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

Saturday, 2 April 2016

The Scotsman Cover's Sutton's Hutton Institute Lecture


Darwin may have stolen evolution theory from Perthshire farmer

Reference Stenson, J. (2016) March 17. Darwin may have stolen evolution theory from Perthshire farmer. The Scotsman http://www.scotsman.com/heritage/people-places/darwin-may-have-stolen-evolution-theory-from-perthshire-farmer-1-4074755


Read The Story Here


Please refer to the comments section in The Scotsman where I fill  in the crucial knowledge gaps in the coverage of this story by The Scotsman. 

 I wrote in the comments section on 2 April 2016:

I was only today made aware of the coverage of this story by the Scotsman.

My presentation at the Hutton Institute was followed by a most stimulating debate. Essentially, what has been newly discovered is that - as opposed to the old Darwin-myth story that none read it - the new technology of the internet has worked rather in the same way a metal detector can find things like the Staffordshire Hoard - that could never have been found with a toothbrush - seven naturalists actually cited Matthew's book and the ideas in it before Darwin replicated those ideas and then excused that poor scholarship conduct by claiming none had read them before he did so. Moreover, four of those naturalists were very well known to Darwin, and three played major roles influencing the work of Darwin and Wallace before they replicated those same ideas.

In fact, Darwin is newly proven to have lied about the readership of Matthew's book because he wrote that no naturalists had read it after Matthew informed him in writing that the opposite was true.

Matthew complained bitterly (in his letters to the press) to his dying day about the treatment he received by Darwin's Darwinists in denying him full credit over Darwin.

Matthew to Darwin and Wallace probable "knowledge contamination" is what is newly proven by the New Data. As yet, there is no hard evidence that Darwin or Wallace actually read Matthew's book before 1860. But lies both told in this story mean it would be irrational to continue to assume good faith regarding anything they wrote about Matthew. 

Rationally, the newly discovered facts disconfirm the old Darwinist paradigm of Darwin's and Wallace's supposed miraculous immaculate conceptions of Matthew's prior-published hypothesis.

My book 'Nullius in Verba: Darwin's greatest secret' contains fully referenced evidence to all of the above facts and a great deal more besides.

No comments:

Post a Comment

Spam will be immediately deleted. Other comments warmly welcome.

On this blogsite you are free to write what you think in any way you wish to write it. However, please bear in mind it is a published public environment. Those who seek to hide behind pseudonyms may be exposed for who they actually are.

Anyone publishing threats, obscene comments or anything falling within the UK Anti-Harassment and the Obscene Communications Acts (which carry a maximum sentence of significant periods of imprisonment) should realise Google blogs capture the IP addresses of those who post comments. From there, it is a simple matter to know who you are, where you are commenting from, reveal your identity and inform the appropriate police services.