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

Friday, 29 January 2016

In the Interests of History: Do justice to the truth

Don't Delete Our Disturbing Past: Label it instead!

Oxford University's Oriel College just managed to stave off a campaign to remove a statue of Cecil Rhodes. He may have done a lot for scholarship at Oxford with his endowments, but his racist views and atrocious racist activities in South Africa offend many students. You can read the story here   .

The pulling down of statues is something that we humans tend to do when times change.

Around the world, we have pulled down many statues of Lenin.   .
ISIS are currently doing the same with ancient statues that offend them   .
Might I suggest a more enlightened educational approach. Why not simply label these "offensive" memorials - exactly as curators veraciously label exhibits in a museum?
Rhodes's Statue: Oxford University

Charles Darwin's statue. Natural History.Museum. London
Charles Darwin is newly 100 per cent proven to have lied in order to create a number of myths that enabled him to get away with plagiarizing Patrick Matthew's prior published and cited hypothesis of macroevolution by natural selection and convince us all that no one read Matthew's ideas before he replicated them without citing Matthew. Read the facts here.   
As a spokesperson for Oriel College at Oxford University said    of the decision to remove a plaque that celebrated Rhodes, but to keep his statue:
" adding context, “we can help draw attention to this history, do justice to the complexity of the debate, and be true to our educational mission”
What a marvellous sentiment. Might I propose it is seriously adopted.
In the interests of veracity - let us get those labels up.
I will even pay all the costs for the one for Darwin. Hell, I'll make it myself and cast it in bronze!

Feel free to use the infomatic below in any way you see fit

Tuesday, 26 January 2016

Lightning Strikes Not Just Twice, but more than Thrice, As it So Often Does With Crime and Delinquency: Patrick Matthew was a Repeat Victim of ' Glory Theft by Fallacy Coining'

I think it quite reasonable to suggest that it rather looks like Patrick Matthew was fraudulently cheated by yet another Victorian naturalist. The victimization happened two years before Wallace (1855, 1858) and five years before Charles Darwin (1858, 1859, 1860, 1861) first  and subsequently repeat victimized Matthew by replicating his (Matthew 1831) prior-published work without citing it. And all three of these delinquent scientists were closely connected to William Hooker, the father of Darwin's best friend Joseph Hooker.

Let me explain

Given the obvious and significant facts that for 13 years Patrick Matthew and his son John Matthew were cheated by Professor John Lindley out of their right to be celebrated as the first to introduce and propagate giant redwoods in Britain, we cannot rule out the possibility that Matthew was deliberately and cunningly defrauded of his glory by this so-called Victorian 'gentleman of science' seven years before Darwin wrote cunning lies about Matthew's book not being read in order to excuse himself for replicating the original ideas and explanatory examples in it. Darwin lied to cheat Matthew out of his right to be acknowledged as not just first in print, but also the first to influence other naturalists (pre-1858) with his original discovery of natural selection.

If there is one thing criminologists know that comes close to a natural law, it is that, where a variety of particular crime types are concerned, whether it be against a person, place or thing, lightning is quite likely to strike a victim at least twice (see: Farrell 1992). In other words: victimization predicts victimisation. Matthew was a repeat victim of  glory theft by 
fallacy coining. First by Lindley and then by Darwin. Both offenders stole Matthew's glory in order to enhance their own reputations by publishing falsehoods at the expense of Matthew. Both were members of the Royal Society, Linnean Society and the Royal Horticultural Society. Moreover, although several letters between them are missing, Darwin and Lindley were prolific correspondents from 1843! We know also that Alfred Wallace (1855, 1858)- another who was closely connected to Lindley through his mentor - and Lindley's best friend William Hooker  - replicated Matthew's (1831) original conception, ideas and explanatory examples - claiming to have alighted on them independently of anyone else whilst in a unique in the history  of discovery state of malarial fever! In reality, it is newly discovered (Sutton 2014) that Selby, the editor of Wallace's famous 1855 Sarawak paper  on organic evolution had read and cited Matthew's ideas in 1842, which is the same year Darwin claims he privately penned his first essay on the topic.

