Nullius in Verba - Darwin's Greatest Secret by Mike Sutton

Apr 20, 2018 Emilio rated it it was amazing · review of another edition

Commentary of Mike Sutton’s Book Nullius in Verba (Darwin’s greatest secret)
Emilio Cervantes
IRNASA-CSIC
Salamanca
Spain

The cover of this book shows a caricature of Charles Darwin seated on top of a big red book. The caricature was published in Vanity Fair in 1871, but the book below Darwin has been added recently by the artist. Close examination reveals Patrick Matthew’s name written with gold letters in the spine of the red book. Nullius in Verba (Darwin’s greatest secret) presents definitive pr ...more

flag 1 like · Like · see review

Apr 17, 2018 Ton rated it it was amazing · review of another edition

Mike Sutton’s book

Dr. Mike Sutton’s book “Nullius in Verba” (2017) sheds new light on the relationship between the two naturalists Patrick Matthew (1790-1874) and Charles Darwin (1809-1882). Untill now Matthew has been a footnote in the history of science, Darwin a demigod. His followers, the neo-darwinists, have monopolized biology after World War II with their claim that evolution equals darwinism. The claim is contested on several levels. To locate Sutton’s book in the field of these Darwin-d ...more

flag 1 like · Like · see review

Apr 04, 2018 Andy Sutton rated it it was amazing · review of another edition

I should start by declaring that I know the author professionally (though we haven’t worked together). We share a surname but are not related. I should also declare that I’m responsible for realising Mike’s concept and brief for the cover design.

Before I go into a detailed review, the main thrust here is that I think Dr Sutton’s evidence and argument is very strong and his assertion is undeniable that Patrick Matthew should properly be credited as the originator of the theory of evolution by nat I should start by declaring that I know the author professionally (though we haven’t worked together). We share a surname but are not related. I should also declare that I’m responsible for realising Mike’s concept and brief for the cover design.

Before I go into a detailed review, the main thrust here is that I think Dr Sutton’s evidence and argument is very strong and his assertion is undeniable that Patrick Matthew should properly be credited as the originator of the theory of evolution by natural selection.
The painstaking research is thorough, diligent, and original. All evidence is presented with appropriate citation, and as such can be verified by anyone who is inclined to doubt. Dr Sutton is clear in his differentiation between verifiable facts, logical inferences, likelihoods and suppositions, and gives appropriate weight to those parts which amount to circumstantial. One of the main strengths is that he is a criminologist by profession. At no point does he challenge or comment on the theory of evolution – that endeavour is sensibly left to biologists. However when it comes to investigation of impropriety, the author is well qualified. And there lies an important issue … in an investigation of this kind, in the absence of Darwin’s fingerprints on a copy of Matthew’s book, a circumstantial case has to be built which appeals to concepts such as ‘preponderance of evidence’ or ‘reasonable doubt’. This is not to say the case is imagined – the case is built on verifiable evidence.

I would ask readers to imagine themselves as a juror. Suppose Emma in village A invents the wheel. Several people in villages B, C, D and E see the wheel and know about it. There are paths from all those villages to village F that are known to be in use. Daniel in village F later, apparently independently, invents the wheel. Not only that but Daniel’s wheel, which is of course the same concept, is made of the same materials and has similar features to Emma’s wheel. Daniel has been friends with, and talked to, some of the people in those other villages, who we know have seen the wheel. They know he is working on a wheel concept. When challenged by Emma, Daniel claims nobody in his sphere knew about her wheel, but this can be shown to be false, ie they did know. Daniel is then credited with inventing the wheel. Members of the jury …
The wheel analogy isn’t perfect, but that is in essence the case that Dr Sutton builds, and he isn’t saying “might have read Matthew” or “might have known Darwin”, he is showing us irrefutable proof that you can see for yourself if you have internet access. There are other aspects to the argument which give further support, which you will find in the book.

So, I find the argument completely persuasive.

Above and beyond the main case being put forward by Dr Sutton, it seems to me, is another very important issue raised by him, which is extent to which subsequent and modern day authorities seem to have (with no apparent sense of irony) deified Charles Darwin to such an extent that to question his role or integrity is seen as modern day heresy and so, perversely, such questioning is refuted with passion but without fact referenced critique. One would think that those interested in the pursuit of truth, and with insight into how it is moved forward, would relish the chance to have in informed debate where there is challenge and hence the chance to strengthen knowledge. It seems here that hero worship has taken the place of reasoned and evidenced thinking.

