Plagiarising Science Fraud

Plagiarising Science Fraud
Newly Discovered Facts, Published in Peer Reviewed Science Journals, Mean Charles Darwin is a 100 Per Cent Proven Lying, Plagiarising Science Fraudster by Glory Theft of Patrick Matthew's Prior-Published Conception of the Hypothesis of Macro Evolution by Natural Selection

Monday, 22 January 2018

Question on the origin of Darwin's discovery

On Monday, 28 March 2016 The Nottingham Post  ran with the story on the 'New Data' on Charles Darwin's and Alfred Wallace's Plagiarising Science Fraud. The story was covered by feature writer Jeremy Lewis.'Question on the origin of Darwin's discovery'. Jeremy Lewis, The Nottingham Post. pp. 20-21, March 28, 2016.

Jeremy Lewis: Feature writer, Nottingham Post
For the benefit of those researching in the field of Darwin plagiarism studies, the following photographs are of the story. 

A compendium of other newspaper stories on the "New Data" can be found on the news page of 

Get the Independently Verifiable Facts: Don't be Punterized by Darwin Deification Myths

Identity VerifiedThinker in Science / Social Sciences / Sociology
Mike Sutton
Mike Sutton
Dr Mike Sutton is the author of 'Nullius in Verba: Darwin's greatest secret'.

Recent Posts Categories Archives Link
Print this page

Nullius in Verba: Darwin's greatest secret

Jul. 20, 2017 5:42 am
Categories: CounterknowledgeDysology
(c) All Rights Reserved the Vae Victus group. (c) Mike Sutton. (c) Andy SuttonUsed only with express written permission
Nullius in Verba: Darwin's greatest secret. Second edition, Paperback.


