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 January 2016

Patrick Matthew: Wikipedia at last does the right thing and ends disgraceful censorship of facts

185 years ago to this day, 1st January 1831, the greatest scientific discovery of all time was published. Blacks of Edinburgh and Longman and Co of London published Patrick Matthew's famous hypothesis of natural selection.The great idea was contained in his remarkable book 'On Naval Timber and Arboriculture   .' . It was the first complete explanation of macroevolution by natural selection.
Matthew's 'natural process of selection' was written as a hypothesis for the origin of species in both the main body of his book and in its appendix.
On Naval Timber and Arboriculture by Patrick Matthew (1831)
Today, I am delighted to see that on this New Year's Day 2016, Wikipedia editors have at last overthrown their membership's earlier active involvement in a synchronised 'state of denial' of facts by the Darwin Publishing Industry, Royal Society, Linnean Society and British Association for Advancement of Science. Because, today, Wikipedia editors have finally stopped censoring the truth by deleting independently verifiable and significant facts and have instead added to the Wikipedia Patrick Matthew page    the details and significance of my original BigData facilitated discovery, published by ThinkerBooks (Sutton 2014   ) that naturalists - who influenced and were well known to Charles Darwin and Alfred Wallace and their influencers, friends and facilitators - in fact did read and also cited pre-1858 - Patrick Matthew's (1831) full prior publication of the hypothesis of natural selection years before Darwin (1858,1859) and Wallace (1855 and 1858) replicated it, along with Matthew's original terminology (for example, Darwin uniquely 4-word shuffled Matthew's original term 'natural process of selection', into 'process of natural selection' ) and original explanatory examples - such as Matthew's original 'artificial versus natural slection analogy of differences', which Wallace (1858) replicated in his Ternate paper and Darwin (1859) used to open the first chapter of The Origin of Species.
Proof Darwin Lied and Engaged in Fraudulent Glory-Theft
The Royal Society Darwin Medal
Wikipedia's honesty on this hugely sensitive and embarrassing issue for the international scientific community is a huge breakthrough in spreading the veracity of the New Data, because both Darwin and Wallace fallaciously excused their replications by claiming no one had read Matthew's (1831) original ideas before they replicated them. Moreover, the Darwin Industry, led by such figures as the esteemed Royal Society Darwin Medal winners Sir Gavin de Beer and Ernst Mayr (among many others) have gone into peer reviewed print to promote that fallacy - started as a deliberate lie, written by Darwin in 1860, who had been informed by Matthew (1860) that the exact opposite was true.
Nullius in Verba
We can only hope that members of the powerful scientific establishment, and their minions, with a vested interest in protecting their reputations and the reputations of their award winning members and peer reviewers - alive and deceased - will not delete the facts on Wikipedia, and that if they do that Wikipedian editors will have the moral courage to stand up to them to ensure they do not in 2016 continue their 155 year legacy of corrupting the history of the discovery of natural selection.
We are gifted with a moral sense and It is a pleasure for me to wish Wikipedian editors and Darwinists the pleasure of doing good. Unfortunately, I - like Patrick Matthew before me - can only wish it.
I don't expect the Royal Society will be awarding me in 2016 - or anytime soon - their Darwin Medal for originally discovering and 100 % proving that Darwin was a lying plagiarizing science fraudster by glory theft.

The States of Denial Paradox

We must remain watchful of 'states of denial'. As Cohen (2001)    explained, it is a great paradox that such denial protects our state of mind from unbearable truths, yet ultimately it is our greatest threat.
Patrick Matthew; The Seer of Gourdiehill

This is what Wikipedian editors added to their page on 1st January 2016 (correct at 13.06 GMT)

Later opinions

Although Darwin insisted he had been unaware of Matthew's work, some modern commentators have held that he and Wallace were likely to have known of it, or could have been influenced indirectly by other naturalists who read and cited Matthew's book.
    • Ronald W. Clark   , in his 1984 biography of Darwin, commented that "Only the transparent honesty of Darwin's character... makes it possible to believe that by the 1850s he had no recollection of Matthew's work".[10]   This begs the question   , for it assumes he did read Matthew's book. Clark continues by suggesting: "If Darwin had any previous knowledge of Arboriculture, it had slipped down into the unconscious".[11]   [12]   
    • The criminologist Mike Sutton'    has published research as a paper presented in 2014 to a British Society of Criminology    conference proposing that both Darwin and Wallace had "more likely than not committed the world's greatest science fraud by apparently plagiarising the entire theory of natural selection from a book written by Patrick Matthew and then claiming to have no prior knowledge of it."[13]    On 28 May 2014 The Daily Telegraph    science correspondent reported Sutton's views, and also the opinion of Darwin biographer James Moore    that this was a non-issue, and it was doubtful "if there was any new evidence had not been already seen and interpreted in the opposite way."[14]    Sutton published a 2014 e-book    Nullius in Verba: Darwin's Greatest Secret presenting his argument based on "new Big Data analysis", which he said uniquely shows that contrary to the prior belief that no naturalists had read Matthew's ideas before 1860, seven naturalists cited his 1831 book in the literature, four were well known to Darwin, and three (Loudon, Selby and Chambers) had in his view played major roles influencing and facilitating the pre-1860 work of Darwin and Wallace on natural selection.[15]    Sutton's (2014) original research revealed that Loudon was editor of the journal that later published two of Blyth's (1835) [16]    and (1836) [17]    papers on evolution, and that Selby was editor of the Journal that later published Wallace's (1855) Sarawak paper on evolution.[18]    Sutton (2014) [15]    claimed that it was significant that Chambers cited Matthew's book in 1832,[19]    and went on to write the best selling Vestiges of the Natural History of Creation    in 1844.[20]   
Happy New Year Best Thinkers: Stay Vigilant. never allow dysology to flourish. "Fight the States of Denial Spectrum in 2016"
Mike Sutton's (2015) 'States of Denial Spectrum Hypothesis'.

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.

Note: only a member of this blog may post a comment.