I do have some reservations, though these do not in any way challenge the strength or validity of Dr Sutton’s case. They are issues of terminology, and the organisation of the book. Starting with the most trivial, I understand the concept of ‘big data’ differently than it used here. The author references IDD as a ‘method’. While it is clear that he exploited a newly available archive, and developed considerable expertise in interrogating it (for which he deserves credit, and from which others can learn), it isn’t, in my view, a new method.

I feel that the book could be structured to make the case easier to follow. I’d have liked the clear listing of the main points at the start which is expressed on pages 110 to 113. For academic writing I refer my students to the cop show Columbo, because I prefer to see who the murderer is at the start and then see the evidence build up, rather than a Miss Marple reveal at the end. So tell me at the start, in bullet form ideally, what is being argued, then tell me the chapter by chapter structure, then get on with it but keep reminding me throughout what has been established so far, and where we are in the journey of the argument. This may be evidence of my limited intellect, but if you share my deficiency I’d suggest you read pages 110 to 113 before the rest of the book. It’s the clearest version of what is being argued.

One more thing, or perhaps collection of things, I would have liked is some things I could refer to when I’m confronted with a name I know that came up before but I can’t remember quite who that is and what their place in the story is. It’s obvious that the author knows a great deal and has all the people and connections clearly established, and they are all elucidated in the book, but as a ‘new to all this’ reader I would have liked in an appendix that I could turn to quickly and consult:
- A list of the main people, in alphabetical order, with just a sentence or two to remind me who they were what they contributed to the story.
- A timeline of all the main events in the story.
- A ‘family tree’ showing the links between the main characters.
I think those things would make it an easier read and follow.

In summary, I heartily recommend this book to anyone who is interested in the story of this theory, or in how ideas should be credited, or issues of integrity in the scientific community. ...more

flag 1 like · Like · see review

Apr 04, 2018 Andy Sutton rated it it was amazing

I should start by declaring that I know the author professionally (though we haven’t worked together). We share a surname but are not related. I should also declare that I’m responsible for realising Mike’s concept and brief for the cover design.

Before I go into a detailed review, the main thrust here is that I think Dr Sutton’s evidence and argument is very strong and his assertion is undeniable that Patrick Matthew should properly be credited as the originator of the theory of evolution by nat I should start by declaring that I know the author professionally (though we haven’t worked together). We share a surname but are not related. I should also declare that I’m responsible for realising Mike’s concept and brief for the cover design.

Before I go into a detailed review, the main thrust here is that I think Dr Sutton’s evidence and argument is very strong and his assertion is undeniable that Patrick Matthew should properly be credited as the originator of the theory of evolution by natural selection.
The painstaking research is thorough, diligent, and original. All evidence is presented with appropriate citation, and as such can be verified by anyone who is inclined to doubt. Dr Sutton is clear in his differentiation between verifiable facts, logical inferences, likelihoods and suppositions, and gives appropriate weight to those parts which amount to circumstantial. One of the main strengths is that he is a criminologist by profession. At no point does he challenge or comment on the theory of evolution – that endeavour is sensibly left to biologists. However when it comes to investigation of impropriety, the author is well qualified. And there lies an important issue … in an investigation of this kind, in the absence of Darwin’s fingerprints on a copy of Matthew’s book, a circumstantial case has to be built which appeals to concepts such as ‘preponderance of evidence’ or ‘reasonable doubt’. This is not to say the case is imagined – the case is built on verifiable evidence.

I would ask readers to imagine themselves as a juror. Suppose Emma in village A invents the wheel. Several people in villages B, C, D and E see the wheel and know about it. There are paths from all those villages to village F that are known to be in use. Daniel in village F later, apparently independently, invents the wheel. Not only that but Daniel’s wheel, which is of course the same concept, is made of the same materials and has similar features to Emma’s wheel. Daniel has been friends with, and talked to, some of the people in those other villages, who we know have seen the wheel. They know he is working on a wheel concept. When challenged by Emma, Daniel claims nobody in his sphere knew about her wheel, but this can be shown to be false, ie they did know. Daniel is then credited with inventing the wheel. Members of the jury …
The wheel analogy isn’t perfect, but that is in essence the case that Dr Sutton builds, and he isn’t saying “might have read Matthew” or “might have known Darwin”, he is showing us irrefutable proof that you can see for yourself if you have internet access. There are other aspects to the argument which give further support, which you will find in the book.

So, I find the argument completely persuasive.

