Mike Sutton's Blog

I have made a 13 minute video to explain the hilarious significance of just a fraction of the New Data in my latest book "Science Fraud: Darwin's Plagiarism of Patrick Matthew's Theory"

You can view it here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dz125...
Science Fraud: Charles Darwin's Plagiarism of Patrick Matthew's Theory

(Q) Why is my new book "Science Fraud" important? Science Fraud: Charles Darwin's Plagiarism of Patrick Matthew's Theory

(A) Because it proves Charles Darwin and Alfred Wallace committed the The World’s Biggest Science Fraud and that they were, and continue to be assisted by the corrupt so-called "Darwin Industry" to do do.

Is it a myth, a fact or something in-between?

1. Is it true that Darwin and/or Wallace originated the full theory of macroevolution by natural selection?

Answer = No! It's a myth because Charles Darwin and Alfred Wallace, and many other top experts on evolution (such as Matthew himself, de Beer, Mayr and Dawkins) all agreed Matthew (1831) was first into print, decades before Darwin or Wallace with the full theory.

2. Is it true that Matthew must have failed to influence Darwin and/or Wallace with his theory because no naturalists / no single person had read Matthew's theory before he claimed his priority in a published letter of 1860?

Answer = No! It's a myth started as an empirical proven lie by Darwin in all editions of the Origin of Species from third edition onwards and parroted by the credulous and adoring scientific community ever since. In 1860 Matthew's published letter informed Darwin directly that his book had been reviewed by the famous naturalist and biologist Loudon, reviewed in various periodicals and newspapers and was read by an esteemed professor who could not teach it nor write about it for fear of pillory punishment, it being heretical in the first half of the 19th century. Sutton's research originally and uniquely identifies 30+ people who read and then cited Matthew's 1831 book in published print before Darwin and Wallace replicated the original theory in it. This list includes Wallace's admitted greatest influencer, Robert Chambers (who met and corresponded with Darwin pre-1858) and the editor of Wallace's famous Sarawak paper - Selby. Loudon edited and published two of Blyth's most influential papers, read by Darwin, and Darwin admitted Blyth was his most prolific correspondent on the topic of species and varieties.

3. Is it true, what Darwin claimed in the Origin of Species and elsewhere, that Matthew was an obscure writer and that Matthew's theory was only briefly given in the scattered pages of an appendix to an entirely irrelevant book on the topic?

Answer = No! It's a myth. Again this myth was started as a published lie by Darwin. Firstly, if Matthew was an obscure writer then how is it that pre-1858 Matthew was cited in the Encyclopedia Britannica and and elsewhere in that publication his 1831 book enjoyed a prominent 1/2 page block advert and why is it that it is newly proven that before 1858 Darwin held in his own hands at least five publications that cited Matthew's 1831 book. Darwin lied about Matthew's theory being limited to an appendix because his own letter to Lyell on that topic said it would be splitting hairs to admit the truth (he knew, because Matthew had shown him in his published letter of reply to Darwin) was otherwise. Moreover, trees and plants are at the core of the theory of evolution by natural selection. Darwin was obsessed by trees and the private notebook of books he read proves it.

4. Is it true that Darwin originated the term "process of natural selection"

Answer = Something in between. Big Data research does reveal he was apparently first into print with that term. But it is a four word shuffle of Matthew's 1831 original term of the very exact same meaning "natural process of selection". And Chambers (who cited Matthew's 1831 book before writing his own influential 1844 book on organic evolution) was apparently first to be second into print in 1859 with Matthew's original four word term.

5. Is it true that Darwin was the first to use artificial selection as an analogue of natural selection as an analogical explanation to explain the process of natural selection?

Answer = No! It's a myth. Matthew was first to do that. He was then followed by Wallace who used it in his Sarawak paper. Darwin replicated Matthew's explanatory analogy in his private essay of 1844 and to open Chapter One in the Origin of Species. In that private essay Darwin even replicated Matthew's highly idiosyncratic analogy of difference between trees raised in nurseries versus trees growing wild in nature.

6. Is it true that Darwin was a remarkably honest man and genius original thinker?

Answer = No! It's a myth, proven by each and every one of the empirical fact led five answers to the questions above. Darwin (and Wallace too) was a replicator of a prior published theory and all paths of those who read and cited Matthew's book lead to Darwin and to Wallace and to their known and admitted influencers, friends and to their influencer's influencers. Darwin, with assistance from Wallace, and others, facilitated and enabled by the bone-headed bias and credulity of the scientific community, committed the worlds greatest science fraud by plagiary and lies.

New Big Data research has uncovered Darwin’s science fraud by plagiarism to reveal new evidence, to prove at least on the balance of reasonable probability, and surely beyond all reasonable doubt, that Charles Darwin (1858/59) and Alfred Wallace (1858) plagiarised the theory of evolution by natural selection from Patrick Matthew’s (1831) book ‘On Naval Timber and Arboriculture’ (hereafter NTA).

Facts, newly unearthed in the publication record, overturn currently accepted ‘knowledge beliefs’ on who has complete priority for this hugely important scientific theory.

What are the main currently accepted scientific consensus ‘knowledge claims’ in this area?