Darwin and Lindley communicated on the Theory of Morphological Structure in 1843, which Lindley supported and which Darwin knew supported the theory of natural selection because it dis-confirmed the majority view of the time that each species was created perfect and immutable. 

It may be significant that Darwin and Lindley both knew Veitch well. Veitch supplied Darwin with many orchid seeds. And it was he (James Veitch Senior) who supplied Lindley with giant redwood seeds and shared - at massive expense to Patrick Matthew - the bogus credit with William Lobb and Lindley for supposedly first introducing,  and propagating, the seeds in Britain. 

On 9th January 2016, (Sutton 2016a) it was discovered that, for 13 years, at great reputational expense to Matthew, that Professor John Lindley - a correspondent of both Darwin and Wallace with a deep interest in evolution of species -  hoodwinked the world that he and Lobb and Veitch were the first to introduce the hugely admired giant Californian redwood into Britain and the first to propagate them. The Lindley-Lobb Myth was only debunked in the press in 1866 -  three years after Veitch died, two years after Lobb's demise and exactly a year after Lindley's death. In fact, Patrick Matthew and his son John are proven to be first to introduce the giant redwoods into Britain and that Patrick Matthew was first to propagate them.  Most significantly, the magazine, of which Lindley was Editor, had long held  a letter from Matthew that proved it!

The obvious and significant facts reveal that Patrick Matthew was a repeat victim of glory theft by fallacy coining - first by Lindley, then by his correspondent Wallace,  then by their mutual correspondent Darwin (Sutton 2016b). This multiple victimisation of Matthew - at different times, but for the same academic crime of significant 'glory theft' by fallacy coining', by Lindley, Wallace and Darwin - three keenly co-operative co-correspondents, with a shared understanding that species evolved - is unique and most remarkable in the history of scientific discovery if it is only a mere multiple coincidence.

 It is quite possible that Lindley (the best friend of the father of Darwin's best friend Joseph Hooker) received Matthew's letter at the Gardener's Chronicle in August, September - or even October - and got a message to Lobb via Veitch to go after the seeds and bring a large number back to Britain.  That would explain (1) why Lobb, via Veitch, delivered the seeds to Lindley, (2) Lindley's replication of John Matthew's earlier (indeed the earliest known to date) use of the name Wellingtonia to describe giant redwood trees and (3) why the truth that Matthew was first into Britain with giant redwood seeds was hidden from the public for 13 years following Lindley's fallacious claim, yet revealed three years after James Veitch (Sr.) died, two years after William Lobb died, and exactly a year after Lindley's death in the very same journal Lindley published it whilst its editor. 

Lindley was also a correspondent of Alfred Wallace.  There is one undated letter held by the Linnean Society (containing a seed) that he is supposed to have sent to Wallace. If there was more to this mysterious letter than the origin of the seed being from the Moluccas, it appears to have "gone missing". It is rather odd that Lindley would be the one to send Wallace a seed originating 'from the Moluccas'. Ternate is from where Wallace sent his famous Ternate paper to Darwin in 1858. Ternate is an Island among the Moluccas Islands. 

Wallace's (1855) Sarawak paper set down his marker on the topic of macroevolution by natural slection, and his (1858) Ternate paper replicated. without citing Matthew, Matthew's (1831) original hypothesis of natural selection, along with many of his explanatory examples - including his original Natural versus Artificial Selection Analogy of Differences (see Sutton 2014). Like Darwin, Wallace claimed to have conceived Matthew's prior-published ideas and examples independently of Matthew or anyone else. 