Above and beyond the main case being put forward by Dr Sutton, it seems to me, is another very important issue raised by him, which is extent to which subsequent and modern day authorities seem to have (with no apparent sense of irony) deified Charles Darwin to such an extent that to question his role or integrity is seen as modern day heresy and so, perversely, such questioning is refuted with passion but without fact referenced critique. One would think that those interested in the pursuit of truth, and with insight into how it is moved forward, would relish the chance to have in informed debate where there is challenge and hence the chance to strengthen knowledge. It seems here that hero worship has taken the place of reasoned and evidenced thinking.

I do have some reservations, though these do not in any way challenge the strength or validity of Dr Sutton’s case. They are issues of terminology, and the organisation of the book. Starting with the most trivial, I understand the concept of ‘big data’ differently than it used here. The author references IDD as a ‘method’. While it is clear that he exploited a newly available archive, and developed considerable expertise in interrogating it (for which he deserves credit, and from which others can learn), it isn’t, in my view, a new method.

I feel that the book could be structured to make the case easier to follow. I’d have liked the clear listing of the main points at the start which is expressed on pages 110 to 113. For academic writing I refer my students to the cop show Columbo, because I prefer to see who the murderer is at the start and then see the evidence build up, rather than a Miss Marple reveal at the end. So tell me at the start, in bullet form ideally, what is being argued, then tell me the chapter by chapter structure, then get on with it but keep reminding me throughout what has been established so far, and where we are in the journey of the argument. This may be evidence of my limited intellect, but if you share my deficiency I’d suggest you read pages 110 to 113 before the rest of the book. It’s the clearest version of what is being argued.

One more thing, or perhaps collection of things, I would have liked is some things I could refer to when I’m confronted with a name I know that came up before but I can’t remember quite who that is and what their place in the story is. It’s obvious that the author knows a great deal and has all the people and connections clearly established, and they are all elucidated in the book, but as a ‘new to all this’ reader I would have liked in an appendix that I could turn to quickly and consult:
- A list of the main people, in alphabetical order, with just a sentence or two to remind me who they were what they contributed to the story.
- A timeline of all the main events in the story.
- A ‘family tree’ showing the links between the main characters.
I think those things would make it an easier read and follow.

In summary, I heartily recommend this book to anyone who is interested in the story of this theory, or in how ideas should be credited, or issues of integrity in the scientific community. ...more

flag 1 like · Like · see review

Jul 03, 2018 David Wilkins rated it it was amazing

I bought a paperback copy of the book after reading the excellent reviews added to the Kindle edition – it is an Amazon failure that they do not merge reviews written for different formats or posted in different domains. Although I note that the one negative reviewer, JF Derry, has managed to overcome that problem taking every opportunity to add defamatory comments at every opportunity. The fact Derry has an axe to grind with Sutton adds spice to this story... it was certainly enough to flavour I bought a paperback copy of the book after reading the excellent reviews added to the Kindle edition – it is an Amazon failure that they do not merge reviews written for different formats or posted in different domains. Although I note that the one negative reviewer, JF Derry, has managed to overcome that problem taking every opportunity to add defamatory comments at every opportunity. The fact Derry has an axe to grind with Sutton adds spice to this story... it was certainly enough to flavour my interest in reading the book to find out where the truth lies. .

I was soon distracted from picking out the incriminating evidence by the realisation that Matthew was something of an unsung hero. The type of character that history easily forgets as it focuses on the key characters and their influence on events – this distilled history tells the same story ad infinitum or until new evidence forces a rethink. Clearly those that have invested a lot in “the” narrative, built shrines to their hero, celebrated the achievements, have a vested interest in shielding the master narrative. Even when dealing with recent history, as I have, it is incredibly difficult to dislodge distilled accounts – by that I mean explanations that are founded on the key events because that is the way we tend to remember. The influences that nudged, cajoled, or suggested are likely to evaporate in the mists of time.

What Sutton’s book makes clear is that Matthew was not the kind of character that history should forget. There is undoubtedly enough in this story for a documentary on Scotland’s unsung hero – the Chartist that drew censure for heretical views but promoted peace. Matthew, not Darwin, is the story here. The fact that Darwin did not credit Matthew is a travesty. The defence Andrea Wulf gave in her review of AN Wilson’s book on Darwin (New Statesman 31 August 2017) that Darwin listed 30 authors that had written on evolution before him – 38 in the 3rd edition – was disingenuous and lacked academic credibility. The fact is listing people as having written on the topic is not a counter to Wilson’s claims. I make the point simply because AN Wilson helps to explain why Matthew does not have the place in history he deserves. The oddity to Wilson’s book is that he did not research deep enough to find the evidence Sutton delivers – including finding Sutton’s evidence to correct the simplistic assumption made by Wulf.

