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

Wednesday, 21 October 2020

So what will you say when your grandchild asks you: "What did you do in the War against Fake news and other utter Bollox?"

Thursday, 15 October 2020

Brian J. Ford on Plagiarism in Science and Holds up a copy of Nullius in Verba!

Top scientist Brian J Ford holds up my book "Nullius" as solid scientific evidence evidence of Darwin's Plagiarism of Patrick Matthew  






.

Tuesday, 13 October 2020

Emma Martin: Influential atheist evolutionist not even mentioned by Darwin the Plagiarist

 



More on the Wikipedia Editor, going by the name of "Dave Souza" of Wikipedia's Charles Darwin page. He is a moronic fact denial turd who deliberately and systematically deletes facts to protect the biased and corrupt Darwin Industry on Wikipedia see the facts of him trapped doing it in a sting operation Here. This is why Wikipedia is the worlds worse encyclopaedia - because it is run by totally biased hobby-horse losers in a suitable idiot-niche.




Artificial Intelligence Deems Mike Sutton 25th Most Influential Criminal Justice Expert in the World, of All Time!

 Well that's rather a turn up for the book! I wonder why? 


Monday, 12 October 2020

Emma Martin: shared platforms with the Chartists and promoted evolition in the 1830s/40s

 Patrick Matthew was a Scottish Chartist leader. Interestingly Emma Martin the socialist, materialist atheist, feminist often shared a platform with Chartists



This is a good book on Darwin's racism and more besides. Only the author seems to know nothing at all about Matthew. He quotes Chambers and Rafinesque many times however. And we know from my  orignal F2B2 research (Sutton 2014) that Chambers cited Matthew twice pre 1858, was apparently first to be second in 1858/9 with Matthew's original term "natural process of selection" and Rafinesque was apparently first to be second with Matthew's phrase/terms "long continued selection" and "evinced in the genus".

Tuesday, 6 October 2020

Brian J. Ford is Inducted to the Patrick Matthew Website

 Brian J. Ford is on PatrickMattew.com



Brian J. Ford on Charles Darwin's Plagiarism of Patrick Matthew's Prior Published Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection


In his  famous book Nonscience, first published in 1971, top scientists Brian J Ford wrote on Charles Darwin's misappropriation of the theory of evolution by natural selection by opportunistically seizing the prime moment when society was finally ready to accept such heresy, that had been prior published by others but stamped in the gutter by Christian naturalists. Robert Chambers (who new Big Data research I conducted - e.g. see Sutton 2015 - revealed had earlier twice cited Patrick Matthew's publications containing Matthew's original bombshell breakthrough in the area) had cleared the way with his best seller The Vestiges of Creation - and both Darwin and Wallace admitted that Chambers influenced them. Wallace went further and wrote that Chambers was his greatest influencer. 

'Charles Darwin... writing his thesis at exactly its most fashionistic time , when everyone was discussing it. He wasn't the first to propose his particular interpretation, of course, but his use of fashionism and the clothing of the argument in detaied observations of animals in general made the whole project an obvious winner.'

                                Ford, B. J. (1971. p 142) Nonscience, Wolfe Publishing Ltd. London

Ford built upon this critical observation in 2011 in an article entitled Darwin: The Microscopist Who Didn't Discover Evolution. By Brian J. Ford. The Microscope. 59:3, 2011. pp 129-137.

In that article Ford wrote:

'Darwin neither discovered evolution as a general concept, nor did he discover evolution by natural selection.' 

And:

 'Darwin is set on a pedestal as though he were Einstein or Copernicus, and anyone doubting adherence to this conventional view risks ostracism. In science, as much as in religion, we can find extreme views that fly in the face of realities.' Click here to read that article.


