Darwin's replication of it would not have been possible without Google Chrome and the ID research method, which enabled me to search through over 30 million books and journals.
So effective is the ID research method that it enabled me to get back further with the Google search engine than Google's own staff - where I used the Google Monster to sniff out its namesake.
In fact, I used Google to discover the original Google! You can read that amusing story about the power of ID here.
Into the forests of the 19th century with Google to find evidence of Darwin's plagiarism
In the year I was born, caused a stir in 1959 when he accused Charles Darwin of plagiarizing the work of (see Smith 1979 for an interesting but somewhat disingenuous overview of Eisleley's collected works of 1979, where Smith, in the general and unfortunately biased fashion of so many typical desperate dysological gives the dismissive false impression - deliberate or just remiss - that it is he who has discovered that Blyth took much from 's 1835 "Feathered Tribes" book, when in fact Eiseley (1979, e.g, page 61) labored the point and it is from him that Smith gets it - so long as you bother to read Eiseley carefully.
Unfortunately, at a time when others were far more diligent, neither Mudie nor Matthew were good at citing their influencers (see my blog on Matthew's plagiarism). The difference Blyth and Smith is that Blyth was careful to cite his sources. The difference between Blyth and Darwin is just the same! The difference between Eiseley and Smith is that Eiseley was careful to cite his sources. The difference between Eiseley and Darwin the same.
Eiseley's collected papers on the topic of Darwin's plagiarism of Blyth can be found in the Book that contains those collected papers on Darwin. namely, Darwin and the Mysterious Mr X , which was published in 1979, two years after Eiseley's death.
Loren Eiseley (1979) ably demonstrated (pp 61-62) that Darwin cumulatively borrowed from Blyth's (1835) book 'The feathered tribes of the British islands' and his other published papers, without citing them.
Edward Blyth, twice co-author with Robet Mudie cited Mudie's work that Darwin replicated without citation. Blyth is widely acknowledged to have had a significant Influence on Darwin pre-1858. Blyth's most influential papers were edited by , who had earlier - in 1832 - reviewed Patrick Matthew's (1831) book and said it might have something original to say on "the origin of species"! Darwin's associate William Hooker (father of Darwin's best friend) knew Loudon and his friends very well!
Much of Darwin's prose, it was ably demonstrated by Eiseley, came from Blyth's papers of 1835 and 1837. But it is true also that nothing much of the full hypothesis of natural selection comes from them (see Smith 1979 ); although they are important papers on variety and habitat etc. But when it comes to his 1837 paper on to topic of "variation" and the "localizing principle" - (published by Longman and co - Matthew's London publisher - no less) - Eiseley (1979, p. 91) explains that Blyth comes close to the theory on natural selection. On this point, Eiseley- points out the work of De Beer which shows how much Blyth influenced Darwin's writing in his private notebook of 1837-38. What De Beer and Eiseley failed to note is that Blyth's "localizing principle" is heavily dependent upon Matthew's bombshell observations six years earlier of "power of occupancy".
In particular, we must remember that the religious Blyth did not believe in the evolution of species and pulled back from where his prose was leading-back to Matthew's conclusions that species could vary so much that they became new species. See Eiseley (1979 p.58 for an explanation of this fact). And that is a key point about the limitations of stopping at Blyth, as Eiselely did, and of not going back from him to Matthew - who originated and wrote out the entire theory of natural selection and was cited many times and reviewed by Blyth's editor - John Loudon and with whom we can establish collegiate links with Blyth's friend Mudie and others (as explained in great detail in Nullius ) and particularly Mudie's acknowledged influence on Blyth and the prose and ideas that Darwin copied from Blyth, without any attribution, that Blyth did attribute to Mudie.
Some 55 years later, now that the dust has settled on Eiseley's (1959) work, and his many papers that followed, it is essentially agreed that Darwin did steal much prose from Blyth and no doubt was influenced by the information he provided. However, unlike Matthew - the Originator of Natural selection and the great analogy that explained it, Blyth was well acknowledged by Darwin from the third edition of the onward as an important and highly valued general influence on his work.
Blyth might not have published the hypothesis of natural selection before Darwin, but Patrick Matthew certainly did before them both.
Prior to the reading of Wallace's and Darwin's papers before the Linnean society in 1858, it is widely agreed by the top scholars in the field that Patrick Matthew in 1831 penned the entire hypothesis of natural selection.! See my Rational Wiki essay for the details and references.
Of great importance, is the fact that it has gone unremarked until I wrote in 2014 these very same words you reading , that the editor and publisher of Blyth's (1835, 1836) most important papers on organic evolution was John Loudon, who in 1832, reviewed NTA and remarked that Matthew had discovered something unique on the origin of species!
