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

Thursday, 14 September 2017

The £10 Darwins

+


Tuesday, 12 September 2017

GCSE Darwin Monkey Business

Darwin Catfight in the Evening Standard

Sunday, 10 September 2017

The Patrick Matthew Weekend

+

After the Age of Enlightenment, facts are supposed be judged on their merits, not source of publication

+
+

Thursday, 7 September 2017

Even more evidence of foul language Darwinite abuse of those they disagree with

Look, at least from what I have read of his own accounts about it, A.N. Wilson has indeed written a fair degree of nonsense and he does appear to confuse natural selection with the ancient development hypothesis, but that does not excuse publishing foul penned abuse such as this.  No wonder Amazon deleted it.

+

Saturday, 2 September 2017

More hard data from social media of Darwinists publishing foul abuse when faced by unwelcome verifiable facts that disconfirm their unevidenced mere comfort-beliefs

+ + + + + + + + + +

Wednesday, 30 August 2017

Charles Darwin's Tangled Bank Job: Just More Evidence of his Science Fraud by Plagiary


A recent review in the Guardian newspaper    of the historian A.N. Wilson’s book on Charles Darwin points out – quite correctly - many of Wilson’s mistakes and his failure to understand what the process of natural selection is. The book review is written by Victorian history expert Kathryn Hughes. However, waxing lyrical in credulous regurgitation of the romance and lies about Darwin’s supposed good nature and original genius, she uses the cliched example of Darwin’s supposed observations of a tangled bank in nature as supposed evidence of his originality. Hughes writes:
His most famous motif, the one that everyone remembers because it leaps off the page with such unforced joy, is that of the tangled bank. Based on his daily observations of a stretch of land near his home, Darwin describes a buzzing ecosystem that is home to plants, birds and insects “all dependent on each other”. Here, he implies, is a microcosm for how we too might imagine our lives.’
But, once again, this is just another example of Darwin replicating Patrick Matthew’s (1831) original theory and its supporting examples, explanatory analogies of difference and terminology.
I could add a wealth of examples of how many of Matthew's prior-published ideas, original terminology, and confirmatory evidence were replicated by Darwin. Those examples are provided in my book "Nullius in Verba: Darwin's greatest secret   " but - given the tangled bank example used in the Guardian review one should look at what the statistical geneticist Dr Mike Weale tells us about Professor Donald Forsdyke's observations of Darwin's tangled bank text and its similarities to an evidentiary example provided by Patrick Matthew almost three decades earlier. The text below is taken from the comments section of Weal's website "The Patrick Matthew Project" and are addressed to me: 
"Mike, were you aware of the following interesting similarity between a famous passage of Darwin’s, and something that Matthew wrote in NTA? I thank Donald Forsdyke for pointing out the Matthew quote (see the end of his last video in his educational video series (https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL59A9C65FB0DCED9E   ).
The Darwin quote, from the last paragraph of “On the Origin of Species”, is: “It is interesting to contemplate an entangled bank, clothed with many plants of many kinds, with birds singing on the bushes, with various insects flitting about, and with worms crawling through the damp earth, and to reflect that these elaborately constructed forms, so different from each other, and dependent on each other in so complex a manner, have all been produced by laws acting around us.”
The Matthew quote, from pp.229-30 of NTA, is: “Look at the broken mound, with its old picturesque trees and tangled bushes; there is the ancient root where the throstle had its nestlings, which are now at large on the leafy boughs, and are tuning their yet unformed notes to melody. Now every twig has raised its new column of foliage to the sun; and branch, and root, and stone, embellished all over in the richest variety of cryptogamic beauty, swarm of insect life.”
The scene is used differently (to contemplate Nature’s laws by Darwin, to contrast beautiful Nature with boring manicured parks by Matthew), but the similarity of the picture is striking."
NOTE: NTA is an acronym for Matthew's book 'On Naval Timber and Arboriculture.'

The most telling question is: When will historians face the concrete fully evidenced truth and choose it over the romance and lies about Charles Darwin, which they have been hoodwinked to believe in?The most telling question is this: ‘Just how many supposed multiple coincidences of this kind are required in the story of Matthew and Darwin to convince scientists and historians that Darwin more likely than not plagiarised Matthew’s prior published discovery of evolution by natural selection, and in doing so committed the world’s greatest science fraud?’ My book is jam packed with them. Jam-packed with independently verifiable evidence of Darwin’s lies and Matthew’s influence on other naturalists known to Darwin and Wallace and his influence on their greatest influencers and their influencer’s influencers before either Darwin or Wallace penned a word on the topic of evolution. How can this be so? Because it is newly discovered those naturalists actually cited Matthew’s book and original ideas long before Darwin and Wallace replicated them. And Matthew’s work was cited by naturalists long before Darwin excused his and Wallace’s failure to cite Matthew by lying that no naturalist had read Matthew’s work. It was a lie because Matthew had twice prior informed Darwin that the exact opposite was true.

