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, 29 October 2015

Darwin's Golden Rule: A recipe for plagiarism


Darwin, Francis (Editor). 1887. The life and letters of Charles Darwin, including an autobiographical chapter. London: John Murray. Volume 1.

Charles Darwin wrote: 

'The success of the 'Origin' may, I think, be attributed in large part to my having long before written two condensed sketches, and to my having finally abstracted a much larger manuscript, which was itself an abstract. By this means I was enabled to select the more striking facts and conclusions. I had, also, during many years followed a golden rule, namely, that whenever a published fact, a new observation or thought came across me, which was opposed to my general results, to make a memorandum of it without fail and at once; for I had found by experience that such facts and thoughts were far more apt to escape from the memory than favourable ones. Owing to this habit, very few objections were raised against my views which I had not at least noticed and attempted to answer.'

 Darwin's Golden Rule has been held up by many writers (e.g., Gilovitch 2008, p. 62) as a prime example of him being an incredibly good scientist, who was well aware of the phenomenon of confirmation bias, and so sought to overcome it in his work. But Gilovitch misses something quite profound in the "Golden Rule".

Why, before I. did  no one else ever notice before that far from being an admiral trait, this lop-sided habit of Darwin's would create a bias towards plagiarism of facts he liked?

Sutton (2014) Nullius in Verba: Darwin's Greatest Secret. Thinker Boks. USA:

'Gilovitch failed to spot that Darwin unintentionally admits here that this entire system is flawed in that it leads to a plagiarizing bias. Because, if Darwin tended to better remember facts he liked and so felt no need write them down immediately, he would be more likely to fail to make a written record of who originated those facts.'

This would explain how Darwin had no problem plagiarising Matthew's (1831) prior publication of the full hypothesis of natural selection, probably as he memorised it or jotted down notes, but failed to record the source of his so-called "independent discovery" of natural selection in his "memorandum" of opposing facts. 



Monday, 26 October 2015

Darwin (1861) Lied When he Wrote in The Origin of Species (third edition) that Matthew's original Ideas went Unread

Even after Patrick Matthew (1860) told Charles Darwin about the naturalist Loudon and another, unnamed, who read his original ideas before 1860, Darwin continued with his lie that Matthew's prior-published discovery of natural selection went unread until Matthew brought it to darwin's own attention in 1860,


Sunday, 25 October 2015

Who read Matthew's prior published theory of natural selection?


New BigData analysis uniquely proves that it is a myth that no naturalists, and none known to Darwin, read Patrick Matthew's prior published theory of natural selection before Darwin replicated it. Look at the converging ramifications of Matthew's discovery.


Thursday, 15 October 2015

Did Charles Darwin 'borrow' the theory of natural selection?

"He claims to have unearthed a wealth of hidden information which taken together with Darwin’s unpublished notes, prove the naturalist lied. “Contrary to Darwin’s claim that Matthew’s ideas went completely unnoticed, the newly discovered data proves that his book was, in fact, widely advertised and read,” said Dr Sutton. “I have no doubt, based on the weight of new evidence, that Darwin did read Matthew’s book and then went on to replicate his discovery and key themes. "It was Matthew’s work that convinced Darwin of the importance of natural selection. “Darwin was awarded scientific priority for natural selection on the grounds that it is not enough simply to discover something first if you then fail to convince anyone of its importance. But that argument only stands up if Darwin was not influenced by Matthew’s prior discovery. We can now be certain that he was.” 

 Read the story and see the how the Darwinist historian Moore - without so much as bothering to discover that he is actually totally wrong - jumps in feet first to blurt that it is unlikely that anything new has been discovered. Now that's what I call silly cult-like behaviour - or pseudoscholarship! Check it out: Here.

Saturday, 10 October 2015

Dishonest Darwinist Dysology

The Darwinist explanation for why they believe Darwin's and Wallace's extraordinary claims to have independently discovered Matthew 's prior published discovery is essentially a paradigm of tri-independent discovery that is built on premises that are now punctured myths:

Sir Gavin de Beer (FRS) wrote in the Wilkins Lecture for the Royal Society (de Beer 1962 on page 333):

 '..William Charles Wells and Patrick Matthew were predecessors who had actually published the principle of natural selection in obscure places where their works remained completely unnoticed until Darwin and Wallace reawakened interest in the subject.'

