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 29 October 2018

Facts are friends, not enemies of the truth

Saturday 27 October 2018

Our own Social Evolution Detected Darwin's Plagiarism


Thursday 25 October 2018

Charles Darwin's Bank Job

Read the article that provides yet further confirmatory evidence for Charles Darwin's plagiary here

Charles Darwin’s Tangled Bank Job: Just More Evidence of his Science Fraud by Plagiary

– By Mike Sutton –

A recent review in the Guardian newspaper    of the historian A.N. Wilson’s book on Charles Darwin points out –  quite correctly – many of Wilson’s mistakes and his failure to understand what the process of natural selection is. The book review is written by Victorian history expert Kathryn Hughes. However, waxing lyrical in credulous regurgitation of the romance and lies about Darwin’s supposed good nature and original genius, she uses the cliched example of Darwin’s supposed observations of a tangled bank in nature as supposed evidence of his originality. Hughes writes:

His most famous motif, the one that everyone remembers because it leaps off the page with such unforced joy, is that of the tangled bank. Based on his daily observations of a stretch of land near his home, Darwin describes a buzzing ecosystem that is home to plants, birds and insects “all dependent on each other”. Here, he implies, is a microcosm for how we too might imagine our lives.’

But, once again, this is just another example of Darwin replicating Patrick Matthew’s (1831) original theory, general novel explanatory ideas and all his supporting examples, explanatory analogies of difference and original terminology.

I could add a wealth of examples of how many of Matthew’s prior-published ideas, original terminology, and confirmatory evidence were replicated by Darwin. Those examples are provided in my book “Nullius in Verba: Darwin’s greatest secret   ” but – given the tangled bank example used in the Guardian review one should look at what the statistical geneticist Dr Mike Weale tells us about Professor Donald Forsdyke’s observations of Darwin’s tangled bank text and its similarities to an evidentiary example provided by Patrick Matthew almost three decades earlier. The text below is taken from the comments section of Weal’s website “The Patrick Matthew Project” and are addressed to me:
“Mike, were you aware of the following interesting similarity between a famous passage of Darwin’s, and something that Matthew wrote in NTA? I thank Donald Forsdyke for pointing out the Matthew quote (see the end of his last video in his educational video series (
The Darwin quote, from the last paragraph of “On the Origin of Species”, is: “It is interesting to contemplate an entangled bank, clothed with many plants of many kinds, with birds singing on the bushes, with various insects flitting about, and with worms crawling through the damp earth, and to reflect that these elaborately constructed forms, so different from each other, and dependent on each other in so complex a manner, have all been produced by laws acting around us.”
The Matthew quote, from pp.229-30 of NTA, is: “Look at the broken mound, with its old picturesque trees and tangled bushes; there is the ancient root where the throstle had its nestlings, which are now at large on the leafy boughs, and are tuning their yet unformed notes to melody. Now every twig has raised its new column of foliage to the sun; and branch, and root, and stone, embellished all over in the richest variety of cryptogamic beauty, swarm of insect life.
The scene is used differently (to contemplate Nature’s laws by Darwin, to contrast beautiful Nature with boring manicured parks by Matthew), but the similarity of the picture is striking.”
NOTE: NTA is an acronym for Matthew’s book ‘On Naval Timber and Arboriculture.’
When will historians face the concrete fully evidenced truth and choose it over the romance and lies about Charles Darwin, which they have been hoodwinked to believe in?The most telling question is this: ‘Just how many supposed multiple coincidences of this kind are required in the story of Matthew and Darwin to convince scientists and historians that Darwin more likely than not plagiarised Matthew’s prior published discovery of evolution by natural selection, and in doing so committed the world’s greatest science fraud?’ My book is jam packed with them. Jam-packed with independently verifiable evidence of Darwin’s lies and Matthew’s influence on other naturalists known to Darwin and Wallace and his influence on their greatest influencers and their influencer’s influencers before either Darwin or Wallace penned a word on the topic of evolution. How can this be so? Because it is newly discovered those naturalists actually cited Matthew’s book and original ideas long before Darwin and Wallace replicated them. Andl Matthew’s work was cited by naturalists long before Darwin excused his and Wallace’s failure to cite Matthew by lying that no naturalist had read Matthew’s work. It was a lie because Matthew had twice prior informed Darwin that the exact opposite was true.
Darwin, the patron saint of atheists in fact kept the notion of a supernatural being in several editions of his Origin of Species. Read the whole context of his “tangled bank” job from that book and you will see this fact:
Now, by way of contrast, see how Matthew (1831) , the originator of the theory Darwin and Wallace stole, had the courage – years earlier – to commit heresy by mocking such an unscientific superstitious notion:
As I fully reveal in my book Nullius , it was for such reason, as Matthew explained to Darwin in the pages of the Gardeners’ Chronicle of 1860, that his work was banned by libraries and renowned university academics feared to repeat his ideas for fear of pillory punishment. But you won’t read those facts in any ignorant Darwin bashing book penned by a born again creationist, nor in any penned by a credulous and biased, cherry-picking, Darwin worshipper.