In October 2020 Ford's Nonscience was updated and re-published by the science publisher Curtis Press

In this new edition Ford (2020, pp 72-73) goes much further to reveal that Darwin plagiarised the entire theory from Patrick Matthew's (1831) book:

'Some 27 years earlier, the theory had been published by someone Darwin didn't know - Patrick Matthew. ... Darwin omitted mention of these earlier investigators when he wrote his book. ...Matthew on reading Darwin's words was was horrified and he complained. Charles Darwin wrote back: "I freely acknowledge that Mr Matthew has anticipated by many years the explanation which I have offered on the origin of species under the name of natural selection. If another edition of my book is called for, I will insert a notice to the foregoing effect." He didn't. Three editions of Darwin's book came out before Matthew's name crept in - and that is the secret of Darwin's success. His theory wasn't original, but he didn't say so. The earlier publications had caused growing interest in evolution, so that - by the time the Origin of Species appeared - everybody wanted to know more. That's the rule. Fashionism is what matters. Not originality. And certainly not integrity.'

In 2020 Ford purchase, read, and then reviewed Nullius in Verba: Darwin's greatest secret on Amazon. Here.


Meanwhile the Biological Journal of the Linnean Society - the very same journal that by descent published Darwin's and Wallace's plagiarising articles in 1858 is involved in publishing a series of articles by Weale (who wrote malicious poison pen correspondence to the VC of Nottingham Trent University to try to get me fired for defending my original research. His malicious and jealous complaint was formally investigated and rejected for being completely silly, and weirdly disingenuous) Dagg (who like Weale has plagiarised my research in the Biological Journal of the Linnean Society) and Derry, (a malicious and obscene cyberstalking harasser who regularly writes to Nottingham Trent University whose legal department has him under notice of prosecution for harassment) to try to argue - ludicrously - that Darwin did not plagiarise Matthew because each had a different theory. Why - besides the obvious malicious intentions of these three (more on their malicious behaviour here) - is that desperate Linnean Society project ludicrous? The answer is simply because their three papers amount to little more than fact denial desperate codswallop. The latest of their instalments was published in 2020 in the same journal, by descent, that, back in 1858, published Darwin's and Wallace's plagiarism of Matthew's original theory. This is a ludicrous attempt to divert attention from the verfiable facts of the newly discovered data (e.g. Sutton 2015) that proves Darwin and Wallace plagiarised Matthew's (1831) prior published theory. Darwin worshipping malicious idiots Derry and Dagg are arguing - in a ludicrous attempt to divert attention from Darwin's newly proven plagiarism of Matthew -  Matthew's theory was not essentially the same as Darwin's even though both Darwin (1860) and Wallace (1879) said it was. As though Dagg the plagiarist of my research and Derry the obscene harasser and cyberstalker (facts of their disgraceful behaviour are here) know more than Darwin and Wallace did about their own (replicating) work. The Biological Journal of the Linnean Society is now  total joke. Birds of a feather certainty flock together. The facts of Dagg's plagiarism of my research in that journal are here.

Darwin in his (1860) reply to Matthew in the Gardener's Chronicle fully admitted he had replicated Matthew's prior published theory: "" I have been much interested by Mr. Patrick Matthew’s communication in the Number of your Paper, dated April 7th. I freely acknowledge that Mr. Matthew has anticipated by many years the explanation which I have offered of the origin of species, under the name of natural selection." Darwin (1861) did the same from the third edition onwards of his book the Origin of Species: Darwin replicated and admitted it when he wrote: "In 1831 Mr Patrick Matthew published his work on Naval Timber and Arboriculture in which he gives precisely the same view on the origin of species as that presently to be alluded to propounded by Mr Wallace and myself in the Linnean Journal and as that enlarged on in the present volume." Moreover, as if that is not enough to show what utter tripe the Dagg and Derry Show is Darwin himself, being one of the world's three foremost experts of all time on natural selection (those three being Matthew. Darwin and Wallace), acknowledged this in a letter to Patrick Matthew dated 13th June 1862: “I presume I have the pleasure of addressing the author of the work on Naval Architecture and the first enunciator of the theory of Natural Selection.