Since Darwin admitted Blyth's influence on his thinking, this discovery of almost certainknowledge contamination, is alone enough to completely demolish the 154-year-old Darwinian myth that Matthew had no influence on Darwin.
Eiseley thought also that in addition to stealing from Blyth that Darwin had read and plagiarized Patrick Matthew's discovery of natural selection. But apart from what Jim Dempster, Milton Wainwright and Hugh Dower and myself (Nullius in Verba 2014 ), have written on that topic, Eiseley's discovery in this area has been most conveniently ignored by Darwinists.
Eiseley noted that following Matthew’s letter in the Gardener’s Chronicle of 1860 – claiming his priority – that Darwin (1868) replicated his 1844 private essay replication of Matthew’s unique prior-published analogy – this time citing Matthew.
In my earlier blog on Matthew's Artificial versus Natural Selection Analogy I included the text that Eiseley discovered. I now include it again.
'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...' "In his unpublished essay of 1844,Darwin wrote, 'In the case of forest trees raised in nurseries, which vary more than the same trees do in their aboriginal forests, the cause would seem to lie in their not having to struggle against other trees and weeds, which in their natural state doubtless would limit the conditions of their existence…"
In that later text, to which Eiseley directs us, Darwin (1868) wrote:
"Our common forest trees are very variable, as may be seen in every extensive nursery-ground; but as they are not valued as fruit trees, and as they seed late in life, no selection has been applied to them; consequently, as Patrick Matthew remarks, they have not yielded different races…"
Eiseley knew nothing of David Low's 1844 replication of so much of Matthew's work (seeNullius). Therefore, he wrote that Darwin must have got this example from Matthew by 1844. However, I discovered with ID that Professor David Low replicated Matthew's original analogy in 1844 as well as being the first to second publish unique Matthewisms. Darwin read Low and recommended him to Royal Society. Low was Matthew's Perth Academy schoolmate and shared the exact same Edinburgh and London Publishers as Matthew (see my Position Paper Sutton 2014). How's that for a bunch of mere coincidences?
David Low (1844) wrote enough that was similar to Matthew's text for it to be said, I think, that Darwin could in fact have got the idea - as a form of indirect 'knowledge contamination' from him:
‘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.'
However, another got there before Low. His name was Robert Mudie and he was born in Matthew's county of in Scotland and he published on this topic only a year after Matthew. I came accross Mudie by searching with the ID method (as explained in Nullius, in the section that is free to read on Amazon ) for specific words terms and phrases that, out of 30+ million books and journals online, Matthew 1831 appears to have coined. Mudie in 1832 was first to be second to use the extremely rare and apparently unique phrase "rectangular branching". This strongly suggests it is more likley than not that Mudie read Matthew's book as soon as it came out.
Only later did I find, from reading Eiseley (1979), that Mudie was a friend and associate of Darwin's great influence, Blyth. See page 171 of Eiseley 1979 - which explains that Blyth and Mudie worked together on an illustrated translation of Cuvier in 1840 - and that Blyth had read and cited much of Mudie's work. Some of the prose within Mudie's considerable output was about the camouflage of birds, Blyth used and cited it. That same prose, Eiselely discovered, was replicated without citation by Darwin.
The fact that I reached Mudie through an entirely different route than Eiseley - and the fact of Mudie's undoubted influence upon Blyth, who had an undoubted influence upon Darwin reveals two things. Firstly, it provides more data to confirm my "First to Be Second Hypothesis" by way of such unexpected and unpredictable triangulation. Namely that it seems more likely than not that Mudie read Matthew's book because he was frst to second publish Matthew's term "rectangular branching" also was first to replicate Matthew's unique "artificial versus natural selection explanatory analogy of differences" ; and secondly, it reveals almost certain knowledge contamination from Matthew to Mudie to Blyth to Darwin.
What was said to whom we may never know, but we do know by way of hiscorrespondence to Joseph Hooker that Darwin probably met Blyth pre-1848 - because in that year he recommended him to Hooker before he had, himslef, begun corresponding with him. Moreover, we know that Mudie and Blyth met because they collaborated together on two publications pre-1858. Face to face, via correspondence, via publications, or from third party oral information, my typology of knowledge contamination shows the various ways Matthew's prior published work could have entered Darwin's brain pre-1858.
If the internet was available in Eiseley's day there is little doubt that he would have made the same connection that I did, Namely that Mudie - who so influenced Blyth and Darwin - had surely read Matthew by 1832.