Glory theft, victimized a fourth time, Matthew's right to stand before the scientific community and speak of his original discovery of natural selection was thwarted when he was disgracefully platform blocked by the British Association for Advancement of Science in 1868 (Sutton 2014a and 2014b).  Chambers was there - who cited Matthew's (1831) book in 1832. Wallace was there - who replicated Matthew's work in his 1855 Sarawa paper edited by Selby - who cited Matthew's book in 1842 - and further in his Ternate Paper of 1858 and therein replicated Mathew's natural slection hypothesis as well as his original natural versus artificial slection analogy of differences (here). And Lyell - Darwin's great friend and geological mentor - was there as guest of honour no less. 

Trash Talkling Darwinists and the Patrick Matthew Burial Project

Professor David Anstead
In science, being first has always been everything (see my RationalWki essay)     and under the Royal Society's rules - as enshrined in the Arago Effect - no amount of confirmatory evidence gathering can ever transmute a prior published hypothesis into your own.
Yet when it was shown tin 1860 hat Patrick Matthew beat Darwin and Wallace by 27 years to publish the full hypothesis of natural selection , Darwin capitulated immediately in the press and admitted as much. But that was far from the end of it, because what should have been named Matthewism is today called Darwinism because Darwin's powerful friends, closed ranks on his behalf - and for the most part simply ignored Matthew. Unable to ignore his pending paper at their conference, however, powerful members of the British Society for Advancement of Science slyly platform blocked him from speaking about his discovery (see Sutton 2014    for the full disgraceful details).
Two of Darwin;s supporters went so far as to "trash-talk" the situation in 1860 - signifying Matthew as an unoriginal crank. And this same shamefully ignorant Darwinist defense dysology is still wheeled out by desperate Darwin supporters to this day.
Back in the 19th century, Darwin's friend, Professor David Anstead - or at the very least his anonymous editor weirdly adding footnotes on his article - mockingly rubbished Matthew in the Dublin University Magazine (January to June) in 1860)    effectively writing that he was an over opinionated crank who had written nothing original. The footnote can be read here    .
Matthew sent a letter to the Dublin University Magazine in February 1860- three months before the Gardener's Chronicle published his letter of April 1860. They ignored that letter until after April 1860. Although Darwin had admitted in print - in reply to Matthew's April letter in the Gardener's Chronicle that Matthew had got the whole unique theory right 28 years earlier, the Dublin University Magazine (1860) pretended the truth was otherwise and that Matthew had written nothing new:
'In the Gardener's Chronicle for 7th February 1860 is a long communication from Mr Patrick Matthew of Gourdie, NB the author of a treatise 'On Naval Timber and Architecture,' in 1831, in which a claim is made by the author to have been the originator of Mr Darwin's theory of natural selection. In a letter to the editor of this journal Mr Matthew has repeated the claim and considers himself wronged by the remarks in our journal of February (vide p 235). We cannot however perceive, either in the extracts from his work, or in his remarks, any thing more than a repetition of a fact long familiarly known, namely that many species pass into each other by insensible gradations—a fact acknowledged by all naturalists, and to account for which, Lamarque's theory of the modification of specific characters was not the first invented. A statement that individuals and varieties were often involved in a struggle for existence, in which the strongest and the best adapted to the circumstances of the moment would prevail—a knowledge of the existence of sporting varieties in many well known species, and the possibility of certain modifications introduced into species in consequence, do not interfere with Mr Darwin's claim to be regarded as the first who has put forward the principle of natural selection as the method adopted by nature to insure a succession of varieties resulting in species adapted to continue throughout all time and in absolute perfection, the chain of created beings.'
It is peculiarly unjust since Darwin (1860) had fully admitted in the Gardener's Chronicle - in reply to Matthew's claim - that Matthew was first to discover the entire original process of natural selection as an explanation for the origin and extinction of species.
On 24th November 1860 an anonymous naturalist, writing in the Saturday Analyst and Leader    added further insult to injury by proposing that a replicator, such as Darwin, should be praised for his originality by way of his replication of something he claimed not to have read:
"...of Mr. DARWIN’s labours, or the merits of his extraordinary book. It would not detract from them even if he had been acquainted with every word that had been previously written on the subject. But it is very possible that two minds may think out the same original conclusion for themselves without any communication between them. If all that DALTON has written on definite proportions had been previously published, still if he had thought it out for himself, without knowing of the previous discovery, he would unquestionably be entitled to the praise of originality."
If only they had the benefit of BigData technology back in 1860 - Matthew would have been able to show just how many of Darwin's and Wallace's friends, facilitators and admitted influencers had read and cited his 1831 book pre 1858, and how many more were 'first to be second' with unique Matthewisms. For all we know, the anonymous author of the Saturday Analyst and Leader was among them.
Nullius in Verba
We do have that BigData technology. Moreover, we who do not credulously deify Darwin as capable of such a miraculous immaculate conception of a prior published theory have no biased 19th century excuses for allowing Darwinists to continue to flout the rules of scientific priority, to come from far and wide to stamp on Matthew's unmarked and unknown grave and to deify their darling Darwin namesake at the expense of justice, reason and veracity in the history of scientific discovery.
Visit    for more information on this topic