Darwin, Wallace and Matthew, and other leading experts in the field all agreed the theory Darwin and Wallace claimed as their own is, in all important regards, the same as Matthew’s complete prior origination. See: Matthew (1860a; 1860b) Darwin (1860, 1861), Wallace (1879 1879a), de Beer (1962), Mayr (1982), Hamilton (2001), Dawkins (2010), and Rampino (2011).

Darwin and Wallace each arrived at the theory of natural selection independently of each other and entirely independently of Matthew’s prior publication of it.

On the claimed grounds no one at all, no naturalists, and no one who could have influenced Darwin or Wallace had prior read Matthew’s theory before Darwin’s and Wallace’s Linnean Society presentations on the theory on 1858 and Darwin’s (1859) replication of it in The Origin of Species, Darwin has been granted strangely unspoken-of unofficial exemption from the Arago Ruling (see Strivens 2003 on the rule) that whoever is first into published print with a breakthrough in science has full priority for that breakthrough.

Point 3 above is supported on the widely held belief of Darwin’s remarkable honesty as a human being and naturalist of the highest integrity.

How do irrefutable newly unearthed facts overturn the above points 2, 3 and 4?

Point 2 – refuted by the facts

(a). Big Data analysis (see Sutton and Griffiths 2018 for the method used) reveals Matthew was first to coin the term ‘natural process of selection’. He did so because his theory is about what happens: naturally as a process leading to selection of favourable inheritable characteristics making an organism most circumstance suited to survive and pass on those favourable characteristics to its offspring. Matthew wrote that entirely new species could emerge in this way. Darwin (1859) was first to four-word-shuffle Matthew’s exact same four words to essentially re-brand it: the ‘process of natural selection.’ Thereafter, in every edition of the Origin of Species, Darwin referred to it as “my theory.”

(b). Eiseley (1979) discovered that in a private unpublished essay, Darwin (1844) replicated Matthew’s highly idiosyncratic important explanatory analogy of the difference between plants raised in nurseries versus those growing wild in "nature". So important is that analogy between artificial and natural selection, Wallace (1855) used it in his famous Sarawak paper and Darwin used it to in the first paragraph of the opening chapter of the Origin of Species to make the theory understandable.

(c). Selby, a naturalist well-networked with Darwin’s friends and influencers, was Chief Editor of the journal that published Wallace’s (1855) Sarawak paper on evolution. Most importantly, it is newly discovered and revealed that Selby cited NTA in 1842!

This major research finding on Selby has been repeat plagiarised. Twice in the disgraced Biological Journal of the Linnean Society (see details here). Joachim Dagg who plagiarised the Selby research finding in the Biological Journal of the Linnean has a malicious and very peculiar obsessive blog site, (here) (archived here). The Selby data has also been plagiarised in the Journal of Creation (here), meaning the Biological Journal of the Linnean Society is not alone in its disgraceful pseudo-scholarly plagiarism facilitation.

Point 3 – refuted by the facts

In addition to (c) above, Darwin's fraud by plagiary and lies is proven following the results of ground-breaking Big Data analysis, which disproves the ‘no naturalist’/’no one’ read NTA pre-1858 belief. Big Data research proves NTA was cited in the literature by at least 29 individuals. Apart from Loudon, these were all originally found by Sutton’s Big Data research (2014a, 2014b, 2015). Seven of those who cited NTA were the naturalists, John Loudon (1832), Robert Chambers (1832), Edmund Murphy (1834), Cuthbert Johnson (1842), Prideaux John Selby (1842), John Norton (1851) and William Jameson (1853).
The figure below depicts, five of the seven—Loudon, Chambers, Johnson, Selby and Jameson were part of Darwin's social circle. Three—Selby, Johnson, and Chambers—were in his inner circle, through personal meetings and correspondence (Chambers), shared contacts, and mutual membership of scientific associations.

Point 4 – refuted by the facts

His deliberate fraud is proven because Darwin told several unequivocal lies about who read Matthew’s publication, where the theory is in it and more besides about his own prior influencers. As one example, Matthew (1860) told Darwin NTA was reviewed by Loudon and an unnamed professor who was afraid to write or teach his theory for fear of being pilloried for promoting heresy, and that NTA was banned for the same reason from Perth Public Library. Yet Darwin (1860, 1861) continued to lie that Matthew’s theory was unread before 1859. The truth of the matter is that Loudon (1832) wrote of NTA “One of the subjects discussed in the appendix is the puzzling one of the origin of species and varieties…”

REFERENCES

de Beer G (1962) The Wilkins Lecture: The Origins of Darwin’s Ideas on Evolution and Natural Selection. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series B. Biological Sciences 155 (960). pp.321-338.

Chambers, W. and Chambers, R (1832). Chambers's Edinburgh Journal. William Orr. Saturday March 24th. p. 63: http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=IR...

Darwin. C. R. (1859) On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection. Or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life. London. John Murray.

Darwin, C. R. and Wallace, A. R. (1858) On the tendency of species to form varieties, and on the perpetuation of varieties and species by natural means of selection. Journal of the Proceedings of the Linnean Society of London.

Darwin, C. R. (1860a) Natural selection. Gardeners' Chronicle and Agricultural Gazetteno. 16 (21 April): 362-363. (This is

Darwin's letter in response to Matthew's in the Gardeners Chronicle where Darwin clearly indicates he had no prior knowledge of Matthew's book). See Darwin online: http://darwin-online.org.uk/content/f...

Darwin, C. R. (1861) On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection. Or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life. (Third Edition) London. John Murray.