The case for Matthewian knowledge contamination of Darwin's brain by Mudie, who read Matthew (1831) and wrote about evolution without citing Matthew, is extremely powerful and it is far more significant than the simple fact discovered by Eiseley and celebrated by his peers, that the prose of Blyth (taken from his associate Mudie) - was replicated by Darwin without citation to its source.
Mudie (1832) Page 368 wrote:
‘If we are to observe nature, therefore, we must go to the wilds, because, in all cultivated productions, there are secondary characters produced by the artificial treatment, and we have no means of observing a distinction between these, and those which the same individual would have displayed, had it been left to a completely natural state. The longer that the race has been under the domestication and culture, the changes are of course the greater. So much is that the case that in very many both of the plants and animals that have been in a state of domestication since the earliest times of which we have any record, we know nothing with certainty about the parent races in their wild state. As to the species, or if you will the genus we can be certain. The domestic horse has not been cultivated out of an animal with cloven hoofs and horns; and the domestic sheep has never been bred out of any of the ox tribe. So also wheat and barley have not been cultivated out of any species of pulse, neither have Windsor beans at any time been grasses. But within some such limits as these our certain information lies; and for aught we know the parent race may, in its wild state, be before our eyes every day and yet we may not have the means of knowing that it is so. The breeding artificially has been going on for at least three thousand years…’
Mudie (1832) Page 369-370
‘But there is another difficulty. When great changes are made on the surface of a country, as when forests are changed into open land, and marshes into corn fields, or any other change that is considerable, the changes of the climate must correspond; and as the wild productions are very much affected by that, they must also undergo changes; and these changes may in time amount to the entire extinction of some of the old tribes, both of plants and of animals, the modification of others to the full extent that the hereditary specific characters admit, and the introduction of not varieties only but of species altogether new.That not only may but must have been the case. The productions of soils and climates are as varied as these are; and when a change takes place in either of these, if the living productions cannot alter their habits so as to accommodate themselves to the change there is no alternative, but they must perish.’
Mudie (1832) seemed to be recommending that humans engage in trying to approximate a kind of natural process of selection (370-371):
“Cultivation itself will deteriorate, and in time destroy races, if the same race and the same mode of culture be pursued amid general change. Our own times are times of very rapid change, and, upon the whole, of improvement; we dare not, without the certainty of their falling off, continue the same stock and the same seed corn, season after season, and age after age, as was done by our forefathers. The general change of the country, must have change and not mere succession, in that which we cultivate; and thus we must cross the breeds of our animals, and remove the seeds and plants of our vegetables from district to district. There is something of the same kind in human beings..”
The Matthew --> Mudie --> Low --> Blyth --> Darwin Connection
Much of the text that follows is taken from my previous blog on the F2b2 Hypothesis:
The Case of Robert Mudie and Matthewian 'Knowledge Contamination' of Darwin's so called 'independent discovery of natural selection.
- In his Book The Botanic Animal Robert Mudie (1832) was apparently the first to replicate the Matthewism "rectangular branching" - a phrase not used in print again (apparently) until 1855 and next in 1871 .
- Mudie (1832) was first to replicate Matthew's (1831) unique Artificial Selection versus Natural Selection Explanatory Analogy of Differences.
- The Scot, Mudie, like Matthew, was born in Forefarshire Scotland
- Mudie, a prolific author , worked energetically for borough reform with R. S. Rintoul , editor of the radical Dundee Advertiser - a newspaper that was very kind to Patrick Matthew - giving him a voice when others would not.
- Mudie was a friend and twice co-author with Blyth - the naturalist who most assisted and influenced Darwin pre-Orign. And Blyth's two early papers on species variety - that so influenced Darwin - were edited by John Loudon who reviewed Matthew's 1831 book in 1832 and remarked that it may have had something original to say on "The Origin of Species".
- Mudie died in 1842 - leaving his second wife (daughter of a captain in the East India Company) penniless. One report describes him as an intemperate spendthrift worn out too early by excessive intellectual endeavor and poverty.
- The highly respected anthropologist and science historian Loren Eiseley (1979, p. 214) spotted in a different 1832 publication of Mudie's that this particular Scot had somehow grasped, something, quite significant:
'Long ago when Darwin was still a youth aboard the Beagle, the Naturalist Robert Mudie, faithful to his century, had written:
' "There is a law that maintains the species." Scarcely had he made this assertion before he was busy explaining that all cultivated plants or animals were more or less monsters and that of the appearance of their parentage we know little or nothing. Even of wild forms he ends by hinting ambiguously of the emergence of species "altogether new". Finally he verges on complete heresy. "There is something," he almost whispers, "of the same kind in human beings," '
Eiseley was citing and quoting from: Mudie, R. (1832) A Popular Guide to the Observation of Nature. Whitaker, Constable's Miscellany of Original and Selected Publications of Literature, Science & the Arts. Vol. LXXVII Teacher and Co, London , And Waugh and Innes.Edinburgh. pp. 366-371 .