Matthew was multiply victimized

2. Darwin's (1858 and 1859) plagiarism and his Gardener's Chronicle (1860) and Origin of Species (1861) glory theft lies.
3. Darwin's friend and correspondent David Anstead (1860) mocked and ridiculed Matthew as a deluded crank in the press for claiming to have first conceived the hypothesis of natural selection. An anonymous writer in the Saturday Analyst and Leader did much the same.
3. Wallace's replicating plagiarism in his 1855 and 1858 papers.
4. Matthew's Dundee platform blocking at the 1867 meeting of the British Association for Advancement of Science.

The multiple victimisation of Matthew - at different times but for the same academic crime of  significant 'glory theft by fallacy coining' by Lindley, Wallace and Darwin three keenly co-operative co-correspondents, with a  shared understanding that species evolved, is unique and most remarkable in the history of scientific discovery if it is only a mere multiple coincidence. 

Further reading 

The full background story of the Matthew giant redwood letter and Lindley's false claim is here.

100 per cent Proof Darwin Committed Lying, Plagiarizing, Science Fraud by Glory Theft 

Friday, 22 January 2016

States of Denial of the Obvious and Significant Facts: Several things the Darwin Fraud case Shares with the Savile and Boston Globe Catholic Priest Pedophile Cases

What does the case of Sir Jimmy Savile (OBE)  have in common with that of Rolf Harris (CBE) and Charles Darwin (FRS)?

Stanley Cohen's (2001) 'States of Denial: Knowing about atrocities and suffering' explains how people deny the significance of sufficient evidence that something is happening or happened in the past. Cohen explains how people do this with regard to a range of things such as marital infidelity, alcoholism, terminal illness, child abuse and genocide.

'One common thread runs through the many different stories of denial: people, organizations, governments or whole societies are presented with information that is too disturbing, threatening or anomalous to be fully absorbed or openly acknowledged. The information is therefore somehow repressed, disavowed, pushed aside or reinterpreted. Or else the information 'registers' well enough, but its implications - cognitive, emotional or moral - are evaded, neutralized or rationalized away.'

Stanley Cohen (2001) States of Denial: Knowing about atrocities and suffering. p. 1.

 States of denial

Cohen (2001) explains that states of denial of the obvious and significant - yet unbearable - facts can take many forms:

  • Disingenuous ‘canny unresponsiveness’
  • ‘Psychotic negation of the obvious facts’
  • ‘Lying to convince their listeners and reinforce their own denial of the real facts’
  • ‘Negation by wishful thinking’
  • ‘Evasive reassurance that the facts are not that serious’
  • ‘Victim blaming’ – blaming the victim for their predicament.
  • ‘Withdrawal of attention – deflecting the gaze’
  • ‘Compartmentalization’.

