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

Monday, 9 April 2018

Facts Trump Desperate Claptrap Everytime: President Donald Trump believes vaccines cause autism and some people believe Darwin and Wallace had immaculate conceptions of a prior published theory, which is now miraculously transmuted by their own wishful magical beliefs into a different theory

In his 2013 book 'Charles Darwin: Destroyer of Myths', Andrew Norman - perhaps being an unacknowledged greater expert than the experts  Darwin and Wallace and a greater expert than Matthew, the originator of macroevolution by natural slection - effectively writes that he thinks they were all wrong and that Matthew (1831) - who uniquely called his bombshell breakthrough the 'natural process of selection' and which Darwin (1858) originally four-word shuffled into 'process of natural selection' in his replicating work did no such thing. Trying to come to, arguably, "covering-up" terms with the New Data, which I predicted would happen (Sutton 2014), some arguably desperate Darwinists have written down and developed their own various desperate versions of this same type of magical thinking and had it published in the Journal of the Linnean Society. Unsurprisingly, this is the journal of the very same Linnean Society that facilitated in 1858, and has thereafter supported through publications in its journal - in breach of the universally accepted Arago Ruling on priority for discovery in science -  Darwin's and Wallace's plagiarising debacle of Matthew's (1831) original and prior-published discovery of macroevolution by natural selection.

This type of arguably magical thinking makes old claims that are simply the same type as those by Andrew Norman, and of many other authors some time before him. Effectively, that Matthew's and Darwin's versions of macroevolution by natural selection are fundamentally different theories. How amazing on the topic of the history of scientific discovery that these Darwinists think they actually know more about that  historic topic than the world's leading experts did on it themselves at the time of their replications of Matthew's breakthrough. Surely they mislead themselves that they believe they could ever know more than Matthew, Darwin and Wallace knew themselves on this topic of their own work at the time when Darwin's and Wallace's glory-stealing plagiarism problem occurred in the 19th century. I mean, this arguably desperate revisionist behaviour is so funny you could not make it up. Someone should write a comedy play or stage-musical about it. I bet that one day they will. It's analogous in my opinion to claiming that obsessive Monty Python fans know more about the content and reason for John Cleese's Ministry of Silly Walks techniques than he knew in developing them and then carrying them out on film himself.

Meanwhile dear readers, avoiding the silly walks of these poor desperate folk...

....Here are the actual independently verifiable facts that exist like fossil evidence in the historic publication record from those who surely would know more on this matter than anyone else alive then or since - i.e. Matthew, Darwin and Wallace themselves:

On 1st January 1831 Patrick Matthew’s book: ‘On Naval Timber and Arboriculture’ (NTA) was published by two major publishers: Adam Black of Edinburgh, and Longman and Co. of London. Together, the body of NTA and its appendix, contain the first published theory of macro evolution by what Matthew called the ‘natural process of selection’. For confirmation of this claim, that Matthew was undoubtedly the first to discover and go into published print on the full concept of macroevolution by natural selection, see: Darwin (1860a), Wallace, (1879), Mayr (1982), Dempster (1996), Wainwright (2008), Cock and Forsdyke (2008), Dawkins, (2010), Rampino (2011), Ford (2011), Sutton, (2015) and Weale (2015).

When called on it in the press by Matthew in 1860, Darwin (1860) was compelled to admit that Matthew got the whole thing first; and he (Darwin) of all people, like Matthew, would have known that for a fact. For example, in the third edition of the Origin of Species, Darwin (1861, p. xiv) 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…’.

For his part, Wallace (1879, p. 142) eventually admitted in a letter:

‘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…’. 

Independently verifiable facts such as these trump desperate claptrap every time!

For more on these facts and all supporting references to the facts in this blog see Nullius in Verba: Darwin's greatest secret

For the facts of Donald Trump's claptrap see the Healthwatch paper  I co-wrote pictured below.
with Henn and Gibson Here


Darwin, C. R. (1861) On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection. Or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life. (Third Edition) London. John Murray.

Wallace, A. R. (1879a) 9 May. Letter to Samuel Butler. Unique WCP identifier: WCP1586. Wallace Letters Online. Natural History Museum

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.