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, 22 August 2015

The Darwin and Wallace Anomalous Miracle Conception Paradox

Powerful and new Big Data technology enabled me to check the veracity of the Darwinist "majority view" claim that Patrick Matthew's (1831) full prior publication of the hypothesis of Natural Selection went unread by anyone until Darwin was made aware of the publication, by Matthew in 1860, which was two years after Darwin and Wallace replicated the unique ideas and examples in it in their Linnean Society papers and the year following Darwin's replication of the same in the Origin of  Species.

Before my research uniquely proved it totally wrong - because 25 people cited Matthew's book, seven of whom were naturalists and four of those seven were known to the naturalists Darwin/Wallace and three of those four significantly influenced Darwin and Wallace (see Sutton 2014) - Darwinists believed that Darwin was unusually scrupulously honest and so believed in their namesake's 100 per cent provable deliberate lie (see the BlessedVirginDarwin 2015) that no one at all read Matthew's ideas before 1860. For example the highly expert and esteemed Royal Society Darwin Medal winner Sir Gavin de Beer ( 1962) wrote:

 "...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.'

 I have been unable to discoverer anything of this same kind happening in the history of scientific discovery.

 I do not think a single other case exists in the entire history of scientific discovery of someone, who
Patrick Matthew: The Originator
of  Natural Selection
was not proven a fraudulent plagiarizer, who knew personally and communicated with and was assisted and influenced by others who had read the work they replicated and then claimed to have discovered the same ideas independently of the prior publication of those ideas by their originator.

My Big Data discovery of Darwin's lies, and discovery that those who knew and influenced him and Wallace (before 1858) had read and actually cited Matthew's book, means that Darwinists - ignoring the New Data, or denying its significance in re-writing the history of the discovery of natural selection are - by default - miracle believers in an anomalous paradox of a miraculous dual immaculate conception, by Darwin and Wallace of a prior published 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.