Please click the title above for the latest blog post
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
Wednesday, 30 August 2017
Guardian Review of A.N. Wilson's book: The Grassy Bank Job
Today I left the following comments on the Guardian Newspaper website regarding a book review of A.N. Wilson's book on Darwin.
CLICK HERE to read the Guardian article and comments on it
Typo in my comment on the "grassy bank job" below. I mean in the opening sentence - of course - replicated by Darwin.
I could add a wealth of examples of how many of Matthew's prior-published ideas, original terminology, and confirmatory evidence were replicated by Matthew from my book "Nullius in Verba: Darwin's greatest secret" but - given the grassy bank example used in the Guardian review above look at what the statistical geneticist Dr Mike Weale tells us about Professor Donald Forsdyke observations of Darwin's grassy bank text and its similarities to an evidentiary example provided by Patrick Matthew almost three decades earlier. In the text below (taken from the comments section of Weal's website "The Patrick Matthew Project" is addressed to me - Professor Forsdyke very kindly read my book and offered comments on it prior to its publication - NTA is an acronym for Matthew's 1831 book On Naval Timber and Arboriculture :
"Mike, were you aware of the following interesting similarity between a famous passage of Darwin’s, and something that Matthew wrote in NTA? I thank Donald Forsdyke for pointing out the Matthew quote (see the end of his last video in his educational video series (https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL59A9C65FB0DCED9E).
The Darwin quote, from the last paragraph of “On the Origin of Species”, is: “It is interesting to contemplate an entangled bank, clothed with many plants of many kinds, with birds singing on the bushes, with various insects flitting about, and with worms crawling through the damp earth, and to reflect that these elaborately constructed forms, so different from each other, and dependent on each other in so complex a manner, have all been produced by laws acting around us.”
The Matthew quote, from pp.229-30 of NTA, is: “Look at the broken mound, with its old picturesque trees and tangled bushes; there is the ancient root where the throstle had its nestlings, which are now at large on the leafy boughs, and are tuning their yet unformed notes to melody. Now every twig has raised its new column of foliage to the sun; and branch, and root, and stone, embellished all over in the richest variety of cryptogamic beauty, swarm of insect life.”
The scene is used differently (to contemplate Nature’s laws by Darwin, to contrast beautiful Nature with boring manicured parks by Matthew), but the similarity of the picture is striking."
It is clear to anyone with an understanding of it that A.N. Wilson confuses the simple ancient (linear) development hypothesis of evolution with far more complex theory of macroevolution by natural selection. Is it because he is a born-again creationist that Wilson makes no mention of Patrick Matthew, the true originator of the theory? Unlike Darwin, Patrick Matthew mocked "God" in his (1831) book, which contains the entire complex theory. Darwin, Wallace, Darwin's wife and the world’s leading evolutionary biologists (e.g. de Beer, Mayr and Dawkins) all wrote that Matthew was first into print in 1831 with the entire thing. Darwin wrote lies that none read Matthew's origination. Darwin wrote those lies after Matthew informed him that the opposite was true. The suppression of Matthew's first and foremost legacy is founded on credulous belief in those sly lies. If you want the independently verifiable facts about Darwin's lies and plagiarism (as unpalatable to creationists as to those in the cult of Darwin worship) simply Google "On Knowledge Contamination" to read my peer reviewed science article on the topic.