Dawkins, R. (2010) Darwin's Five Bridges: The Way to Natural Selection. In Bryson, B (ed.) Seeing Further: The Story of Science and the Royal Society. London. Harper Collins.

Eiseley, L. (1979) Darwin and the Mysterious Mr X: New Light on the Evolutionists. New York. E. P. Dutton.

Hamilton, W. D. (2001) Narrow Roads of Gene Land, Volume 2: Evolution of Sex. Oxford. Oxford University Press.

Jameson, W. (1853) Contributions to a History of the Relation between Climate and Vegetation in various parts of the Globe. On the Physical Aspect of the Punjab its Agriculture and Botany. By Dr. Jameson Superintendent of the Botanic Garden Saharunpore. In The Journal of the Horticultural Society of London. Volume 8. p. 273-314.

Johnson, C. W. (1842) Plantation. The Farmer's Magazine January to June. Vol. 5 pp. 364-368.

Loudon, J. C. (1832). Matthew Patrick On Naval Timber and Arboriculture with Critical Notes on Authors who have recently treated the Subject of Planting. Gardener's Magazine. Vol. VIII. p. 703. https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?i...

Matthew, P. (1831) On Naval Timber and Arboriculture; With a critical note on authors who have recently treated the subject of planting. Edinburgh. Adam Black.

Matthew, P. (1860a) Letter to the Gardeners Chronicle. Nature's law of selection. Gardeners' Chronicle and Agricultural Gazette (7 April): 312-13. Darwin Online: http://darwin-online.org.uk/content/f...

Matthew, P. (1860b) Letter to the Gardeners Chronicle. Nature's law of selection. Gardeners' Chronicle and Agricultural Gazette (12 May) p. 433: Available free online here: http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=yi...

Mayr, E. (1982) The growth of biological thought: diversity, evolution, and inheritance. Cambridge, Mass. Harvard University Press.

Murphy, E. (1834) Irish Farmer's and Gardener's Magazine and Register of Rural Affairs. Volume 1.

Norton. In: Stephens, H. (1853) With assistance from Norton, J. P. The Farmer's Guide to Scientific and Practical Agriculture. Volume 2. New York. Leonard Scott.

Rampino, M. R. (2011) Darwin's error? Patrick Matthew and the catastrophic nature of the geologic record. Historical Biology: An International Journal of Paleobiology. Volume 23, Issue 2-3.

Selby, P. J. (1842) A history of British forest-trees: indigenous and introduced. London. Van Voorst.

Strivens, M. (2003) The Role of the Priority Rule in Science. Journal of Philosophy. 100 (55) pp. 1-33.

Sutton, M. (2014a) Nullius in Verba: Darwin’s Greatest Secret. Thinker Press. Thinker Media Inc.

Sutton, M. (2014b) The hi-tech detection of Darwin’s and Wallace’s possible science fraud: Big data criminology re-writes the history of contested discovery. Papers from the British Criminology Conference. Vol. 14: pp. 49-64. http://britsoccrim.org/volume14/pbcc_...

Sutton, M. (2015) On Knowledge Contamination: New Data Challenges Claims of Darwin’s and Wallace’s Independent Conceptions of Matthew’s Prior-Published Hypothesis. Filozoficzne Aspekty Genezy. Issue No: 12. Pp.167-205. http://cejsh.icm.edu.pl/cejsh/element...

Sutton, M. and Griffiths, Mark. D. (2018). Using Date Specific Searches on Google Books to Disconfirm Prior Origination Knowledge Claims for Particular Terms, Words, and Names. Soc. Sci. 7, no. 4: 66. https://doi.org/10.3390/socsci7040066

Wallace, A. R. (1855) On the law which has regulated the introduction of new species. The Annals and Magazine of Natural History. Series 2. 16. 184-196.

Wallace, A. R. (1858b) On the Tendency of Species to Form Varieties; (and by Darwin, C , “On the Perpetuation of Varieties and Species by Natural Means of Selection”), Journal of the Proceedings of the Linnaean Society of London. Zoology 1858, vol. 3, pp. 45-50.

Wallace, A. R. (1879) Butler's "Evolution, Old and New." Nature. Volume 20 June 12th. https://archive.org/details/naturejou...

Wallace, A. R. (1879a) 9 May. Letter to Samuel Butler. Unique WCP identifier: WCP1586. Wallace Letters Online. Natural History Museum. http://www.nhm.ac.uk/research-curatio... Archived: https://archive.is/Ql3cc

The BIG DATA search technique used to detect Darwin's and Wallace's plagiarism, associated lies and glory stealing science fraud has been officially recognised as a distinct research method by 4 expert peer reviewers in the Social Science journal.

It is open access so you can read it for free to see several more mythbusts . For example: contrary to claims made in 100s of publications, Richard Dawkins did not coin the term or concept of the "selfish gene". Want to know the real origins of the character Humpty Dumpty?

See: http://www.mdpi.com/2076-0760/7/4/66/...

[image error]

Trumpet from the RooftopsAttribution

What if You are Right and They are Wrong?

On release of my book Nullius in Verba: Darwin's greatest secret a small herd of amazingly well camouflaged - alive yet frozen - donkey Darwinists were found online on the so-called ��� Richard Dawkins Foundation for Reason and Science .

Bob Butler - CEO of Thinker Media - engaged impressively in a Gonzo-science documentation of their incredible petrified faith.

