Evidence Shows Darwin Plagiarized Prior Discovery of Natural Selection

By Mike Sutton.

Raphael Zon

Raphael Zon

In 2010, Professor Richard Dawkins – the leading Darwinist expert on evolution by natural selection  –  wrote that Patrick Matthew was in 1831 the first person to publish the full hypothesis of natural selection.  But Dawkins is adamant in his beliefs that both Charles Darwin and Patrick Matthew discovered natural selection independently of Matthew’s prior-published book and independently of  one another. However, in 2014 BigData technology unearthed a multitude of brand new evidence, which represents independently verifiable hard data that  dis-confirms all  of the mere knowledge-beliefs that Dawkins and other Darwinists have relied upon as evidenced premises of Darwin’s and Wallaces’s honesty when they claimed that neither they or any naturist known to them had any prior knowledge of Matthew’s unique ideas before 1860, the year after Darwin published The Origin of Species.

Background to new discovery

In 1913, the expert who was widely lauded as the ‘Dean of all foresters’, Professor Raphael Zon explained exactly why it is that a forester such as Patrick Matthew discovered natural selection almost 30 years before Darwin and Wallace replicated the exact the same discovery before claiming no prior knowledge of Matthew’s (1831) book containing it. Zon wrote in a peer reviewed journal article:

Is there anything strange, therefore, that it was a forester who first formulated the principles of natural selection? Is there anything strange also, in the fact that it was also foresters who laid the foundation for what has come to be known as ecology, which is the logical development of Darwinism? Because of the fact that the forest is the highest expression of plant life, the foresters occupy the strategic position from which they command vistas accessible only with difficulty to other naturalists. In this lies the strength of forestry, its peculiar beauty, and the debt which science owes it. (Zon 1913, p. 546).

Professor Loren Eiseley (1979) thought that Darwin’s replication of  one of Matthew’s explanatory examples alone was sufficient proof that Darwin had read Matthew’s book

before 1844  and plagiarized Matthew’s entire discovery of natural selection . Darwin’s unpublished essay of 1844 reveals his great interest in trees as key to understanding natural selection as an analogue of artificial selection, was remarkably similar to Matthew’s discovery. Matthew, who elsewhere in NTA (p. 280-285, 366) wrote about the relative hardiness of naturally selected crab apple trees compared with artificially selected hybridized apple trees, wrote (Matthew 1831, p. 308):

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

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…’

Wallace’s (1858) Ternate paper (contrary to the dreadful fallacy penned by Professor Bowler) also used artificial selection as a heuristic device to explain natural selection.  That should not be surprising, however, since the Chief editor of  the journal that published his earlier Sarawak paper (Selby – who was a famous naturalist and friend of Darwin;s father) cited Matthew’s (1831) book many times in 1844 (see Sutton 2014). And my research further uniquely reveals that Selby was by no means the only naturalist known personally to Darwin  to have cited Matthew pre-1858. So much then  for Darwin’s fallacious claim, parroted by credulous Darwin  worshiping Darwinists for the past 154 years, that no naturalist known to him had read Matthew’s ideas before 1860.

Published two peer reviewed papers on Darwin's science fraud

Published two peer reviewed papers on Darwin’s science fraud

Professor Milton Wainwright has published two important peer reviewed articles on Darwin’s likely plagiarism of Matthew here and here.

The New Data Discovered in 2014

In December 2014 the British Society of Criminology published my peer reviewed article (click here) that reveals why a host of newly discovered data – in 2014 – now means that it is more likely than not that  both Darwin and Wallace did plagiarize Matthew’s book, that they lied when they claimed no prior knowledge of it and that by doing so they committed the worlds greatest science fraud.

Please click here to read the latest peer reviewed article on Darwin’s and Wallace’s plagiarism of Matthews’ discovery.

For 154 years we have been telling ourselves a great lie about the discovery of natural selection. For so long and so often has the lie been told that we

Discovery of the worlds greatest science fraud
Discovery of the worlds greatest science fraud

believe it to be true. Darwinists live in fear that only chaos will ensue if the truth is accepted that they are named for the worlds greatest science fraudster only because of his fraud.  But chaos offers opportunities  for a better world.  What sort of world do you prefer to live in?

 

If you are interested in reading all the evidence – older and newly discovered –  of Darwin’s and Wallace’s lies, plagiarism and science fraud then my e-book  on the topic is

available on every Amazon site and also directly from my publisher here 

 

 

 

 

Reference for Zon’s essay

Zon, R. (1913) Darwinism in Forestry. The American Naturalist. Vol. 47. No. 561. September. pp. 540-546.

Comments

What Next?

Related Articles