In his own earlier book of 1832, Mudie writes a great deal of text that focuses upon Matthew's topic of forest trees and the effects upon wood of the natural and cultivated circumstances in which it grows.
Conclusion
Did Mudie read his Forefarshire neighbor's - Patrick Matthew's - book, published the year before one of his own replicated a unique Matthewism and another of his books touched upon the same heresy?
Did he influence Blyth with some type of Mathewian knowledge contamination so that Blyth's work - that so significantly influenced Darwin - infected Darwin's brain?
Did Darwin get his knowledge about the difference between trees under artificial selection and those under natural selection directly from Matthew, and/or indirectly from either (or both) Mudie and Low?
Was Blyth, Darwin's great influencer, more likely than not double-dosed with Matthewian knowledge via his editor Loudon, who reviewed Matthew's book, as well as by Mudie? I would say so.
Darwin always maintained that neither he nor any naturalist known to him had read Matthew's 1831 book, which contained the full prior-published hypothesis of natural selection and the most powerful analogy in the world to explain it. Darwin was 100 per cent wrong! He did know seven naturalists who read it - because they cited it in the literature pe-1858! And three of those naturlaists (Loudon, Selby and Chambers) played major roles at his and Wallace's epicenter of ipre-1858 influence on natural selection.
Seeing Matthew's comparison between artificial selection and nature - not just in terms of the specific examples he used but focusing instead on that analogy - "Artificial versus Nature's Selection Explanatory Analogy of Differences" Matthew was the first person ever to use that analogy. We now know Robert Mudie - in 1832 - was first to replicate it and he influenced Blyth and Blyth cited him many times and co-authored with him twice. Darwinists accept that Blyth influenced Darwin and that Mudie influenced Blyth. What no one knew until I discovered it in 2014, is that Mudie (1832) was also first to be second with Matthew's unique phrase "rectangular branching". Mudie was also born in the same county as Matthew - Forfarshire in Scotland. Clearly, Mudie read Matthew's book by 1832.
If Mudie did not influence Blyth with intelligence about Matthew's book, then we are expected to believe that so much that Blyth (whose editor Loudon reviewed Matthew's book in 1832) wrote that was similar to what Matthew wrote was conceived independently of Matthew's prior-publication of the same ideas, when only the year before Mudie, who was Blyth's close friend.had read Matthew's 1831 book - a book that contained the very same ideas and that was the original source of those ideas that Blyth replicated before Darwin replicated them next in 1844 and 1859.
Darwin opened the Origin of Species with Matthew's 1831 unique analogy of Artificial versus Natural Selection! The very first words Darwin (1859) wrote are: " ‘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 more from each other than do the individuals of any one species or variety in a state of nature.”
Only when we realize that Matthew coined that analogy do we now see the conclusive evidence of Matthew's massive influence on Darwin. Matthew coined the worlds most powerful analogy to explain his unique discovery the worlds most important scientific theory. So important was the analogy - so influential - so powerful Darwin used it to open "The Origin of Species".
Read my blog on the topic to understand why, by virtue of being biologists, Darwinists failed to realize that Matthew also coined the very same analogy Darwin replicated to explain natural selection 27 years after Matthew originated it!
Game set and match to Matthew!
If such a macabre thing were possible, I expect Loren Eiseley and Patrick Matthew would be singing in their graves.
To find out more:
Read my book Nullius in Verba for more highly detailed information about Darwin's and Wallace's great science fraud.
Further Discussion
A further discussion of this topic can be found on the Patrick Matthew Project , where, on 22.April 2015 I posted the following comment:
Comment begins
The page numbers in Dempster 2009 are in fact pages114-115
I include here the relevant text from those pages and then I make further comments:
The hard evidence of Matthew’s influence on Darwin via Darwin’s Replication of Matthew’s Unique “Explanatory Analogy of Differences between Artificial and Natural Selection”, not only the replication of the analogy but the similarity of prose.