Real scientists and other true skeptics are currently working to find a cure for Frozen Donkey Syndrome.

You can find out the origins of the Frozen Donkey Hypothesis here.

And more about George Beccaloni - Curator of the Wallace Collection - here.

Comments about Butler's amazing and amusing encounter with the frozen donkeys can be shared and discussed on The Patrick Matthew Project.

Advice on what to do if you encounter a frozen donkey

If you would like to help a Frozen Donkey Darwinist you could do worse than to raise money so they can live out their days in a nice little sanctuary - perhaps inside a museum - where they will be protected from new discoveries that confuse and upset them by overturning their old comfortable 'knowledge beliefs'.

Frozen donkeys are an endangered species. if you encounter one please do not torment it with facts as that might prove fatal to the overall survival of this fascinating life form.

Alternatively, if, like me, you wish to reduce the incidence of frozen donkey's in the scholarly population then you should dose them politely at every opportunity with veracity.

It is currently International Open Season on frozen donkeys and, despite their endearing defensive braying to the contrary, no licence is required to tackle and treat them on the internet and elsewhere in academia.

Various websites carry copious and free supplies of independently verifiable veracity. My personal favorites are two of my own: Patrickmatthew.com and Supermyths.com.

Thinker Media IncUsed only with express written permission

Nullius in Verba

Adopt a Darwinist. These endearing and endangered creatures need your veracious love and care to overcome the trauma of the New Data reported in the book that re-wrote the history of the discovery of the theory of natural selection.

Mike Sutton 2013Used only with express written permission

Mike Sutton King of the Nerds

Today, the British Sunday Times Magazine reported on the Supermyth concept, which was first reported here on BestThinking in my unique busting of the Spinach Popeye Iron Decimal Error myth.

In his popular column "The God of Small Things", Matt Rudd (Senior Writer for the Sunday Times) writes on page 5 of the Sunday Times Magazine of May 10th 2015):

'Child A announces he no longer has to eat spinach. His teacher told him a 19th-century scientist got the decimal point wrong when they recorded its iron content, inadvertently exaggerating it tenfold.

Popeye's superpowers were founded on a myth he claims.

[image error]

The Sunday Times Magazine May 10th 2015Attribution

Article by Matt Rudd, Senior Writer for The Sunday Times.

Wait there while I check, I say. Four days later, I have an answer. It is possibly the most convoluted answer in the history of this column, but I'll give you the short version.

The decimal point error was first mentioned in an article by Professor Bender in 1971. it has since been used as an example of the importance of accuracy in science.Which is ironic, because there never was a decimal point error in the first place.

Dr Mike Sutton of Nottingham Trent University spent many, many weeks getting to the bottom of the myth. The confusion comes from the fact that dried spinach conatains a lot more iron (44.5 mg per 100g) than fresh spinach (2.7mg per 100g). It was this, rather than an errant decimal point, that caused the initial muddle. There was another muddle involving iron oxide.

And then Professor Bender came along with his decimal point story, and now we have a myth about a myth.

Or a SUPERMYTH, as Dr Sutton calls it.

Popeye, by the way, got his superpowers from the beta-carotene in his spinach. Iron had nothing to do with it. To confuse matters much further, spinach still has a relatively high iron content, even without moving any decimal points. But it's still no good. As Sutton points out: "Spinach contains oxalic acid and oxalic acid is an iron blocker."

So Child A's teacher was right for the wrong reason. And Child A is now trying to find a reason to avoid broccoli.

- Matt Rudd's Sunday Times Magazine article ends -

[image error]

Public Domain

Popeye cartoon from 1932.

[image error]

Matt RuddAttribution

Matt Rudd - Senior Writer of The Sunday Times newspaper and magazine

The Sunday Times Newspaper and its Magazine has a weekly readership of more than two million people.

I am delighted that it has played a role in popularizing my discoveries in the history of science. Many thanks to Matt Rudd - who is perfectly followable on Twitter @MattRudd

Visit the Supermyths website to find out what others have been discovered.

[image error]

Public Domain

Drawing by Mike Sutton from a still from the 1934 Popeye movie 'A Dream Walking'. Many 1930's and 1940's Popeye movies contained such powerful spinach and iron metaphors

The popular 32 year old myth that a misplaced decimal point in the published results of the iron content of spinach by Professor von Wolff, or else von Bunge, in the 19th century influenced scientists in the 20th century to fail to check the facts and to simply recommend spinach for its over-inflated iron content is finally busted. compendium

Having spent several months of my spare time in 2010 researching turn of the 20th century German biochemistry journals and books on nutrition, I can reveal that several scientists, all working completely independently, came to very similar conclusions. The reason for their exaggerated measurement of the iron content of spinach, and other food, is bad science. They were, amongst several other things, contaminating the spinach in the laboratory with the vessels they used and the charcoal they used to heat it.

The bad science mistake was in fact (contrary to the nonsense contained in the myth) spotted by von Bunge in the 19th century and the fact that such errors occurred was disseminated widely by US Professor Sherman in the early 20th century.

