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

Tuesday 27 December 2016

Today in 1831

Friday 23 December 2016

Christmas Day 1859: Is Darwin Drunk Before Dinner?

From Nullius in Verba: Darwin's greatest secret (Currently unavailable in full 600 page original e-book form, following the publishing house [Thinker Books, of Thinker Media] closing.  Volume 1 of the paperback is now out and on sale on Amazon and from all good bookshops - vols. 2 and 3 are forthcoming.) 

'Subsequent to his successful manipulation of Hooker and Lyell in 1858, to ensure that Wallace did not get his priority over him, the following year, and just weeks before defending his priority to Baden Powell in 1859, Darwin writes to Hooker on Christmas Day, 1859, to say that he has always strongly felt that no one should defend their priority (Darwin 1859b). Seemingly, this most weird letter is meant to be both appreciative and self-flattering that he manipulated Hooker and Lyell to do so on his behalf, even if that meant unethical conduct on their respective parts. We know that Darwin had a weirdly unethical mindset when it came to scientific priority, but in this case, one might wonder whether perhaps he had started just a tad too early on the mince pies, rum source, sherry and port, or perhaps he was using something stronger? Or perhaps there was simply something far more profoundly wrong with the moral wiring of his mind.'

Darwin was a serial liar who was in fact obsessed with slyly stealing priority from others for his own glorification.  Years earlier he started a prolific letter campaign to try to get Royal Society and British Association for Advancement of Science to re-write the rules on priority for discovery changed so that mere replicators like he could claim priority for the prior-published discoveries of lesser known scientists. Those independently verifiable facts are here.

Below, you can see the facts of how Darwin blatantly and clearly lied in order to plagiarise by glory theft Patrick Matthew's original ans prior published conception of macroevolution natural selection.

The peer reviewed facts of Charles Darwin's lies and independently verifiable evidence he committed plagiarism, to effectively claim independent discovery of Matthew's prior-published hypotheses of the process of macro evolution by natural slection, can now be read in learned journals:

1. Here
2. Here

3. Far more details, evidence and context can be found in 'Nullius in Verba': Here

Thursday 22 December 2016

An interlude in social media with Darwinites

Wednesday 21 December 2016

What would your sandwich board say?

Monday 19 December 2016

More fact denial behaviour in social media captured for the historical record


Kindle Notes on Nullius

Sunday 18 December 2016

RankBrain and the IDD Mehod


Blame it on the Pseudo Skeptical Zombie Sheep Herders

The Problematic Darwinian Defence of Multiple Coincidence

When it comes to the problem of a supposedly independent replication of a prior published discovery, science cannot tell us how many coincidences sum to a number that would  render the replicator's defence of multiple coincidence improbable. Moreover, how many routes for knowledge contamination sum to a number that makes it more likely than not that at least one was taken? HERE   

Nullius in Verba': On sale HERE.    The ideal present for the genuine scientist, skeptic, historian or sociologist.

Friday 16 December 2016

The Zombie Horde

Thursday 15 December 2016

Desperate Darwinists

Wednesday 14 December 2016

As Opposed to Mere Dogma

Sunday 11 December 2016

Good Explanations are Capable of Easy Refutation with Hard Facts

The "No Naturalists  Read It" Premesis Underpinning the Darwinite Paradigm of Darwin's and Wallace's Independent Conceptions of Matthew's Prior Publshed Theory is 100 per cent Disconfirmed with Indpendently Verifiable Hard Evidence: Here 

Saturday 10 December 2016

Fact Denying Darwinians Face Intellectual Extinction

Friday 9 December 2016

Find out how Big Data analysis proved biologists think 25 = 0

Proof of Concept


Monday 5 December 2016

Can Biologists count to four?

Sunday 4 December 2016

Are we attracted to belief in improbable independent conceptions and then to worship the claimants?

My Gift to Publier - The town in France forced to take down its Virgin Mary statue, because it is secular and in a public place Here 
Celebration in Public Places of Non-Secular Scientific Beliefs in Improbable Miracles is Probably OK in France
Christians believe that, whilst surrounded by men who were fertile to some degree, St Mary had a virgin conception of Jesus of Nazareth by way of a supernatural deity.
Members of the scientific establishment believe Charles Darwin and Alfred Wallace each independently conceived Patrick Matthew's prior published theory of macroevolution by natural slection whilst surrounded and influenced by friends, associates, and - in Wallace's case his editor - whose brains were fertile with Matthew's original breakthrough, because years earlier they cited the book containing it!
Perhaps there is something in the human psyche causing a compulsion to believe in improbable claims to independent conceptions and then worship the claimant?
More context: Here.   

Wallace could well have lied: In light of the new evidence

The Blessed Virgin Darwin

Friday 2 December 2016

One small step at a time: Driving the Corrupt Darwin-Lobby into the Gutter of the History of Science Fraudsters along with their Plagiarising Namesake

The Full Story of Corrupt-Darwin-Lobby Agenda Editor Fraud  - up until yesterday - is here.

On  this topic the Wikipedia page now (currently) reads:

The United Service Journal and Naval and Military Magazine published an extended review in the 1831 Part II and 1831 Part III numbers of the magazine; it praised Matthew's book in around 13,000 words, highlighting that "The British Navy has such urgent claims on the vigilance of every person as the bulwark of his independence and happiness, that any effort for supporting and improving its strength, lustre, and dignity, must meet with unqualified attention." It approved of Matthew "strictly in his capacity as a forest-ranger, where he is original, bold and evidently experienced in all the arcana of the parentage, birth and education of trees. But, we disclaim participation in his ruminations on the law of Nature, or on the outrages committed upon reason and justice by our burthens of hereditary nobility, entailed property, and insane enactments." The review did not mention the appendix to the book.[11][12]

Of course, Matthew's orignal conception was not limited to the book's appendix. That is a lie written by Darwin and parroted by his followers ever since as though it is the gospel truth. We know it is a lie, rather than a mistake,  because he admitted to his mentor Charles Lyell that it would be "splitting hairs" to admit the truth on that particular issue. Get the peer reviewed facts - with full references to the independently verifiable historic publication record, which the weird pseudo-scholarly fact denial cult of corrupt Darwinities are trying to keep buried HERE.