From Dempster (2009) pp 114-115:
Darwin actually began The Origin of Species with Matthews unique and powerful analogy of differences! And he used it again on pages 83-84 Darwin (1859, pp. 83-84)
From Dempster (1996) “Evolutionary Concepts in the Nineteenth Century: Natural selection and Patrick Mathew” pp. 114-115:
‘If we doubt that Blyth had any influence on Darwin it is a coincidence, then, that the very first sentence of the Origin runs as follows: ‘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 more from each other than do the individuals of any one species or variety in a state of nature.” Blyth’s essay [1835] begins with a classification of varieties – simple acquired, breeds and true. In the first paragraph of his discussion of simple varieties in this sentence: “These simple variations occur both in wild and domesticated animals, but are much more frequents in the latter, and are commonly observed in all breeds and true varieties.’ The observation was clearly well established years before because Matthew had this to say on the subject in Naval Timber and Arboriculture (1831): Man’s interference, by preventing this natural process of selection among plants, independent of the wider range of circumstance to which he introduces them, has increased the differences in varieties particularly in the more domesticated kinds.’ And yet, Darwin in his Historical Sketch [1861 – third edition of the Origin of Species onwards] stated Matthew’s book was on a different subject!’
—- Dempster’ text ends —
And what was it Darwin wrote in his 1844 unpublished private essay? Here it is:
“In the case of forest trees raised in nurseries, which vary more than the same trees do in their aboriginal forests, the cause would seem to lie in their not having to struggle against other trees and weeds, which in their natural state doubtless would limit the conditions of their existence…’”
Yes forest trees no less!
And yet Professor Jones – a Darwinist “expert” – on the BBC this week says that Darwin could be forgiven for not reading a book on that same topic! How on Earth does he get away with it?
Matthew (1831) used hs unique analogy several times with different examples. Here is just one to compare with Darwin’s (1844) replication of the analogy, Not he also – n this example – uses forest trees and those grown in nurseries (plantations) as an example.
Matthew (1831) pages.107-108
‘… 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?’
If this is “weak evidence” that the Scot Matthew influenced Darwin pre-1858 with his prior published full hypothesis of natural selection (that Darwin’s associates (Selby and Chambers) had actually read and cited” then I’m a Scotsman. And I was born in Kent!
Comment ends
UPDATE 24 January 2022
Further research on my part reveals more about the importance of Robert Mudie and his likely prior influence on Patrick Matthew before Matthew wrote his 1831 book "On Naval Timber". My latest book "Science Fraud: Darwin's Plagiarism of Patrick Matthew's Theory" covers some of Mudie's (1832) replication of Matthew's (1831) ideas in more depth. In the 1830 text that follows we see Mudie (1830) beginning to articulate the analogy between artificial and natural selection. The fact Mudie, Low and Matthew all lived in the county of Forfarshire (now Angus) in Scotland cannot go unremarked. The evolution of Matthew's theory of the "natural process of selection" surely happened in this region of Scotland. The exact same region in which Darwin's geological mentor Charles Lyell had his great manor house, just a few miles away form Matthew's house. More research is needed into the possible social relationships between Low, Mudie and Matthew.
THE BRITISH NATURALIST (Part I) CHAPTER I Mudie (1830)
INTRODUCTION
It may be a trite observation but it is at the same time a true one that there is neither waste nor ruin in nature When the productions of human art fall into decay they are gone and if the artist does not replace them by new formations the species is gone also but the works of nature are their own repairers and continuers and that which we are accus tomed to look upon as destruction and putrefaction is a step in the progress of new being and life This is the grand distinction between the productions of nature and those of art those in which the same power finds both the materials and the form and those in which the form is merely impressed upon previously existing materials.
The substances in nature are in themselves endowed with faculties unseen and inscrutable by man in any thing but their results which produce all the varied forms of inorganic and organic being of which the solid earth the liquid sea and the fluid air are formed and by which they are inhabited The fabrications of man are on the other hand in a state of commenced decay the instant that they are made and without the constant labour of repair and replacing they would perish altogether The most extensive cities and the strongest fortifications after man abandons them to their fate fade and moulder away so that the people of after ages dispute not merely about the places where they were situated but about the very fact of their existence It is true that when man takes any of nature's productions out of the place or circumstances for which nature has fitted them and supports them by artificial means they cannot continue to exist after those means are withdrawn any more than a roof can remain suspended in the air after the walls or parts that supported it are withdrawn or a cork will remain at the bottom of a basin of water after the weight that kept it from rising to the surface has been removed If man will have artificial shelter and food he must keep in repair the house that he has built trim the garden he has planted and plough and sow the field from which he is to obtain his artificial crop but if he would content himself with that which is produced without importation and artificial culture no planting sowing or culture is necessary for whether it be in the warm regions or in the cold in the sheltered valley or upon the storm beaten hill in the close forest or upon the open down nature does her part without intermission or error and while the results are so many and so beautiful the causes are those qualities. with which the fiat of the Almighty endowed the elements when it was his pleasure to speak the into existence.
Etc Etc
(This blog information Archived: Here)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)