Unsurprisingly, there are several shared features underlying the 'state of denial' in the Savile case, the Boston Globe's  Catholic priests paedophile case and the Darwin fraud case :

  1. Sir Jimmy Savile OBE was a much loved and wealthy TV celebrity, raised a fortune for charities.He was considered 'broadcasting royalty' by the BBC and as a highly respected, knighted and decorated, 'pillar of society' by everyone else. The BBC held his talent in awe and treated him deferentially.
  2. Charles Darwin (FRS), was considered in the 19th-century (being the grandson of the famous polymath and poet Erasmus Darwin FRS), as 'academic royalty' by the Royal Society. After his reports whilst on the HMS Beagle were read with enthusiasm by naturalists, his knowledge was held in awe and the very name "Darwin" was once again treated deferentially. Awarded the Royal Medal, Copley Medal and Wollaston Medal, he was considered a paragon of wealthy gentleman naturalist honesty and originality by everyone else. Harris was awarded the CBE and once spent considerable time with the Queen of England as he famously painted her portrait.
  3. Catholic priests, in 20th century USA, and their wealthy church, were considered by many as being at the very top of the social hierarchy of honesty and caring integrity.
  4. Both Savile and Harris were immensely popular and highly successful A-List 'celebrity' children's entertainers. Darwin was a celebrity A-list scientist. All three completely transgressed the boundaries of social and professional norms within the particular field in which they were held in such high regard. All Roman Catholic priests were entrusted by society to uphold the 'child protection' values of the Christian prophet Jesus of Nazareth. The 'real facts' of the the behaviour of paedophile priests, Savile's, Harris's and Darwin's behaviour is, therefore, anathema.
  5. In what we might name the "Rifkin Imperative by Proxy": Savile boasted about being able to avoid trouble, and in describing his ability to do so gleefully described himself many times as being "tricky". Darwin gleefully described himself many times as being a "wriggler" to do the same. Harris - less obviously - may have been leaving similarly smug and self-delightful obscure clues to his predilections in his music. For example, in  hindsight his hit song "I want my mummy" is most disturbing. More research is needed, but I dare to hypothesise that we might call this song that celebrates and weirdly mocks and delights at the massive trauma felt by a poor lost child a case of the "Rifikin Imperative by Proxy".

But eventually someone is able to break the negative hallucination (not seeing what is obviously and significantly there) to convince the world of the facts that "The king has no clothes!" It takes time to get through the stonewalling of protective 'establishment' interests and public adoration - but the facts pound like a battering ram against their denials, canny indifference and blindsight. Eventually, the wall caves-in and facts then rush through. And after the breech is made, the public wants to know why it took so long. Who, they demand, is to blame?

This link will take you to the independently verifiable 'New Data'. This data proves that, for the past 155 years to the present time of writing, the same psychological 'state of denial' characteristics of the "majority view" are behind the failure to respond to the obvious and significant facts of Darwin's lying, plagiarizing, science fraud by glory theft of Patrick Matthew's prior-published conception of natural selection.

An explanation - with independently verifiable evidence - of how the psychological concept of 'denial' relates to how Darwin scholars have been in denial of the facts of Darwin's lies, told to conceal the wider facts pertinent to Darwin's (1858 and 1859) replication of Matthew's (1831) prior-published conception of natural selection, and more, can be read on the Patrick Matthew Website - specifically the States of Denial page.

Darwin scholars currently are in a state of denial of the obvious and significant fact that the publication record of what he knew and what he then wrote proves Charles Darwin was a self-serving liar about the prior readership of Matthew's ideas. Darwin lied about the prior readership of Matthew's original ideas, which he replicated without citing (Sutton 2105   ). Any Darwinist claiming there is an innocent interpretation for this behaviour - namely, that their namesake's published falsehoods were not meant to be taken literally - is offering an incongruous explanation, given the fact that for 155 years the literal interpretation of Darwin's claims by the world's leading Darwinists (here) is the basis of the 'majority view' paradigm that a steadfastly honest Darwin independently discovered Matthew's prior-published ideas.