Taking advantage of new print-to-order technology, I have published the second edition ofNullius in Verba: Darwin's greatest secret as a paperback only publication. This second edition is a 200 page abridged and updated book. The paperback book, including its cover, is a product of the endeavours of the Vae Victus group, which is a newly formed and independent affiliation of university academics, artists and experienced publishers.
Nullius in Verba: Darwin's greatest secret reveals independently verifiable, newly discovered, evidence that punctures the established paradigm of Charles Darwin's and Alfred Wallace's supposed independent conceptions of Patrick Matthew's (1831) prior published conception of the theory of macroevolution by natural selection.
Until the publication of the 1st edition of Nullius in 2014    by Thinker Media Inc as an e-book, leading scientists believed Darwin's newly proven deliberate and various private letter penned and prominently published lies that apparently no naturalist/no single person/no one whatsoever read Matthew's breakthrough untill after Darwin and Wallace replicated it in print in 1858 and after Darwin did so in more detail in 1859. In reality, as Nullius newly and originally reveals and proves, Matthew's (1831) original breakthrough was cited by a total of at least seven naturalists pre-1858. Four were known to Darwin/Wallace and three played major roles at the epicenter of facilitation and influence of their pre-1858 work on evolution and of that of their influencer's influencers and facilitators.
This second edition (abridged and updated) of Nullius reveals a wealth of detail about the work and associations with Darwin and his influencers of those naturalists who cited Matthew's book pre-1858. By way of just one example of the seven influential naturalists who cited Matthew pre-1858, Robert Chambers (1832, p. 63) is most interesting: Here.   
The column of text is cited as: -Matthew On Naval Timber.
Chambers (1832) citing Matthew (1831)
If you click the image above it will be slightly easier to read.
Arguably, there can be no reasonable room for rational doubt that Chambers himself wrote this cobbled together information from Matthew's book, in this earliest Vol. 1 of Chambers' Edinburgh Journal, because Chambers famously did that sort of thing as a matter of routine and cited so many books and other publications, using a dash and italics in this exact same way, just as he did for the -Quarterly Review on the very same page and on the following page (64) for -Elliot's North Europe. etc. Furthermore, as confirmatory evidence, C. H. Layman    (1990, p.175) informs us in a biography on Robert Chambers, on the topic of the workload he shared with his brother William, that when it came to Chambers' Edinburgh Journal: 'Robert... offered all possible literary assistance - which at first amounted to writing almost the whole of the journal himself.'
The hard and independently verifiable facts 100 per cent prove that Robert Chambers cited Matthew (1831) in 1832.The independently verifiable hard-print evidence in the publication record 100 per cent proves it. If you doubt that audacious statement is true, then try the following experiment: cover the published text with your hand and remove it 100 times. You will note it never changes. What is published in the publication record is as proven to exist as fossils in the geological fossil record. Explaining them is another matter, of course.
In detail, the various possible reasons for why Chambers most likely despised Matthew, and other possible reasons for why he did not cite him anywhere on the topic of his breakthrough conception are discussed in my new paperback abridged edition of Nullius in Verba (Sutton 2017).
Staying on the topic of objective and independently verifiable fact-enlightened rationality, as opposed to mere subjective wishful thinking, we must ask the following most telling question:
Is it a mere coincidence, as part of a snowball, or else unconnected collection, of nothing more than mere multiple coincidences perhaps, that Chambers was fascinated by trees and arboriculture, that within a decade of 1832 he had written his own guide on arboriculture and cited Matthew's (1839) second book, that in the next decade he wrote his own best selling book on evolution - the Vestiges of Creation, that he both met with and corresponded several times with Darwin in the 1840's? Of course coincidences happen, which is exactly why we have a word for the phenomenon, but how many coincidences of this kind in the history of the publication of a bombshell breakthrough in science, and the citation of its published source by other influential scientists, I wonder, are required to sum to a probability that they are not merely coincidental, not unconnected?
Rationally, mere multiple coincidences of this kind seem unlikely when we are dealing with the impact on others of a prior published bombshell breakthrough in science. Clearly, Chambers represents a potential route of Matthewian Knowledge Contamination    to Darwin's pre-1858 brain; as do the other naturalists we now newly know (Sutton 2014   ) actually cited Matthew's (1831) book before 1858; cited the very book that contains his original bombshell breakthrough of the unifying theory of biology.
As if that is not enough, in his 1859 review of Darwin's Origin of Species, Chambers was apparently "first to be second" in published print (at least out of the 35 million books and other publications scanned by Google to date) with Matthew's apparently original term "natural process of selection". That is highly significant, because Darwin was apparently first to re-shuffle those exact same four absolutely essential words to "process of natural selection." Matthew's original term containing the exact same three most crucial words that are in that Darwin-shuffled term are crucial. They are crucial to the theory of macroevolution by natural selection because natural selection occurs as an unthinking "process", and because it is "natural" as opposed to artificial "selection". Arguably, that is most likely why Darwin was compelled to replicate them in his four-word shuffle of Matthew's (1831) original published useage, along with replicating Matthew's superb origination of his natural versus artificial selection analogy of differences to explain the process.
Notably, Loren Eisley discovered that in his private penned essay, Darwin replicated Matthew's precise and highly idiosyncratic forrester explanatory analogy of differences between trees grown in nurseries and trees grown in the wild to explain natural selection. In the following decade, Darwin (1859) opened Chapter 1 of the origin with this same analogy of differences, only by then he never used trees as an example. "Why not?", is the obviously telling question. Moreover, it was Chambers who famously convinced "Darwin's Bulldog", Huxley" to return to the famous Oxford debate with Bishop Wilberforce in order to defend Darwin's "Origin of Species". Clearly, Chambers was in the "thick of things" when it comes to Matthew's bombshell breakthrough and Darwin's replication of it -Sutton Nullius in Verba   .
(c) Andy Sutton (c) Mike Sutton. All Rights ReservedUsed only with express written permission
Second Edition of Nullius in Verba: Darwin's greatest secret
The cover of the second edition of Nullius is by Andy Sutton of the Vae Victus group   (incidentally, no relative of mine). Andy has taken and masterfully adapted the original artwork of Tissot. On the cover we see Darwin sitting atop Matthew's (1831) On Naval Timber and Arboriculture. The book is both concealed by Darwin and it makes him appear bigger than he really is. From beyond the grave, Tissot gifted Andy the ability to have Darwin hold the title of the book that proves he committed lying, plagiarizing science fraud by glory theft as well as the name of the author who "got him!"
Scholarship of independently verifiable facts versus Darwin worship faith feelings
The newly released abridged and updated paperback is available at all Amazon stores, e.g.    and    etc
Following the publication of my book 'Nullius in Verba: Darwin's greatest secret' the history of scientific discovery now has a number of original bombshell new discoveries that rewrite the history of discovery of natural selection:
1. Darwinites can no longer claim - as they did before my book was published - that Patrick Matthew's prior published conception of macroevolution by natural selection was unread by any naturalists before Darwin and Wallace replicated it. Because I originally discovered seven who cited the book that contains it in the pre-1859 literature. And Darwin and Wallace, and their influencers, knew four of them well. Hence it is most significantly newly discovered and 100 per cent proven that routes of potential knowledge contamination from Matthew's (1831) book into the pre-1858 minds of Darwin and Wallace most certainly do exist. The date evidence of this newly discovered publication record now debunks the old Darwinite claim that Darwin's notebooks and private essays prove he independently discovered natural selection.
2. Darwinites can no longer claim that Darwin was an honest scientist. Because it is proven that from 1860 onward, following information provided by Matthew himself. that he lied about the prior readership of Matthew's book and the original ideas in it by other naturalists. Darwin told at least seven other lies in order to convince the scientific community that he independently conceived the idea of natural selection.
3. It can no longer be claimed that Wallace was an honest scientist. Because I originally discovered that he edited one of his letters in his autobiography to conceal his claim that he thought he was owed money and favours by Darwin and his associates for cooperating with the presentation of his replication of the concept of natural selection alongside that of Darwin in 1858.
4. Darwinites can no longer claim that Matthew's conception of natural selection was contained solely in the appendix of his book. I reveal exactly how much is actually contained in the main body of his book and that Darwin lied when he wrote that Matthew's ideas were solely contained in the appendix. Because Matthew referred him to just some of the relevant text from the main body of his book and Darwin wrote to admit the fact to Joseph Hooker, but wrote that it would be "splitting hairs" to admit the truth of the matter!
5. Darwinites should no longer claim that Matthew never understood what he conceived on the grounds that he never shouted about it from the rooftops. Because I show how the first half of the 19th century was governed by laws and conventions that forbade anyone from doing such a thing, and others from discussing it. Moreover, in 1860, in the Gardeners' Chronicle, Matthew told Darwin as much when he explained his book was banned from Perth public library in Scotland and that an eminent naturalist, from an eminent university, could not teach the heretical orignal ideas in it, or communicate them in other ways, for fear of pillory punishment.
(c) Andy SuttonAttribution
Very first copy of Nullius arrives in the post.
Nullius in Ver