Tuesday 23 October 2018

Why is Darwin still credited with things he never did?

Friday 19 October 2018

100% proven facts about Darwin's Influencers and his lies


Monday 15 October 2018

Forthcoming Comedy Sketches on Darwin Cultists: 1

This is recycled, modified, ♻comedy - with no acknowledgement to its originators. Feel free to be like Darwin, recycle and claim it as your own. - -

Below is a rambling incoherent pile of typical nonsensical delusional garbage on the deleted obsessive and libellous malicious stalker blog site of Julian, (J. F. Derry), a prolific Wikipedia editor of the Patrick Matthew page on Wikipedia and their Mike Sutton (Criminologist Page) . So much for Wikipedia.

Friday 12 October 2018

Obsessed Julian (JF) Derry

= -

Wednesday 10 October 2018

The Honest Darwin the Atheist Supermyth

. . +

Tuesday 9 October 2018

On Plagiarism

Monday 8 October 2018

World Post Day: Celebrating and Unmasking the Serial Liar and Glory Stealing Plagiarising Science Fraudster Charles Darwin

Patrick Matthew used the 19th century postal system to claim his rightful priority for the theory of macroevolution by natural selection. Charles's Darwin's response to the second letter Matthew addressed to him in the Gardener's Chronicle proves Darwin to be a lying plagiarising science fraudster by glory theft of Matthew's bombshell prior-published breakthrough


What follows is the pertinent timeline of what was written by Matthew and Darwin about who read Matthew's prior published discovery of natural selection.

1. In 1860 in his first letter to the Gardener's Chronicle, to claim his rightful priority(see Sutton 2014 and 2017) for his prior published (Matthew 1831) full and detailed hypothesis of natural selection, which Darwin replicated without citing him, Matthew wrote that his book had been reviewed by the famous naturalist botanist John Loudon.

It is notable that Loudon’s review (1832): of Matthew's (1831) book contained the following sentence:

‘One of the subjects discussed in this appendix is the puzzling one, of the origin of species and varieties; and if the author has hereon originated no original views (and of this we are far from certain), he has certainly exhibited his own in an original manner.’

Matthew (1860) in his first letter to the Gardener's Chronicle ( Matthew, P. 1860a. Letter to the Gardeners Chronicle. Nature's law of selection. Gardeners' Chronicle and Agricultural Gazette (7 April): 312-13. Darwin Online: ) wrote:

'In your Number of March 3d I observe a long quotation from the Times, stating that Mr. Darwin "professes to have discovered the existence and modus operandi of the natural law of selection," that is, "the power in nature which takes the place of man and performs a selection, sua sponte," in organic life. This discovery recently published as "the results of 20 years' investigation and reflection" by Mr. Darwin turns out to be what I published very fully and brought to apply practically to forestry in my work "Naval Timber and Arboriculture," published as far back as January 1, 1831, by Adam & Charles Black, Edinburgh, and Longman & Co., London, and reviewed in numerous periodicals, so as to have full publicity in the "Metropolitan Magazine," the "Quarterly Review," the "Gardeners' Magazine," by Loudon, who spoke of it as the book, and repeatedly in the "United Service Magazine" for 1831, &c. The following is an extract from this volume, which clearly proves a prior claim. ...'

Loudon was a famous naturalist, botanist, polymath and fellow of the Linnean Society, known very well to Darwin (from his correspondence and his notebook of books read) and to his best friend Joseph Hooker (who, from his book review of Loudon's work and correspondence revealed that he much admired Loudon) - who approved Darwiin's letter of reply before sending it on to the Gardener's Choronicle on Darwin's behalf at Darwin's request, whilst complying with Darwin's odd request that he re-date the letter to prove he had approved it. Yet in that 1860 letter of reply to Matthew's 1860 letter, Darwin wrote the exact opposite to what Matthew had just told him. See point 2, immediately below, for the hard evidence.