The Spinach, Popeye, Iron, Decimal Error Story (SPIDES) is a myth that was ironically perpetrated by the famous myth busting nutritionist Professor Arnold E. Bender in his inaugural lecture at Queen Elizabeth College, University of London. Arnold E. Bender. Bender first mentioned it in that inaugural lecture in 1972 (Bender 1972) and later in an article in the Spectator (Bender 1977). In the Spectator, Bender started the myth when he claimed that a German textbook on nutrition (Noorden and Salomon 1920; 476) replicated an earlier decimal point data mistake made by generations of textbooks that unquestioningly replicated erroneous data first published in 1870 by the German scientist E. von Wolff:

For a hundred years or more spinach has been (and clearly still is) renowned for its high iron content compared with that of other vegetables, but to the joy of those who dislike the stuff this is quite untrue. In 1870 Dr E. von Wolff published the analyses of a number of foods, including spinach which was shown to be exceptionally rich in iron. The figures were repeated in succeeding generations of textbooks ��� after all one does not always verify the findings of others ��� including the ���Handbook of Food Sciences��� (Handbuch der Ernahrungslehre) by von Noorden and Saloman[1] 1920.

In 1937 Professor Schupan eventually repeated the analyses of spinach and found that it contained no more iron than did any other leafy vegetable, only one-tenth of the amount previously reported. The fame of spinach appears to have been based on a misplaced decimal point.���

Bender's myth was popularized as being true by Professor Terry Hamblin in the British Medical Journal in 1981 - perversely in an upbeat Christmas article entitled "Fake" about fake academic research. Furthermore, Popeye never ate spinach for iron, his creator E. C. Segar made it the source of his superhero's strength due to its vitamin A (beta carotene) content.

[image error]

Public Domain

Popeye cartoon from 1932.

Here is Hamblin's (1981) new-spin dissemination of Bender's original spinach myth:

���A statue of Popeye in Crystal City, Texas, commemorates the fact that single handedly he raised the consumption of Spinach by 33%. America was ���strong to the finish ���cos they ate their spinach��� and duly defeated the Hun. Unfortunately the propaganda was fraudulent; German chemists reinvestigating the iron content of Spinach had shown in the 1930s that the original workers had put the decimal point in the wrong place and made a tenfold overestimate of its value. Spinach is no better for you than cabbage, Brussels sprouts, or broccoli. For a better source of iron Popeye would have been better off chewing the cans.���

So Hamblin, an orthodox expert, appears to be the first to brace the spinach myth because he did not check the facts behind it. Hamblin has been followed by many orthodox experts all believing the myth to be true and so, with excruciatingly unintended irony, using it as an example of the need to be sceptical of research findings and to check your facts. If ever that old saying "hoisted by your own petard" is very applicable then it is here.

Time Line for Spinach Popeye Iron Decimal Error Myth Busting

[image error]

Public Domain

Accidental spinach and nutritional iron metaphors were used the Popeye comic strips as well as in the popeye movies

1871 Von Wolff���s bad science exaggerated spinach iron content 1892 - Switzerland - the German Von Bunge gets it right 1907 - USA - Sherman explains 19th Century bad science 1920 - Germany - Noorden & Salomon still citing old German bad science 1972 - UK - Bender publishes spinach Popeye iron decimal error myth 1981 - UK - Hamblin braces Bender���s myth 2010 - UK Sutton proves Popeye ate spinach for vitamin A and never for iron 2010 - UK Sutton busts spinach iron decimal error myth - Proving that some German chemists had it wrong in the 1920's, whilst the German Von Bunge and American scientists had it right much earlier. later it is possible that Popeye comic strips and movies might have accidentally confused the public about spinach being a good source of iron. 2011 - UK Sutton shows that US spinach production did indeed increase by 33 per cent in 1936My essays on this topic

The full Spinach Decimal Error myth busting story can be read here: http://www.bestthinking.com/articles/science/chemistry/biochemistry/the-spinach-popeye-iron-decimal-error-myth-is-finally-busted

1, The USDA is spreading dangerous 'bull' on the Internet. Here: http://www.bestthinking.com/articles/science/chemistry/biochemistry/spin-ge-usa-beware-of-the-bull-the-united-states-department-of-agriculture-is-spreading-bull-about-spinach-iron-and-vitamin-c-on-the-internet

2, Does current USDA erroneous nutrition advice have its roots in a perverse scientific paper written in 1937? Here: http://www.bestthinking.com/articles/science/chemistry/biochemistry/spin-ge-ii-does-the-united-states-department-of-agriculture-s-publication-of-spuriofacts-have-its-origins-in-a-perverse-scientific-paper-written-in-1937-

3. Popeye's creator chose spinach for its vitamin A content (beta carotene), never for iron. The start of the spinach myth busting. Here: http://www.internetjournalofcriminology.com/Sutton_Spinach_Iron_and_Popeye_March_2010.pdf

On Supermyths

On Supermyths: Their discovery, distinguishing characteristics and significance.

On Hamblin

Professor Hamblin sadly passed away on January 8th 2012. As a immunohematologist, Hamblin was a notable and highly respected and regarded researcher and teacher. He is particularly notable as an early pioneer of stem cell treatment for cancer. He made a difference by making the world a better place.

[image error]

Trumpet from the rooftopsPublic Domain

Dr Mike Sutton - solver of the origin of the Origin of Species!

Mike Sutton's Author Page on Amazon Books

Here

It was not until today that I learned about Amazon Author Pages. I have to thank Soula Dempster for letting me know that I really needed to get one to help promote my book.