For his part, Wallace in (1879a) fully admitted that he knew Matthew got there first with the entire thing he and  "To my mind your quotations from Mr. Patrick Matthew are the most remarkable things in your whole book, because he appears to have completely anticipated the main ideas both of the "Origin of Species" & of "Life & Habitat".Aso in 1879b Wallace wrote: "Mr. Matthew apprehended the theory of natural selection, as well as the existence of more obscure laws of evolution, many years in advance of Mr. Darwin and myself, and in giving almost the whole of what Mr. Matthew has written on the subject Mr. Butler will have helped to call  attention to one of the most original thinkers of the first half of the 19th century."

In their desperate fact denial smog-article Dagg and Derry  - arguably - misrepresent what I wrote on page 6 of my book. They write:  

"Sutton (2017: 6) asserted that Matthew’s theory only differed from Darwin’s and Wallace’s in the occurrence of global catastrophes"

What I actually write on page 6 of my 2017 book is (bold and underlined emphasis added here): 

"Matthew, quite correctly allowed for geological and meteorological catastrophes in his model, but Darwin and Wallace never. Matthew's original theory of macroevolution by natural selection is, in every other relevant way, apart from that great superiority, virtually the same as Darwin's and Wallace's later versions."

And relevant here - in the context of my entire book and even the rest of the content of that page - is its relevance to the evidence that Darwin and Wallace plagiarised Matthew's 1831 original theory, his original terminology and his original and highly idiosyncratic explanatory analogies.


The image of page 6 of my book below sets the record straight on what Dagg and Derry are up to in misrepresenting my research in their desperate 2020 article





Reader: beware of desperate fact denial malicious smog-apes like Dagg the Plagiarist and Derry the Obscene Harasser who also share the nasty pseudo scholarly habit of representing their own falsehoods by misrepresentation of precise facts written by others and the context in which they are published.

I suppose the disgraced Biological Journal of the Linnean Society and its shameful publisher Oxford University Press will have no problem at all with the fact Derry provides what certainly appears to me to be a fake personal address for his serial dishonest self on the ludicrously childish Dagg & Derry Show 2020 article as 30 Yeaman Place Edinburgh, EH11, which is actually the very precise address of a pub (archived for evidence here) for which Derry wrote a scathing review in 2020. Here and archived here? In his scathing reviews of the pub at 30 Yeaman Place, Derry calls it his local since 2012. Really? How local? So local he lives in or above it? 





Typical of Derry, he posts his savaging reviews of "The Golden Rule" - his supposed address - all over the Internet e.g. also on Trip Adviser (archived here for evidence).




With extreme irony, when it comes to the topic of plagiarism and lies, Darwin said he had a "Golden Rule". Read about that fact here.
.
#



.  




.
.

Fake news is one thing, what about fake history?

 What kind of society, what kind of organisation, what kind of person, wants a fake history of science? 



Saturday, 3 October 2020

Biological Journal of the Linnean Society publishes more Absolute Claptrap

More amazing fact denial desperate codswallop published in 2020 in the same journal, by descent, that, back in 1858, published Darwin's and Wallace's plagiarism of Matthew's original theory. This is a ludicrous attempt to divert attention from the verfiable facts of the newly discovered data (e.g. Sutton 2015) that proves Darwin and Wallace plagiarised Matthew's (1831) prior published theory. Darwin worshipping malicious idiots Derry and Dagg are arguing - in a ludicrous attempt to divert attention from Darwin's newly proven plagiarism of Matthew -  Matthew's theory was not essentially the same as Darwin's even though both Darwin (1860) and Wallace (1879) said it was. As though Dagg the plagiarist of my research and Derry the obscene harasser and cyberstalker (facts of their disgraceful behaviour are here) know more than Darwin and Wallace did about their own (replicating) work. The Biological Journal of the Linnean Society is now  total joke. Birds of a feather certainty flock together. The facts of Dagg's plagiarism of my research in that journal are here.

