Home » Leave a Reply

Leave a Reply

PMP

Comments section below. Please respect PMP house rules and conduct all exchanges with civility.


919 Comments

  1. Happy New Year. Happy ONTA Anniversary Day.

    Today, 1st January 2016 – on the 185th anniversary of the publication of Patrick Matthew’s book ‘On Naval Timber and Arboriculture’ (ONTA), which is, arguably, the most important book in the World.

    I am heartened to see that Wikipedia’s editors have today done the right thing at last and added to the Patrick Matthew page the New Data on who really did read Matthew’s book pre-1858 and the influence of those naturalists on Darwin and Wallace – noting the significance of these newly discovered facts.

    We must all, of course. be vigilant that this veracious information is not once again disgracefully censored by those with a vested interest in suppressing these hugely sensitive and embarrassing facts and their significance for the history of the discovery of natural selection: https://www.bestthinking.com/thinkers/science/social_sciences/sociology/mike-sutton?tab=blog&blogpostid=23494

    Like

  2. Dr. Weale and Dr.Sutton

    Sounds good to me. Suzanne Gerdts who is busy with her Tango Competition right now has acquired some of this information on the genealogical portions and I soon will be contacting her to get that information.

    Meanwhile Dr. Weale, Concerning our previous discussion on what P.M. actions he undertook and to what works he initiated on the landscape of Gourdiehill I have the following:

    From “Charles Darwin- Destroyer of Myths” by Andrew Norman are the following quotations. All three found on page 169.

    Mr. Norman first quotes Scottish Zoologist William T. Calman

    “This estate he inherited from the Duncan family in whose possession it had been for over 300 years. One of his first employments there was the planting of an extensive orchard.”

    Note: Not only does this show that Patrick Matthew set about converting cropland to orchards but it also indicates that Gourdiehill may have been actually owned by the Duncan Lairds of Lundie longer than the Seaside estate that we have confirmed, from Dr. Young’s Thesis dissertation, which was purchased by the Laird Duncan of the time during a forced sale of Barony properties of the Earl of Errol in 1662 and that such sale was enforced by the Hay of Balhousie.

    Andrew Norman himself then goes on to say:

    ” Having inherited Gourdihill, Matthew commenced the transformation of it’s farmland into orchards devoted to the growing of apples and pears…”

    In his almost next breath Norman continues on by saying:

    “Perhaps on account of his family connections to the Royal Navy and his own period of life at sea, Matthew became interested in how to grow trees suitable for use in the building of warships…
    The outcome of that, in 1831 his book “On Naval Timber and Arboriculture was published.’

    Note: Now again owing to Dr. Mary Young’s research that definitively proves relative connection and that the actual inheritance of Gourdiehill went from Admiral Duncan directly to Patrick Matthew, Norman seems to intuitively realize the same possible knowledge exchange and influence that I would also conclude there was. Why else …would Patrick Matthew write a book on Naval timber? These two individuals were blood related and both families interacted socially as well as politically…both being unafraid to speak their minds in each others presence… though it’s natural to say that the Admiral by far would naturally have more to pass on than the young lad Patrick Matthew…and regardless of what they did or not agree on. Patrick would make his voice heard 27 years later after the passing of Admiral Duncan.

    Howard L. Minnick
    Major, ENGR
    United States Army
    & 3rd Great Grandson of Patrick Matthew

    Liked by 2 people

    • mikeweale says:

      Thanks for your reply Howard, I’ll get that process moving.

      In response to what you say about Andrew Norman’s writing, all I would say in reply is that it appears that Norman derives all that he says from the account of Calman (1912) (https://archive.org/stream/britishassociati00brituoft#page/450/mode/2up), and that it’s possible for Calman to be wrong in certain regards, even if he did have the benefit of Euphemia Matthew’s input.

      To take one example, Calman writes: “The family tradition alluded to by Professor May, according which the Matthews are descended from a sister of Robert Bruce, is declared by Miss Matthew to be quite without foundation”. And yet the research by Wulf Gerdts and, I assume, your own research, declares that Calman and Euphemia Matthew were wrong and that, in fact, the Matthews are indeed descended from the family of Robert the Bruce (as the German side of the Matthew family had told Prof May). So it’s also possible that Calman and Euphemia Matthew were wrong on the question of whether Matthew converted his estate to an orchard, or took over an exisiting orchard (as the recent work by Mary Young implies).

      Like

      • Dr. Weale,

        I take exception with Calman’s hypothesis as well and do agree that Euphemia Matthew is very correct in pointing out the misconception. However you fail to also relate as to why Euphemia Matthew might or rather would make a declaration of such nature. Let me make it very clear to you as to why. The Matthew family is not directly related to Robert de Bruce by one of his sisters !!! They are however directly related to Robert de Bruce as are the other families of the Duncan Lairds of Lundie… which include Patrick Matthew’s Mother Agnes Duncan… because they are direct descendants of the Lords Oliphant and that de Bruce gave his daughter Elizabeth to Walter Oliphant the son of William Oliphant the Captain or Castle Keep of Sterling Castle at the time of William Wallace’s defeat of Edward Long Shanks at Sterling Bridge. The marriage arrangement was a loyalty present for William Oliphant’s ability to hold on to the castle for 6 months under siege which allowed Wallace to be able to rally and prepare his forces to defeat Long Shanks. Oliphant ended up surrendering after 6 months and was imprisoned in London by Edward until sometime after the Battle of Bannock burn when de Bruce finally rescued him. Did you not learn anything from Queen Victoria’s own private publisher Alexander Haitis Millar and his famous 1890 book book “The Historic Castles and Mansions of Scotland” wherein the chapter on Dupplin Castle he describes Euphemia Matthew presenting him for his viewing and copying the documented genealogy of the Lords Oliphant. May I point out also that that very document is listed on the very listing that you sent me within the 21 different packets of historical records under the archive number GD316 from the National Records of Scotland. I fail to see how you could conclude that Calman’s obvious blundering or Euphemia Matthew correcting Professor May’s total misconception of the Matthew Duncan relationship to Robert de Bruce has anything at all to do with how Matthew’s ability to put much hard work into developing his well known orchards. Your attempts to trivialize are simply not substantiated.

        Howard L. Minnick
        Major, ENGR
        United States Army (Ret.)
        Botanist, Range Conservationist
        & 3rd Great Grandson of Patrick Matthew

        Like

      • mikeweale says:

        Hi Howard, thanks for providing this alternative hypothesis. With regards to your last two sentences, please could you indicate where in my writings did you find the conclusion you allude to, as what you write has nothing to do with my actual views on the subject.

        Like

    • Dr. Weale
      I have a question

      I’m doing some work on my mother’s side not related to Patrick Matthew. It’s a family line by the name of Terry… Do you have any Weale anscestry in South Africa, Rhodesia, or Australia who originally came from Bedford, England ???

      Howard L. Minnick

      Like

  3. Sorry… didn’t intend to imply that Duncan died 27 years later. P.M. was 14 when Duncan died. I meant to imply that PM wrote and published his book 27 years after Duncan passed away.

    Like

    • Dear Mike and Howard

      as you both know I am solely interest in the independently verifiable hard facts in the story of Matthew.darwin and Wallace.

      Therefore, I would want to see more than someone’s word for it – Euphemia’s or anyone else’s that something is true. family oral histories are not trustworthy sources. They may suggest some plausible possibilities but that is all. No more.

      Let me elucidate. You will like this – its funnier because it’s true:

      I have just put eye drops in my elderly neighbor’s eye. He told me his mother told him he is a descendant of Robert the Bruce. Alfred Wallace claimed to be a descendant of William Wallace.

      According to my own family legends – the the English Rugby Hero Fran Cotton is the son of my maternal grandfather who impregnated and then – committed bigamy with an italian woman after his battalion succeeding at the dreadful fire-fight battle of monte casino in WW2 (I can and care only to verify that he served time in military prison for desertion when the bigamy in Italy was detected by his commanding officer. And grandfather Cotton he did on release from civilian prison for the same offence move to St Helens with his Italian “wife” – who he had to marry again after divorcing my grandmother.

      Moreover, my own family oral history becomes even more fanciful than this – my two children from my first marriage are supposedly direct descendants of Earl Godwin of Wessex. Incredibly my ex father in law does have the same distinctive Godwin nose as he Earl’s depicted on a woodcutting! But – ha! I don’t simply “believe” a word of any of it. ‘Nullius in verba” says I!

      When one takes on the dysology of the scientific establishment one had better be 100% sure of one’s facts.

      And that’s my sole modus operandi. Insistence on verifiable hard facts ensures the truth and justice will out in the end. And it ensures that it will out sooner rather than later.

      Like

      • And on the topic of obvious and significant facts and why it is that Darwin scholars missed then for 155 years – and why those today are in a ‘state of denial’ about them, here is a neuroscience explanation for why I saw what Darwinists still cannot see. Why I made original discoveries about Darwin’s obvious and significant lies that they can’t see. Why I discovered that other naturalists did read Matthew’s book pre 1858 – that all Darwin scholars totally failed to see.

        I expect if ‘blindsight’ theory is right then those who love Darwin can’t see sections of the text in my blog.

        Perhaps Darwinism is actually a disability? : http://patrickmathew.blogspot.co.uk/2016/01/appendix-myth-blindsight-explanation.html

        Like

  4. mikeweale says:

    Dear Howard and Mike,

    I’m basically in agreement with Mike Sutton regarding the problems of oral family history, and the need for hard evidence. Hopefully the new information that will come from the “Matthews of Gourdiehill” papers will provide plenty of the latter.

    However, while we wait for some of these papers to arrive, I can’t resist presenting a speculative hypothesis which I hope the papers will be able to confirm or refute. My hypothesis is that Patrick Matthew did not inherit Gourdiehill on the death of his father in 1807 (as Calman (1912) asserts), nor on the death of Admiral Duncan in 1804 (as Howard Minnick asserts above), but rather on the death of his maternal grandfather Alexander Duncan in 1816. My hypothesis is that P.M. did not like University schooling (certainly he writes negatively of it later on in his life) and he may only have been there in order to please his father. On his father’s death, he may have felt freed of this obligation, and taken the opportunity to live a more-or-less care-free existence travelling through Europe and gaining those “University of Life” experiences that he would then later write so positively about on p.245 of ONTA (1831). It was then only in 1816 that he took over the management of the estate at Gourdiwehill, settled down, and married Christian Nicol a year later.

    Anyway, I hasten to repeat that this is all just conjecture, and that hopefully in a few weeks time we’ll know the definitive answer!

    Mike

    Like

    • Who knows? It’s not an unimportant issue – since Mathew (the subject of these conjectures) is arguably the author of the most important book in the world. A book that was censored by Perth Library to name at least one and self-censored by professors of natural history to not actually name at least one anonymous other because the original heretical ideas on natural selection in it – cited by those known to Darwin and Wallace (pre 1858) – were deemed heretical in the first half of the 19th century! This orchard issue is interesting, but it is a conveniently insignificant issue.

      The big issue is the dreadful ‘blindsight’ scholarship of Darwin scholars these past 155 years.

      If blindsight is not the reason why did Darwinists fail to see the obvious facts and their clear significance that was literally right under their noses as they read them? If not blindsight then choose one of the following:

      Disingenuous ‘canny unresponsiveness’
      ‘Psychotic negation of the obvious facts’
      ‘Lying to convince their listeners and reinforce their own denial of the real facts’
      ‘Negation by wishful thinking’
      ‘Evasive reassurance that the facts are not that serious’
      ‘Victim blaming’ – blaming the victim for their predicament.
      ‘Withdrawal of attention – deflecting the gaze’
      ‘Compartmentalization’.

      I have a good idea who can be assigned to which, based on what they have written.

      Darwin scholars deny the facts at their reputational peril: And I now have several peer reviewed articles “in press” on this very topic. : http://patrickmathew.blogspot.co.uk/2016/01/appendix-myth-blindsight-explanation.html

      Like

    • Correction Dr Weale,

      I never implied nor do I see your supposition from my comments that Patrick Matthew inherited Gourdiehhill in 1804. I do however imply that he seems to have inherited Gourdiehill directly from the estate of Admiral Duncan 3 years after the fact of Duncan’s death…. which would have been 1807 at his age of 17… long depicted as the year of his inheritance…while in the same posting also pointing out that Admiral Duncan’s Uncle, George Duncan was long listed according to Dr. Mary Young’s 2004 Doctoral Thesis Paper … “Rural Society in Scotland from the Restoration to the Union etc…etc… as having been the Wad set Tenant …(meaning he had a contract with Admiral Duncan) of all Three Duncan Laird Estates i.e. Gourdiehill, Seaside and Auchmuir in the vicinity of the village of Errol in the Carse of Gowrie. That Dr. Weale is a big difference to what you propose and you forget that it is well known that Patrick Matthew’s Mother, Agnes Duncan unable to directly inherit Gourdiehill left Rome farm shortly after the death of her husband and lived with her son Patrick at Gourdiehill until her death in 1822. Meanwhile needing to radically inject into the debate that George Duncan may have been the father of the Alexander that you are proposing may or may not have been the maternal grandfather of Patrick Matthew and who would have more than likely relocated to the larger Seaside Estate after his own father’s… in this case I make the assumption that it is George Duncan… died… thus remaining there at Seaside until his own death in 1816. That is the difference in my own theory and yours…of who the Alexander Duncan is that actually was Patrick Matthew’s Maternal Grandfather… because I do not believe that it was Admiral Duncan’s own son also named Alexander and who is said to have married a woman by the name of SMYTH. Margaret Anderson was Patrick Matthew’s Maternal Grandmother.

      Howard L. Minnick
      Major, ENGR
      United State Army
      & 3rd Great Grandson of Patrick Matthew.

      Like

      • mikeweale says:

        Thanks Howard, hopefully the new papers from the National Records of Scotland will help resolve this.

        Like

      • I have a family tree sent to me by the lawyer of the Patrick Matthew Trust. I am sure you must have a copy Howard. it is written in difficult to read ink pen script . It shows at the top 1637 a Peter Duncan and a Sarah Lyell (good grief – perhaps a relative of Charles Lyell!!!) under them we have (1686) George Duncan of Barbaria [Wasestowe?]

        Below that we have a number of names in a horizontal row. One of the names is (1711) Francis Duncan.

        Below that we have more names in a horizontal row. One of those names is (1760) Alexander Duncan.

        Below that we have just two more names in a horizontal row – they are ( 1785) John Matthew and Agnes Duncan

        Below that we have one name it says 1790 – Patrick Matthew born Rome Farm in Scone. Died 1874 – buried Errol.

        I expect none of this is news. As you know, I rather dislike genealogy issues.

        Like

      • Hi Howard

        I published the Matthew and Duncan family tree page on PatrickMatthew.com – along with how the lock of hair in the Matthew Archive can settle the 1st Viscount Admiral Duncan question: http://patrickmatthew.com/patrick%20matthew's%20family%20tree.html

        Like

  5. News Flash: And a Call for More Research From my most recent Big Data research into The Historic and Monumental Matthew Trees.

    A new discovery is made that John Matthew used “Wellingtonia” to name giant California redwoods six months before John Lindsay is officially attributed with offering up the name as though it were his own orignal idea.