2. In his 1860 letter in the Gardener's Chronicle (Darwin, C. R. 1860b. Natural selection. Gardeners' Chronicle and Agricultural Gazette no. 16 (21 April): 362-363.) Darwin's first lie on this specific matter was written by his own hand:

" I think that no one will feel surprised that neither I, nor apparently any other naturalist, had heard of Mr Matthew's views, "

To necessarily repeat the point already made, Darwin wrote the exact self-serving opposite to what Matthew had just informed him, and his best friend, the influential Hooker, backed him up in the great lie.

3. Naturally concerned that Darwin was denying the truth about the fact that his book had been read by other naturalists, and its unique ideas understood, Matthew (Matthew, P. 1860b. Letter to the Gardeners Chronicle. Nature's law of selection. Gardeners' Chronicle and Agricultural Gazette (12 May) p. 433.) then very clearly, in his second letter in the Gardener's Chronicle - by way of reply to Darwin's blatant self-serving lie - wrote:

'I notice in your Number of April 21 Mr. Darwin’s letter honourably acknowledging my prior claim relative to the origin of species. I have not the least doubt that, in publishing his late work, he believed he was the first discoverer of this law of Nature. He is however wrong in thinking that no naturalist was aware of the previous discovery. I had occasion some 15 years ago to be conversing with a naturalist, a professor of a celebrated university, and he told me he had been reading my work “Naval Timber,” but that he could not bring such views before his class or uphold them publicly from fear of the cutty-stool, a sort of pillory punishment, not in the market-place and not devised for this offence, but generally practised a little more than half a century ago. It was at least in part this spirit of resistance to scientific doctrine that caused my work to be voted unfit for the public library of the fair city itself. The age was not ripe for such ideas, nor do I believe is the present one,..'

4. Despite being initially informed that the naturalist Loudon had read and reviewed his book Darwin lied in his letter of reply in the Gardener's Chronicle by writing that no naturalist had read Matthew's ideas. As can be seen in point 3, above, Matthew then corrected Darwin by informing him in detail of yet another naturalist who had read his original ideas on natural selection but was afraid t teach them for fear of pillory punishment. So what did Darwin do next? He wrote to a famous and influential naturalist with the self serving lie that no one at all had ever read Matthew's book! To the famous French naturalist Quatrefages de Bréau in his letter of April 25, 1861 Darwin wrote::

"I have lately read M. Naudin's paper; but it does not seem to me to anticipate me, as he does not shew how Selection could be applied under nature; but an obscure writer on Forest Trees, in 1830, in Scotland, most expressly & clearly anticipated my views—though he put the case so briefly, that no single person ever noticed the scattered passages in his book."?

5. Then in 1861 in the Third Edition of the Origin of Species - and in every edition thereafter, Darwin continued that exact same great self serving lie about Matthew's book, and who read the ideas in it. That lie corrupted - for 155 years - the history of the discovery of natural selection. Darwin (1861) wrote in the third edition of The Origin of Species -despite being informed of the exact opposite by Matthew only the year before:

' Unfortunately the view was given by Mr. Matthew very briefly in scattered passages in an Appendix to a work on a different subject, so that it remained unnoticed until Mr. Matthew himself drew attention to it in the Gardener's Chronicle,' on April 7th, 1860.'

Small wonder then that Darwin's Darwinist's - being named for their lying hero - failed to check the truth of the matter. By way of example, Sir Gavin de Beer - Royal Society Darwin Medal winner - wrote in his Wilkins Lecture for the Royal Society (de Beer 1962 on page 333): Darwin's great lie as the "gospel according to Darwin" truth. Until I personally put the record fully straight not a single person corrected his credulous Darwin deification claptrap:

"...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.'


Darwin was a self-serving deliberate liar. The record is independently verifiable. Darwin wrote the very opposite to what he had twice been informed was the truth by the very trustworthy originator whose ideas he replicated without citing their originator's prior publication of them. And Darwin wrote those falsehoods - because - just as de Beer's ludicrously acclaimed text goes to prove- they were needed to wrestle priority away form the true biological father of natural selection.

A more detailed account of Darwin's proven science fraud by glory theft can be read here
The verifiable facts in this blog can be found on (here)

Nailing Wishful thinking Pseudoscientists with Painfully Disconfirming Facts

Sunday 7 October 2018

Weird Miracle Beliefs in Science


Thursday 4 October 2018

The World's Greatest Prank - bar none