Soula, who is the daughter of the late James Dempster, kindly reviewed my book Nullius in Verba: Darwin's greatest secret today.

You can read Soula's review here

And you can visit my Amazon Books author page here.

[image error]

Public Domain

Professor David Anstead

In science, being first has always been everything (see my RationalWki essay) and under the Royal Society's rules - as enshrined in the Arago Effect - no amount of confirmatory evidence gathering can ever transmute a prior published hypothesis into your own.

Yet when it was shown tin 1860 hat Patrick Matthew beat Darwin and Wallace by 27 years to publish the full hypothesis of natural selection , Darwin capitulated immediately in the press and admitted as much. But that was far from the end of it, because what should have been named Matthewism is today called Darwinism because Darwin's powerful friends, closed ranks on his behalf - and for the most part simply ignored Matthew. Unable to ignore his pending paper at their conference, however, powerful members of the British Society for Advancement of Science slyly platform blocked him from speaking about his discovery (see Sutton 2014 for the full disgraceful details).

Two of Darwin;s supporters went so far as to "trash-talk" the situation in 1860 - signifying Matthew as an unoriginal crank. And this same shamefully ignorant Darwinist defense dysology is still wheeled out by desperate Darwin supporters to this day.

Back in the 19th century, Darwin's friend, Professor David Anstead - or at the very least his anonymous editor weirdly adding footnotes on his article - mockingly rubbished Matthew in the Dublin University Magazine (January to June) in 1860) effectively writing that he was an over opinionated crank who had written nothing original. The footnote can be read here . It is peculiarly unjust since Darwin (1860) had fully admitted in the Gardener's Chronicle - in reply to Matthew's claim - that Matthew was first to discover the entire original process of natural selection as an explanation for the origin and extinction of species.

On 24th November 1860 an anonymous naturalist, writing in the Saturday Analyst and Leader added further insult to injury by proposing that a replicator, such as Darwin, should be praised for his originality by way of his replication of something he claimed not to have read:

"...of Mr. DARWIN���s labours, or the merits of his extraordinary book. It would not detract from them even if he had been acquainted with every word that had been previously written on the subject. But it is very possible that two minds may think out the same original conclusion for themselves without any communication between them. If all that DALTON has written on definite proportions had been previously published, still if he had thought it out for himself, without knowing of the previous discovery, he would unquestionably be entitled to the praise of originality."

If only they had the benefit of BigData technology back in 1860 - Matthew would have been able to show just how many of Darwin's and Wallace's friends, facilitators and admitted influencers had read and cited his 1831 book pre 1858, and how many more were 'first to be second' with unique Matthewisms. For all we know, the anonymous author of the Saturday Analyst and Leader was among them.

Thinker Media IncUsed only with express written permission

Nullius in Verba

We do have that BigData technology. Moreover, we who do not credulously deify Darwin as capable of such a miraculous immaculate conception of a prior published theory have no biased 19th century excuses for allowing Darwinists to continue to flout the rules of scientific priority, to come from far and wide to stamp on Matthew's unmarked and unknown grave and to deify their darling Darwin namesake at the expense of justice, reason and veracity in the history of scientific discovery.

Nullius in Verba!

[image error]

All copyright laws applyUsed only with express written permission

Patrick Matthew: The Biological Father of the Theory of Natural Selection

The Patrick Matthew Supermyth

A supermyth is a myth about a myth, where the second myth is created in an apparent atmosphere of concern to veraciously bust the first myth. What makes supermyths so powerful is that they appear all the more plausible because they are stories about why the first myth came into being and how it was bust.

The discovery of the phenomenon of the Supermyth was first published on the Best Thinking website. The Spinach Popeye Iron Decimal Error Point Error Myth (SPIDES) was fully bust in two articles The first here and the second here.

Supermyths have very specific components:

1. The creation of a fallacy, myth or error by an orthodox expert.

2. Being used by another expert who in turn promotes it as being ���true, and whilst still thinking that it is true either promotes it as a good example of the need to be healthily skeptical of bad scholarship, or else:

3. compounds the myth by using it as a premise upon which to build one or more supporting myths.

The Patrick Matthew Supermyth was created by faux-skeptical Darwinists and other equally credulous members of the scientific community who neglected to apply the scientific principle of nullius in verba to Darwin's and Wallace's incredible claims to have independently discovered natural selection with no prior knowledge of Matthew's prominent publication of it 27 years earlier.

[image error]

Dysology.com Dr. Mike SuttonUsed only with express written permission

The Spin@ge Supermyth is bust

The myth is a supermyth because Darwinists, using natural selection as a mythbusting device for the myth that a God created all species of plants and animals, created the secondary myth that Darwin first discovered the natural process of selection, and that he was first to use artificial selection as an explanatory analogy for the process of natural selection. In fact, Matthew was first to do both.

The myth of Darwin's and Wallace's supposed exclusive duel 'independent' discoveries of Matthew's prior published discovery of the 'natural process of selection' was bust when it was 100% proven (Sutton 2014) that, contrary to the myth started by Darwin in 1860 and 1861, other naturalists known to Darwin and Wallace - who in fact played key roles in influencing and facilitating their pre-1858 work on natural selection - had read and cited Matthew's (1831) book in the literature. That book - On Naval Timber and Arboriculture - is widely acknowledged to contain the full theory of natural selection (see my RationalWiki essay). The mythbust is best explained to skeptical Darwinists by way of analogy. The Darwin and Wallace Duel Miraculous Immaculate Conception Analogy can be read on BestThinking.com {Here}.