    Moreover, new evidence that the Gardener’s Chronicle editor (who was John Lindley) may have been in a ‘state of denial’ over John and Patrick Matthews priority (by 6 months) over William Lobb for first introducing giant redwoods into Britain:

    READ: THE GIANT REDWOOD RACE FOR FAME AND THE VERY START OF THE SUSTAINABILITY MOVEMENT: Source of the Historic Monumental Matthew Trees and John Lindley’s Somewhat Suspicious Involvement in a Failed Claim to Priority http://patrickmathew.blogspot.co.uk/2016/01/source-of-matthew-trees-and-john.html

    Like

    • Dr. Sutton,

      Mike… you need to change the John Lindsay to John Lindley…LOL… Lindsay is the street I live on here in Layton Utah. You need to make the point that the Lindley who knowingly implies that he was the first to offer up the Wellingtonia Gigantia suggestion was the same John Lindley who was the editor of the Gardener’s Chronicle ..and later proven to not have been the first but rather that it was actually who John D. Matthew was the first to propose the name. Lindley would later be proven to be wrong and wrong on both cases since John D. Matthew was also the first to get Sequoia seeds along with a branch a sketch and a description of the tree he got them from… to his father Patrick Matthew in the U.K. who then became the first to plant them…thus first introducing them officially to Europe.

      Great catch by the way.

      Howard Minnick
      Major, ENGR
      United State Army
      & 3rd Great Grandson

      Like

      • Hi Howard

        Re “Lindley to Lindsay” The spell checker threw my comment a curve ball Howard. Annoyingly this site – unlike most others – does not allow us to edit our comments to correct such things when we spot them.

        All your other points are already plainly made in my article, This is yet another fact that Darwin scholars have missed completely. I only discovered it 5 days ago. Its nowhere to be found in the literature. My blog post is the first.

        It was known earlier that it is a myth still prevalent on many sites – e.g. see my email to you as of today re my email to Cambridge Botanic Garden] started by Lindley in 1853 that Lobb was first into Britain and Lindley first to plant the tree. {myth spreading by Cambridge University: http://www.botanic.cam.ac.uk/Botanic/Plant.aspx?p=27&ix=35&pid=0&prcid=0&ppid=0}

        To “trumpet from the rooftops” as Richard Dawkins insists we must, if we are to deserve being attributed with anything we originally discover and have published: What I have originally discovered – that no one spotted earlier is:

        (1) The mystery that the Gardener’s chronicle published John Matthew’s letter in 1854 – 12 months after it arrived – but 6 months after Lindley’s fallacious priority claiming letter. And Lindley was the Editor of the Chronicle. Interestingly, Matthew’s priority was only admitted in 1866 (also in the Chronicle) after Lindley had been dead for a year.

        (2) John Matthew used the name Wellingtonia for the tree 6 months before Lindley proposed it i his December 1853 Chronicle article (which is the attested date he proposed it).

        Timeline for what we do (currently) know

        (1) July 1853 – Letter (dated) from John Matthew to his father Patrick Matthew uses the name Wellingtonia for the giant redwood he describes as growing in a swamp in California. This is (at least the time of writing.

        (2) Jan10th 2016) the first known use of the word Wellingtonia to name a giant redwood. We are told that with the letter arrived a packet of giant redwood seeds, which were the first to arrive in Britain. Patrick Matthew planted them. The trees that grew remain today as the Historic, Monumental Matthew Giant Redwood Trees in Scotland.

        (3) December 1853 – in the Gardener’s Chronicle, John Lindley claims, fallaciously, that Lobb was the first person to introduce giant redwood seeds into Britain in December 1853 and that they were delivered personally to him by Lobb’s employer, Veitch. Having thereby established his historical position at the centre of things as a noted Botanist, Lindley then proposes the name Wellingtonia for the tree. Lindley cites no prior author in this naming proposal. The impression given is that it is entirely his own novel idea. To date (Jan 2016), the naming has always, fallaciously, been attributed in the literature to John Lindley.

        (4) June 1854 – An extract of John Matthew’s July 1853 letter (accompanied by letter from Patrick Matthew) is published in the Gardener’s Chronicle. John Matthew’s letter names the giant redwood as “Wellingtonia” six moths before Lindley’s naming. Notably, at the time of writing, we don’t currently know when the Chronicle actually received the letter from Patrick Matthew with the extract from John Matthew’s 1853 letter. It may have been received as early as August 1853 or as late as May/June 1854.

        (5) December 1866 – (a respectable year to the month after Lindley death in 1855) the Gardener’s Chronicle corrected Lindley’s fallacy that Lobb had priority for introducing giant redwoods into Britain and admitted that John and Patrick Matthew did so first and that Patrick matthew was first to plant the tree in Britain. No correction is made over the issue of who first named the tree Wellingtonia. Sutton (2016) was apparently the first to note this discrepancy – in a blog post on the Patrick Matthew Blog: http://patrickmathew.blogspot.co.uk/2016/01/source-of-matthew-trees-and-john.html

        Conclusion

        I think that the story of John Lindley, Patrick Matthew and the Giant Redwood Tree very likely had an impact on how the scientific community has fallaciously perceived Matthew, to date, as being a relatively unimportant and non-influential figure in the history of discovery of natural selection.

        Let me explain:

        In 1858 Darwin’s and Wallace’s papers on natural selection were read before the Linnean society. In 1859 Darwin’s ‘Origin of Species’ was first published’. At this point in time, neither Darwin, nor Wallace cited Matthew’s prior-publication of the full complex hypothesis of natural selection.

        Earlier, Matthew (1831) originally referred to his concept the ‘natural process of selection’ and originally used an artificial versus natural selection analogy of differences to explain it. Wallace (1858) and Darwin (1859) not only replicated Matthew’s hypothesis, both also replicated his analogy of differences. Darwin (1859) used it in the very opening sentences of the Origin. Darwin went further than that and originally four-word-shuffled Matthew’s original term into their only possible grammatically correct equivalent: ‘process of natural selection’ (see Sutton 2014).

        In 1860, Patrick Matthew confronted Darwin in the Gardener’s Chronicle.

        Following Matthew’s first and second letters of 1860, in the Gardener’s Chronicle, Darwin capitulated and admitted that Matthew (1831) had got the whole theory of natural selection first, but he lied that neither he nor any other naturalist, indeed no one at all as he later claimed, at all had read Matthew’s original ideas before 1860 (knowing otherwise from the information Matthew had given him in both letters about two naturalists Matthew knew who had read them ), Darwin further lied that Matthew’s ideas were written only in the book’s obscure appendix, and he went on to start the fallacy, parroted by his Darwinists these past 155 years, that the title of Matthew’s book was inappropriate for its subject matter on the the origin of species. To further excuse his failure to cite the one book in the world he most needed to read, because he replicated its original ideas and claimed them as his own independent discovery, Darwin (1861) went on to portray Matthew as ‘…an obscure writer on forest trees..’.

        Had Patrick Matthew been attributed with his role in receiving the first giant redwood seeds into Britain, and with being first to plant any on British soil and raise them successfully, his name would have been better known than it was at the time among the 19th-century gentlemen of science. Most significantly, it is perhaps one of the world’s greatest understatements to say he would have been far from obscure in 1860 when it came to the topic of forest trees!

        Significantly, that means Darwin’s so often quoted as as valid ‘obscure writer on forest trees’ and ‘work on naval timber’ excuses would have held no water whatsoever – particularity in light what would have been a Victorian torch most surely shining from 1854 onwards upon the great wealth of fascinating published articles and letters that we have since found written by Matthew before 1859 (visit the Patrick Matthew Project).

        Instead, we live in a world where we now newly know that John Lindley (1853) – whether intentionally or not – had six years before the date when Matthew (1860) confronted Darwin in the Gardener’s Chronicle to demand due priority for his prior published conception of natural selection, published the fallacy that Lobb was first to introduce the giant redwood tree to Britain. And that myth persisted for 13 years, until the Gardener’s Chronicle (from some as yet unknown precipitating reason) awarded Patrick and John Matthew their priority for the giant redwood’s introduction.

        If one uses my Big Data (ID) research method to search on Google Books between the years 1853 and 1860 on the terms “Lobb” “Lindley” “Wellingtonia”, a seemingly endless number of publications are brought forth that wonderfully celebrate Lobb and Lindley for (fallaciously as it turns out) first introducing into Britain, and naming, the giant redwood tree ‘Wellingtonia’. By way of just a few among seemingly countless examples:

        (a) In 1860, Lobb and Lindley were celebrated in ‘Knights Pictorial Gallery of Arts’ because a mock-up of a huge Wellingtona was created for the world famous Crystal Palace Exhibition using the entire bark from a specimen.
        (b) A lengthy, proprietorial and self-celebratory article in the Edinburgh New Philosophical Journal by Lindley (1860).
        (c) A lengthy article by Andrew Murray (1858) in the Transactions and Proceedings of the Botanical Society of Edinburgh.

        (clickable references for all of the above can be found in my blog post (http://patrickmathew.blogspot.co.uk/2016/01/source-of-matthew-trees-and-john.html)

        The consequences of Matthew not being hailed a hero, as Lobb and Lindley were in so many publications- between 1853 and 1866 – particularly when the grand enormity of these trees was brought home to the British via a display of one at the Crystal Palace Exhibition in 1851 – must have assisted Darwin later (from 1860 onward) in so successfully portraying him to other naturalists as merely merely an obscure Scottish writer on forest trees. And we know that the myth stuck.

        I cannot help wondering whether Darwin’s ability to dismiss Matthew as being unknown and obscure, and the 155 years of Darwinist parroting of their namesake’s lies and fallacies about Matthew and about his book and its readership, as the gospel truth, might not have happened had John and Patrick Matthew received credit and consequent fame for first introducing the famously celebrated giant redwood trees into Britain?

        With apologies to Benjamin Franklin, might it not be appropriate to ask, whether, in light of this latest Big Data discovery, in the history of the discovery of natural selection:

        For the want of the facts the celebrity was lost,
        For the want of celebrity the truth was lost,
        For the want of the truth, true history was lost,
        For the want of true history true science was lost,
        For the want of true science the world was lost,
        And all for the want of the facts.

        Like

      • I replied to this Howard – at length. But for some reason – yet again – my reply was not published by the site.

        Like

      • For the want of the facts the celebrity was lost,
        For the want of celebrity the truth was lost,
        For the want of the truth, true history was lost,
        For the want of true history true science was lost,
        For the want of true science the world was lost,
        And all for the want of the facts.

        Like

      • All the facts are here: http://patrickmathew.blogspot.co.uk/2016/01/source-of-matthew-trees-and-john.html

        To conclude what they all add up to in the story of Matthew, Darwin and Wallace:

        In 1858 Darwin’s and Wallace’s papers on natural selection were read before the Linnean society. In 1859 Darwin’s ‘Origin of Species’ was first published’. At this point in time, neither Darwin, nor Wallace cited Matthew’s prior-publication of the full complex hypothesis of natural selection.

        Earlier, Matthew (1831) originally referred to his concept the ‘natural process of selection’ and originally used an artificial versus natural selection analogy of differences to explain it. Wallace (1858) and Darwin (1859) not only replicated Matthew’s hypothesis, both also replicated his analogy of differences. Darwin (1859) used it in the very opening sentences of the Origin. Darwin went further than that and originally four-word-shuffled Matthew’s original term into their only possible grammatically correct equivalent: ‘process of natural selection’ (see Sutton 2014).

        In 1860, Patrick Matthew confronted Darwin in the Gardner’s Chronicle.

        Charles Darwin and Patrick Matthew

        Following Matthew’s first and second letters of 1860, in the Gardener’s Chronicle, Darwin capitulated and admitted that Matthew (1831) had got the whole theory of natural selection first, but he lied that neither he nor any other naturalist, indeed no one at all as he later claimed, at all had read Matthew’s original ideas before 1860 (knowing otherwise from the information Matthew had given him in both letters about two naturalists Matthew knew who had read them ), Darwin further lied that Matthew’s ideas were written only in the book’s obscure appendix, and he went on to start the fallacy, parroted by his Darwinists these past 155 years, that the title of Matthew’s book was inappropriate for its subject matter on the the origin of species. To further excuse his failure to cite the one book in the world he most needed to read, because he replicated its original ideas and claimed them as his own independent discovery, Darwin (1861) went on to portray Matthew as ‘…an obscure writer on forest trees..’.

        Had Patrick Matthew been attributed with his role in receiving the first giant redwood seeds into Britain, and with being first to plant any on British soil and raise them successfully, his name would have been better known than it was at the time among the 19th-century gentlemen of science. Most significantly, it is perhaps one of the world’s greatest understatements to say he would have been far from obscure in 1860 when it came to the topic of forest trees!

        Significantly, that means Darwin’s so often quoted as as valid ‘obscure writer on forest trees’ and ‘work on naval timber’ excuses would have held no water whatsoever – particularity in light what would have been a Victorian torch most surely shining from 1854 onwards upon the great wealth of fascinating published articles and letters that we have since found written by Matthew before 1859 (visit the Patrick Matthew Project).

        Instead, we live in a world where we now newly know that John Lindley (1853) – whether intentionally or not – had six years before the date when Matthew (1860) confronted Darwin in the Gardener’s Chronicle to demand due priority for his prior published conception of natural selection, published the fallacy that Lobb was first to introduce the giant redwood tree to Britain. And that myth persisted for 13 years, until the Gardener’s Chronicle (from some as yet unknown precipitating reason) awarded Patrick and John Matthew their priority for the giant redwood introduction.

        If one uses my Big Data (ID) research method to search on Google Books between the years 1853 and 1860 on the terms “Lobb” “Lindley” “Wellingtonia”, a seemingly endless number of publications are brought forth that wonderfully celebrate Lobb and Lindley for (fallaciously as it turns out) first introducing into Britain, and naming, the giant redwood tree ‘Wellingtonia’. By way of just a few among seemingly countless examples:

        in 1860, Lobb and Lindley were celebrated in ‘Knights Pictorial Gallery of Arts’ because a mock-up of a huge Wellingtona was created for the world famous Crystal Palace Exhibition using the entire bark from a specimen.

        A lengthy, proprietorial and self-celebratory article in the Edinburgh New Philosophical Journal by Lindley (1860).

        A lengthy article by Andrew Murray (1858) in the Transactions and Proceedings of the Botanical Society of Edinburgh’.

        The consequences of Matthew not being hailed a hero, as Lobb and Lindley were in so many publications- between 1853 and 1866 – particularly when the grand enormity of these trees was brought home to the British via a display of one at the Crystal Palace Exhibition in 1851 – must have assisted Darwin later (from 1860 onward) in so successfully portraying him to other naturalists as merely merely an obscure Scottish writer on forest trees. And we know that the myth stuck.

        I cannot help wondering whether Darwin’s ability to dismiss Matthew as being unknown and obscure, and the 155 years of Darwinist parroting of their namesake’s lies and fallacies about Matthew and about his book and its readership, as the gospel truth, might not have happened had John and Patrick Matthew received credit and consequent fame for first introducing the famously celebrated giant redwood trees into Britain?

        Like

      • mikeweale says:

        Mike, to respond to your comment here (https://patrickmatthewproject.wordpress.com/leave-a-reply/comment-page-6/#comment-1053), the reason why sometimes your comments do not get automatically approved is due to their excessive length and/or inclusion of too many within-comment web-links. WordPress operates some automatic filters (not set by me, but by WordPress) to hold comments which are too long and/or have too many URLs for moderation by the site owner (i.e. me). I’m not entirely sure exactly what the word limit is or web-link limit is, but hopefully if you Google WordPress FAQ you’ll find the details.

        On every single occation where this has happened, I have always approved the comment that has been held for moderation once I’ve become aware of it (except in trivial cases where the same comment has been copy-pasted several times – i.e. where it’s basically the same comment).

        I hope this helps to clear this up. Do you get a message saying that the comment has been held for moderation? I would hope you do, but again this is a WordPress thing.

        Like

      • That’s useful to know Mike. Thank you. Nevertheless, it is a somewhat disconcerting set-up, therefore, because what one has writtens appears to disappear into thin air. The commenter gets no indication that their message has been received and – unlike other sites – this site provides no information to the commentator that their comment is sitting in your moderation waiting room. Moving on….