Being in a state of denial of these facts is analogous, in my considered opinion, to denying that Sir Jimmy Savile deliberately forced his tongue into a child's mouth   . Moreover, it is analogous to cooking up a 'state of denial' defence scenario where Savile simply miss-kissed.
Anyone claiming that Charles Darwin was not a liar, in the teeth of the facts that he was, is surely in a state of denial of the unpalatable halitosis of Darwin's lies. On 1st February 2016, I left a comment to that effect on Dr Mike Weale's Patrick Matthew Project website (here   ).

Being in a state of denial of these particular facts is analogous, in my considered opinion, to denying that Sir Jimmy Savile deliberately forced his tongue into a child's mouth by claiming instead that it happened in good faith, despite the obvious deviance, dishonest and sexual gratification of the act. It is analogous to cooking up a dual 'state of denial' defence scenario where Savile simply miskissed, and where Darwin wrote falsehoods in good faith despite the deviance of his actions, dishonesty and resulting status as an immortal great orignal thinker and influencer in science.
Darwin scholars really ought to snap out of their 'state of denial' of the facts and deal with them like real - not pseudo - scholars. The facts can't be denied away. Nor should we try. Because it seems reasonable to hypothesise that societies that tolerate and fail to recognise any states of denial may be more likely to provide enabling environments for the worst atrocities committed by human beings.
There is, however a paradox. Denial may initially protect the individual, yet simultaneously contribute to their greatest future threat. This is the "Blindsight Paradox   ", identified by Stanley Cohen in 2001.

I wrote a blog on the blindsight phenomenon here.

You can find links to more blog posts etc on 'states of denial' on the relevant page of

Feel free to use the infomatic below in any way and anywhere you see fit:

This Prezi-show reveals the obvious and significant evidence 
that 100 per cent proves Darwin committed lying, plagiarising science fraud 
by glory theft of Matthew's prior-published conception of macro-evolution by natural selection

Wednesday, 20 January 2016

The Evolution of Knowledge in Science and the History of Ideas

Religion is the organisation of certain beliefs. Fundamental beliefs of any religion are not subject to change or challenge. They are fixed. Alternatively, science is meant to be belief-free organised scepticism. Immortal great thinkers and discoverers in science have written things, often long ago, that every new generation of scholar improves upon. The words and ideas of scientists, such as Charles Darwin, are not holy tenets. Scientists may be brilliant people, but they are not our gods. Each scientist is just one step in the evolution of knowledge that is greater than ourselves. The history of discovery of natural selection evolved in 2014, with the original discovery of the New Data (Sutton 2014), which proves that Darwin was wrong about the prior readership of the original conception of the full hypothesis of natural selection before 1858. Because, rather than none whatsoever, as Darwin wrote, seven naturalists in fact did read Patrick Matthew's prior published conception of macroevolution by natural selection. And three of their number played major roles at the epicentre of influence and facilitation of the work of Darwin and Wallace on that topic pre-1858.

Visit the 'States of Denial' page on to see how, for the past 155 years, evolutionary biologists and other 'expert' Darwin scholars, have exhibited classic 'states of denial' behaviour to deny the obvious and significant facts of Darwin's lies about Matthew and and who really did read his book before Darwin and Wallace replicated the original ideas in it and then defended themselves by claiming, fallaciously, that none had read those ideas before their supposedly independent replications.

Visit for all the 'New Data' in the history of discovery of natural selection - the unifying theory of biology

Feel free to use the infomatic below anywhere you see fit.

When Blogging Splits the Universe

Blog Post Begins

Trumpet from the rooftopsPublic Domain
The Divergent Ramifications of Your Own Actions!
In quantum physics, observations at the sub atomic level prove that matter operates according to natural laws that do not apply for larger objects. For example, in our own world in our own universe, much as we might wish it was the case, it is impossible for any of us to be in more than one place at once. However, at the sub-atomic level,things become 'spooky' because sub-atomic particles exist as both particle and wave. A wave can be in more than one place at a time, and we have those same spooky little particles inside us.
Trumpet from the rooftopsPublic Domain
At the quantum level, matter can exist as both particles and waves
‘As unsettling as it may sound, Everett's Many-Worlds interpretation has implications beyond the quantum level. If an action has more than one possible outcome, then -- if Everett's theory is correct -- the universe splits when that action is taken. This holds true even when a person chooses not to take an action.
This means that if you have ever found yourself in a situation where death was a possible outcome, then in a universe parallel to ours, you are dead. This is just one reason that some find the Many-Worlds interpretation disturbing.’
This might sound like whacked-out pseudo-science to you, but I can assure you that many of the t   op minds in the world    of physics think it currently the best theoretical explanation for what scientists are observing.