Sunday, 21 January 2018

Cough..."idiot" ahem, snort


Five Star Book Reviews of Nullius in Verba

+ + +

Friday, 19 January 2018

Do You Know What Time It Is? It's Time To Add Darwin to the List

+ + + + Fraud and Misconduct in Research: Detection, Investigation, and Organizational ResponseFraud and Misconduct in Research: Detection, Investigation, and Organizational Response by Nachman Ben-Yehuda
My rating: 5 of 5 stars

I highly recommend this book to all scholars of science fraud. Because, here is a book written by highly respected and renowned academic scholars who are not afraid to cite research that has uniquely uncovered independently verifiable facts in the historic publication record (which is as solidly real as the geological fossil record), which prove Darwin a serial liar about who really read Patrick Matthew's (1831) original and prior published discovery of macroevolution by natural selection (see the latest paperback edition of the work they cite here: (See Nullius in Verba: Darwin's greatest secret by yours truly: Mike Sutton 2017)

The newly discovered facts prove that rather than no naturalists / no one at all, as Darwin clearly is proven to have knowingly lied, that in point of fact four naturalists at the very epicentre of influence on Darwin's and Wallace's doubly miraculous dually independent conceptions of replicating work on natural selection read and cited Mathew's (1831) book before Darwin's and Wallace's replications. Some - well known to Darwin and Wallace - (Loudon and Chambers) even cited Matthew before Darwin or Wallace even put pen to private notepad on the topic. Google "On Knowledge contamination" for the published (in a science journal) peer reviewed facts.