        Regarding the Matthew family archive in the National Records of Scotland:

        I would hazard an informed guess that the ‘court book page’ of Alexander Duncan of Lundie is very possibly interesting confirmatory evidence that Patrick Matthew was indeed related to the naval hero 1st Viscount Alexander Duncan. Moreover, I would hazard a guess that there is a typo or else a misinterpretation of the real date of the page in question. I think the date might well be 1719 and not 1709.

        To keep my comment short – so it does not get bounced into moderation purgatory – here is the link to the evidence and my reasoning based on it : http://patrickmatthew.com/patrick%20matthew's%20family%20tree.html

        Like

      • ….another disconcerting problem with the comments set up here is that – unlike other sites – there is no facility for a commentor to correct their embarrassing typos or errors. If such a facility existed I would have corrected the typo “writtens” and corrected the mistake of calling Admiral Duncan “Alexander” – I should have written “Adam”.

        Like

  6. I think I might start a group called “The Matthew Witnesses”. We’ll work online – visiting sites such as this one. And we will stand outside certain university departments holding our copies on “ONTA” to our breasts. We’ll hand out little glossy leaflets on the facts. We’ll preach to anyone who is prepared to listen – and to anyone who isn’t. Because:

    Every good scholar has a responsibility to confront pseudo scholars with the reality of their state of denial and make them face and admit the brutal facts.

    To get into the spirit of veracity:

    In the following quotation from Stanley Cohen’s (2001, p.64) book ‘States of Denial’ please substitute the word ‘Darwinists’ for ‘family’:

    ‘Denials draw on shared cultural vocabularies to be credible. They may also be shared in another powerful sense: the commitment between people – whether partners (folie à deux) or an entire organisation – to back up and collude in each other’s denials. Without conscious negotiation, family members know what trouble spots to avoid, which facts are better not noticed. These collusions – mutually reinforcing denials that allow no meta-comment – work best when we are unaware of them. The resulting ‘vital lie’ in the family may become a literal blind spot. But the facts are too brutal to ignore. They have to be reinterpreted, using techniques like minimization, euphemism and joking: ‘If the force of facts is too brutal to ignore, then their meaning can be altered. The vital lie continues unrevealed sheltered by the family’s silence, alibis, stark denial. The collusion is maintained by directing attention away from the fearsome fact, or by repackaging its meaning in an appropriate format.’

    Family members have an astonishing capacity to ignore or pretend to ignore what happens in front of their eyes…’

    The obvious and significant facts that Darwin scholars ‘deny’ are here:

    http://patrickmatthew.com/dawinist%20states%20of%20denial.html

    Job done.

    Like

  7. States of Denial of the Obvious and Significant Facts: Three things the Darwin Fraud case Shares with the Savile and Boston Globe Catholic Priest Pedophile Cases: http://patrickmathew.blogspot.co.uk/2016/01/states-of-denial-of-obvious-and.html

    Like

  8. Repeat Victimization

    Ever since Matthew confronted Darwin in the press in 1860, Darwin scholars have been in a ‘state of denial’ about the obvious and significant facts of Darwin’s lies about who really did read Matthew’s book before he and Wallace replicated the original ideas and explanatory examples in it. Moreover, new research reveals that – starting from six years before Darwin lied about the readership of Matthew’s book – Matthew was, for 13 years cheated out of his rightful claim to glory for being the first to introduce and propagate giant Californian redwood trees in Britain. Not until a year after the death of William Hooker’s best friend, Professor John Lindley in 1865, was the truth finally revealed in the press that Patrick Matthew and his son John were the first.
    William Hooker was Alfred Wallace’s mentor and father of Darwin’s best friend Joseph Hooker.

    If there is one thing criminologists know that comes close to a natural law, it is that, where crime is concerned, whether it be against a person, place or thing, lightning is quite likely to strike at least twice. Victimization predicts victimisation. Matthew was a repeat victim of fallacy coining glory theft. First by Lindley and then by Darwin. Both offenders did so to enhance their own reputations by publishing falsehoods at the expense of Matthew. Both were members of the Royal Society, Linnean Society and the Royal Horticultural Society.

    Full details available here: http://patrickmathew.blogspot.co.uk/2016/01/was-matthew-repeat-victim-of-priority.html

    Liked by 1 person

    • As a scholar of Darwinists, researching the wider issues of the impact of bias, prejudice, myths and fallacies on society, I think it is useful to share with Darwin scholars, Matthew scholars, science history scholars and all scholars of bias the following data that confirms the hypothesis that Darwinists are in a ‘state of denial’ of the obvious and significant facts that Darwin lied in 1860, 1861 (and thereafter until the day he died) about the readership of the original ideas in Patrick Matthew’s (1831) book ‘On Naval Timber and Arboriculture’: http://patrickmathew.blogspot.co.uk/2016/02/proof-darwinists-are-in-classic-state.html#comment-form

      As previously stated in the comments section on this web site, I will be citing all such published evidence, from this site “The Patrick Matthew project” and from elsewhere in any published articles and blogs on the topic. All such published data will be archived and may be published in my future published work on Darwin’s lies and glory stealing plagiarism of Matthew’s prior published work.

      Like

      • In order to demonstrate the kind of published evidence that I think confirms Stanley Cohen’s concept of ‘States of Denial’ of obvious and significant disturbing facts I would like to begin with a discussion of the following example from this website (The Patrick Matthew Project).

        Mike Weale, in his ‘position paper’ argument against the obvious and significant New Data, which I originally discovered and published in 2014 in my book “Nullius in Verba: Darwin’s greatest secret”, that – contrary to Darwin’s claims and the claims of other top Darwinists such as Sir Gavin de Beer and Ernst Mayr – that Matthew’s (1831) original ideas on natural slection were read by other scholars (indeed naturalists well known to Darwin and Wallace) pre 1858 [and cited by them in the literature] – where Mike Weale seeks to personally re-define the meaning of ‘originator’ so that Darwin (the proven replicator) can be called an ‘originator’ in his argument.

        Mike Weale writes in his position paper the following – I argue – ” wishful thinking” ‘state of denial’ response on the meaning of the word “origination” in the scientific context of who is proven to have been first in print (and to be cited in the literature) with an original scientific conception or discovery: of:https://patrickmatthewproject.wordpress.com/opinions/matthews-influence/

        Mike Weale writes:

        “Even if one could prove that an idea or “Matthewism” was transmitted to Darwin and/or Wallace, this would not invalidate their claim to have also originated the idea of macroevolution by natural selection. Given that both “macroevolution” and “natural selection” were ideas known prior to Matthew, Darwin and Wallace, the only claim to originality that any of them could make was the act of bringing those two ideas together. Provided Darwin and/or Wallace did not obtain the whole idea directly from Matthew, they can still lay claim to that act of originality. True, if Matthew had provided them indirectly with an important component, that would have made Darwin’s and/or Wallace’s act of originality easier. “

        Like

  9. mikeweale says:

    Every once in a while, it is useful for me to restate that my views on the subject of whether Darwin plagiarised Matthew are completely at odds with those of Mike Sutton. For my views, please see https://patrickmatthewproject.wordpress.com/opinions/matthews-influence/

    Like

    • Every once in a while it would be rather nice if you would respond to the obvious fact of the existence of the “real data” directly Mike.

      You direct us to your un-evidenced rhetoric. That is merely only a useful start. I wish to direct you to the obvious and significant facts that Darwin lied in 1860, 1861 and thereafter.

      Those obvious and significant facts of Darwin’s lies are here. https://prezi.com/f-cw13_b9qxu/darwins-science-fraud-by-way-of-plagiarising-glory-theft/

      I am presenting this information (along with further obvious and significant facts on the topic ) in two public lectures over the next two months.

      I have already directed you to your own prose in that larger body of your rhetoric where I argue the facts of what you are doing in that rhetoric is displaying classic ‘state of denial’ behaviour.

      Those in a ‘state of denial’ (Cohen 2001) about obvious and significant facts adopt the following tactics:

      (1) Disingenuous ‘canny unresponsiveness’
      (2) ‘Psychotic negation of the obvious facts’
      (3) ‘Lying to convince their listeners and reinforce their own denial of the real facts’
      (4) ‘Negation by wishful thinking’
      (5) ‘Evasive reassurance that the facts are not that serious’
      (6) ‘Victim blaming’ – blaming the victim for their predicament.
      (7) ‘Withdrawal of attention – deflecting the gaze’
      (8) ‘Compartmentalization’.

      Where would you like to begin? How about with number 2. Do you think there is evidence in the comments section of this website and in your “position paper” that you are n a state of Psychotic negation of obvious and significant fact that Darwin and cheated Matthew in 1860 and 1861? The obvious and significant facts of Darwin’ s lies are in the link I provide above.

      Like

      • If the ability to correct typos existed on the comments section I would be permitted to correct the last paragraph to insert the missing word “lied”. So I’ll ask my question again with the word “lied” added to the last paragraph:

        Every once in a while it would be rather nice if you would respond to the obvious fact of the existence of the “real data” directly Mike.

        You direct us to your un-evidenced rhetoric. That is merely only a useful start. I wish to direct you to the obvious and significant facts that Darwin lied in 1860, 1861 and thereafter.

        Those obvious and significant facts of Darwin’s lies are here. https://prezi.com/f-cw13_b9qxu/darwins-science-fraud-by-way-of-plagiarising-glory-theft/

        I am presenting this information (along with further obvious and significant facts on the topic ) in two public lectures over the next two months.

        I have already directed you to your own prose in that larger body of your rhetoric where I argue the facts of what you are doing in that rhetoric is displaying classic ‘state of denial’ behaviour.

        Those in a ‘state of denial’ (Cohen 2001) about obvious and significant facts adopt the following tactics:

        (1) Disingenuous ‘canny unresponsiveness’
        (2) ‘Psychotic negation of the obvious facts’
        (3) ‘Lying to convince their listeners and reinforce their own denial of the real facts’
        (4) ‘Negation by wishful thinking’
        (5) ‘Evasive reassurance that the facts are not that serious’
        (6) ‘Victim blaming’ – blaming the victim for their predicament.
        (7) ‘Withdrawal of attention – deflecting the gaze’
        (8) ‘Compartmentalization’.

        Where would you like to begin? How about with number 2.

        Do you think there is evidence in the comments section of this website, and in your “position paper” published on it – that you are in a state of what Cohen (2001) calls “psychotic negation of the obvious and significant facts” in the published literature record that Darwin both lied to cheated Matthew in 1860 and 1861? The obvious and significant facts of Darwin’ s lies are in the link I provide above.

        Like

    • mikeweale says:

      Mike, I’m not questioning the data. I would have thought that was obvious, and really not something that I needed to state publicly. What I’m questioning is your interpretation of the data. Specifically, in relation to your comment above, I am questioning your interpretation that Darwin was deliberately lying in what he wrote about Matthew’s book/Matthew’s passages/Matthew’s views. I think that an ‘innocent’ interpretation (not deliberately lying) is just as easy to construct as a ‘guilty’ interpretation (deliberately lying) with regards to the data we have available, and indeed in my opinion the ‘innocent’ interpretation fits the data somewhat better than the ‘guilty’ interpretation. I refer you back to our previous exchanges on this subject in back-pages of this Leave a Reply section.

      Like

      • Mike the facts Darwin lied are both obvious and significant.

        Matthew published facts. And those facts were read by Darwin.

        Darwin then immediately published a fallacy that was the very opposite to those facts published by Matthew. Obviously, therefore Darwin’s published fallacy is a lie. And it is both obvious and significant that the lie is told by Darwin because his fallacy (lie) serves as an excuse for Darwin’s replication (without citing) the prior published original ideas of Matthew.

        Moreover:

        Matthew in response to Darwin’s lie, Matthew then published a second lot of facts that directly refutes the first lie that Darwin wrote about Matthew’s first published facts. So Darwin’s second fallacy is obviously and significantly yet another lie, because Darwin published the exact same fallacy about the second lot of facts Matthew provided him with as he did for the first. Consequently, Darwin’s behaviour is doubly dishonest, because Darwin repeats the lie on having read Matthew’s fact-based refutation of their first very self-serving lie – the very one Darwin first published as a fallacious excuse for not citing Matthew’s prior-published work.

        The obvious and significant facts are that Matthew (1860) informed Darwin his original ideas on natural selection were read by (1) the naturalist John Loudon in 1832, (2) by an unnamed naturalist professor of eminent university in around 1845 (15 years earlier) – who feared pillory punishment were he to teach those orignal ideas, and (3) by whoever it was at the Public Library of Perth who banned his book for the heretical orignal ideas on natural selection in it. And then – having read those three obvious and significant facts, Darwin lied and lied and lied again that the orignal ideas in Matthews book were not read: https://www.bestthinking.com/thinkers/science/social_sciences/sociology/mike-sutton?tab=blog&blogpostid=23118%2c23118

        Anyone not considering this data – that shows Darwin’s fallacious responses to both of Matthew’s letters in the Gardener’s Chronicle (1860) – as obvious and significant facts that prove Darwin was a self-serving liar is obviously in a “state of Denial” – in my considered opinion.

        The question is what kind of obvious and significant fact denier might one in such a “state of denial” of these obvious and significant facts of Darwin’s self-serving and blatant serial lying be?

        If not a “psychotic negator” (surely the worst kind) how about one who is at 3 or 4 in Cohen’s typology of those n a “state of denial” of the obvious and significant facts:

        ‘ Lying to convince their listeners and reinforce their own denial of the real facts’?

        ‘Negation by wishful thinking’?

        Liked by 1 person

  10. Dysology says:

    So as not to face their significance, people may not fully engaged with dreadful facts. The range of denial devices used by those in a ‘state of denial’ include what Cohen (2001) terms ‘canny unresponsiveness’, ‘psychotic negation of manifest facts’, ‘lying to convince your listeners and reinforce your own denial of the real facts’, ‘negation by wishful-thinking’ ‘evasive reassurance that the facts are not that serious’, ‘victim blaming for their predicament’, ‘withdrawal of attention – deflecting the gaze’ and ‘compartmentalization’. These various manifestations of denial relieve the recipients of dreadful facts from immediate anxiety but, paradoxically, denial’s comforts create long-term dangers, against which we must remain alert.

    The world’s leading evolutionary biologists admit that Matthew was first to publish the full hypothesis of macro evolution by natural selection. But scant attention has been paid to how Matthew’s right to be considered an immortal great thinker and influencer in science was stolen from him by the lies, fallacies and poor scholarship of Darwin and his Darwinists. Here is a list of just some of the tactics they employed:

    1. Darwin’s and Wallace’s friend, John Lindley’s (1853) Matthew glory stealing giant redwood seeds bogus priority claiming fallacy.

    2. Wallace’s replicating plagiarism of Matthew’s original conception and unique explanatory examples in his 1855 and 1858 papers.

    3. Darwin’s (1858 and 1859) plagiarism and his Gardener’s Chronicle (1860) and Origin of Species (1861) glory theft lies.

    4. Darwin’s friend, Professor David Anstead – or at the very least his anonymous editor weirdly added footnotes on his article – mockingly rubbishing 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. The Saturday Analyst and Leader (1860) then did the same thing.

    5. In a gushing review of Darwin’s Origin of Species. Charles Dickens’s Magazine ‘All the Year Round’ (1860) quoted a paragraph of Matthew’s (1831) original prose yet never cited Matthew as its source. The uncited quote is to be found here.

    6. The Dundee platform blocking of Matthew at the 1867 meeting of the British Association for Advancement of Science.

    7. Royal Society Darwin Medal winners Ernst Mayr’s and Sir Gavin de Beer’s published glory stealing fallacies that the original ideas in Matthew’s book went completely unread/unread by any biologists – before Matthew brought them to Darwin’s attention in 1860.

    8. Richard Dawkins’s pseudo-scholarly history and context free typical “state of denial” victim blaming of Matthew for what Darwin and his adoring Darwinists did to him.