Many World's Theory is different to the Classic Copenhagen Interpretation

Sean Carroll    explains the difference:

'The situation in quantum mechanics is superficially entirely different. Think of Schrödinger’s Cat. Quantum mechanics describes reality in terms of wave functions, which assign numbers (amplitudes) to all the various possibilities of what we can see when we make an observation. The cat is neither alive nor dead; it is in a superposition of alive + dead. At least, until we observe it. In the simplistic Copenhagen interpretation, at the moment of observation the wave function “collapses” onto one actual possibility. We see either an alive cat or a dead cat; the other possibility has simply ceased to exist. In the Many Worlds or Everett interpretation, both possibilities continue to exist, but “we” (the macroscopic observers) are split into two, one that observes a live cat and one that observes a dead one. There are now two of us, both equally real, never to come back into contact.'
If it's true, then just how spooky is that?

Why a splitting universe is both unsettling and quite appealing

Last week I was out for a 6 mile run. On the last ½ mile, I found the pavement was completely blocked by two large ladies in their 70’s who were ambling along with their backs to me. Both ladies were deep in conversation. Not wanting to run up behind them and scare them out of their wits by stage-whispering "excuse me", I calculated that for the 1-2 seconds it would take to get around them it would be OK to step out into the bus lane, without needing to look over my shoulder, since I could not hear a bus coming and running one way whilst overtaking ladies and looking backwards is rather difficult.
Something made me look over my shoulder at the very last instant – so last in fact that I lost my balance and trod one foot into the curb of the bus lane. At that very split-second a big green bus shot past me and missed my foot by no more than a couple of inches - our bus lanes being so narrow and buses so wide.
Had a synapse in my brain not fired one way rather than the other I’d have been “obliviated” for sure. Yet in a parallel world, proximal to our own and in our own universe, but inaccessible, unmeasurable and invisible to us, if the theory is right, I never looked over my shoulder. In that world I died under a bus! And so you my friend have a double in that world who is not reading these very words!
This brings me to a personally appealing feature of Everett’s Many Worlds interpretation of quantum physics.
It is a little known fact that Charles Darwin, writing on the subject of naming discoveries, argued with Hugh Strickland in a desperate attempt to change the rules of scientific priority for discovery so that lesser known first discoverers would lose their priority to better known naturalists such as Darwin. In sum, Strickland and Darwin argued over the attribution of 'priority' regarding who should have the right to be attributed with a discovery. Strickland thought it should go to the person who first discovered and named something. Darwin thought it should go to the more senior naturalist if they did more important work on the discovery.
The letter that Darwin (1849) wrote on the subject is lost to the sands of time. However, his correspondent, Strickland, kept a record of exactly what Darwin proposed, which includes the following[1]:
“… if the first description was originally imperfect, & had been superseded by any better description, it wd perhaps be better to omit all reference to it, for the sooner such an author's name was buried in oblivion the better”[2]
Trumpet from the rooftopsPublic Domain
Hugh Strickland thwarted Darwin's Unethical and Selfish Priority Plans
Strickland would have none of it and so essentially thwarted Darwin’s protracted scheming selfish ambitions in this regard. For example, in his letter of the 31st January 1849, Strickland - the more senior scientist - lectured Darwin on his ethical scientific responsibilities as a synthesiser, which is certainly a description of Darwin that most would agree with:
‘ I say that the compilers of monographs or of systematic works are bound in justice to search out the cognate labours of others in ever possible direction, and where they have (even unavoidably) overlooked other persons' writings, they must still pay the penalty by having their nomenclature superseded in favour of a prior one. Scientific natural history has now become as much a matter of literary research as of physical observation. I have had this forcibly brought home to me last autumn, when looking through the fine collection of foreign periodicals in the Bodleian Library, when I was astonished at the mass of original memoirs on zoology and other sciences which seem never to have made their way beyond the scientific but limited coterie in whose periodical they are printed. Authors should be encouraged to publish matters of science in standard and accessible periodicals (& the Association code has a clause ([SYMBOL]D) to that effect, still we cannot prevent them from doing otherwise, and we must (as the law does with libels) regard the act of printing as tantamount to publication, and deal out equal justice accordingly.’
Unfortunately for the history of biology, Strickland’s brain – at least in our world – failed to tell him to look over his shoulder in a dangerous situation. Because Strickland died in 1853, six years before the publication of Darwin's (1859) Origin of Species , when he is said to have accidentally stepped into the path of one train in order to avoid another.
Yet if the Many World's Theory is true, in a parallel world, Strickland looked over his shoulder in 1853 – saw the train coming – and lived to a ripe old age.