Dysology.com and PatrickMatthew.comAttribution

Join the Veracity Revolution. Blame it on Google and Follow Supermythbuster on Twitter

Visit the Supermyths website to discover what supermyths have so far been discovered. {Here}.

Find out more about Supermyths by reading my article: On Supermyths: Their discovery, distinguishing characteristics and significance. {Here}

Follow Supermythbuster on twitter {Here} .

[image error]

Trumpet from the rooftopsPublic Domain

Charles Lyell, Darwin's great friend and geological mentor. He knew Robert Chambers, who had read and Cited Matthew's book before being first to be second in 1859 with Matthew's unique term 'natural process of selection'. He knew four others among the 28 who who were first to be second - pre-1858 - with unique Matthewisms.

Charles Lyell was Charles Darwin's great friend and geological mentor. It was Lyell who bought Darwin news of Alfred Wallace's 1855 work on natural selection. It was he who played a pivotal role in 1858 in having Wallace's and Darwin's papers read before the Linnean Society, without Wallace's prior consent. And it was he who pulled the strings so that Darwin's Origin of Species would be published by his own publisher John Murray.

Lyell also features heavily at the center of my investigations into who was apparently "first to be second" with terms and phrases that were apparently first coined by Matthew in his 1831 book, 'On Naval Timber and Arboriculture' which is widely acknowledged (See my Rational Wiki essay Sutton 2014) to contain the full prior published hypothesis of natural selection, which Darwinists believe Darwin and Wallace each discovered independently of this prior publication.

The First to be Second (F2b2) Hypothesis

'Those who the ID method in Google's Library reveals are apparently first to be second with apparently original words, terms or phrases more likely than not replicated them because they read them first in the apparently original source.'

List 2 of those apparently first to be second with apparent unique Matthewisms - taken from Nullius in Verba: Darwin's greatest secret.

1832 ��� Mudie: "rectangular branching" 1833 ��� Ellerby: "plants so far asunder" 1835 ��� Main: "luxuriant growing trees" 1834 ��� Conrad: "admixture of species" 1834 ��� Roget: "living aggregates" 1834 ��� Low: "long continued selection" 1836 ��� Rafinesque: "evinced in the genus" 1837 ��� Wilson: "threatened ascendency" 1837 ��� Anonymous: "nature's own rearing" 1837 ��� Dovaston: "sport in infinite varieties" 1838 ��� Anonymous translator: "portion of the surface of our planet" 1840 ��� Buel: "infirm progeny" 1840 ��� Swackhamer: "beat off intruders" 1841 ��� Johnson: "adapted to prosper" 1841 ��� Hill: "deeper richer soil" 1842 ��� Selby: "greater power of occupancy" 1844 ��� Low: "overpowering the less" 1846 ��� Emmons: "habits of varieties" 1846 ��� Alabama Supreme Court: "Infirmity of their condition" 1848 ��� Charnock: "stiffest and most obdurate" 1849 ��� Emmons: "deteriorated by culture" 1852 ��� Wilkin: "figure is best accommodated" 1853 ��� Andrews: "impressions and habits acquired" 1854 ��� Mure: "dogmatical classification" 1855 ��� Fishbourne: "power to permeate" 1855 ��� Laycock: "mental or instinctive powers" 1856 ��� Gazlay: "adaptation to condition" 1858 ��� Powell: "restricted adaptation" 1858 ��� Floy: "law manifest in nature" 1858 ��� Leidy: "impressions in insects" [image error]

Public Domain

In separate publication, Ebeneezer Emmons was apparently first to be second with two apparently unique Matthewisms 'habits of varieties' and 'deteriorated by culture'.He spent some time with Charles Lyell in the USA.

A total of 28 individuals have been identified to data as being "first to be second" with Matthewisms pre-1859, because in the list of 30 cases above, David Low and Ebenezer Emmons were each apparently first to be second with two apparently unique Matthewisms, in different publications, which means they provide some evidence to confirm the F2b2 hypothesis (Sutton 2014).

In addition, post 1858, Robert Chambers - who actually cited Matthew's book in 1832 - was first to be second with Matthew's unique term 'natural process of selection' in his 1859 review of Darwin's (1859) 'Origin of Species', which was before Matthew wrote to Darwin through his 1860 published letter in the Gardner's Chronicle to claim the credit for his prior published discovery, which Darwin had replicated.

Darwin always maintained the same story that he first told in his published reply to Matthew's letter. Darwin wrote that neither he nor any naturalist known to him had read Matthew's ideas before Matthew drew their attention to them in 1860.

As a result of my original research, we now know that Darwin's excuse that none known to him had read Matthew's prior published theory was completely untrue (see my peer reviewed journal article Sutton 2014).

Further confirmation of the F2b2 hypothesis comes by way of the fact that Cuthbert Johnson and Robert Chambers were not only apparently first to be second with unique Matthewisms pre-1859 but that they also cited Matthew elsewhere pre-1859. In that regard, they are among 25 people known to have read and actually cited Matthew's book in the literature pre-1859; seven of whom were naturalists and three of whom played key roles at the very epicenter of Darwin's and Wallace's pre-1858 work on natural selection (see my book Nullius for all the details).

