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

Sunday, 3 April 2016

Treasure Your Exceptions: So Let's Face the Facts: Charles Darwin was an Exceptional Liar and a Hypocrite of the Highest Order

In their excellent book: 'Treasure Your Exceptions':  Professor Donald Forsdyke and Professor Alan Cock (Cock and Forsdyke 2008, p. 644) note that in 1874 Darwin wrote in The Descent of Man:

' "False facts are highly injurious to the progress of science, for they often endure long: but false views, if supported by some evidence, do little harm, for everyone takes salutary pleasure in proving their falseness." This view may itself be false. While false facts may not always be "rapidly corrected" as Keilin supposed, it is false views that show the great propensity to "endure long." Everyone may not take pleasure in proving false a view that has abstract elements and/or is politically correct (e.g. the doctrine of natural slection). Often it is the scientist, not the historian, who is best placed to remedy this. '

Of course, false views are often built on a premise comprising false facts. And when that happens an entire paradigm can be constructed. For example, Darwin (1861), in the Origin, wrote false facts (indeed proven deliberate lies, because he had been prior-informed - with hard evidence - that the opposite was true) regarding the prior-readership of the original ideas on natural selection in Matthew's (1831) book On Naval Timber and Arboriculture. From the subsequent mindless Darwinist parroting of Darwin's lies by many - including  the world's leading Royal Society Darwin Medal winning Darwinists Sir Gavin de Beer (FRS) and Ernst Mayr (FRS) (see Sutton 2016) - Darwin scholars constructed a tri-independent discovery paradigm of dual immaculate conception, by Darwin and Wallace (1858) of the prior-published original ideas of Matthew (1831).

The original discovery of disconfirming facts for this paradigm (Sutton 2014) - that as opposed to none at all - seven naturalists actually cited Matthew's (1831) book and the ideas in it pre-1858, that four of those seven were well known to Darwin, and three played major roles influencing and facilitating the pre-1858 work of Darwin and Wallace on organic evolution, punctures the myth-based old paradigm and replaces it with a new one of highly probable "Matthewian knowledge contamination" of the pre-1858 brains of Darwin and Wallace, of the brains of their influencers and of the brains of their influencer's influencers.

In 2016 - after over 155 years of credulous parroting of Darwin's lies, as though they are truths, of failing to follow the data, and of obvious and of significant fact denial in the field of the history of discovery of natural selection and its influence, it is time for Darwin scholars to face the independently verifiable facts.

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.