    DARWINIST DYSOLOGY

    In addition to confirming the importance of understanding repeat victimization, their 100 per cent proven Darwinist fallacy spreading and dreadful pseudo-scholarly treatment of the facts confirms that the Dysology Hypothesis explains the Darwin Worship Industry’s biased history of the discovery of natural selection:

    ‘Letting scholars get away with publishing fallacies and myths signals to others the existence of topics where guardians of good scholarship might be less capable than elsewhere. Such dysology then serves as an allurement to poor scholars to disseminate existing myths and fallacies and to create and publish their own in these topic areas, which leads to a downward spiral of diminishing veracity on particular topics.’

    Full clickable references to support all the independently verifiable significant facts mentioned and listed above can be found here: http://patrickmathew.blogspot.co.uk/2016/02/come-day.html

    Like

  11. Dysology says:

    Psychology study reveals that new facts, which debunk old myths, are most likely to be rejected when the “real facts” undermine beliefs strongly linked to a sense of identity. Darwinists – named for Darwin – fit this description more than most.

    Darwinists are currently unable to accept the newly discovered 100 % proven facts that Darwin lied and the facts that those he knew in fact read and cited Matthew’s (1831) book before he replicated the original ideas in it. This would explain why Mike Weale seeks to re-define the dictionary definition of originate (so a replicator becomes the originator of what is replicated), why plain lies (where Darwin wrote the very opposite to what he was told by Matthew in order to convince the world of his lie that Matthew’s original ideas went unread before he replicated them). It explains also why Mike Weale absolutely refuses to accept the 100 % proven fact that Matthew originated the explanatory analogy of differences between natural and artificial slection that both Darwin and Wallace also replicated. He even denies it is an analogy – in the teeth of the Oxford dictionary definition of what constitutes an analogy.

    The results of this important psychological research can be read here: http://digest.bps.org.uk/2015/02/the-backfire-effect-correcting-false.html

    Of course, being named for the proven lying plagiarist Darwin, the above research would predict Darwinists will continue to deny the facts. Why? Because they completely undermine their sense of identity as traditionally Darwin worshiping evolutionary biologists.

    It’s all rather sad. But at least Darwinists are not alone in this regard.

    Like

  12. Andrzej says:

    Błyskotliwi wytwór. Niemało dziedzin, o jakich tu można przeczytać, jest na prawdę szczególnie przyciągające oraz wdrażające. Będę włazić na Twoją stronę nagminnie, ażeby odkryć Twoje spojrzenie na pozostałe elementy.

    Liked by 1 person

    • Dysology says:

      From Polish to English this means:

      Brilliant product . Quite a few areas about which you can read here , is really a particularly attracting and implementing . I’ll climb on your website routinely , to discover your look at other elements .

      Like

  13. Dysology says:

    My second peer reviewed journal article on Darwin’s lying plagiarizing science fraud by glory theft it out. This incorporates my three-fold escalating culpability typology of knowledge contamination.

    Note: This paper – ‘On Knowledge Contamination: New Data Challenges Claims of Darwin’s and Wallace’s
    Independent Conceptions of Matthew’s Prior-Published Hypothesis’ – includes my latest discovery that Darwin’s and Wallace’s correspondent John Lindley (who crops up all the time in my book Nullius in Verba) – engaged in deceiving the public that he and Lobb were first to introduce and propagate giant redwood trees in Britain. Only a year after his death – and 6 years after Darwin successfully portrayed Matthew as obscure – was that great glory stealing fallacy exposed. By his own journal no less: http://www.nauka-a-religia.uz.zgora.pl/images/FAG/2015.t.12/art.05.pdf

    I am presenting this Paper at the James Hutton institute in Scotland this National Science week – on 17th March: http://www.hutton.ac.uk/events/carse-gowrie-sustainability-group-presents-evening-lecture

    Like

  14. Dysology says:

    History is happening in Scotland today.

    The typical Darwin worshipper tactic of “canny indifference”, fact-denial, and pathological lying will not stem the tide of veracity now that the New Data facts are in the public domain.

    Today, the Dundee Courier – the paper that was once the Dundee Advertiser (which published many of Matthew’s letters in the 19th century) published the New Data – which confirms that Darwin’s and Wallace’s glory-stealing and plagiarizing deliberate science fraud is – rationally – far more likely than not the real explanation for how they came to replicate so much that Matthew first wrote in 1831. https://www.bestthinking.com/thinkers/science/social_sciences/sociology/mike-sutton?tab=blog&blogpostid=23694

    Like

  15. bradmartien says:

    Thanks for this awesome post. It is extremely helpful for me. Would you mind updating your blog with more information

    Like

  16. Just as in Patrick Matthew’s day in the 19th century, when the Dundee Advertiser published his letters, today in March 2016, the Dundee Courier (which subsumed the old Advertiser) has published three stories about my research into Darwin’s plagiarising science fraud. The Courier’s articles on this topic include coverage of the issue of an open letter sent to several of my Scottish friends and associates and to the journalist Michael Alexander of the Courier/. This “open letter” is written and published by one Mr Derry – a published Darwin scholar – using an Edinburgh University email addresses.

    Mr Derry’s grossly obscene language – published on Twitter – and all three Courier articles on the topic can be accessed through clickable links – via ust one blog post – on the Patrick Matthew Blog: http://patrickmathew.blogspot.co.uk/2016/03/on-knowledge-contamination.html

    Like

  17. Dysology says:

    Following my March 2016 lecture visit to the Carse of Gowrie – as a guest of the Carse of Gowrie Sustainability Group – on Easter Monday 2016, the Nottinghamshire Post reported on the New Data – (who we newly know really did read Matthew’s orignal ideas pre-1858) and Darwin’s proven “howlers” in that regard: http://www.nottinghampost.com/Charles-Darwin-s-evolutionary-theory-Origin/story-29002696-detail/story.html

    Like

  18. Dysology says:

    NEWLY UNEARTHED FROM THE PAPER ARCHIVES: Jim Dempster’s Handwritten Notes on Darwin’s Sly Deceptions in the Origin of Species: Here: http://patrickmathew.blogspot.co.uk/2016/03/jim-dempsters-notes-on-darwin.html

    Like

    • mikeweale says:

      Mike, I respectfully submit that both you and Jim Dempster have misinterpreted what Patrick Matthew is saying in the passage in question. He starts the passage with “There are only two probable ways of change…”, and I would interpret “probable” here to mean “likely”. Matthew then goes on to briefly describe spontaneous generation (SG) as one of these two “probable ways of change”. He then ends with two very important observations, which you and Dempster interpret to mean that Matthew is rejecting SG but which I interpret to mean that Matthew is explaining why he thinks SG is probable, even though SG appears hardly different from miraculous new creation. Matthew writes: “but this scarcely differs from new creation, only it forms a portion of a continued scheme or system”. I agree with both you and Dempster that Matthew did not believe in miraculous new creation, but rather in a Universe governed by fixed universal laws. So he’s going out of his way to explain how SG very much forms part of “a continued scheme or system”, and thus can be one of “two probable ways of change” (the other being evolution).

      Like

  19. Dysology says:

    More from the Dempster family archive today: A very acerbic paper W J (Jim) Dempster: on ‘The Consequences of Punctuated Equilibrium’. Visit The Patrick Matthew Blog: http://patrickmathew.blogspot.co.uk/2016/03/wj-dempster-on-consequences-of.html

    Like

    • mikeweale says:

      Mike, I think it’s wrong to draw a strong link between Matthew’s ideas and the idea of punctuated equilibrium (PE) put forward by Eldridge and Gould in 1977. In some respects Matthew went beyond PE, in other respects PE goes beyond what Matthew wrote. The key point that Matthew adhered to was the idea of catastrophic mass extinctions. These periodic events generated frenetic periods of rapid evolution under Matthew’s view. PE as originally formulated had nothing to do with mass extinctions – it was a hypothesis about the mode and tempo of evolution within a single species, not about synchronised mass extinction events. So in this sense Matthew went beyond PE, by writing what might nowadays be referred as “global punctuation events”. Rampino (2011 – http://www.researchgate.net/publication/233106760_Darwin's_error_Patrick_Matthew_and_the_catastrophic_nature_of_the_geologic_record) makes this point very well.

      So on the “punctuated” side of PE, I think Matthew said more than what PE originally stood for (and by the way, mass extinctions are now universally accepted as real phenomena, whereas PE is still debated). On the “equilibrium” side of PE, I think Matthew had less to say. It is the “equilibrium” side of PE that still remains controversial today. Why? I think it’s for reasons that Matthew would not have appreciated. Matthew saw evolution as being driven entirely by the physical environment. If the physical environment was steady, then evolution stopped. Darwin, and modern Darwinists, saw/see evolution differently. It is not the physical environment that drives much of evolution, but rather the relentless “arms race” between species (if the rabbit gets faster, then so too must the fox) and the relentless struggle between individuals within species. Thus even if the physical environment remains constant, we still don’t expect evolutionary stasis. The controversial aspect of PE, then, is that “stasis” is an important mode of evolution, even though we don’t expect it to be so under a biologically-driven model of evolution. This distinction (between physically-driven vs biologically-driven evolution) is perhaps one of the most important ways that Darwin’s vision of evolution differed from Matthew’s (see also Weale (2015) – http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/bij.12524/abstract) .

      Finally, I don’t think that Matthew foreshadowed the ongoing debate over species selection (see page 7 of Dempster’s essay). This debate is linked to PE, in the sense that if species spend much of their time in “stasis” then there is an argument for treating them as replicating “entities” that may then be subjected to a species level of selection. But the sentence of Matthew’s that Dempster quotes refers to individuals, not species. Indeed, Matthew’s original sentence includes the word “individuals” in it: “those individuals who possess not the requisite strength … fall prematurely without reproducing”. In Dempster’s version, the word “individuals” has been dropped, and he implies it refers instead to “species”.

      Like

  20. Dysology says:

    The Scot William Thomas Calman (FRE) wrote a letter to D’Arcy Thompson (FRE) about their fellow Scot – Patrick Matthew and called Matthew an old bore. But why?. See a photocopy of the typed letter on the Patrick Matthew blog: http://patrickmathew.blogspot.co.uk/2016/04/why-do-darwinists-so-despise-patrick.html

    Like

    • mikeweale says:

      Mike, many thanks to you, Soula Dempster, Ian Hardie and all those responsible for making these archive materials public. It is always preferable to be able to refer to the original source materials.

      Like

    • mikeweale says:

      Mike I respectfully suggest that you are misinterpreting the data when you say that Calman ‘despised’ Matthew. If Calman despised Matthew, why did he write the only known review of Matthew’s work in the first half of the twentieth century? And why did he write in that review: “it is perhaps not always recognised how complete his anticipation really was”? To me, it seems more reasonable to interpret Calman’s letter as meaning that he didn’t think much of Matthew apart from “his early inspiration on the subject of Nat. Selection” (quoting from the same sentence where Calman describes Matthew as “a bit of a bore”). I don’t agree with Calman (i.e. I don’t think Matthew was “a bit of a bore” in his many letters to the Dundee Advertiser and elsewhere), but I neither do I think that this letter “provides ample evidence that he appeared to despise Matthew” (quoting from your blog piece).

      Like

      • Mike, I respectfully reply that you are misinterpreting what I mean. Despise means both contempt and also can mean deep repugnance. But how deep does mere “contempt” need to be for that meaning to be the same as to despise?

        I argue that it depends how deeply you wish to personally interpret the meaning of “despise” Mike. And also whether the word is to be understood by any of us as a deeply and constantly held feeling or rather as a shallow lack of concern for the truth regarding an individual versus the need to keep up appearances in the eyes of ones “group” regarding that “problematic” individual. Furthermore, in all human relations one may feel conflicted between the two and that personal state of conflict may vary in depth from one moment to the next.

        I mean “despised” in this sense when it comes to Calman in terms of an apparent vacillating relatively shallow lack of concern for Matthew.

        I would say that the Head of the British Society for Advancement of Science despised Matthew (by the way where is that obituary on this site Mike? – I can’t find it here – but I know you personally and originally re-discovered it) because – although he spoke well of Matthew in Matthew’s obituary he failed to do so when Matthew was alive – when it would have been of so much more use to the truth. Similarity, I would argue that Richard Dawkins shallowly despised Jim Dempster in the same way because he waited until Jim was dead before he cited his ground-breaking book on Matthew.

        Like

      • mikeweale says:

        Thanks for your reply, Mike. I think what you describe above is more accurately described by the word “indifferent” than the word “despise”, and in a sense I think that’s even more sad. At least “despise” implies an active emotion of some sort. Not caring is harder to bear, somehow.

        Regarding that obituary you mention, it’s on my to-do list. I’ve been working through the newspaper articles in chronological order. I’ve almost, but not quite, arrived at P.M.’s death. Things have stalled a bit in recent weeks, for which my apologies.

        Like

      • Dysology says:

        I – personally – feel that indifference to the greatness of what a fellow scholar, Matthew, did, being aware of his original conception of the full theory of macroevolution by natural selection, that Calman must have despised him to be so indifferent as to so disparagingly and so casually simply portray him as an old bore. In that way, Calman is not too dissimilar to a Nazi scientist being indifferent to the extermination of a Jewish scientist. Indifference born of despising Matthew. This is what all humans are capable of when veracity is not their primary objective.

        Like

  21. Dysology says:

    FRE = typo for FRS.

    Like

  22. Dysology says:

    Rather than hog or sell them – the Matthew family donated the Matthew/Darwin letters to the National Library of Scotland: http://patrickmathew.blogspot.co.uk/2016/04/edinburgh-evening-news-1993.html

    Like

  23. Junior Carsonians discover cultural treasures in the form of many long hidden letters from Patrick Matthew to Lord Kinnard: http://patrickmathew.blogspot.co.uk/2016/04/junior-carseonians-share-their-research.html

    Like

  24. On “Sutton’s Law”: Look first for the most obvious cause.

    In this case, let’s look first for evidence of the most obvious cause of Darwin’s and Wallace’s replications of a prior published hypothesis, its orignal terminology and original explanatory analogy of differences. Here: https://www.bestthinking.com/thinkers/science/social_sciences/sociology/mike-sutton?tab=blog&blogpostid=23743

    Like

  25. Dysology says:

    “Science is a way not to get fooled” (Personal communication from Dr Karl Kruszelnicki): http://patrickmathew.blogspot.co.uk/2016/04/science-is-way-not-to-get-fooled.html

    Like

  26. Dysology says:

    “That’s a nice book containing the full prior-published theory of macroevolution by natural selection”, said Burglar Darwin, “I’ll have that.”

    When he got home, and without telling anyone, Darwin put the ideas from it into his own book: The Origin of Species.

    Read the full story of Burglar Darwin:

    https://www.bestthinking.com/thinkers/science/social_sciences/sociology/mike-sutton?tab=blog&blogpostid=23755

    Like

  27. Dysology says:

    Jim Dempster’s correspondence On Darwin & Matthew. A letter a day for next 10 days on the patrick Matthew Blog: http://patrickmathew.blogspot.co.uk/2016/04/jim-dempsters-correspondence-wavertree.html

    Like

    • mikeweale says:

      Thanks Mike, I do find these letters from Jim Dempster to Ian Hardie fascinating.

      You have already pointed out that Dempster erroneously dated Darwin’s Historical Sketch (https://patrickmatthewproject.wordpress.com/matthew-and-darwin/historical-sketch/) to the 6th Edition of “On the Origin of Species”, rather than the 3rd Edition. I would also question whether the review of “Descent of Man” that Dempster refers to in his letter (and quotes in his 1996 book) was indeed written by Matthew as Dempster asserts. My reasons for doubting this are outlined here: https://patrickmatthewproject.wordpress.com/matthew-and-darwin/private/12-march-1871/

      Like

      • Dysology says:

        Interesting mystery Mike. If Matthew’s name is not on it, and if he does not elsewhere write that it is his review, then no one should confidently assert that Matthew wrote it.