Charles Lyell and the F2b2 hypothesis

Lyell knew at least five (Conrad, Emmons, Leidy, Chambers, Powell) of those who we know were apparently first to be second with unique Matthewisms pre-1858.

Lyell knew the American paleontologist Timothy Conrad extremely well - indeed Conrad acted as his guide on a field trip in the USA on 27th September 1841. On that same field trip was the Geologist Ebeneezer Emmons (see Lyell's letters). Lyel and Conrad corresponded in 1845 .

[image error]

Public Domain

Baden Powelll was apparently first to be second with Matthew's apparently unique term 'restricted adaptation'. He was a friend of Charles Lyell.

In June 1847. Lyell visited Oxford University where he met and dined with Baden Powell. There for a meeting of the 17th British Association for Advancement of Science meeting, at the geological session he met with Robert Chambers.

Writing from his birthplace and manor house, Kinnordy House - just 19 miles as the crow flies from Patrick Matthew's home in the same county of Forfarshire - Lyell wrote to tell his father the top-secret that Chambers was the anonymous author of the heretical book on Evolution "The Vestiges of Creation" (See pp 130-131 of The Life and Letters of Charles Lyell). And we know from my research that Chambers was one of seven naturalists who actually cited Matthews book pre 1858. Moreover, Darwin was at that Oxford meeting with Chambers!

Lyell knew the geologist Chambers - a great influencer of both Wallace and Darwin - who had read and cited Matthew's book and was first to be second with Matthew's name for his great discovery the "natural process of selection."

Lyell knew Conrad and he knew and met Conrad's geological associate Emmons - who had twice - in different publications - been first to be second with Matthewisms!

Lyell also knew and was on very good terms with Baden Powell, who wrote the now famously missing letter that severely criticized Darwin for failing to cite his sources in the first (1859) edition of the Origin of Species.

[image error]

Public Domain

Joseph Leidy - Early USA supporter of Charles Darwin's Origin of Species

Lyell also knew Joseph Leidy, wrote in his letters that he was an excellent scholar, and in 1847 famously encouraged him to take up paleontology . The following yearDarwin met Leidy.

The two corresponded in 1860 when Darwin thanked Leidy for his personal support of the theory of natural selection. A letter that Leidy wrote to Darwin is claimed to have been destroyed by fire at Darwin's home in 1860 (see Warren 1998, p. 272). An ardent supporter and correspondent of Darwin, Leidy successfully lobbied for his hero to be elected to the Academy of Natural Sciences in Philadelphia (see Grande 2003), and even went so far as to personally commission a bust of Darwin, which is now on display at Darwin's home, Down House, in Bromley, Kent.

[image error]

Public Domain

Timothy Conrad, a good friend of Charles Lyell, was apparently first to be second with Matthew's apparently original term 'admixture of species'.

The reason why geologists and paleontologists such as Leidy, Emmons, Chambers, Conrad and Lyell would be interested in Matthew's book is not just because it contained the first published bomshell theory of natural selection, but also because Matthew wrote to speculate that the Carse of Gowrie in Scotland had once been a lake with a narrow opening to the sea. Chambers wrote on the same topic area in 1848. And he went on to publish 11 learned. papers on the very same theme. Darwin and Chambers met to discuss the cause of the parallel roads of Glen Roy, a topic about which Darwin had written a dreadfully wrong paper against Agassiz's 1842 ice lake theory. At their 1847 meeting to discus this area of mutual interest, Chambers gave Darwin a copy of The Vestiges, leading Darwin to write to Hooker in 1847 to let him in on the big secret that Chambers was the heretical anonymous author of that best selling 'book, which is the book said to have "put evolution in the air" in the first half of the 19th century and to have paved the way for public acceptance of The Origin of Species.

[image error]

Trumpet from the jerry built history of science rooftop of the Royal Society in LondonPublic Domain

Robert Chambers. Anonymous author of 'The Vestiges of creation'.

It seems implausible that it would be nothing more than a mere coincidence that Lyell - who played such a pivotal role in guiding and influencing Darwin - should be so closely connected with five of the mere 28 individuals in the entire world who we newly know by searching over 30 million books in - Google's mighty library - were apparently first to be second with apparently unique Matthewisms. That three of them - Leidy, Conrad and Emmons - were Americans is surely of great apparent significance and a mere coincidence only beyond the bounds of reasonable probability.

My book, Nullius in Verba, contains far more - and considerably more detailed - evidence that Matthew had read Lyell's 1830 book The Principles of Geography, and that Lyell had read Matthew's 1831 book in 1831. Nullius explains also what it was about the county of Forfrarshire that so influenced Lyell, Matthew and so many others to write on the subject of the evolutionary origin of species years before Darwin or Wallace put pen to paper on the subject.

You have read here only a small fraction of the powerful evidence that Darwin plagiarized Matthew's prior-published theory.

Thinker Media IncUsed only with express written permission

Nullius in Verba

For further evidence that Darwin did know of, and was hugely influenced by, Matthew's (1831) book, read Nullius in Veraba: Darwin's greatest secret to discover who Darwin knew and met with who cited and/or were first to be second with apparently unique Mathewisms, and to find out more about the social connections to Darwin's friends and associates of those who cited Matthew and/or were first to be second with his unique terms and phrases.

Visit my my website Patrickmatthew.com for more information about Patrick Matthew - the true biological father of natural selection.