Bravo. Five stars for citing veracity and directing students of science fraud to what is arguably the most significant discovery of science fraud since the detection of the Piltdown Man Fraud.

The authors say that Darwin may have to be added to their list as a result of all the newly discovered and verifiable facts of this one particular case of Charles Darwin's proven lies plagiarising science fraud by glory theft of Matthew's prio published breakthrough.

But this is just one case. You must read their book to see a multitude of others. It's available at all good book shops, Amazon and libraries world wide. Buy a copy today. You will be glad you did.

View all my reviews


Mike Sutton
Mike Sutton
Dr Mike Sutton is the author of 'Nullius in Verba: Darwin's greatest secret'.


Jul. 16, 2015 4:47 am
Categories: CounterknowledgeDysology
Gwyn Macfarlane

'When a number of conflicting theories co-exist, any point on which they all agree is the one most likely to be wrong.' (Macfarlane 1984, p. 253   ).

I have no idea about whether or not Macfarlane's Law   has universal applicability. He applied it to the story of the discovery and development of penicillin as a useful myth-busting device in his work to show the Fleming eclipsed role of Macfarlane's Oxford University associate, Howard Florey, in the development of penicillin as systemic medicine.
Macfarlane writes of his law in a footnote on page 253 of his superb book    on Alexander Fleming:
'Dr D. L. Cowen has been kind enough to refer to this principle as 'Macfarlane's Law' but the author cannot claim complete originality, since it emerged during a casual conversation with a now anonymous colleague at a now-forgotten International Congress.'
Macfarlane (1984, p. 253   ) found his law applied to the story of penicillin:
'The one common assumption made by all those who have tried to explain Fleming's lack of success was that he was convinced of the immense potential value of his discovery and did his best to establish this against the odds that proved too great for him.'
Essentially, Macfarlane makes a strong case that Fleming simply failed to personally take his initial discovery of penicillin and its germ killing powers forward, due to a combined lack of pure intuitive experimental curiosity and particular departmental philosophy against undertaking experiments without sufficient evidence to warrant them. Hence, Fleming failed to undertake the experiment to inject penicillin into an infected animal after his only injection experiment (into a rabbit) suggested penicillin would not survive more than four hours inside a patient. Fleming simply saw that penicillin might be usefully developed as a topical medicine to treat local infection sites. Florey, on the other hand, did the experiment by injecting penicillin into an infected mouse. And the rest is a most complex and fascinating history.
I find Macfarlane's law applies also when it comes to the many pre-Sutton 2014   competing explanations for why Charles Darwin supposedly failed to read Patrick Matthew's (1831) prior published complete theory    of natural selection.