What I find compelling is the fact that Darwin not only denied knowledge of Matthew’s book on navel timber but also denied that any of his associates had knowledge of it. It is not just that Sutton shows that to be incorrect it is the fact that it is inconceivable that the knowledge was not passed around within the limited confines of the scientific community given the controversy caused by Matthew’s views on natural selection. The list of influential people that had knowledge of the book, the fact it produced new ideas and those ideas were controversial makes it difficult to believe that Darwin was some kind of ignoramus that went about his work in isolation.

I encourage others to read the book with an open mind. It strikes me AN Wilson made a good point when citing Popper: “If our civilisation is to survive, we must break with the habit of deference to great men”. It is only by moving out of the shadow of deference that the smoking gun comes into sight. We are all fallible but facts tend to be harder to refute. What is clear from this story (perhaps a “who-done-it”) is that Matthew deserves recognition. It is not simply about producing facts for the kind of Darwin bashing that Wilson performs it is about giving long overdue credit to someone that contributed to the evolutionary story. Matthew deserves his place in history… And Sutton has done an excellent job of piecing together the evidence to refute Darwin's claim that neither he nor his associates had prior knowledge of Matthew's work - he was no ignoramus.

The one criticism of the book is that it would be helpful to see chapter details as the header. ...more

flag 1 like · Like · see review

Jul 24, 2017 Jf rated it did not like it

Dear fellow readers and reviewers, quite a lot of work has now been carried out, testing the claims in this book. Was that not the first action to occur to you? These are big claims. Even the author says so. Perhaps it's worth checking them out. Doing so, anyone will see that the two main lists that provide the backbone to the author's claims are untenable when tested. The quick and easy one is list 2, which is supposed to demonstrate many subsequent uses of Matthew's key phrasings. Yet, search ...more

flag 1 like · Like · see review

DrosoPHila rated it did not like it
Aug 12, 2015

Sheikh Tajamul rated it really liked it
Oct 14, 2016

Tony Anuci rated it it was amazing
Feb 15, 2019

George Sr. rated it really liked it
Mar 05, 2016

Connor Fraser marked it as to-read
Jan 31, 2015

Sude added it
May 28, 2015

Axel Blaster added it
Sep 18, 2015

Brad marked it as to-read
Apr 28, 2016

Dan marked it as to-read
Apr 28, 2016

Pavel marked it as to-read
Dec 28, 2016

sanjana simha marked it as to-read
May 03, 2018

Jonghyun Shin marked it as to-read
Aug 29, 2018

David McPherson is currently reading it
Dec 03, 2018

Anzhelica Kozlova marked it as to-read
Mar 18, 2019

Alan added it
Sep 28, 2019

topics	posts	views	last activity
Who should read Nullius in Verba: Darwin's Greatest Secret?	2	5	Apr 16, 2018 04:21PM
Who should read Nullius in Verba: Darwin's Greatest Secret?	2	5	Apr 16, 2018 04:20PM
Fabrication / Falsification / Deceit / Personation (Sock Puppetry)	1	4	Apr 16, 2018 04:18PM
Second edition Vol 1 paperback	1	4	Apr 15, 2018 07:30AM
Matthewism: * Does Matthew have full priority for the discovery of natural selection?	1	5	Jan 26, 2015 11:43PM

See a Problem?

Preview — Nullius in Verba - Darwin's Greatest Secret by Mike Sutton

Nullius in Verba - Darwin's Greatest Secret

Get A Copy

Friend Reviews

Reader Q&A

Lists with This Book

Community Reviews

new topic
Discuss This Book

Genres

About Mike Sutton

Related Articles

Trivia About Nullius in Verba ...

Quotes from Nullius in Verba:...

See a Problem?

Preview — Nullius in Verba - Darwin's Greatest Secret by Mike Sutton

Nullius in Verba - Darwin's Greatest Secret

Get A Copy

Friend Reviews

Reader Q&A

Lists with This Book

Community Reviews

new topicDiscuss This Book

Genres

About Mike Sutton

Related Articles

Trivia About Nullius in Verba ...

Quotes from Nullius in Verba:...

new topic
Discuss This Book