(Darwin 1861: xv-xvi):

'Unfortunately the view was given by Mr Matthew very briefly in scattered pages in an Appendix to a work on a different subject, so that it remained unnoticed until Mr Matthew himself drew attention to it in the Gardener’s Chronicle…'



Disconfirming evidence that proves Darwin and his Darwinists wrong:



Here is what just two naturalists in Darwin's network had to say about Matthew's original discovery.

(1) The economic botanist William Jameson of the East India Company - a correspondent of William Hooker who was the father of Darwin's best friend Joseph Hooker and nephew of Darwin's Edinburgh University professor Robert Jameson (purportedly the first person to use the word evolution in biological sense):

  "This opinion regarding the value of sites where Pine trees are grown is not, we are aware, in accordance with those of many: but we here give facts as exhibited in the Himalayas. Matthew in his treatise on naval timber, states that the Pinus sylvestris, if grown on good or rich soil, attains rapidly large dimensions and its best timber properties."               
                                                                                                        Jameson (1853, p. 307).

Here is clear proof of the relevance of Matthew's book and the orignal ideas in it for economic botany. Matthew's work was highly valuable, and its information was being relied upon by naturalists employed by the East India Company, no less! It was so relied upon because it contained important intelligence for what trees might grow best where. And timber drove the industrial revolution - for building, ship building for commercial and colonial armed forces purposes, and for obtaining essential chemicals needed in the woolen industry.

Jameson was referring to a most important area of text taken from the main body of his book (Note: it is a myth that natural selection was just in the appendix of Matthew's book) contained important intelligence for what trees might grow best where. But most importantly, Matthew provided a new explanation as to why that might be (1831, p. 302): 

"The natural soil and climate of a tree is often very far from being the soil and climate most suited to its growth and is only the situation where it has greater power of occupancy than any other plant whose germ is present."

 In that one sentence, Matthew provides a crucial new hypothesis to guide the progress of economic botany, but his claim is heretical because its natural conclusion is that everything is not living where a worshipful and divine creator placed it to be best circumstance-suited to succeed, according to that god's design of everything being placed in its designated place.



(2) The naturalist John Loudon - a noted botanist - who was well known to both William and Joseph Hooker - reviewed Matthew's (1831) book in 1832. He then went on to be editor of the magazine that published two of Blyth's influential articles on organic evolution, which significantly influenced Darwin: 

'An appendix of 29 pages concludes the book, and receives some parenthetical evolutions of certain extraneous points which the author struck upon in prosecuting the thesis of his book. This may be truly termed in a double sense, an extraordinary part of the book. One of the subjects discussed in this appendix is the puzzling one, of  the origin of species and varieties; and if the author has hereon originated no original views (and of this we are far from certain), he has certainly exhibited his own in an original manner.'

(See Nullius:  Kindle reference 
38).




Visit Patrick Matthew.com for more details.

BRAIN WARNING





Friday, 9 October 2015

Revealing the Evidence in Long Forgotten Books that Darwinists Failed to Find


Pierre Bourdieu famously wrote 'The function of sociology, as of every science, is to reveal that which is hidden'. This book reveals that which was once hidden.

'Nullius in Verba: Darwin's greatest secret' is based on new discoveries that I made using hi-tech Big Data research methods.

Long neglected publications, now re-discovered, re-write the history of the discovery of natural selection. In light of what has been unearthed in these publications, the orthodox Darwinist account for why we should believe Charles Darwin's and Alfred Wallace's stories of their independent discoveries of Patrick Matthew's prior published hypothesis is newly proven to be completely wrong. The Darwinist account is wrong simply because the premises upon which it rests are newly punctured myths.

It doesn't matter how beautiful the theory of natural selection is. It doesn't matter how smart Charles Darwin, attributed with its independent discovery was. It doesn't matter what the majority view is. If it doesn't agree with the independently verifiable facts about who really did read Patrick Matthew's prior published discovery and hypothesis of natural selection, and when, the Darwinist story that no such people read it is wrong. And that means the story of Darwin's independent discovery of natural selection is wrong. And it is wrong because it is based on the newly disproven premise that no one Darwin knew or was influenced by, or who his influencers were influenced by, read Matthew's original ideas and explanatory examples before he replicated them.

