Darwinists Failing in Desperate Attempts to Defend Namesake Against New Data



By Mike Sutton.


Since August 2104, following the publication of my e-book Nullius in Verba , I have been presented with a number of attempted defenses against newly discovered data.

The proven biological father of the theory of natural selection

Patrick Matthew is the proven biological father of the theory of natural selection

The New Data proves that Darwin’s friends and associates read Patrick Matthew’s (1831) book: On Naval Timber and Aboriculture,  containing the full prior-published hypothesis of natural selection.

Contrary to what some Darwinists have argued online in defense of their namesake, it really is possible to 100 per cent disprove something. Because the New Data 100 per cent disproves the prior Darwinist myth (started by Darwin in 1860) that no naturalists known to him or Wallace read Matthew’s book. In fact, it is newly discovered that seven naturalists cited it in the literature. Four of the “citing-seven” were known to Darwin, and three of them played major roles at the epicenter and facilitation of the pre-1858 work of Wallace and Darwin on the exact same subject. The only way this could be refuted is if someone discovers that there has been a massive “invasion of the book snatchers” hoax that involved seeding fake 19th century science books in libraries, bookshops and homes throughout the world. Just how probable (or even possible) is that?

The Darwinist prior ‘mere knowledge belief’ that Darwin and Wallace ‘independently discovered’ Matthew’s prior-published hypothesis is dis-confirmed by the newly discovered fact that those around Darwin and Wallace, and known to them, had read and cited the one book in the world they most needed to read because they replicated so much that was in it, while later claiming that neither they nor anyone known to them had read it.

As well as the hypothesis of natural selection, both Darwin (1844 and 1859) and Wallace (1858) replicated Matthew’s unique and groundbreaking artificial selection explanatory analogy. In his unpublished essay of 1844, Darwin wrote to replicate that exact expert forester and arboriculturalist example.

‘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…’

Unlike Matthew, Darwin was not an expert on that topic. So, if not from the expert, Matthew who had uniquely prior-published it, where did Darwin get it? Perhaps from David Lowe – Matthew’s old schoolmate – who replicated the analogy without citing Matthew, shared Matthew’s publishers and was apparently first to replicate apparently unique Matthew coined terms in his books, which all followed Matthew’s book of 1831? Perhaps so, because Darwin successfully recommended Lowe to the Royal Society precisely for his work on the use of artificial selection to explain natural selection. In either scenario, direct or else indirect, Matthewian to Darwin knowledge contamination appears far more likely than not.

A typology of knowledge contamination

  1. Innocent Knowledge Contamination: The spread of unique ideas from Matthew’s 1831 book via (a) other published sources on the topic, which failed to cite Matthew as their source, (b) word of mouth and/or correspondence to Darwin by those who read Matthew’s book – understood its importance in whole or simply in part – but failed to tell Darwin about the existence of the book.
  2. Reckless or Negligent Knowledge Contamination: (a) Darwin read Matthew’s book, absorbed many ideas and examples and terms from it, but forgot all about having read it – and never did remember (b) read it and took notes but forgot the source of the notes, (c) was told about ideas from Matthew’s book by someone – who understood their importance in whole or simply in part – told they came from a book, but failed to ask the name of the author and book.
  3. Deliberate Knowledge Contamination (science fraud): Darwin read Matthew’s book, took copious notes, remembered what he had done but always pretended otherwise.

If Darwin and Wallace ‘independently’ discovered Matthew’s hypothesis, and so many of his unique ideas, examples and terms, under such social conditions, surrounded by men whose minds were to some unknown extent, fertile with Matthew’s ideas (because we know they read the book containing them), then a miracle happened that has its analogue in the Christian belief in The Blessed Virgin’s Immaculate conception, by their “God”, of the baby Jesus. Perhaps someone – the Pope perhaps – will tell Richard Dawkins, famous atheist Darwin deifying author of The God Delusion, that he is actually, albeit unwittingly, serving as Gods’ atheist  apostle, his wonders to perform?

More likely than not,  no miraculous virgin-brain conception took place. Rationally, scientists are more likely to conclude, in light of the New Data that Darwin’s and Wallace’s associates did read Matthew pre-1858,  that some degree of Matthewian knowledge contamination took place  to cause Darwin’s and Wallace’s conceptions and replications of Matthew’s unique prior discovery.

Darwinist defenses against the likelihood of knowledge contamination taking place are all refutable with reason, logic and hard facts. The most up-to-date Darwinist defenses against the New Data – each followed by an evidence-led rebuttal can be found on the BestThinking website.


What Next?

Related Articles