Please click the title above for the latest blog post
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
Thursday, 18 January 2018
Google Research Forces Publication of Encyclopaedia Britannica's New Page on Patrick Matthew
POSTSCRIPT JAN 19TH 2018.
Having deleted the myth started as a lie by Darwin that no naturalist / no one whatsoever read Patrick Matthew's (1831) prior published theory before Darwin and Wallace replicated it and claimed it as their own, I am pleased to see that the Encyclopedia Britannica has now also deleted the Appendix Myth from its page on Patrick Matthew. The encyclopedia could benefit form making it clearer that whilst it is correct (e.g. see Rampino) that Matthew's catastrophic extinction events version of the theory is more correct than Darwin's now debunked uniformitarian beliefs, Matthew also explained evolution by natural slection occurring between extinction events:
Matthew (1831) wrote clearly on how evolution occurred over great lengths of time between extinction events: (see Sutton 2014)
‘…diverging ramifications of life, which from the connected sexual system of vegetables, and the natural instincts of animals to herd and combine with their own kind, would fall into specific groups, these remnants in the course of time moulding and accommodating their being anew to the change of circumstances, and to every possible means of subsistence, and the millions of ages of regularity which appear to have followed between the epochs, probably after this accommodation was completed affording fossil deposit of regular specific character.’
Google Forces Encyclopaedia Britannica to Evolve on History of Discovery of Natural Selection
I am quite heartened to learn by private correspondence today that, following a letter from Jim Dempster's daughter - Soula Dempster - the Encyclopaedia Britannica has entirely re-written its Patrick Matthew page to reflect many of the "real facts" as opposed to the old Darwinist "false facts"- such as the old Darwinist myth that the original ideas on natural selection in Matthew's (1831) book went unread before Matthew brought them to Darwin's attention in 1860 - after Darwin (1859) had replicated them in The Origin of Species without citing their originator.
Nevertheless, at the time of writing the Encyclopaedia Britannica does, unfortunately for veracity, continue with the old debunked Darwinist "Appendix Myth"as though it is true rather than a falsehood started as a deliberate lie by Darwin in 1860.
As early as 1842 - the year Darwin penned his first private essay on natural selection - Wallace's Sarawak paper's editor, and Darwin's Royal Society associate and friend of his father and of his great friend Jenyns - Selby cited Matthew's book many times and wrote that he could not understand why Matthew claimed, incidentally in the main body of his book not in its appendix!, that some trees could thrive in non-native areas. Matthew's explanation was an example of his original natural versus artificial selection explanatory analogy of differences, which both Darwin and Wallace replicated. Selby was like many naturalists at the time a deeply religious man who believed the Christian God placed all of his designed species in the designed place most suited to them. Matthew's accurate observations were heresy. Another naturalist, Jameson - of the East India Company - a regular correspondent of William Hooker - who was the father of Darwin's best friend Joseph Hooker - wrote in 1853 of the importance of the exact same Matthew observation on timber growing - citing Matthew. All these original New Data details - with full independently verifiable references - are in my book Nullius in Verba: Darwin's Greatest Secret.
Historically, this is an interesting and most ironic development because in my book Nullius I originally revealed that Matthew's (1831) book was advertised on 3/4 of a prominent page of Part 5, Volume 2 of the Encyclopaedia Britannica 1842.
It is most ironic that Google technology, which I (Sutton 2014) originally used to show exactly who really did read and cite Matthew's (1831) book and the ideas in it on natural selection pre 1858, allows us to show the Encyclopaedia Britannica that it is wrong to claim Matthew's book and the orignal ideas in it went unread, because as early as 1832 and in 1842 this hugely influential in the 19th century encyclopaedia was citing and advertising Matthew's book.
Google, therefore, has helped the Encyclopaedia Britannica to evolve to be veracious on the topic of the discovery of evolution with evidence it should have known about, but clearly did not.
Only because it has recently been "computerised" - and hence discoverable on the Internet - as part of the Google Library Project, was I able to find that evidence on my 14-year old clunky laptop, sitting at home whilst watching TV. Now that's what I call progress, because I don't like paper libraries.
'Note that although the official publication date for the 7th Edition of the Encyclopaedia Britannica was 1842, in reality it was published in instalments starting in 1827. Volume 4 was available in bound form in 1832, which explains why all the books in the publishers’ advertising insert (“lately published by Adam Black, Edinburgh, and Longman, Rees, Orme, Brown and Green, London“) are from 1831-2 (for example, Memoirs of the Wernerian Natural History Society, Vol 6). Coincidentally, Volume 21 (the last volume, which really was published in 1842) contains a citation of Matthew’s book in its article on “Timber”. The advert is very similar to the Edinburgh Literary Journal (1831) advert, except the quotes from reviews have been updated. Even the aggressively negative review from the Edinburgh Literary Journal is quoted as a “Sample of Venom”, perhaps to pique the reader’s interest!''
In 2015 Dr Mike Weale discovered an additional individual - who cited Matthew's book before Darwin and Wallace replicated the original ideas and explanations in it without citing Matthew - bringing the known total to 26, He writes:
This brief citation is noteworthy for confirming that Matthew’s (1831) book was regarded as “valuable” by the author of the 1842 Encyclopaedia Britannica article on “Timber”. Note that Volume 21 really was published in 1842, unlike the other volumes which although they stated “1842” on their title pages were in reality published in earlier years. The article is signed “(B.Z.)”, identifiable as Augustin F. B. Creuze (1800-1852) via the Table of Signatures in Volume 1. Creuze also authored other articles for the Encyclopaedia Britannica, including a lengthy one on “Ship-building” that was published as a separate treatise, but Matthew is not cited in it. The article reproduces a table from Matthew’s book on the “number of concentric layers of sap-wood”. The citation is also noteworthy for making a reference to the “many things irrelevant to its subject” in the book. A similar opinion was expressed in the 1860 review of the book, likely by James Brown.
The following table of the number of concentric layers of sap-wood observed in various species of timber trees is extracted from a valuable work on Naval Timber by Patrick Matthew; a work which abounds in much sound practical information, though mixed up with many things irrelevant to its subject.'
More on the significance of what was written in the Encyclopedia Britannica advert for Matthew's (1831) book