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, 27 June 2016

Facing Paradigm Change in the History of Great Scientific Discovery: Pseudo Scholarly, Darwinist, Propagandising, Fact Denying, Cranks Expose Themselves Online

Join the debate on what the new data facts on Darwin's lying and cheating mean for the history of discovery of the greatest scientific theory of all tme - natural selection:

See my latest comment in response to a claim by Dr Joachim Dagg that Darwin did not lie:

"Read the facts. Your wishful thinking cannot magic them away.
Beginning with the facts of the context in which - having been told by way of Matthew's (1860) first letter in the Gardener's Chronicle on this topic - that Loudon had reviewed Matthew's book in 1832. why did Darwin reply in published print that "apparently no naturalist" had read Matthew's prior published complete conception of macro evolution by natural slection? It was for one possible reason only. Darwin made that statement, in published print, as an excuse to add a notion of reasonableness for his claim, and to add a sense of blamelessness for his excuse, not to have read himself, or been made aware of Matthew's book by other scholars known to himself and his circle of friends, associates and correspondents. So by denying any knowledge that a naturalist had read Matthew's book, Darwin was seeking to convince the world that no one whose work he knew, or who whose work was known to his friends, or who actually communicated with his friends and associates and the wider scientific community had 'apparently' read Matthew's original ideas before he replicated them and claimed them as his own independent discovery.
However Darwin and his friends DID know Loudon and they loved his work! The facts that prove that fact are covered in what follows. But before reading on it is important to note that Darwin's excuse - based on his obvious reason for writing it - is already undone by the fact Darwin and his crones did know Loudon and his work very well indeed. NOTE: Loudon had been dead for 17 years when Darwin wrote his sly lie.
Furthermore, Darwin and his friends knew Loudon was a naturalist: They knew it because it is a fact that Loudon was a noted botanist hence a famous naturalist. He edited and owned the Naturalists Journal (note its significant name!). Darwin's notebooks of his books read are full of references naming Loudon's books on botany and heavily annotated by Darwin. Indeed, several of those books written by Loudon - proven by his own notes to have been read by Darwin - actually cite Matthew's (1831) book - which contains the full prior-published hypothesis of natural selection.
Note also that Loudon wrote in his 1832 prominently published review of Matthew's *1831) 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."
Note Loudon used the term "origin of species" - the title of Darwin's famous book - which replicated Matthew's original ideas and idiosyncratic explanatory examples, and so much more besides, but was published decades later with Darwin referring to Matthew's original bombshell conception of macroevolution by natural selection as "my theory" many times throughout - even though we know he definitely knew from 1860 onwards (following Matthew's two letters in the Gardener's Chronicle on that topic) that it was not his theory at all - because it was Matthew's.. So that was yet another glory stealing plagiarizing science fraud lie told by Darwin - continued throughout every edition of Darwin's book.
Darwin's correspondence mentions Loudon - favourably - many times. Joseph Hooker - a noted botanist and Darwin's best friend - wrote in a famous and prominent book review of Loudon's work on botany that he thought Loudon "better than a dozen European naturalists". Loudon co-wrote on botany with the famous botanist Lindley. Note a botanist is a naturalist. Everyone in Darwin's circle - including Darwin - knew Loudon was a botanist. That means they all knew he was a naturalist.
Furthermore, by way of analogy, just because I have not literally written here that I think a certain person is a pseudo scholarly, deluded, Darwin worshipper and Darwinist wannabe toady does not mean that I do not - obviously - consider him one.
Moreover, as if that is not enough to prove the point you apparently wish was not true - it is another significant fact that in his second letter of 1860 in the Gardener's Chronicle Matthew literally told Darwin he was wrong to write that no naturalist had read his work. Matthew spelt it out that an eminent naturalist (note Matthew used the word "naturalist" at an eminent university - a professor - had read his original ideas but feared to teach them for fear of pillory punishment. And yet Darwin still went on to write in the third edition of the Origin of Species and every edition after that Matthew's ideas had gone unread untill Matthew brought them to his attention, hence Darwin was denying - hence lying about - Loudon and other naturalists of whom he had been told about. Darwin wrote the same lie to Jean Louis Armand de Quatrefages de Bréau.
Thereafter, the myth that no naturalists, or no one at all, had read Matthew's original ideas before 1860 (as started by Darwin's deliberate lies) have been credulously trotted out by the world's leading evolutionary biologists and their acolytes these past 154 years - "experts" such as Sir Gavin de Beer (FRS - Darwin Medal winner) and Ernst Mayr (FRS - Darwin Medal winner) - as the premise upon which they have built the now newly debunked Darwinite paradigm of Darwin's and Wallace's immaculate independent conceptions of Matthew's prior published hypothesis.
All the 100 per cent proven facts are in the 19th century publication record, in historic print. References to those facts are here.
All the references to prove the facts are in that article. No need be punterised by biased, desperate Darwin worshipping, pseudo scholarly, agenda driven, fact denying, propagandizing, magical thinking - Darwinite cranks."

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.