Macfarlane's Law Disproves the Majority View about Darwin

What all the insensibly named, because they are competing, 'majority view' Darwinist explanations for why Darwin supposedly never read Matthew's prior-published hypothesis of natural selection, have in common (see Nullius    for the details) for the details) is a common assumption (premise) - often overtly stated as an unquestionable 'knowledge belief' that Darwin was a profoundly honest person. But he wasn't. His private autobiography - written not for publication but for his family - revealed with apparent honesty, ironically, that as a child he was a compulsive attention seeking and self-glorifying liar ( Darwin 1876   ):
'I may here also confess that as a little boy I was much given to inventing deliberate falsehoods, and this was always done for the sake of causing excitement.'
Nullius in Verba
Not much should be made of that, I include it here only to show that there might just have been something pathological about Darwin's serial dishonesty as an adult naturalist.
Darwin’s biographer, Clarke, was convinced that Darwin must have read Matthew’s (1831) book. He wrote (Clarke 1984:    130-131).:
'Only the transparent honesty of Darwin’s character, which shines out so brightly from the archives, makes it possible to believe that by the 1850s he had no recollection of Matthew’s work.'
Every other competing Darwinist excuse for why Darwin supposedly never read Matthew's book is based on the now debunked pre-Nullius    'knowledge belief', which was started by Darwin's proven deliberate self-serving lie that no naturalists had read Matthew's ideas before Matthew told Darwin about them in the press in 1860. Hence, they all agree, on what we now know is the fallacy that Darwin was being honest when he claimed that information was, to his knowledge, the case. We know Darwin was deliberately lying, because before Darwin wrote that fallacy, Matthew had informed him that the naturalist John Loudon had reviewed his book. Moreover, in response to Darwin's blatant lie that apparently no naturalist had read it, Matthew, in the Gardener's Chronicle in 1860, told Darwin about yet another naturalist who was aware of his original ideas but feared to teach them. And yet still Darwin went on to repeat his lie in the third edition of the Origin of Species and in every edition thereafter!
Competing Darwinist 'explanations', all based on the newly proven fallacious premise of Darwin's honesty, for why Darwin supposedly failed pre-1858 to read the one book in the world he most needed to read, include the following:
  • Matthew's book was inappropriately titled
  • Matthew's book was on an obscure topic
  • Matthew's book was on a topic that would not interest a naturalist
  • Matthew's ideas on natural selection were limited to a couple of paragraphs in an obscure appendix
  • Matthew's book was unread by any naturalists
  • Matthew's book was unread by anyone known to Darwin or Wallace
  • No one mentioned in the literature Matthew's unique ideas on natural selection
  • Matthew's ideas were not clearly written
  • Matthew wrote nothing original on natural selection
These competing Darwinist excuses for why Darwin and Wallace were supposedly not aware of Matthew's book, and the easy debunking of them all, with facts and reason, can be read in Nullius   ,, where I prove that Darwin told six lies in order to eclipse Patrick Matthew's prior discovery of natural selection. Here is the biggest of the lot:

The Myth of Darwin's Honesty is Bust by the Facts

There is newly discovered, cast iron, 100 per cent, proof that Charles Darwin, in collusion with his best friend and botanical mentor Joseph Hooker, blatantly and self-servingly, lied, in the Gardener's Chronicle, when he wrote in 1860 that apparently no naturalist had read Matthew's (1831) prior-published ideas, before Matthew brought them to Darwin's attention in 1860. Consequently, Darwin further lied when he wrote in the third edition of the Origin of Species (1861), and every edition thereafter, that Matthew's unique ideas had passed unnoticed until 1860.