        We should deal in 100 per cent verifiable facts in this story. Enough myths, fallacies and outright lies have corrupted the history of discovery of natural selection and the relationship between Matthew and Darwin.

        On the topic of the proven existence of 100 per cent verifiable facts in this story: “Monkey Business” Wealth Warning! New 100 per cent proven facts are on the shelves: https://www.bestthinking.com/thinkers/science/social_sciences/sociology/mike-sutton?tab=blog&blogpostid=23758

        Like

      • Dysology says:

        That said – I was asked today (via email) to pose this question to you:

        In his letter to Darwin, Matthew writes -“I am enclosing an Article from the Scotsman Newspaper which will show I am not quite effete.”

        Darwin’s reply:

        “You show no signs of your four score years in your letter or in the newspaper article, which seem written with your pristine vigour.”

        I think the last is why Dempster felt sure the newspaper article was by Patrick Matthew,

        Do you suspect Matthew was pretending he wrote the Scotsman review article Mike, and that Darwin fell for it?

        Finally, we know that Dempster knew Darwin’s Historical Sketch WAS in the 6th edition of the Origin of Species. He knew it was not in the first and second editions. Nowhere does he wrote that it was not in the 3rdt to 6th editions. So it seems inaccurate, to me, for you to write that he misdated it. It’s just that he never knew.

        Like

      • mikeweale says:

        Hi Mike, regarding the Historical Sketch dating issue, I’m happy to withdraw “erroneously dated” although I think you would agree that if Dempster had been aware that it had first appeared in the 3rd edition then he would have said so?

        Regarding the Scotman review, I would say that Matthew himself precludes himself from having written it when he says in his letter to Darwin: “I would desire to be able to write a critique [of Darwin’s new book], but am so much taken up with political and agricultural affairs that I fear I will not have time”. So my guess is that Matthew sent Darwin some other, as yet undiscovered, piece that he wrote for the Scotsman. I also have some other concerns regarding the review piece – see https://patrickmatthewproject.wordpress.com/matthew-and-darwin/private/12-march-1871/

        Like

      • Dysology says:

        I never wrote it was an error Mike. You misread what I wrote. I simply wrote that in fact it first appeared in the 3rd edition But Dempster was not writing about when it first appeared. It is interesting, psychologically, – as an objective scientist I’m sure you would be curious about this – that you would negatively see what is not there when it comes to Dempster and my writing – but never for Darwin – where you so often positively see he opposite to what is actually there. E,g you are cognitively blindsighted to Darwin’s proven lies about the prior-readership of Matthew’s book: The proof of Darwin’s serial lying in that regard is in a journal article that was peer-reviewed in a journal upon whose advisory board sits the eminent Darwinist Prfessor of history of science – John Van Whyhe: http://www.nauka-a-religia.uz.zgora.pl/images/FAG/2015.t.12/art.05.pdf

        Dempster merely said the historic sketch was in the 6th edition (“…by…1872..the 6th edition…”). The reason is that Dempster owned a personal 6th edition copy. I suspect (but cannot know) that he was unsure whether or not the sketch was in any edition between the first and 6th. So he was precisely careful in his language, even in a private letter:He wrote to Ian Hardie: ” Even so, Darwin did not let up on his rubbishing of Matthew for by February 1872 the 6th edition was published with the Historical Sketch.” That’s all we can know. (ref. http://patrickmathew.blogspot.co.uk/2016/04/jim-dempsters-correspondence-wavertree.html).

        Re whether or not Matthew wrote the Scotsman article in question – yes I think that is a compellingly interesting fact you highlight. Rationally weighing it all up, I suspect you are probably right on that particular point.

        Like

      • It is curious that a comment I posed here. A comment about your apparent bias and one of my peer reviewed articles on Darwin and Matthew, and Darwin’s proven serial lying, that definitely was published here this morning has now vanished. Can you possibly explain, here, why that is so Mike?

        Like

      • Regarding the apparent censorship of my comment that was most certainly published here this morning.

        If it will help to address what might just possibly (who knows why it was deleted?) be “Darwin Industry” political concerns about Dr John van Wyhe’s role on the Expert Advisory board of the philosophy of science journal that published my peer-reviewed article on Charles Darwin’s proven serial lying about the pre-1858 readership of Patrick Matthew’s orignal ideas on natural selection, I have learned only today that he has very recently resigned from the journal. I have been in correspondence with the Journal’s editor only today in that regard.

        The peer reviewed article in question is here: http://www.nauka-a-religia.uz.zgora.pl/images/FAG/2015.t.12/art.05.pdf

        So for the record, the public facts of the matter are this:

        The 100 per cent proven facts in my peer reviewed paper, are published in a Polish philosophy journal Filozoficzne Aspekty Genezy, Philosophical Aspects of Origin. Moreover, the esteemed Darwinist Senior Lecturer on the history of science, Dr John van Wyhe, was on the journal’s academic expert advisory board before, at the time this paper was submitted, during its peer review process, and also immediately after it was published. Soon after publication, for some reason unknown to me, Dr van Wyhe resigned that position.

        In light of the “New Facts”, these are interesting times to be a Darwin scholar.

        Like

      • mikeweale says:

        Mike, your post of this morning was not censored. The reason it did not appear straight away is for the same reasons previously discussed between us – please see https://patrickmatthewproject.wordpress.com/leave-a-reply/comment-page-6/#comment-1057

        Like

      • Dysology says:

        But it was published Mike. it was on the site. Then it vanished.

        Like

      • mikeweale says:

        I agree that is odd behaviour. It came to me as a “flagged for moderation” post. Do you have a sense of how long it was on the Leave A Reply webpage before it disappeared?

        Like

      • Dysology says:

        It was here in the morning (not sure how long)…but for at least 5 minutes. In the afternoon, when I re-visited, it was gone.

        Like

      • mikeweale says:

        OK Mike, let’s monitor the problem – if it happens again, let me know

        Like

  28. Dysology says:

    Re the 10 letters exclusively published over the next week on The Patrick Matthew Blog: I think it is notable that in letter 1 of the Wavertree Letters we learn that Jim Dempster was in written communication with Richard Dawkins at least as early as 1994 on the topic of Matthew’s work on natural selection and that Dempster felt Dawkins was behaving in a pseudo-scholarly propagandising manner to dismiss the importance of Matthew as an intellectual precursor of Darwin.

    In Letter 2, we learn that Dempster was also in written communication with Professor Stephen Jay Gould of Harvard University – and that Goulds attitude was similarly one of pseudo-scholarly gleeful and wilfully ignorant Darwinist propagandising dismissal of the hard facts: http://patrickmathew.blogspot.co.uk/2016/04/jim-dempsters-correspondence-wavertree_17.html

    As I have said for some time: “History will not be kind to Darwinists for their pseudo-scholarly published work on the topic of Matthew and Darwin.”

    Like

  29. Dysology says:

    Fourth Letter in the Dempster to Hardie “Wavertree Letters” published today. In this letter Dempster criticises Prof. Daniel Dennett for his “intellectual mugging” of Patrick Matthew and Lamarck : http://patrickmathew.blogspot.co.uk/2016/04/jim-dempsters-correspondence-wavertree_86.html

    Like

  30. Dysology says:

    Letter 5 of the “Wavertree Letters” again dempster notes that the British (he and Matthew) are way ahead of the Americans on catastrophic extinction events.

    Note also that in my notes on this letter I provide historical details of what was found among the papers of John Matthew and consequent reasons for the formation and activities of the Patrick Matthew Trust: http://patrickmathew.blogspot.co.uk/2016/04/jim-dempsters-correspondence-wavertree_19.html

    Like

  31. Dysology says:

    Letter 5 of the “Wavertree Letters” explains that substantial funding for Jim Dempster’s second book on Matthew and Darwin came from the estate of the late John Matthew – a direct descendant of Patrick Matthew.

    Without Dempster’s second book I would never (as a social scientist) have known where to begin making sense of the highly nuanced New Data that I originally discovered in the history of discovery of natural selection. So in that regard it is very pleasing for me to learn that there is, in a small way, a direct line of facilitating descent between Patrick Matthew, his family, and my book.

    Letter 5 – with some excellent photographs of John Matthew: http://patrickmathew.blogspot.co.uk/2016/04/jim-dempsters-correspondence-wavertree_19.html

    Like

  32. Dysology says:

    Wavertree Letters – letter 8 rather interesting. We learn that Royal Society Darwin Medal winner Ernst Mayr received a copy of Dempster’s book and corresponded with him. Dempster teaches Mayr about the topic upon which Mayr is hailed as the leading But Mayr never corrected the nonsense he wrote about Matthew? Why not?Because one is never going to win Darwin medals for writing the truth about Darwin’s 100 per cent proven lies about Matthew. The shame of the crooked Darwin-career-scholar “Darwin Industry”: http://patrickmathew.blogspot.co.uk/2016/04/jim-dempsters-correspondence-wavertree_21.html

    Like

  33. Insanely Jealous van Wyhe Misleads Scottish Press by Claiming New Facts are a Conspiracy Theory Badly Discovered

    “The van Wyhe Reflex” : Is a fallacy that comprises blaming the method for finding the facts that are so disturbing the method blamer cannot even bear to acknowledge their existence: http://patrickmathew.blogspot.co.uk/2016/04/insanely-jealous-dr-john-van-wyhe-madly.html

    Like

  34. Jim Dempster’s Correspondence: The Wavertree Letters [Letter 10] published today.

    Note in the observations section that there are some important factual and contextual lessons in history that need to be learned by poor old Richard Dawkins and poor old Dr John van Wyhe – both of whom really must try harder to study and behave like real scientists, rather than credulous fallacy-flipping short order cooks employed by the de facto “MacDarwin” Corporation.

    http://patrickmathew.blogspot.co.uk/2016/04/jim-dempsters-correspondence-wavertree_28.html

    Like

  35. I am extremely flattered to read about my exploits in supermythbusting have been rather well covered in the news today.

    Watch out Darwin pseudoscholars, because you are not fooling the science-hounds of the press anymore. I have set them on your scent. Your smelly pseudo-scholarship is under international scrutiny now.

    A friendly word of caution one more time: “Remember the Frozen Donkey Hypothesis”. There may yet be time for you to avoid that ignoble fate. However I feel it is already too late for the asinine majority of your herd.

    Science journalist Daniel Engbar on the Five Thirty Eight news site has written a very Supermyth friendly account: http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/who-will-debunk-the-debunkers/?ex_cid=538twitter

    Mike Weale gets a mention too. Rather ironic about the fallacy about you having a book out on Patrick Matthew though Mike.

    Like

  36. As promised

    Introducing “Rekdal’s Poison Irony Hypothesis”

    “And so it goes, a whirligig of irony spinning around and around, down into the depths. Is there any way to escape this endless, maddening recursion? How might a skeptic keep his sanity?” ( Daniel Engber 2016)

    Are those in a famously skeptical debunking group more at risk of being blinded by their own smugness so as to be credulously less skeptical about their own conceptions of veracity regarding their own work?

    Might this explain why Darwin scholars are in a sociological state of denial about (1) the very existence of facts that disconfirm their sacred mere beliefs (2) The plain fact that Darwin really is a proven serial liar?

    http://patrickmathew.blogspot.co.uk/2016/04/rekdals-hypothesis.html

    And – with exquisitely painful irony – what warning might this serve for meta skeptics such as I?

    Rekdal’s Hypothesis is a delightful cautionary hypothesis if ever there was one. But is it likely to be a good explanation for bias and error? Is it (a) Testable? (b) Disconfirmable? (c) Capable of being varied if disconfirmed?

    Like

    • mikeweale says:

      Mike, respectfully, I do think that the “exquisitely painful irony” here is that you, the coiner of the “supermyth” concept, are the creator and promulgator of an elaborate set of myths and supermyths of your own. You claim to be busting the myth, deliberately set up by Darwin and credulously believed by Darwinists ever since, that no-one read Matthew’s book. But the very existence of the myth you are busting is itself a myth. It’s not just a case of de-bunking the de-bunker of the myth, but de-bunking the very idea that there is a “myth and supermyth” narrative in the first place. It really is Alice-in-Wonderland rabbit-hole territory.

      Like

      • And there we have it Mike. As always you cannot produce a jot of evidence to support what you write. You have written, once again, nothing but your mere unevidenced and now debunked opinion. That alone should worry you. But I expect it doesn’t. Because it’s a pseudos-scholarly habit of yours.

        You can’t argue with facts – because you have absolutely no facts that can refute the New Facts, do you Mike?

        And the new facts refute the old mere unevidenced “knowledge beliefs” of the so called “Darwin Industry”, don’t they Mike?

        All you are doing is seek to deny the facts that you don’t like, Mike.

        It appears that you wish the newly discovered facts did not exist Mike.

        But my dear Mike, you can’t wish them away. You really can’t. It just doesn’t work that way, And you can’t magic them away by writing totally unevidenced claims about me as though you hope that will make your debunked (by the New facts) beliefs true.

        With respect Mike, you don’t seem to understand that in order to, rationally, refute a myth you need independently verifiable disconfirming facts to deploy against it.

        Simply voicing your unevidenced bias as an opinion cannot magically transmute facts that disconfirm that mere opinion into something else. You are, with respect, engaging in embarrassing magical thinking in your – above – comment, Mike.

        With respect, Mike, you seek to claim the independently verifiable newly discovered facts are themselves a myth? How unscientific of you, with respect, Mike.

        Answer the following questions if you dare Mike and also show me where in the literature it is written that another naturalist, scientist or biologist read Matthew’s ideas before 1860? Where does it say anywhere that Darwin was wrong to write that none had? Where does it say that so many top Darwin scholars before me were wrong to claim that none had. You wot will you mike? And why won’t you? Because YOU can’t can you Mike?’

        Now let us turn to the New Facts shall we. Now look at the newly discovered facts – the facts that I uniquely discovered. It is these new facts that prove you are, with respect, credulously worshipping a fact-denying supermyth Mike.

        http://patrickmathew.blogspot.co.uk/2016/04/insanely-jealous-dr-john-van-wyhe-madly.html

        Ouch! Painful facts that Dr John van Wyhe misled the Scottish press about. How on Earth are such facts a “conspiracy theory”, as he claims? As if facts that 100 per cent disconfirm the prior historical “understanding” are not of value to history. What desperate nonsense. How is this a supermyth? Don’t, with respect, be so, with respect, silly Mike.

        You claim I create a myth by sharing with the general public the newly discovered facts that 100 per cent disconfirm the myths published by the world’s leading Darwinist scholars – such as Charles Darwin (FRS) himself, Sir Gavin de Beer (FRS) and Ernst Mayr (FRS) – amongst so many others. The facts that disprove Darwin’s lying “no naturalist / no one at all / read Matthew’s (1831) original ideas before 1860 myth”. That IS, similarly, the debunked Patrick Matthew Supermyth – the myth upon which rested the now punctured paradigm of Darwin’s and Wallace’s independent discovery. And why is is that paradigm debunked? Because of the New Facts that you, with respect, cannot now refute. Because these New facts newly prove that routes of potential knowledge contamination are now 100 per cent newly proven to have existed. No myth on my part Mike, Why not? Because it’s all 100 per cent true. Isn’t it Mike. No myth at all on my part Mike. just uncomfortably disconfirming facts.

        It’s not a bad dream Mike. It’s all true. All fact. All hard facts. All independently verifiable facts. And what do you have, with respect, to refute the New Facts Mike? What exactly have you got, with respect, beyond, with respect, your mere wishful thinking that facts are not facts? With respect, you have a big embarrassing nothing Mike, besides newly debunked unevidenced ideas that were dressed up as facts?

        Facts Mike are facts. What I have is new facts Mike. Newly discovered facts. What have you got? All you have is something that has been wrong for 156 years. Now proven wrong. Just because something has been wrong for a very long time does not make it right Mike.

