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, 11 May 2017

Latest News on Patrick Matthew from Scotland

Anyone wishing to disseminate the truth is welcome to take and use the following information:

It is essential that we use the veracious power of independently verifiable facts only in tackling those who wish to keep Matthew buried in oblivion with mere unevidenced rhetoric, cherry picking dysology, fallacies, myths and outright, and de facto, fact denial behaviour. And that we make it clear that is how we will argue for a veracious history of scientific discovery and influence of the unifying theory of biology. Otherwise - in my experience with them to date - Darwinians will seek to confuse the world further with mere unevidenced opinions to support their newly punctured paradigm of tri-independent discovery of macro evolution by natural selection by Matthew, Darwin and Wallace.  

Please do feel free to use the bullet points below anywhere in any way you see fit. 

What follows are bulletproof, independently verifiable, facts.

Here are the independently verifiable facts. All are fully referenced to their published sources in my open access peer reviewed science article HERE http://www.nauka-a-religia.uz.zgora.pl/index.php/pl/czasopismo/46-fag-2015/921-fag-2015-art-05

1.  Darwin fully (1860, 1861) admitted that Matthew got the entire full theory of evolution before he and Wallace.
2. Darwin (1860, 1861) lied when he wrote that no naturalist and no one at all had read Matthew's prior-published work, because Matthew twice informed Darwin in published print in the Gardener's Chronicle that the exact opposite was true. Matthew explained to Darwin that his work was heretical in the first half of the 19th century and that even a professor of an esteemed university feared to teach it for fear of the "cutty stool" (being pilloried in church), and that Perth public library banned his book for the same reason.
3. Matthew's ideas were not buried solely in the appendix of his (1831)  book. Darwin lied when he made that claim in every edition of the Origin of Species from the 1861 3rd edition onward. Because Matthew's (1860) first letter to the Gardener's Chronicle on this issue included swathes of text from the main body of his (1831) book on natural selection.  Darwin wrote to his best friend the famous economic botanist Joseph Hooker that it would be "splitting hairs" to admit the truth of that matter. 
4. My original research  (Nullius in verba: Darwin's greatest secret 2014) uncovered the fact that - as opposed the the myth started by Darwin as the premise to support his and Wallace's claimed independent discoveries of Matthew's prior published hypothesis - other naturalists in fact did read Matthew's original conception before he brought it to Darwin's attention in the Gardener's Chronicle in 1860.
5. In fact, as opposed to none at all - 25 people cited Matthew's book in the literature pre 1858. Seven naturalist read those ideas, because they are among the 25 who cited Matthew's book in the literature. Darwin knew four of those naturalists.  
6. Three of those four naturalists played major roles at the epicentre of influence on Darwin and Wallace and on their friends, influencers and influencer's influencers. 
7. Those three are John Claudius Loudon. Prideaux John Selby and Robert Chambers.
8. Loudon - who was best friends with the botanist John Lindley and William Hooker (father of Darwin's best friend Joseph Hooker) went on to be owner chief editor of the journal that published two of Blyth's most influential papers on organic evolution. Darwin fully admitted from the 3rd edition of the Origin of Species (1861) onward that Blyth was his most useful and prolific informant on the topic. Lindley went on to lie in order to steal Matthew's right to national fame as the first to import and propagate giant Californian redwoods in Britain.
9.  Selby was a friend of Darwin's father and best friend of Darwin's great friend and most prolific correspondent Leonard Jenyns. Most importantly, Selby was chief editor of the journal that published Wallace's (1855) Sarawak paper on organic evolution. 
10. Chambers was the anonymous author of The Vestiges of Creation. That is the book attributed by Darwin scholars with "putting evolution in the air" in the first half of the 19th century. Darwin and Chambers corresponded and met pre-1858. Both Darwin and Wallace admitted its influence on society and their own work. Wallace wrote that Chambers was his greatest influencer.
11. Wallace would later write that Matthew was one of the most original thinkers of the first half of the 19h century. Wallace should know the truth of that matter. Wallace's recognition of Matthew's originality means - logically - that Matthew was one of the most original thinkers of the entire 19th century. And that makes him one of the most original thinkers of all time.  

So why is the scientific establishment keeping up the sly old silent treatment about Matthew? Please disseminate the facts. We deserve a veracious history of the discovery of the unifying theory of Biology.

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.