Prior to the publication of the original findings in my book, the history of the discovery of natural selection was founded upon the fixed-false-belief that no one known to Darwin or Wallace had read Patrick Matthew's (1831) full prior published theory of natural selection before Darwin's and Wallace's (1858) and Darwin's (1859) claimed independent discoveries of the same explanation for all life on Earth.

In fact, prior to their replication of Matthew's 'natural process of selection', along with many of his confirmatory examples and his unique explanatory analogy, Darwin/Wallace corresponded with, were editorially assisted by, admitted to being influenced by and met with other naturalists who - it is newly discovered - had read and cited Matthew's book long before 1858. Of that number, several mentioned Matthew's original ideas on natural selection and one who cited the book, Robert Chambers, went on to write the best-selling book on evolution - the Vestiges of Creation (1844), which influenced Darwin and Wallace on the topic and put evolution 'in the air' in the mid 19th century. Hence, probable Matthewian knowledge contamination of the minds of Darwin and Wallace creates a new paradigm in the history of scientific discovery,

Further newly discovered evidence, including a detailed plagiarism check, six lies Darwin told, and Wallace's doctoring of a letter in his autobiography, strongly suggests that Darwin and Wallace more likely than not plagiarised Matthew's ideas and so committed the World's greatest science fraud.

To find out about the new hi-tech, BigData research method that discovered the New Data, which debunks, with independently verifiable hard facts, the old unevidenced 'expert' majority view of Darwin's and Wallace's supposed dual, vexatiously anomalous and paradoxical immaculate conceptions of Matthew's prior published hypothesis of natural selection, please visit the website: PatrickMatthew.com

This blog post is available for discussion on Amazon.com  and Amazon.co.uk

Thursday, 8 October 2015

Strickland, Darwin, the Duties of Scientists and the Function of Science


The ID Research method found the hidden books in the library that re-write the history of the discovery of natural selection. For more details see: The hi-tech detection of Darwin’s and Wallace’s possible science fraud: Big data criminology re-writes the history of contested discovery    By Mike Sutton, (2014)  Nottingham Trent University

Hugh Strickland was killed
 by a train in 1853
Hugh Strickland was elected a fellow of the Royal Society in 1853, and was a regular correspondent of Darwin. He led the team, which included Darwin, that drew up the first formal codification on the rules of scientific priority for the British Association for the Advancement of Science. Years later he engaged in some lengthy correspondence with Darwin, who tried to get the rules changed so that originators would lose priority to more famous naturalists, such as he, who worked out more of the details of their discovery. Obviously, given what we now know, this Darwin and Strickland Priority Affair is a highly relevant topic in the story of Matthew and Darwin.

Darwin's "no naturalist read it" fallacy in his reply to Matthew's letter in the Gardener's Chronicle, where he laid claim to his prior published discovery, is not idly told. It was necessary in order for Darwin to create a myth that would take him outside the rules of priority, about which Hugh Strickland (1849) had very forcefully informed him: 

"I say that the compilers of monographs or of systematic works are bound in justice to search out the cognate labours of others in every possible direction."

 Since Matthew (1860) informed him in no uncertain terms by way of reply in the Gardener's Chronicle that the naturalist Loudon had in fact reviewed Patrick Matthew's book which published the full theory of natural selection 27 years before Darwin and Wallace, Darwin's fallacy became another irrefutable, downright lie in the third edition of the Origin - and in every edition thereafter - when he wrote, in 1861, that Matthew's great idea had passed unnoticed by anyone.




Tuesday, 6 October 2015

Why Darwinists are wrong about Darwin and Matthew

It doesn't matter how beautiful the theory of natural selection is. It doesn't matter how smart Charles Darwin, attributed with its independent discovery was. It doesn't matter what the majority view is. If it doesn't agree with the independently verifiable facts about who really did read Patrick Matthew's prior published discovery and hypothesis of natural selection, and when, the Darwinist story that no such people read it is wrong. And that means the story of Darwin's independent discovery of natural selection is wrong, because it is based as it is on the newly disproven premise that no one he knew or was influenced by read Matthew's original ideas and explanatory examples before he replicated them.