Darwin in his (1860) reply to Matthew in the Gardener's Chronicle fully admitted he had replicated Matthew's prior published theory: "" I have been much interested by Mr. Patrick Matthew’s communication in the Number of your Paper, dated April 7th. I freely acknowledge that Mr. Matthew has anticipated by many years the explanation which I have offered of the origin of species, under the name of natural selection." Darwin (1861) did the same from the third edition onwards of his book the Origin of Species: Darwin replicated and admitted it when he wrote: "In 1831 Mr Patrick Matthew published his work on Naval Timber and Arboriculture in which he gives precisely the same view on the origin of species as that presently to be alluded to propounded by Mr Wallace and myself in the Linnean Journal and as that enlarged on in the present volume." Moreover, as if that is not enough to show what utter tripe the Dagg and Derry Show is Darwin himself, being one of the world's three foremost experts of all time on natural selection (those three being Matthew. Darwin and Wallace), acknowledged this in a letter to Patrick Matthew dated 13th June 1862: “I presume I have the pleasure of addressing the author of the work on Naval Architecture and the first enunciator of the theory of Natural Selection.

For his part, Wallace in (1879a) fully admitted that he knew Matthew got there first with the entire thing he and  "To my mind your quotations from Mr. Patrick Matthew are the most remarkable things in your whole book, because he appears to have completely anticipated the main ideas both of the "Origin of Species" & of "Life & Habitat".Aso in 1879b Wallace wrote: "Mr. Matthew apprehended the theory of natural selection, as well as the existence of more obscure laws of evolution, many years in advance of Mr. Darwin and myself, and in giving almost the whole of what Mr. Matthew has written on the subject Mr. Butler will have helped to call  attention to one of the most original thinkers of the first half of the 19th century."

In their desperate fact denial smog-article Dagg and Derry  - arguably - misrepresent what I wrote on page 6 of my book. They write:  

"Sutton (2017: 6) asserted that Matthew’s theory only differed from Darwin’s and Wallace’s in the occurrence of global catastrophes"

What I actually write on page 6 of my 2017 book is (bold and underlined emphasis added here): 

"Matthew, quite correctly allowed for geological and meteorological catastrophes in his model, but Darwin and Wallace never. Matthew's original theory of macroevolution by natural selection is, in every other relevant way, apart from that great superiority, virtually the same as Darwin's and Wallace's later versions."

And relevant here - in the context of my entire book and even the rest of the content of that page - is its relevance to the evidence that Darwin and Wallace plagiarised Matthew's 1831 original theory, his original terminology and his original and highly idiosyncratic explanatory analogies.


The image of page 6 of my book below sets the record straight on what Dagg and Derry are up to in misrepresenting my research in their desperate 2020 article





Reader: beware of desperate fact denial malicious smog-apes like Dagg the Plagiarist and Derry the Obscene Harasser who also share the nasty pseudo scholarly habit of representing their own falsehoods by misrepresentation of precise facts written by others and the context in which they are published.

I suppose the disgraced Biological Journal of the Linnean Society and its shameful publisher Oxford University Press will have no problem at all with the fact Derry provides what certainly appears to me to be a fake personal address for his serial dishonest self on the ludicrously childish Dagg & Derry Show 2020 article as 30 Yeaman Place Edinburgh, EH11, which is actually the very precise address of a pub (archived for evidence here) for which Derry wrote a scathing review in 2020. Here and archived here? In his scathing reviews of the pub at 30 Yeaman Place, Derry calls it his local since 2012. Really? How local? So local he lives in or above it? 





Typical of Derry, he posts his savaging reviews of "The Golden Rule" - his supposed address - all over the Internet e.g. also on Trip Adviser (archived here for evidence).




With extreme irony, when it comes to the topic of plagiarism and lies, Darwin said he had a "Golden Rule". Read about that fact here.

.
#



.  



. .

Brute Censorship of Verifiable Facts about Darwin and Patrick Matthew

 

.

The original review that Amazon deleted on Leon Zitzer's book Darwin's Racismis archived HERE for those interested in studying brute censorship of independently verifiable facts.