My original discoveries create a big problem for Darwinists

Good scholarship in any field involves questioning. And so I think the best application of Macfarlane's law is that given by Root-Bernstein who writes that we should question: '...most the the data that best fit your expectations and focus instead upon the unsolved problems, anomalies, and paradoxes of your field.' (Root-Bernstein 1993).   
The new problem that Darwinists now have to solve is:
How on Earth did Darwin and Wallace discover Natural Selection independently of Matthew's prior published hypothesis of it; despite the newly discovered fact that they were influenced and facilitated on the same topic by naturalists they knew who had long before read and cited Matthew's book, which contains it?
If Darwinists can solve this new problem, rationally and convincingly, in light of just how many of Matthew's original ideas and examples Darwin and Wallace replicated, along with his powerful Artificial Versus Natural Selection Explanatory Analogy of Differences, and his terminology,* then, and only then, can they solve what we might name the Anomalous Paradox Problem of Darwin's and Wallace's Immaculate Conceptions of Matthew's Prior Published Hypothesis.
Of significant note also, is the fact that the problem of claimed independent replication of a full, complete, appreciable, original and unique prior-published, problem solving and game-changing idea, hypothesis or theory, whilst in contact with those who are 100 per cent proven to have read the publication containing it, is unique in the history of scientific discovery to the story of Matthew, Darwin and Wallace. That makes it a most important anomaly, which has been ignored for the 155 years following the publication of Darwin's Origin of Species, but it is dragged now into the spotlight by my new discoveries.
Kuhn's seminal work on the Structure of Scientific Revolutions explains   : 'A shift in professional commitments to shared assumptions takes place when an anomaly subverts the existing tradition of scientific practice.' Darwinists will need now take note that the anomaly of Darwin's and Wallace's essential immaculate conceptions of a prior published theory has been highlighted by the New Data that their influencers had read it before they replicated it. Moreover, the Darwinist 'anomaly dodging' assumption, of Darwin's and Wallace's remarkable honesty, which they have shared and relied upon in order to deal with Darwin's and Wallace's so-called 'independent' discoveries of Matthew's prior published discovery, is newly bust in the light of Wallace's now proven dishonesty and Darwin's blatant lies.
If exceptional claims do require exceptional evidence, then that is exactly what Darwinists must provide now in light of the New Data presented in Nullius   .
Notably, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, which means that, to repeat the point already made, what remains in Darwin's and Wallace's massively decimated private correspondence archives, private diaries, and Darwin's torn apart, missing pages and scribbled out text private notebooks and essays – dated as written in the exact same year, or after, Darwin's influential friends and associates, and Wallace's Sarawak paper editor, read and cited Matthew's work - is quite obviously not extraordinary evidence in support of their claimed 'independent' discoveries of Matthew's prior-published discovery of the natural process of selection.
Moreover, it is a fact that the New Data greatly highlights the anomaly of Darwin’s and Wallace’s supposed ‘independent discoveries’ of Matthew's ‘natural process of selection’. This represents the start of a paradigm change.
According to Kuhn (1970 p. 62)    the characteristics of paradigm changing discoveries include the:
'... previous awareness of an anomaly, the gradual and simultaneous emergence of both observational and conceptual recognition, and the consequent change of paradigm categories and procedures often accompanied by resistance.'
Paradigm changes in our knowledge of the history of scientific discoveries are not arrived at by making scientific discoveries, although new technologies may be essential facilitators for the discovery of new knowledge about that history. There are, however, usefully analogous factors involved. All Kuhn's elements of paradigm change in science are to be found in the story of Matthew, Darwin and Wallace. There is the anomaly of Darwin's and Wallace's 'immaculate conceptions' (independent discoveries) of Matthew's prior published discovery. There is the new BigData ID hi-technology facilitated observation that influential naturalists, known to Darwin and Wallace, in fact did read, and cite, Matthew's book pre-1858, which represents an original, anomaly highlighting, paradigm shifting, discovery of a great paradox in the history of the discovery of natural selection. Finally, there is the fact that the change of paradigm to Darwin and Wallace having been more likely than not influenced by Matthew's prior-published work long before 1858, and the new research procedures I used to bring it into existence, are meeting resistance from those still wedded to the old 'majority view' of Darwin and Wallace as independent discoverers. See for example Dr Mike Weale's position paper    on my discovery of the New Data. Every criticism in it can be rebutted by reference to reason and the newly discovered facts (here).
Progress in search engine technology, combined with Google's Library Project of over 30 million searchable books and other publications, has transformed the anomaly of Darwin's and Wallace's claimed dual independent discoveries of Matthew's prior-published original ideas from a mere vexation into a crisis in the history of scientific discovery.
The issue of Patrick Mathew's priority over Darwin and Wallace for his own prior-published and cited discovery is not something that the history of scientific discovery can ethically or sensibly ignore if it is to be of any use in helping us to understand how the discovery of natural selection occurred. Such knowledge is important, because it is fundamental in developing ways to increase the chances of making other great discoveries in the future.
*For the published proof of just how much of Matthew's unique and original 1831 ideas and content Darwin and Wallace replicated see e.g.: Sutton    (2014); Dempster    (1995); and Dawkins, in Bryson    (ed) (2010).
(c) Darwin and WallaceAttribution
Miracle Double Immaculate Conceptions of the Blessed Virgins Darwin and Wallace of Matthew's prior published hypothesis of natural selection