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, 18 June 2017

Silly Darwinists

Sunday, 28 May 2017

Proof Darwin was a serial liar and glory thieving plagiarist

A simple chronological presentation of significant and neglected historic facts that prove Darwin lied about the prior readership of Matthew’s discover and that Darwin’s same lies have been credulously parroted ever since by the world’s Darwin Scholars

John Loudon, the famous botanist naturalist, reviewed Patrick Matthew’s (1831) book ‘On Naval Timber and Arboriculture’, which is now acknowledged by the world’s leading Darwinists to contain the first publication of the full conception of macro evolution by natural selection. See: Gardener’s Magazine 1832, vol. VIII, p. 703.

'One of the subjects discussed in this appendix is the puzzling one, of the origin of species and varieties; and if the author has hereon originated no original views (and of this we are far from certain), he has certainly exhibited his own in an original manner.'

Patrick Matthew (1860): 1st open letter to Charles Darwin in the Gardener's Chronicle and Agricultural Gazette 7 April 1860, pp. 312-313 Reveals that the famous naturalist botanist John Loudon Reviewed Matthew's book.

'This discovery recently published by Mr. Darwin turns out to be what I published very fully... as far back as January 1, 1831... reviewed in numerous periodicals, so as to have full publicity... by Loudon …and repeatedly in the United Service Magazine for 1831 etc.'

Charles Darwin (1860): Reply to Patrick Matthew in the Gardeners’ Chronicle and Agricultural Gazette 21 April 1860, no. 16, pp. 362-363

‘I think that no one will feel surprised that neither I, nor apparently any other naturalist, had heard of Mr Matthew’s views…’

Patrick Matthew (1860): 2nd open letter. Reply to Charles Darwin in the Gardener's Chronicle and Agricultural Gazette 12 May 1860, p. 433

'He is however wrong in thinking that no naturalist was aware of the previous discovery. I had occasion some 15 years ago to be conversing with a naturalist, a professor of a celebrated university, and he told me he had been reading my work Naval Timber, but that he could not bring such views before his class or uphold them publicly from fear of the cutty-stool, a sort of pillory punishment… It was at least in part this spirit of resistance to scientific doctrine that caused my work to be voted unfit for the public library of the fair city itself. The age was not ripe for such ideas…’

Charles Darwin (1861) , Letter to Quatrefages de Bréau, J. L. A. De. 25 April :

‘…an obscure writer on Forest Trees, in 1830, in Scotland, most expressly & clearly anticipated my views — though he put the case so briefly, that no single person ever noticed the scattered passages in his book…’

Charles Darwin, (1861) ‘On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection: Or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life’, 3rd ed:

'Unfortunately the view was given by Mr. Matthew very briefly in scattered passages in an Appendix to a work on a different subject, so that it remained unnoticed until Mr. Matthew himself drew attention to it in The Gardeners’ Chronicle, on April 7th, 1860. 95'


Gavin de Beer (1962), “The Wilkins Lecture: The Origins of Darwin’s Ideas on Evolution and Natural Selection”, Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences. vol. 155, no. 960, pp. 321-338.

‘…William Charles Wells and Patrick Matthew were predecessors who had actually published the principle of natural selection in obscure places where their works remained completely unnoticed until Darwin and Wallace reawakened interest in the subject.'

Ernst Mayr (1982), The Growth of Biological Thought: Diversity, Evolution and Inheritance, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts, p. 499

‘The person who has the soundest claim for priority in establishing a theory of evolution by natural selection is Patrick Matthew … His views on evolution… neither Darwin nor any other biologist had ever encountered them until Matthew bought forward his claims in an article in 1860 in The Gardeners’ Chronicle'

Friday, 26 May 2017

Stolen Ideas Markets: a strangely unexplored area of criminology



Saturday, 20 May 2017

Hopping Mad Darwin Worshippers

+ + + +

Saturday, 13 May 2017

A Credulous Face-Value History versus Actual Facts

Gandhi's Four Stages of Veracity Acceptence

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

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.

Friday, 5 May 2017

Silly Old Darwinists

Thursday, 4 May 2017

Artist Wanted. No Robots!

The world is changing rapidly. The middle classes are becoming extinct and the working class is being overtopped by robots. The pocket university education looms over the horizon.
In areas such as law, medical diagnostics and even teaching great Artificial Intelligence (AI) breakthroughs are being made. As our hospitals, schools and universities fall foul of corporate management creep, the moving target obsessed managerial classes will move from the current human resources (HR) de-professionalisation philosophy to replace humans altogether with AI interplaying with high quality recorded and licenced human content. The digitized, debt free,
Donald Trump's regression to dirty coal, filthy oil and similar promises of silly wall building projects is symptomatic of this change across the entire employment sector. He can no longer hold back the tide of change than King Canute's delusional orders could stop the inevitable tide from coming in. Those who voted for Trump failed to see that. they are already the walking dead    of the zombie horde. Like those apocryphal zombies of modern entertainment culture, they just don't know it.
Change brings new opportunities. Those able to adapt to perceive and then exploit the opportunities presented by new technology will more likely thrive. New technology allows us to cut out the middleman and choose ourselves    to take control of our intellectual content and reap more of the rewards of our original endeavours.
I'm currently working on the second edition of my book 'Nullius in Verba: Darwin's Greatest Secret'. This will be an updated and abridged paperback,.Create Space   , print to order, version of the larger 600 page-e-book published by ThinkerMedia of Best Thinking. The orignal e-book will remain for sale    to those requiring the extra and orignal data on Darwin's and Wallace's plagiarizing science fraud. I think the best place for 600 pages is in an e-book. That's better for the environment. And since so many people prefer to hold a paper book, print to order is a better option than printing and storing large numbers of smaller books in advance.
I have some ideas of what I would like for a front cover of my book, but it pays to know one's limitations. I need an expert artist who won't charge the Earth to design the front cover, spine and back cover for me.
Here is an area where artificial intelligence immigrants are unlikely to take human jobs. Robots need not apply, well at least not for now anyway. Any offers, ideas or advice greatly appreciated via the comments section.
Mike Sutton and ThinkerMediaUsed only with express written permission
Some loose ideas for a cover design for the second edition of Nullius
Clearly, I need an expert book cover artist. I'm prepared to pay and to promote their work. There are many such artists advertising online. I've not yet found one that appeals to me. But I will.