        We find also now that the great friend William Hooker – John Lindley (great friend of John Loudon – no less) did the exact same thing for 13 years to Matthew on Matthew’s priority for introducing giant redwood trees in the UK. Is that a supermyth too Mike – is that fact also a myth according to your, with respect, magical thinking, simply because you don’t like that uncomfortable and incriminating fact either? Funny isn’t it that Darwin, Wallace and Lindley were among the few naturalists at that time who thought species capable of evolving into new species.

        Read the facts. The facts are newly discovered. And I discovered them. Deal with the facts Mike. I’m not interested in your factually debunked mere opinion – other than showing you that is all it is.

        So, if facts – not debunked mere wishful thinking beliefs – are currency in the history of science, what actual facts do you have to disconfirm my disconfirming facts Mike? Or are you going to, with respect, admit that you are simply and credulously, in a state of denial, desperately worshipping a debunked myth. The fully fact-led debunked myth of Darwin the honest original discoverer?

        With kindly, respect, bring facts not unevidenced beliefs to fact fight Mike. Otherwise you will not stand a chance. On which note, I wish to make you an offer I think you dare not take up.

        Would you like to publicly debate this with me Mike. Bring along as many of your Darwinist friends and colleagues and associates and contacts as you like. The more eminent the better. I will stand alone, completely alone, and debate my facts – the New Facts – against your mere opinions – and any facts you think are relevant – anywhere any place any time. A place of your naming Mike. I just insist that we film it and put the film on YouTube and Vimeo afterwards

        Consider that a gauntlet thrown down Mike.

        This is a public challenge Mike.

        I dare you to debate this with me in front of your peers and students – or in front of mine! I have nothing to fear from the facts. Do you?

        Are you man enough to back up your accusations that I have created a supermyth of my own on this topic with substance? I am! I would welcome it.

        With respect Mike Weale – put up or, with respect, shut up!

        So what is it to be then Mike?

        Like

      • mikeweale says:

        Dear Mike, your comment above is repeated verbatim below, so I respond to it below

        Like

  37. I Challenge Dr Mike Weale to put up or shut up.

    Dr Mike Weale wrote on this website The Patrick Matthew project on April 29th a comment addressed to me:

    “Mike, respectfully, I do think that the “exquisitely painful irony” here is that you, the coiner of the “supermyth” concept, are the creator and promulgator of an elaborate set of myths and supermyths of your own. You claim to be busting the myth, deliberately set up by Darwin and credulously believed by Darwinists ever since, that no-one read Matthew’s book. But the very existence of the myth you are busting is itself a myth. It’s not just a case of de-bunking the de-bunker of the myth, but de-bunking the very idea that there is a “myth and supermyth” narrative in the first place. It really is Alice-in-Wonderland rabbit-hole territory.”

    As a result of his unevidenced claims, on the second of May 2016 I publicly challenged him to put up or shut up. The gauntlet is now thrown down for a public academic debate.

    THIS IS MY REPLY TO DR MIKE WEAL:

    ‘And there we have it Mike. As always you cannot produce a jot of evidence to support what you write. You have written, once again, nothing but your mere unevidenced and now debunked opinion. That alone should worry you. But I expect it doesn’t. Because it’s a pseudo-scholarly habit of yours.

    You can’t argue with facts – because you have absolutely no facts that can refute the New Facts, do you Mike?
    And the new facts refute the old mere unevidenced “knowledge beliefs” of the so called “Darwin Industry”, don’t they Mike?

    All you are doing is seeking to deny the facts that you don’t like, Mike.

    It appears that you wish the newly discovered facts did not exist Mike.

    But my dear Mike, you can’t wish them away. You really can’t. It just doesn’t work that way. And you can’t magic them away by writing totally unevidenced claims about me as though you hope that will make your debunked beliefs true. Moreover the old Darwinist “knowledge claims” are completely debunked by the New Facts of who we now new;y know both read Matthew’s book and the bombshell original ideas on natural slection in it.

    With respect Mike, you don’t seem to understand that in order to, rationally, refute a myth you need independently verifiable disconfirming facts to deploy against it. That is how I debunked the pervasive “No one read Matthew’s (1831) original ideas before 1860 myth.”

    Simply voicing your unevidenced bias as an opinion cannot magically transmute facts that disconfirm that mere opinion into something else. You are, with respect, engaging in embarrassing magical thinking in your – above – comment, Mike. And on this website you go around and around in ever evasive tail chasing circles doing the same old thing. But it’s too late Mike – your favourite tail has already been well and truly bitten. Consumed in fact – by the facts!

    With respect, Mike, you seek to claim the independently verifiable newly discovered facts are themselves a myth? How unscientific of you, with respect, Mike. That’s fact denial.

    Answer the following questions if you dare Mike and also show me where in the literature it is written that another naturalist, scientist or biologist read Matthew’s ideas before 1860? Where does it say anywhere that Darwin was wrong to write that none had? Where does it say that so many top Darwin scholars before me were wrong to claim that none had. You won’t will you mike? And why won’t you? Because YOU can’t can you Mike?

    Now let us turn to the New Facts shall we.

    Now look at the newly discovered facts – the facts that I uniquely discovered. It is these new facts that prove you are, with respect, credulously worshipping a fact-denying supermyth Mike.

    http://patrickmathew.blogspot.co.uk/2016/04/insanely-jealous-dr-john-van-wyhe-madly.html

    Ouch! Painful facts that Dr John van Wyhe misled the Scottish press about. How on Earth are such facts a “conspiracy theory”, as he claims? As if facts that 100 per cent disconfirm the prior historical “understanding” are not of value to history. What desperate nonsense. How is this a supermyth? Don’t, with respect, be so, with respect, silly Mike.

    You claim I create a myth by sharing with the general public the newly discovered facts that 100 per cent disconfirm the myths published by the world’s leading Darwinist scholars – such as Charles Darwin (FRS) himself, Sir Gavin de Beer (FRS) and Ernst Mayr (FRS) – amongst so many others. The facts that disprove Darwin’s lying “no naturalist / no one at all / read Matthew’s (1831) original ideas before 1860 myth”. That IS, similarly, the debunked Patrick Matthew Supermyth – the myth upon which rested the now punctured paradigm of Darwin’s and Wallace’s independent discovery. And why is is that paradigm debunked? Because of the New Facts that you, with respect, cannot now refute. Because these New facts newly prove that routes of potential knowledge contamination are now 100 per cent newly proven to have existed. No myth on my part Mike, Why not? Because it’s all 100 per cent true. Isn’t it Mike. No myth at all on my part Mike. just uncomfortably disconfirming facts.
    It’s not a bad dream Mike. It’s all true. All fact. All hard facts. All independently verifiable facts. And what do you have, with respect, to refute the New Facts Mike? What exactly have you got, with respect, beyond, with respect, your mere wishful thinking that facts are not facts? With respect, you have a big embarrassing nothing Mike, besides newly debunked unevidenced ideas that were dressed up as facts?

    Facts Mike are facts. What I have is new facts Mike. Newly discovered facts. What have you got? All you have is something that has been wrong for 156 years. Now proven wrong. Just because something has been wrong for a very long time does not make it right Mike.

    We find also now that the great friend of William Hooker – John Lindley (great friend of John Loudon – no less) did the exact same thing for 13 years to Matthew on Matthew’s priority for introducing giant redwood trees in the UK. Is that a supermyth too Mike – is that fact also a myth according to your, with respect, magical thinking, simply because you don’t like that uncomfortable and incriminating fact either? Funny isn’t it that Darwin, Wallace and Lindley were among the few naturalists at that time who thought species capable of evolving into new species.
    Read the facts. The facts are newly discovered. And I discovered them. Deal with the facts Mike. I’m not interested in your factually debunked mere opinion – other than showing you that is all it is.

    So, if facts – not debunked mere wishful thinking beliefs – are currency in the history of science, what actual facts do you have to disconfirm my disconfirming facts Mike? Or are you going to, with respect, admit that you are simply and credulously, in a state of denial, desperately worshipping a debunked myth. The fully fact-led debunked myth of Darwin the honest original discoverer?

    With kindly, respect, bring facts not unevidenced beliefs to fact fight Mike. Otherwise you will not stand a chance. On which note, I wish to make you an offer I think you dare not take up.

    Would you like to publicly debate this with me Mike. Bring along as many of your Darwinist friends and colleagues and associates and contacts as you like. The more eminent the better. I will stand alone, completely alone, and debate my facts – the New Facts – against your mere opinions – and any facts you think are relevant – anywhere any place any time. A place of your naming Mike. I just insist that we film it and put the film on YouTube and Vimeo afterwards

    Consider that an academic gauntlet thrown down Mike.

    This is a public challenge Mike
    .
    I dare you to debate this with me in front of your peers and students – or in front of mine! I have nothing to fear from the facts, or your mere opinions. Do you fear them?

    Are you man enough to back up your accusations that I have created a supermyth of my own on this topic with substance? I am more than willing to debate against your accusations in public Mike! I would welcome it.
    With respect Mike Weale – put up or, with respect, shut up!

    So what is it to be then Mike?’

    Like

    • mikeweale says:

      Dear Mike, the answer is I accept your challenge, I’m very happy to “put up”, as you put it.

      I think the most appropriate forum for this debate would be as a back-and-forth here on the “Leave a Reply” section of the PMP website. That way both sides can have time to consider their replies, and the exchange is preserved for the whole world to see, and not just one set of peers or students.

      I must insist, however, that the debate be restricted to the facts, and to the interpretation of those facts. Impugning the motives or abilities of the opponent does not count as “debating”, but as “mud-slinging” and as such runs contrary to the PMP house rules that ask everyone to “conduct all exchanges with civility”. For example, declaring something to be “a pseudo-scholarly habit” of the opponent would fall into this category.

      Provided you are willing to abide by the PMP house rues, I’m happy for this debate to start straight away.

      Like

      • No Mike. You have not accepted at all.

        We have done that comment thing here many times. And here on your website you deny the facts are facts. You deny lies are lies. So let’s see what others think shall we? In a public forum.

        I have invited you – and any supporters you need – to take your arguments and failure to engage with facts into a public academic debate off this website and in front of cameras and an academic audience. See above again.

        What are you afraid of Mike.

        Do you refuse to accept?

        Like

      • mikeweale says:

        Dear Mike, I challenge you to debate the facts and the interpretation of these facts within the pages of this website, without any mud-slinging. Do you accept my challenge?

        Like

      • So you are still refusing to answer the question with a yes or a no.

        Even though no is your effective answer.

        You refuse to answer the question.

        Even where I show you that there is no point in debating with you on your own website because you refuse to answer questions. All you can do is to write, what is, with respect, an excuse about imagined mud slinging possibly coming your way. But you refuse to write yes or no as asked.

        And by doing exactly that you once again avoid answering the very question you have just been asked.

        That is a classical transparent very basic denial tactic. I don’t suppose you have studied denial tactics have you? I have. I intend to make the behaviour of Darwin scholars, in response to the New Data, subject to a research study in that very area.

        So, let me just re-cap what you have written:

        You are refusing to enter into a public scholarly debate with me in a university, or anywhere else whatsoever other than in the comments section of a website that you totally control. You will not engage in debate with me – not even to defend the serious academic allegations you have made about my research – other than than in the comments section you control on your own website. Therefore, to be absolutely clear, you are refusing to debate your accusations against me before an academic audience where that debate would be filmed for the world to see because you – as you have plainly stated above – fear I will sling mud at you. You are refusing to do so despite my polite public invitation to you to do so because you are in a “mud-slinging” state fear of me. Despite the fact that the invitation is to engage in a scholarly debate in a scholarly setting in a public forum to discuss facts in relation to the serious academic charge you have levelled against me..

        You have refused to debate the facts with me anywhere in the world other than in the comments section that you control on your own website where you systematically (as fully evidenced by the data in the comments section here) refuse to answer questions and where you claim that facts are not facts and where you claim that what is literally written does no mean what is literally written and clearly intended to be understood as it is literally written, and so on and so forth..

        Now for yet another hard and proven discomfiting fact for your mud-slinging fears about how you think I am likely to behave in a scholarly public setting before an academic and public audience.Namely, that unlike you, my dear Mike, I have debated the “New Data” in several highly sceptical public venues before audiences who have very pointedly and at times very aggressively questioned my research and my findings and my conclusions. I have answered every single question in all such venues very civilly to the compete satisfaction of the chair and audience at every such open presentation and I have never, once not ever “slung mud” as you claim you fear I will now now as your new excuse for failing to face me in a public filmed venue.

        I have no reason to sling mud Mike. Because I have facts to sling. Lots of facts, “the New Facts”, uncomfortable facts. The facts that you are refusing to engage with outside of your website comments section which you completely control. Those facts are peer reviewed and in a science journal here: http://www.nauka-a-religia.uz.zgora.pl/index.php/pl/czasopismo/46-fag-2015/921-fag-2015-art-05

        Most importantly, let me put your purported fear of mud slinging at rest with reference to relevant facts. I have presented and debated the “New Data” facts of my scholarly findings without any dreadfully fearful “mud slinging” ever. Not anywhere. To date and in total that includes the following public venues:

        1. “Internet Dating With Darwin”. Edinburgh International Science Festival. Edinburgh Skeptics Society. April 10th.2014

        2. “The Hi-Tech Detection of Charles Darwin’s and Alfred Wallace’s Great Science Fraud”. British Society of Criminology Conference. Liverpool University. July 10th 2014

        3. “A DREADFUL DISCOVERY: BIG DATA PROVES WALLACE AND DARWIN COUNTERFEIT DISCOVERERSI”. Conway Hall Sunday Lecture. Ethical Society. London. July 27th 2014.

        4. Teesside Skeptics in the Pub 2 October 2014,

        5. Sheffield Skeptics in the Pub 25 May 2015.

        6. “About Patrick Matthew”: Meeting with the children and teachers of the Junior Carsonians: 17th March 2016

        6. “On Charles Darwin and Patrick Matthew: Have we got the wrong scientist on the back of the English £10 note/”. The Rotary Club. Perth. Scotland. 17th March. 2016

        7. “The 100 Per Cent Proof of Darwin’s Lying Plagiarising Glory Thieving Science Fraud” James Hutton Institute Lecture 17th March 2016

        So what are you really afraid of Dr Mike Weale? Imaginary mud? Is that it? Is that what I am to tell journalists who inquire about you now – that I am to tell public audiences where I am present and clearly not slinging mud that you make serious and unevidenced accusations about my work, but when invited to put up or shut up that you fear to face me in public because you think I will sling mud at you on camera where my behaviour will be filmed for posterity? Really? Mud?

        Is it that not an irrational type of academic Mysophobia Mike? The morbid and irrational fear of dirt?

        Is that it? Is that, with respect, the best excuse you can come up with?

        Like

      • mikeweale says:

        Dear Mike, once again you double up the same lengthy comment, in that your comment above is repeated verbatim in a second version here: https://patrickmatthewproject.wordpress.com/leave-a-reply/comment-page-6/#comment-1203. I’ve responded to your second version.

        Like

    • Mike

      I have tried to debate with you on this site for well over a year now. But here on your own web site you deny that facts are facts. You deny that what is literally written means what it literally says and you deny that lies are lies. You even deny that analogies are analogies.. And the list of what you refuse to engage with could go on.

      Now you do not wish me to call you a pseudo scholar for such behaviour – yet you say I have created a supermyth.

      You have written here in your website: that I am….

      “….creator and promulgator of an elaborate set of myths and supermyths of your own. You claim to be busting the myth, deliberately set up by Darwin and credulously believed by Darwinists ever since, that no-one read Matthew’s book. But the very existence of the myth you are busting is itself a myth. It’s not just a case of de-bunking the de-bunker of the myth, but de-bunking the very idea that there is a “myth and supermyth” narrative in the first place. It really is Alice-in-Wonderland rabbit-hole territory.”