Darwin, the patron saint of atheists in fact kept the notion of a supernatural being in several editions of his Origin of Species. Read the whole context of his "tangled bank" job from that book and you will see this fact:


Now, by way of contrast, see how Matthew (1831) , the originator of the theory Darwin and Wallace stole, had the courage - years earlier - to commit heresy by mocking such an unscientific superstitious notion:


As I fully reveal in my book Nullius  - It was for such reason, as Matthew explained to Darwin in the pages of the Gardeners' Chronicle of 1860, that his work was banned by libraries and renowned university academics feared to repeat his ideas for fear of pillory punishment. But you won't read those facts in any ignorant Darwin bashing book penned by a born again creationist, nor in any penned by a credulous and biased, cherry-picking, Darwin worshipper.


1000 hits inside 24 hours on Darwin's plagiaism

Guardian Review of A.N. Wilson's book: The Grassy Bank Job

Today I left the following comments on the Guardian Newspaper website regarding a book review of A.N. Wilson's book on Darwin.

CLICK HERE to read the Guardian article and comments on it 



01
Typo in my comment on the "grassy bank job" below. I mean in the opening sentence - of course - replicated by Darwin.



  • 01
    I could add a wealth of examples of how many of Matthew's prior-published ideas, original terminology, and confirmatory evidence were replicated by Matthew from my book "Nullius in Verba: Darwin's greatest secret" but - given the grassy bank example used in the Guardian review above look at what the statistical geneticist Dr Mike Weale tells us about Professor Donald Forsdyke observations of Darwin's grassy bank text and its similarities to an evidentiary example provided by Patrick Matthew almost three decades earlier. In the text below (taken from the comments section of Weal's website "The Patrick Matthew Project" is addressed to me - Professor Forsdyke very kindly read my book and offered comments on it prior to its publication - NTA is an acronym for Matthew's 1831 book On Naval Timber and Arboriculture :
    "Mike, were you aware of the following interesting similarity between a famous passage of Darwin’s, and something that Matthew wrote in NTA? I thank Donald Forsdyke for pointing out the Matthew quote (see the end of his last video in his educational video series (https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL59A9C65FB0DCED9E).
    The Darwin quote, from the last paragraph of “On the Origin of Species”, is: “It is interesting to contemplate an entangled bank, clothed with many plants of many kinds, with birds singing on the bushes, with various insects flitting about, and with worms crawling through the damp earth, and to reflect that these elaborately constructed forms, so different from each other, and dependent on each other in so complex a manner, have all been produced by laws acting around us.”
    The Matthew quote, from pp.229-30 of NTA, is: “Look at the broken mound, with its old picturesque trees and tangled bushes; there is the ancient root where the throstle had its nestlings, which are now at large on the leafy boughs, and are tuning their yet unformed notes to melody. Now every twig has raised its new column of foliage to the sun; and branch, and root, and stone, embellished all over in the richest variety of cryptogamic beauty, swarm of insect life.”
    The scene is used differently (to contemplate Nature’s laws by Darwin, to contrast beautiful Nature with boring manicured parks by Matthew), but the similarity of the picture is striking."


  • 01
    It is clear to anyone with an understanding of it that A.N. Wilson confuses the simple ancient (linear) development hypothesis of evolution with far more complex theory of macroevolution by natural selection. Is it because he is a born-again creationist that Wilson makes no mention of Patrick Matthew, the true originator of the theory? Unlike Darwin, Patrick Matthew mocked "God" in his (1831) book, which contains the entire complex theory. Darwin, Wallace, Darwin's wife and the world’s leading evolutionary biologists (e.g. de Beer, Mayr and Dawkins) all wrote that Matthew was first into print in 1831 with the entire thing. Darwin wrote lies that none read Matthew's origination. Darwin wrote those lies after Matthew informed him that the opposite was true. The suppression of Matthew's first and foremost legacy is founded on credulous belief in those sly lies. If you want the independently verifiable facts about Darwin's lies and plagiarism (as unpalatable to creationists as to those in the cult of Darwin worship) simply Google "On Knowledge Contamination" to read my peer reviewed science article on the topic.
+

Tuesday, 29 August 2017

Why Avoid the Matthew Problem?

+
+

Like sending Giant Redwoods to the USA: Yes exactly that

On A.N. Wilson and the actual facts

+

Grab the unwelcome facts

+

Monday, 28 August 2017

The Brute Censorship of Hugh Dower

Pseudo Scholarly Fact-denial Darwin Worship and the Rise of the Right

Darwin's Grandfather Erasmus:Like Charles was Also a Repeat Plagiarist