Wednesday, 3 May 2017

Crohn's disease or anxiety of being found out? Or both?

Monday, 1 May 2017

Hoisted by his own petard

How does the world really work?

Saturday, 22 April 2017

Thursday, 20 April 2017

On Pinker and Big Data Discovered Lies

Tuesday, 18 April 2017

Saturday, 15 April 2017

100% Independently Verifiable Facts About Lies Don't Lie!

Saturday, 8 April 2017

Matthew in the News

Facts don't die

Tuesday, 4 April 2017

Claimed Multiple Coincidence Conundrum

Monday, 3 April 2017

Carse of Gowrie Sustainability Group

Thursday, 23 March 2017

The First Pave the Way for The Rest

Friday, 17 March 2017

Defending Stupidity Reveals a Lot About You

Royal Society Silent on Dawingate

Wednesday, 15 March 2017

Saturday, 11 March 2017

Thursday, 9 March 2017

On Richard Dawkins and Darwinism

Wednesday, 8 March 2017

Nominations for my prize for questioning authority?

I see MIT are offering a prize for those who break the rules: "You don't get a Nobel Prize for doing what you're told, you get it for questioning authority,"

 What about the rules of  Darwin worship in science. I broke those with cold hard newly discovered facts that bust the paradigm of  Darwin and Wallace as independent discoverers of an unread prior-published theory see:  Sutton 2014 and Sutton 2016.

Were you to nominate my paradigm changing orignal research discoveries for any prize in science what outcome should we expect? Why?


Sunday, 5 March 2017

Supernatural Darwinism


Saturday, 4 March 2017

Monday, 27 February 2017

Very Important Plagiarists

Wednesday, 22 February 2017

Tuesday, 21 February 2017

Monday, 20 February 2017

On Corruption in the Darwin Industry and Royal Society

With regard to Darwin and Wallace's replication of Patrick Matthew's prior published theory of natural selection.

Ignoring completely the accepted Arago Ruling on first and foremost priority for a discovery going to whoever had their original discovery published first, the Royal Society awarded the Darwin medal, and its most prestigious Copley medal, to Wallace. Why?  For replicating Matthew's (1831) prior-published theory in 1858 and for claiming it as his own. If that was not a corrupt act by the Royal Society then what is?

No one is ever going to win the Royal Society's Copley Medal now - never mind one of its Darwin Medals - for originally proving Matthew's book, containing the full theory of natural selection, was read and cited by Darwin's and Wallace's friends, influencers and editors and their influencer's influencers before Darwin and Wallace replicated Matthew's original conception and claimed to have done so independently of it. Just Google "On Knowledge Contamination" (put it in those speech quotes - its a simple Big Data trick) to find the peer reviewed truth of what has been discovered on this topic.

How can we ask the scientific community to stand up to Trump's anti-vaccination and anti-global warming claptrap when its most esteemed institution is corrupt?

In 1860, 157 years ago, Matthew wrote two letters - both published in the Gardener's Chronicle of that year -  claiming his priority.

Darwin wrote to admit Matthew got the entire thing first - 27 years in published print (in 1831) before he and Wallace replicated the theory in their papers presented before the Linnean Society n 1858.  Yet Darwin continued to call it "my theory" and lied by claiming no naturalist/no one at all had read Matthew's original ideas. Darwin wrote those falsehoods even though Matthew had prior- informed him of two naturists who did read his ideas pre-1858.

We know knewly know (Google 'Nullius in verba Darwin's greatest secret' to get the facts) that many of Darwin's and Wallace's  friends, associates and influencers cited Matthew's book and mentioned his orignal ideas pre-1858 in published print. Selby - the editor of Wallace's 1855 Sarawak paper cited Matthew's 1831 book in 1842. Chambers' - Wallace's greatest influencer and Darwin's associate and Correspondent pre-1858 (he authored the Vestiges of Creation in 1844) cited Matthew's book in 1832. there are many more I could mention.

Nevertheless - even despite what has been newly discovered about Matthew's prior-influence-  the Arago Ruling was ignored by The Royal Society.

Before we can take on the likes of  Donald Trump's tweets that vaccinations cause autism and global warming is a Chinese conspiracy (here), our esteemed institutions of science must first put themselves in order. We need an inquiry into the corruption that is the so-called Darwin Industry.

Sunday, 19 February 2017

Darwin the Cowardly Plagiarist

On Corruption in the Darwin Industry

++ ++ ++ ++

Saturday, 18 February 2017

On Knowledge Contamination

The 4-U's of Research

Sunday, 12 February 2017

Darwin Day

Read my Best Thinking Blog Post for Darwin Day 2017: HERE



Saturday, 11 February 2017


Saturday, 7 January 2017