Infomatic for this blog post.



Saturday, 3 October 2015

Why Darwinism is a Cult: Darwinists want you to believe in an absurdity of dual immaculate conception


Darwinists actually believe in a miracle of immaculate conception 

Charles Darwin (between 1837 and 1858) and Alfred Wallace (between 1855 and 1858) had dual immaculate conceptions of Patrick Matthew's (1831) complex prior published hypothesis of the 'natural process of selection'. Darwin's conception came from a slow realisation from reading books and Wallace's came during a bout of malarial fever. They miraculously replicated Matthew's unique explanatory examples and Darwin used the same four words Matthew uniquely used to name it, which he four-word-shuffled to 'process of natural selection'. Both Darwin and Wallace did this whilst influenced and surrounded by naturalists they knew who read and then cited Matthew's book in the literature before influencing and facilitating their own work on the same topic. One was Selby who was the editor of Wallace's 1855 Sarawak paper. Another was Chambers who met and corresponded with Darwin. Darwin and Wallace admitted the great influence Chambers had in the field. Wallace said Chambers was his greatest influence. Yet, when Matthew confronted Darwin in 1860, Darwin wrote on three occasions that no naturalists had read Matthew's ideas, even after Matthew informed him that the famous naturalist Loudon reviewed his book, as had a naturalist professor who feared pillory punishment were he to teach Matthew's heretical ideas on evolution. And Darwin knew Loudon was an important naturalist because his private notebooks and correspondence showed he read Loudon's work on botany, heavily annotated it and was influenced by it. In his 1832 review, Loudon wrote that he was far from certain Matthew had not written something original on "the origin of species", no less!. Loudon then went on to edit two of Blyth's articles, which greatly influenced Darwin on organic evolution. Darwinists believe both Wallace and their deified namesake were miraculously gifted with cognitive contraceptives, enabling their immaculate conceptions despite being influenced by men whose brains were fertile with Matthew's prior-published original bombshell discovery of natural selection. The Darwinist cult wants you to believe the same absurdity.

Visit PatrickMatthew.com for the independently verifiable hard facts

Please feel free to copy and share wherever you like the following informatic images for this blog post.



Mike Sutton October 2015

Is Richard Dawkins More Atrocity Prone Than Matthewist Atheists?

Was Voltaire right? Could believing in the absurd Darwinist creation story    of Darwin's and Wallace's (1858) dual immaculate conceptions of Matthew's (1831) complex prior published theory of the 'natural process of selection' and Matthew's unique explanatory examples and the same four words he uniquely used to name it, four-word-shuffled by Darwin in 1859 to 'process of natural selection', whilst they were influenced and surrounded by naturalists they knew who read it, yet claimed, when they are proven to have known otherwise, that no such naturalists existed, mean you are more likely than Matthewian atheists to commit atrocities?




Don't be a Cowardly Pseudo-Skeptic: Remember the principle of Nullius in Verba




Was Voltaire Right? Are Darwinists more likely than other scientists to commit atrocities?

A Question for all Darwinists: 

Was Voltaire right? Could believing in the absurd Darwinist creation story    of Darwin's and Wallace's (1858) dual immaculate conceptions of Matthew's (1831) complex prior published theory of the 'natural process of selection' and Matthew's unique explanatory examples and the same four words he uniquely used to name it, four-word-shuffled by Darwin in 1859 to 'process of natural selection', whilst they were influenced and surrounded by naturalists they knew who read it, yet claimed, when they are proven to have known otherwise, that no such naturalists existed, mean you are more likely than Matthewian atheists to commit atrocities?




Visit PatrickMatthew.com for all the newly discovered facts in the history of the discovery of natural selection


Friday, 2 October 2015

Bust the Very Silly Cult: Beatific Grins and Delusion in Darwin Worshipping and Other Cults

L. Ron Hubbard worship is no more silly than worshipping the newly proven serial liar and plagiarising idea thief Charles Darwin Visit PatrickMatthew.com for independently verifiable hard facts about Darwin's & Wallace's great science fraud.

Science cults can be just as delusional as any other cult
For a cult-busting examplehttps://kindle.amazon.com/post/H3a_zlwaS1WEtHZ7D8MQEQ