      You said I have created a Supermyth.

      Now I have challenged you – to go off the pages of your own website – where we have ALREADY held the debate (if you can call denying facts and refusing to answer questions debating) you wish to have yet again on your website where only you decide what can and cannot be said, where you chose what you do and what you have so many times refused to answer.

      I have challenged you now to do something bigger, better and more scholarly/ I have challenged you in no uncertain terms to put up or shut up in a public academic forum that will be filmed and disseminated world wide.

      I am calling you out on your assertions of fact. Assertions you have made about me. But you are refusing to engage in a public academic debate on academic territory. Instead, you are asking to continue the same old thing you keep on doing with the facts, to seek to conceal them, here on your own website. I wish to expose that behaviour. I will expose that behaviour.

      I say it looks like you are very afraid to face me in public on camera in debate in a place where your refusal to answer questions and refusal to admit facts will be exposed for the World to see. Why would that be Dr Mike Weale?

      If, as you have claimed so boldly and confidently, above, I have created an supermyth then what better way for you to silence that supermyth in public than by exposing it and my ability to defend my position?

      And I mean in public – where you cannot hide by fact denial – where you will not be allowed to hide by a systematic failure to face the facts in the same way you have done on this website time and time again.

      Here is my answer to you for the question you asked in place of actually answering mine: I have absolutely no intention of wasting my time debate facts that you deny are facts on your own website again and again with you and trying to get you to answer questions you refuse to answer here. So I have challenged you to an academic debate off this website.

      You have an academic title and position and so do I. We both work for universities. Let us take this debate now onto a university campus – or other esteemed place. I have no fear of doing that – so why do you fear it Mike? What is it you fear Mike? Is it the facts Mike?

      To deal with – and to expose – what I will claim by reference to your published and academically fully archived published behaviour on this site I will expose the hard data of what I will claim is your persistent evasion of the facts and what I will, with respect, claim is your denial of the facts and I will do so in order to challenge you to support your serous claims against me that I have created a supermyth, I think that is quite fair and reasonable.

      I have openly and honestly – in no uncertain terms – challenged you to debate this serious issue with me.

      Yours is a serious and published academic allegation. I have given you the wonderful opportunty to be open and scholarly on this issue. Therefore I have challenged you to go with me before an academic and public audience and to have our debate on this serious allegation you have made filmed and disseminated as far and as wide as possible. And I wish to do this to expose your behaviour on this very website for what it is Mike. You can then defend your position in public and we can let the public and our peers judge who is right and who is behaving correctly.

      You are refusing to participate in a public debate off the pages of this website are you not?

      Answer the question please Mike. Yes or no.

      So please answer my question:

      Are you refusing to take this debate regarding your serious academic accusations against me off your own website and into the public forum in the form of a proper academic and scholarly debate – to be filmed, disseminated and judged by our peers and the wider public?

      Yes or no?

      Like

      • mikeweale says:

        Dear Mike,

        You have repeatedly demonstrated that the way that you deal with people who don’t agree with you is via mud-slinging and ridicule. You have repeatedly labelled anyone who disagrees with you, including myself, as either stupid, mentally deranged or deliberately deceitful – see for example your series of comments addressed to me starting here: https://patrickmatthewproject.wordpress.com/leave-a-reply/comment-page-5/#comment-853.

        In the face of such appallingly insulting behaviour, why on earth should I agree to debate with you in public? Your mud-slinging is vicious enough when delivered via webpage comments, goodness knows how much worse it will be in a live confrontation, when your hackles are up.

        No, the evidence is clear. A live debate with you would simply expose me to your mud-slinging insults at first hand, and would be the very opposite of illuminating.

        I urge you accept my offer to debate with you on the pages of this website, and to adopt a debating style that concentrates just on the facts and the interpretation of the facts, and not on your vituperative opinions of your opponents.

        Like

      • So you are still refusing to answer the question with a yes or a no.

        Even though no is your effective answer.

        You refuse to answer the question.

        Even where I show you that there is no point in debating with you on your own website because you refuse to answer questions. All you can do is to write, what is, with respect, an excuse about imagined mud slinging possibly coming your way. But you refuse to write yes or no as asked.

        And by doing exactly that you once again avoid answering the very question you have just been asked.

        That is a classical transparent very basic denial tactic. I don’t suppose you have studied denial tactics have you? I have. I intend to make the behaviour of Darwin scholars, in response to the New Data, subject to a research study in that very area.

        So, let me just re-cap what you have written:

        You are refusing to enter into a public scholarly debate with me in a university, or anywhere else whatsoever other than in the comments section of a website that you totally control. You will not engage in debate with me – not even to defend the serious academic allegations you have made about my research – other than than in the comments section you control on your own website. Therefore, to be absolutely clear, you are refusing to debate your accusations against me before an academic audience where that debate would be filmed for the world to see because you – as you have plainly stated above – fear I will sling mud at you. You are refusing to do so despite my polite public invitation to you to do so because you are in a “mud-slinging” state fear of me. Despite the fact that the invitation is to engage in a scholarly debate in a scholarly setting in a public forum to discuss facts in relation to the serious academic charge you have levelled against me..

        You have refused to debate the facts with me anywhere in the world other than in the comments section that you control on your own website where you systematically (as fully evidenced by the data in the comments section here) refuse to answer questions and where you claim that facts are not facts and where you claim that what is literally written does no mean what is literally written and clearly intended to be understood as it is literally written, and so on and so forth..

        Now for yet another hard and proven discomfiting fact for your mud-slinging fears about how you think I am likely to behave in a scholarly public setting before an academic and public audience.Namely, that unlike you, my dear Mike, I have debated the “New Data” in several highly sceptical public venues before audiences who have very pointedly and at times very aggressively questioned my research and my findings and my conclusions. I have answered every single question in all such venues very civilly to the compete satisfaction of the chair and audience at every such open presentation and I have never, once not ever “slung mud” as you claim you fear I will now now as your new excuse for failing to face me in a public filmed venue.

        I have no reason to sling mud Mike. Because I have facts to sling. Lots of facts, “the New Facts”, uncomfortable facts. The facts that you are refusing to engage with outside of your website comments section which you completely control. Those facts are peer reviewed and in a science journal here: http://www.nauka-a-religia.uz.zgora.pl/index.php/pl/czasopismo/46-fag-2015/921-fag-2015-art-05

        Most importantly, let me put your purported fear of mud slinging at rest with reference to relevant facts. I have presented and debated the “New Data” facts of my scholarly findings without any dreadfully fearful “mud slinging” ever. Not anywhere. To date and in total that includes the following public venues:

        1. “Internet Dating With Darwin”. Edinburgh International Science Festival. Edinburgh Skeptics Society. April 10th.2014

        2. “The Hi-Tech Detection of Charles Darwin’s and Alfred Wallace’s Great Science Fraud”. British Society of Criminology Conference. Liverpool University. July 10th 2014

        3. “A DREADFUL DISCOVERY: BIG DATA PROVES WALLACE AND DARWIN COUNTERFEIT DISCOVERERSI”. Conway Hall Sunday Lecture. Ethical Society. London. July 27th 2014.

        4. Teesside Skeptics in the Pub 2 October 2014,

        5. Sheffield Skeptics in the Pub 25 May 2015.

        6. “About Patrick Matthew”: Meeting with the children and teachers of the Junior Carsonians: 17th March 2016

        6. “On Charles Darwin and Patrick Matthew: Have we got the wrong scientist on the back of the English £10 note/”. The Rotary Club. Perth. Scotland. 17th March. 2016

        7. “The 100 Per Cent Proof of Darwin’s Lying Plagiarising Glory Thieving Science Fraud” James Hutton Institute Lecture 17th March 2016

        So what are you really afraid of Dr Mike Weale? Imaginary mud? Is that it? Is that what I am to tell journalists who inquire about you now – that I am to tell public audiences where I am present and clearly not slinging mud that you make serious and unevidenced accusations about my work, but when invited to put up or shut up that you fear to face me in public because you think I will sling mud at you on camera where my behaviour will be filmed for posterity? Really? Mud?

        Is it that not an irrational type of academic Mysophobia Mike? The morbid and irrational fear of dirt?

        Is that it? Is that, with respect, the best excuse you can come up with?

        Like

      • mikeweale says:

        Dear Mike, I wish your mud-slinging was imaginary, I really do. Since you insist on evidence, here it is.

        https://patrickmatthewproject.wordpress.com/leave-a-reply/comment-page-5/#comment-853
        In reference to my behaviour: “Willful self-serving refusal to recognize context: Risible Delusion, Bias, Irrationality, pseudo-scholarly cherry picking, Darwinist agenda driven bias, dishonesty.”

        https://patrickmatthewproject.wordpress.com/leave-a-reply/comment-page-5/#comment-857
        In reference to my “clearly biased agenda”: “But given the context you are simply exposing your dreadful bias.”
        In reference to my stupidity and/or dishonesty: “Only a stupid person would honestly think – or think otherwise but disonestly claim – otherwise.”

        https://patrickmatthewproject.wordpress.com/leave-a-reply/comment-page-5/#comment-866
        In reference to my “daft as a brush” notions: “Postmodernists – including the newly evolved – it seems – post-modern Darwinists – seek to do intellectual mischief, which is caused by their daft-as-a-brush postmodern notions that nothing is certain or objective and that all “truth” is simply a subjective social construct … I would argue that’s exactly what you are doing Mike”

        https://patrickmatthewproject.wordpress.com/leave-a-reply/comment-page-5/#comment-871
        “Unfortunately for you Mike, you are yet again being dishonest with yourself (presumably once again “accidentally” – like (presumably) all Darwinist dishonesty.”

        https://patrickmatthewproject.wordpress.com/leave-a-reply/comment-page-5/#comment-884
        “My definition of institutional stupidity – formed from observing your arguments Mike: “Strict adherence to denying the existence of your own group’s disproven beliefs by making irrational arguments from fear of looking stupid.” The question now remains – “Are ALL Darwinists desperately stupid when cornered by the truth of their stupidity?””

        https://patrickmatthewproject.wordpress.com/leave-a-reply/comment-page-5/#comment-889
        “Mike, I’m afraid you appear to have an incurable case of “Loudon-Naturalist-Blindness”.”

        https://patrickmatthewproject.wordpress.com/leave-a-reply/comment-page-5/#comment-1016
        “It creates what Wurmser nicely calls ‘Pseudo-stupidity.’ And we have seen plenty of that on this website in various attempts to spin the obvious significance of the new facts into a comfort blanket of denial that they have any significance at all”
        “It seems to me – after reading Stanley Cohen’s excellent book “States of Denial: Knowing about atrocities and suffering’ – that such biased scholarship creates an enabling environment for all kinds of dangerous quackery and claptrap, as well as a dysological pseudo-scholarly soup in which hate crime can grow and flourish.”

        Of course, what you write about me within the pages of my own website is tame compared to the mud-slinging you indulge in on your own websites, where Darwinist-bashing is the order of the day – for example:
        https://www.bestthinking.com/thinkers/science/social_sciences/sociology/mike-sutton?tab=blog&blogpostid=23217
        “Darwinists are members of a Darwin worship cult with absurd ideas”

        http://patrickmathew.blogspot.co.uk/2015/09/the-postmodern-darwinist-much-good.html
        “Is the Patrick Matthew Project a Darwinist postmodern project? Is it evidence of an anomalous Darwinist flight from science and reason on the question of Patrick Matthew’s right to be considered an immortal great thinker and influencer in science – with full, complete and appreciable priority over Charles Darwin?”

        Now the first thing I’d like to say is that all your accusations are false – I’m not stupid, I’m not mentally deranged, and I’m not wilfully deceitful. The second thing I’d like to say is that even if I were stupid or mentally deranged, then calling me this still amounts to disgracefully insulting behaviour – perhaps even more so if it were true. The third thing I’d like to say is that you’re never going to win your arguments by attacking your opponents in this way – you will win them (or not) by the strength of your evidence and your interpretation of that evidence, not by mud-slinging.

        There is still time for you to change your behaviour Mike, to apologise for your past aggressive and insulting online behaviour and instead move to a model where you argue the facts and the interpretation of those facts, rather than resort to mud-slinging whenever someone disagrees with you.

        I repeat my invitation, and I urge you to accept it, to debate the facts and the interpretation of those facts here within the pages of PMP. If you pose one of your previously unanswered questions, I promise I will answer it now (provided it isn’t “Are ALL Darwinists desperately stupid when cornered by the truth of their stupidity?” or one of your other previous insulting questions of that nature).

        Like

  38. My Dear Mike

    Again you seem not to be able to comprehend the plainest meaning of what you read.

    As I have explained several times, here on your own website it is not possible to have a rational academic debate with you, because you simply refuse to respond to certain questions and you deny the obvious meaning and context of the most clear and simple text.

    Now here is what I think is the real reason you will not debate with me before an audience. It is, with respect, I think, because you deny what every audience I have presented to so far (see above list) admits are Darwin’s lies about the the prior readership of Matthew’s book. You claim that what everyone else can see are lies are not lies. And yet it is you who writes of “Alice in Wonderland fantasies” – presumably that does not breach your own Alice in Wonderland rules on your own website about your own protocols of what is acceptable comment about others? Whatever the case, I am glad that I am allowed to use the term “Alice in Wonderland” and Rabbit Hole” – of course these are in fact the terms I used to explain the thinking of Darwinists on the “plagiarism problem” in my interview with journalist Daniel Engber for his article “Who Will Debunk the Debunkers?” which I shared with you (see earlier comment above).

    I wonder what you really fear any sane and rational and honest audience will say to you outside of your rabbit hole website Mike? Those plain and simple lies whch you proclaim are not lies, are here in a blog post about John van Wyhe deceiving the Scottish press: http://patrickmathew.blogspot.co.uk/2016/04/insanely-jealous-dr-john-van-wyhe-madly.html

    It is also impossible to hold a rational debate with you on your own website because, for example, after arguing endlessly that there cannot be such a thing as an analogy of differences you then fail to admit that you are wrong when shown the Oxford Dictionary definition of analogy. I asked you to apologize for systematically failing to admit your error on several occasions in the comments section here, but you are apparently “blind sighted” to what I wrote – or else you are, apparently, being – with respect – dishonest, or perhaps there are other explanations that a psychologist can provide? Perhaps those are all mysterious unwritten PMP House Rules forbidden conjectures?Just in case that is the let me use the use the one your own example proves is OK – perhaps it’s all simply your “Alice-in Wonderland” behaviour?

    The reason for your “blanking” of such facts might well have a psychiatric or psychological explanation, but let’s leave that to the experts and speculation of the armchair Einsteins of the Internet shall we? I would, with respect, suggest, an Alice in Wonderland academic delusional dishonesty will do: “What more disconfirming facts!” “off with their heads!”. As you can see I am abiding by your “Alice in Wonderland” is an OK criticism example here.
    What a relief you used it first. Otherwise you might have taken the head off my reply and deleted it down this rabbit hole!

    Now, my dear Mike, with respect etc, you also refuse to accept that disconfirming facts for your belief are facts, because you deny that what sir Gavin de Beer and Ernst Mayr wrote (see above link) was meant to be taken literally, as it was obviously literally written and intend it be interpreted in academic texts so as to convince readers of the veracity of the now debunked “tri independent discovery paradigm of natural selection”.

    I expect that despite explaining these facts of your, with respect,”Alice in Wonderland” behaviour to you that you will be “rabbit-hole” blindsighted to them and once again ask me to apologise for criticising such “Red Queen” behaviour and to debate with you ad infinitum on your “rabbit hole” web site.

    The trouble is, my dear Mike, that the definition of madness is to endlessly repeat the same behaviour whilst expecting a different result.