Accordingly, and according to quantum physics experts, in a parallel world in our universe Patrick Matthew - instead of Charles Darwin - is now most definitely on the back of the British £10 note!

Patrick Matthew (1831) was the first to fully explain natural selection as new species branching from a common ancestor by way of nature selecting varieties that were best circumstance suited. He even uniquely called it: 'the natural process of selection'. A term Darwin (1859) would uniquely four word shuffle into 'process of natural selection'.
In that parallel world where Strickland looked and lived, when Darwin fully admitted in an 1860 letter of reply to Matthew in the Gardener’s Chronicle that Patrick Matthew had in 1831 published the full and complete hypothesis of natural selection, Strickland - true to form - made sure that Matthew was hailed and celebrated thereafter as the immortal great thinker of science who first discovered natural selection and so had full priority over Darwin. In that universe it is Patrick Matthew’s head – not Darwin’s – that currently adorns the back of the British £10 note. Imagine that!
Nullius in Verba
Despite Darwin’s fallacious protestations in 1860 that no naturalist known to him had read it, we know today (in our world at least) that at least seven naturalists did in fact read Matthew’s bombshell ideas in his  book of 1831 because they cited it. Moreover, three of those seven - well known to Darwin and his best friends - played key roles at the very epicentre of influence on the pre-1858 work of Darwin and Wallace
on evolution.



If you would like to read a great deal more about Strickland, Darwin - and those who big data has newly revealed cited Matthew's 1831 book - naturalists and others who Darwin actually knew well – then you could do worse than read Nullius in Verba: Darwin’s greatest secret. On which note, you may or may not be pleased to know that there is absolutely nothing at all in it on quantum physics and parallel worlds. Well, not in this world anyway.
Split YOUR universe

Go on now, split the universe. You know it makes sense.

Trumpet from the rooftopsPublic Domain
Darwin merely replicated Matthew's 'divergent ramification' explanation of how species change and branch to evolve from a common ancestor

Remember, according to Many Worlds Theory, if you don't buy my e-book then YOU personally just split the universe, which means that now your double, in another world, just clicked here. Consequently, your double will soon know a whole lot more than YOU about the real origin of The Origin of Species. No pressure. Just click here to split the universe again, or not - just as the case may be.

[1] The reference for this is in footnote no 6 of Darwin’s letter to Strickland (29th January 1849) on the Darwin Correspondence Project:   
[2] Coincidentally, or perhaps not, as the case may be, the popular Victorian phrase ‘buried in oblivion’ was used in the same year in an article about Erasamus Darwin’s writing (Harris 1848) : ‘I trust however that these remarks may stimulate inquiry in relation to principles which every day practice acknowledges as true but which in the writings of the day appear to be almost buried in oblivion.’