In 2014, Mike Sutton discovered Seven naturalists who are proven to have read Matthew's (1831) book , because they cited it, many years before Darwin (1859) published the Origin of Species. Three of those naturalists edited, published or else hugely influenced Darwin's and Wallace's work pre-Origin.
On Naval Timber
and
Arboriculture
The New Data
In 2014 Big Data Technology enabled Mike Sutton to discover New Data that disproves the 155 year old myth self-servingly started by Darwin in 1860 that no naturalist known to him or Wallace had read Matthew's unique ideas on natural selection until after Darwin had published the Origin of Species in 1859 . In fact, we now know that
ll Darwin knew four naturalists who both read and cited Matthew's book pre-1858. Three of them played key roles influencing and facilitating the work of Darwin and Wallace before 1858.
Darwinists fully admit that Matthew was the first to discover natural selection and to explain it using the analogy of artificial selection. In his hypothesis, Matthew coined his discovery 'the natural process of selection'. His unique ideas were published 27 years before Darwin and Wallace replicated them in 1858 and Darwin wrote the Origin of Species 1859.
In light of the New Data, that Darwin and Wallace did know key naturalists who read Matthew's prior-published hypothesis, any unevidenced belief that the replicators Darwin and Wallace discovered natural selection independently of the Originator is as improbable as the Christian miracle belief that the so called Blessed Virgin Mary conceived the baby Jesus from a divine being rather than the fertile men who surrounded her.
Read Mike Sutton's supporting arguments for the "Blessed Virgins Darwin and Wallace Analogy" here
Darwinist Dysology
Are Darwinists suitably independent 'experts' to sit in judgement of whether or not someone not named Darwin should have absolute priority over their namesake for the theory that made him their namesake?
Fruit trees not finch beaks!
When confronted in the press by Matthew, science swindler Darwin set about making his fraudulent excuses for not having read the Originator’s book.
In the third edition of the Origin and in a series of letters to other naturalists he disingenuously implied that trees had nothing to do with organic evolution, and yet he used a multitude of evidences about trees in the Origin - often replicated Matthew’s highly idiosyncratic examples - and did much more of the same in his private notes and unpublished essays.