    I now have the answer, which I must now be compelled, by your answers here, to give any journalists and forthcoming university and other audiences. Thank you.

    When I present the facts of Darwin’s lies and the credulous parroting of them by de Beer and Mayr etc I will explain that you think it’s all an Alice in Wonderland Supermyth and John van Wyhe thinks it’s a silly conspiracy theory.

    I will in future direct journalists and audiences and my readership to your comments to your own website (I have them all archived should they ever disappear) and you will, unfortunately, be judged accordingly. Me too, of course. I am very happy with my comments and I stand by them all and I am happy to present my research findings to the public via lectures and peer reviewed papers and books etc.

    I will explain that despite my best attempt to get you to debate with me in an academic lecture in a university setting of your time and choice – with as many supporters as you require – where your silences and interpretations of literal text and meanings can be questioned by an academic audience, and by members of the press and wider public – that you refuse to accept through your admitted fear you will be ridiculed by me on video camera for the world to see.

    I will, of course be referencing your comments and, with respect, excuses in my future written work on this topic – on the denial tactics of Darwin scholars.

    Like

    • mikeweale says:

      Mike, thank you for your reply. You make clear that you refuse to apologise for your past insulting behaviour (“I am very happy with my comments and I stand by them all”) and that you refuse to engage in an academic debate with me concentrating purely on the facts and the interpretation of those facts. Thank you for making your position, regrettably, so clear.

      Like

      • My dear Mike

        With respect, you are, as the facts of the matter reveal, from my comments above, once again patently misleading both yourself and the public. And you clearly cannot understand anything you read that you disagree with or that upsets your fixed yet unevidenced Darwin deification belief system.

        One thing is now abundantly clear and fully explains your academic cowardice in refusing to debate the facts in a university before your own peers. It is surely that you are afraid to debate the facts outside of your delusional rabbit hole, where you reveal to the world that you are nought but a “Red Queen” scholar.

        In public you will indeed be mocked for your debunked beliefs – but not necessarily by me. The facts mock you.

        You patently have no facts to counter the bombshell “New Data” facts that have so disturbed you. All you have is your own transparent and ludicrous propaganda.

        You are data now Mike.

        Thank you for that.

        Like

  39. Daryl Coup says:

    Howard L. Minnick
    It is far from clear on Mike Sutton’s web page just how the Duncans of Lundie and Patrick Matthew are connected. Mike admits that he is “no genealogist” and that he finds that “researching the topic most tedious”. Are you able to provide the links in a clearer form.
    thanks
    daryl

    Like

  40. Yes Daryl

    I make Mike Sutton’s’s head spin with genealogy…the best source as a starting point would be Dr. Mary Young of the University of Dundee. Unfortunately she passed away in 2010…however her 2004 thesis Paper is a remarkable piece of work that is critical to understanding the relationship through the inheritance of property that Patrick Matthew inherited and to which the Duncan Lairds of Lundie which includes the family of Admiral Adam Duncan of Camperdown as well as the family of Admiral Adam Drummond of the Megginch Castle estate and last but not least Agnes Duncan of Gourdiehill, Patrick Matthew’s mother.. are all tied to. The paper is titled:

    “Rural Society in Scotland from the Restoration to the Union
    ~~~ Challenge and Response in the Carse of Gowrie, circa 1660 to1707 ~~~

    This is not laid out as easily as a novel or even a biography so you will have to spend quite some time digging. It is however a document that helps to understand how the Scottish form of a feudal system works. If I were to give you a brief summation it shows who paid taxes on properties, especially estates, of which there are numerous types of taxes having been paid, i.e. road taxes… window taxes… outbuilding taxes…inheritance etc…etc…etc… It also shows who inherited, who owned, who leased and who managed properties and who the Wad setters were and who the Wad set tenants were. In particular are the bits and pieces that show 3 particular Duncan estates with Megginch Castle becoming a fourth through a particular earlier marriage just recently discovered. These 3 estates like Megginch Castle are near the small village of Errol in the Carse of Gowrie and are proven as to having been owned as far back as the 1650s by these very Duncan Lairds all of whom were named Alexander Duncan…( thus Alexander Duncan the 1st married to Anna Drummond … ( the marriage association previously mentioned )… being the apex for my purpose in connecting the 3 families mentioned. The principle estates are Seasyde, and Gourdiehill with a 3rd called Auchmuir not having much information on. Alexander the 2nd was the father of Alexander the 3rd married to Helen Haldane of Gleneagles. They were the Parents of the famously well known Lieutenant Colonel Alexander Duncan the 4th and his younger but even more well known brother Admiral Adam Duncan. Alexander Duncan the 3rd had a brother named George Duncan. George Duncan the Uncle to Admiral Adam Duncan was the Great Grandfather of Patrick Matthew’s mother Agnes Duncan. That is how Patrick Matthew is related to Admiral Duncan. There is a need to upgrade the incomplete and incorrect Naval Duncan tree portrayed which came from another online Duncan website found by Dr. Sutton. We have the information to do so. My brief stick line that followed somewhat does that.

    Even though George Duncan the Uncle to Admiral Duncan and LTC Alexander Duncan the 4th was Patrick Matthew’s 2nd Great Grandfather, Admiral Duncan didn’t pass away until 1804. Patrick Matthew having been born in 1790 was almost 15 at the time. This is where the critical ties to property has a role to play filling in gaps created by either lost or incomplete records. Unfortunately… in the 16th, 17th and even in the 18th century christening dates…important to the clergy were more reliable and adhered to accurately than birth and death records. Genealogies and family histories help but they don’t necessarily complete a family picture. Land and tax records seem to have been extremely important and so they are significant to help in spanning the years of time by tying families together with the land they lived their lives upon. Let me briefly make you a summation of what is conclusive in Dr. Young’s paper. Tracking all of this is no easy task…believe me.

    Accordingly … George Duncan was the Wad set tenant of Seaside, Auchmuir , and Gourdiehill estates…having first contracted with his brother Alexander Duncan the 3rd. Upon the passing of Alexander Duncan the 3rd, the estates were inherited by LTC. Alexander Duncan the 4th the older brother of Admiral Adam Duncan. George Duncan likewise contracted as the Wad set tenant. Even though married Alexander Duncan the 4th had no increase so the estates upon his death passed to his younger brother Admiral Duncan…and up until George Duncan’s death he again is the Wad set tenant of all three estates…obviously contracted with his nephew Admiral Duncan. During all of this contracting by George Duncan, George resided at Seasyde…Gourdiehill would become home to George Duncan’s son Francis Duncan… the only one of 4 sons of George Duncan that had increase. Francis Duncan was first Cousin to Admiral Duncan and here is where things get interesting. Francis Duncan had a son named…you guessed it… Alexander Duncan…He was Agnes Duncan’s father but not the owner of Gourdiehill…Admiral Duncan filling that niche… nor even the Wad set tenant…like his father. Gourdiehll was left directly by Admiral Duncan to Patrick Matthew when Patrick Matthew became 17 years old 3 years after the death of Admiral Duncan.

    Howard L. Minnick
    Major, Corps of Engineers
    United States Army (Ret.)
    Botanist, Range Conservationist
    & 3rd Great Grandson of Patrick Matthew

    Like

  41. Daryl Coup says:

    Kia ora
    Thank you for such a complete reply, and especially for the reference “Rural Society in Scotland …..” which I have downloaded and very much look forward to reading.
    My link to Alexander Duncan and Anna Drummond is as follows :-
    William Duncan = Elizabeth Davidson
    Alexander Duncan = Anna Drummond
    George Duncan = Helen Balfour
    Alexander Duncan = Isobel Crawford
    Henry Duncan = Mary French
    Henry Duncan = Mary Luscombe
    Mary Anna Duncan = John Powell Matthew Myers
    Their son Frederick William Myers is the one who came to New Zealand and is my great great grandfather.

    I look forward to to grafting the Patrick Matthew branch onto my family tree as I have it at moment

    Thanks again
    daryl

    Like

  42. Daryl,

    Welcome and let me give you further information because you have Matthew relative descendants all the way back through Alexander Duncan the 1st and Anna Drummond living in New Zealand. The Matthew name died out in Australia and New Zealand so the families that you would be looking for live on the North Isle and are named Smith’s and Jones’s. Errol Jones at 101 is the oldest living descendant of Patrick Matthew known in the world. My Father’s sister Barbara Minnick Macy of Gallatin, Missouri, USA at 91 might come in a close second…as far as we know. Patrick Matthew wrote a book published in 1849 titled “Emigration Fields ~ North America, the Cape, Australia and New Zealand” describing these countries and giving a comparative view of the advantages they give to British settlers. I think you will find this book of interest. Errol Jones has also written several books on poetry and one specifically of her memoirs Titled “Shadows On My Wall ~Memoirs of Errol Jones” which goes into detail about her Matthew Family ancestors as pioneer settlers in New Zealand. If you would like…I can put you in touch with her Grandson Bevan Jones who is the present one carrying on the family history archives. He has copies of Errol’s works to include her memoirs.

    Recently two members of the Carse of Gowrie Sustainability Group from Perth and Dundee traveled to New Zealand in March of this year to learn more about the Matthew ventures in New Zealand and to see remnants of the orchards that James and Charles Matthew started from the cutter seedlings sent to them from Scotland by their father. The couple who visited Bevon, Errol and the rest of her family are Ian and Coral Bell. If you return to the patrickmatthew.com website of Dr. Sutton’s you will under “the Patrick Matthew Family Tree” topic find a picture of Coral Bell and Dr. Sutton with Lady Catherine Drummond Herdman another direct descendant of Alexander Duncan the 1st and Anna Drummond and the present heiress and owner of the Megginch Castle estate….which btw was directly adjacent to Patrick Matthew’s orchard covered estate of Gourdiehill. The reason Ian Bell is not pictured is due to his being the one taking the picture.

    Patrick Matthew had five sons and 3 daughters total. Three of those sons ventured to the California Gold Fields in search of Gold in 1852-53. The oldest son, John D. Matthew was a mining engineer by trade as well as a Botanist trained by his father and others by hobby. Apparently they had good fortune in California because Patrick Matthew encouraged them to take the money they made in California and venture on to New Zealand and to use the money to buy tracts of land. Patrick Matthew was already entrenched in the Scottish settlement of New Zealand having already published “Emigration fields” in 1849. The other two brothers James and Charles Matthew went on ahead to New Zealand and did buy land and settled an area near what is known as Matakana Bay. The Smith and Jones relatives that you also would have Duncan ties to are the Descendants of James Matthew and Margaret Anderson a woman who had married another man named John Anderson killed shortly thereafter at sea. Her first husband’s family…named Anderson were related to the Matthew’s somehow…research hasn’t allotted me the time as of yet to follow up on that… and were from the Perth Scotland area as well. She along with her infant son moved in with James and Charles upon their insistence so that she would have some means of support. Within a year she became James’s wife. Charles eventually built himself another house close by while they began developing apple and pear orchards from cutter root stock shipped to them by their father from Scotland.

    Meanwhile John D. Matthew had stayed in California and until just a few months ago in January of this year had for many, many years remained a mystery…as to what had happened to him. He seemed to have vanished from off the face of the earth. The last known contact from him until a new discovery in January and February of this year was his sending the seed cones of California Giant Redwood Sequoias from what is known today as the North Grove of the California Big Tree State Park to his father Patrick Matthew in Scotland. That story also on the patrickmatthew.com website can be found under the topic “the Patrick Matthew Redwoods.”

    In January of this year my Aunt Barbara Minnick Macy fell at her home and broke her hip. This facilitated her having to be put into a full care facility. My cousin Greg Macy then informed us that he would have to sell her home which was just down from his own in order to help pay for her accommodations at the full care facility. Aunt Barbara for many years had been a nurse at that same facility and by circumstance somewhat ironic took care of her mother and our grandmother Helen Matthew Minnick for several of her last years until she passed away at 93.

    It was when Greg Macy was cleaning out the house in February and getting ready to sell off some of the furniture before selling the house that he came across and old trunk. In it were numerous letters and a few possessions that had belonged to my Grandmother as well as some belonging to her father. Among the letters from Matthew relatives in Germany and Scotland Greg found a family history written by my Great Grandfather Charles Patrick Matthew immigrated to the U.S. around 1890. In it was described what had happened to John D. Matthew. After remaining in California for several more months and after sending the Seed Cones to his father. John D. Matthew joined his brothers in New Zealand for a brief interim in 1854… then decided to stake himself and head to the Western Goldfields of Australia. It only notes from there that he passed away in 1857. I did a little research and did find a John D. Matthew approximately the same age buried in Perth Australia having died from Consumption or Tuberculosis… which was at that time quite common among miners in the Gold Coast area of Australia. So that might be the conclusion to the story of John D. Matthew.

    Howard L. Minnick

    Liked by 1 person

  43. Daryl,
    I have seen your genealogy before so it’s parallel to my own with the apex being Alexander Duncan the 1st and his wife Anna Drummond. Our lines go back through that focal point all the way to Robert de Bruce. Another source you might be interested in is a book published in 1890 by Alexander Haitis Millar who was Queen Victoria’s private Publisher. It’s title is “The Historical Castles and Mansions of Scotland.” The Chapter of concern would be the one on Dupplin Castle and the genealogy of the Lords Oliphant. It describes one of Patrick Matthew’s daughters…Euphemia Matthew in possession of a document. which she showed to Alexander Millar. It is that document that is important. She ended up donating it to the Scottish National Records…where it became part of a larger grouping of Duncan records. That is the document that ties the Duncan Laird’s of Lundie to Robert de Bruce. We go through a Christian Oliphant married to Robert Duncan back to the marriage of Elizabeth de Bruce to Robert Oliphant the son of William Oliphant the Castle Keep of Stirling Castle at the time of William Wallace (Braveheart) and his defeat of Edward Longshanks at Stirling Bridge. Your additional and possible further connection to this same line would be the marriage of a Colin Drummond descended from Anna Drummond to a Katherine Oliphant. Dr. Mary Young references this document several times in her thesis paper.

    Keep looking periodically at Patrick Matthew’s Family tree on Dr. Sutton’s patrickmatthew.com website…we added more information yesterday and are in the process of updating the Duncan tree itself. Dr. Sutton is doing some research on the Drummonds and their ties to the East India Company. If you have any information on that connection he might be interested in communicating with you. Meanwhile I will send you Bevon Jones’s email address and will look forward to hearing from you again…once you make contact with him. I’ll give Bevon a heads up this morning.

    Bevon Jones’s email: bevon.jones@biosecurity.net.nz

    Howard L. Minnick

    Liked by 1 person

  44. Anyone questioning the significance of what Dr Mike Sutton has uncovered in his research – or who denying that the facts that Dr. Sutton found using his Internet Date-Detection method even exist – might like to visit my blog on the the topic. Here: https://drmarkgriffiths.wordpress.com/2016/07/11/selective-memories-charles-darwin-obsession-and-internet-dating/

    Like

  45. Great beat ! I would like to apprentice while you amend your website, how could i subscribe for a blog site? The account helped me a acceptable deal. I had been tiny bit acquainted of this your broadcast offered bright clear idea

    Like

  46. I would like to thank you for the efforts you have put in penning this website. I really hope to view the same high-grade content by you later on as well. In truth, your creative writing abilities has encouraged me to get my own website now ;)|

    Like

  47. Close@Hand says:

    Distributed Proofreaders (www.pgdp.net) have transcribed the 1831 London edition and it is available as text or html FREE from Project Gutenberg (https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/53678). (People will be selling it on Amazon within a day if you don’t like free stuff.)

    Like

    • mikeweale says:

      My thanks to Project Gutenberg and the Proofreaders for making available a proof-read e-text of Matthew (1831) “On Naval Timber and Arboriculture”. Really nice to have a version cleared of all those machine-read mistakes!

      Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: