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, 29 August 2020

More Evidence of pre-1858 Matthewian Knowledge Contamination of the Brain of Charles Darwin

Today, the evolutionary philosopher Hugh Dower of  http://www.hughdower.co.uk/ very kindly informed me of an article by Susan Sheets-Pyenson on the influence of Loudon on Blyth, as Blyth's editor, and of Selby on Darwin, via the articles Darwin read that were written by Selby. The article is entitled Darwin's data: His reading of natural history journals, 1837–1842 and it is published in the Journal of the History of Biology volume 14, pages 231–248 (1981). Here.

I published a peer reviewed article on the topic of the evidence that before they replicated his 1831 theory in 1858 in the Linnean Journal that Matthew knowledge contaminated Darwin and Wallace  Here.  In that article entitled "On Knowledge Contamination" I show that Selby (1842) cited Matthew's (1831) book - containing the full original theory of macro evolution by natural selection - many times before Wallace published his Sarawak paper on evolution in Selby's Journal in 1855 whilst Selby was chief editor. And we know from his own admission that Darwin read that paper by Wallace pre-1858.

We know that Loudon read and understood Matthew's theory because he reviewed it in 1832 and wrote that Matthew appeared to have something original to say on what he called the "origin of species", no less! So, as my paper on knowledge contamination makes clear, we know that the naturalist Loudon had a clear route to knowledge contaminate Blyth pre-1858 with Matthewian knowledge (as Blyth's editor). And we know that Blyth's articles on species were a huge influence on Darwin, because he admitted as much form the third edition on wards of the Origin of Species, after he had been compelled by critics to finally admit who influenced him. 

What Sheets-Pyenson shows us is that Selby's (1838) article in Loudon's journal was a direct influence on Darwin. And that is something I never knew before today. She tells us p. 235): 'Although Darwin wrote fairly long notes on most of these articles in the notebooks on transmutation, only one reference to the Magazine appeared in the Variation of Animals and Plants under Domestication, quoting a fact taken from Selby’s account of the fauna at his country estate, Twizell.'

So, in fact, Darwin was very clearly interested in Selby when it came to the origin of species question. Given the fascination Darwin had with trees in the Origin of Species it seems, arguably, unlikely he would not have read Seby's 1842 book on forest trees that cited Matthew's (1831) book On Naval Timber and Arboriculture so many times! But there is no certain proof he did read it - only more preponderance of evidence that he surely would have. And clear evidence Darwin's brain was knowledge contaminated on evolution by those who influenced him who we know for certain did read and then cite Matthew (1831) pre-1858.

Conclusion

Darwin's interests in Selby - and Selby's influence on him after Selby had read and cited Matthew means Matthew influenced Selby before Selby influenced Darwin and before Selby edited Wallace's Sarawak paper (or at least published it whilst he was editor).  

Importantly, when it comes to the evidence for routes of Matthewian knowledge contamination of the pre-1858 brains of the plagiarists Darwin and Wallace: 

(1) Loudon - a naturalist very well known to Darwin and and his best friend Joseph Hooker and others - reviewed Matthew's (1831) book in 1831 and said it had something orignal to say on the the "origin of species" long before Darwin adopted that term as the title of hi plagiarising book.

(2) Loudon owned and edited the journal that published Blyth's 1830's and 1840's articles on species and varities that highly influenced Darwin.

(3) Loudon owned and edited the journal that published Selby's (1838) article that highly influenced Darwin.

(4) Selby was a freind of Darwin's great friend and prolific correspondent Jenyns, who along with Darwin's father was a house guest at Selby's house and estate Twizell (see Sutton 2017).

(5) Selby published a book on forest trees in 1844 that cited Matthew's (1831) book - containing the full theory of evolution by natural slection many times.

(6) Selby owned and was Editor in Chief of  the Annals or Magazine of Zoology, Botany, and Geology, which published Wallace's famous Sarawak paper of 1855. Darwin read that paper pre-1858. 

(6) Selby was a close associate of Joseph Hooker. Darwin's best friend. Hooker's father, William Hooker, co-edited Selby's journal for its inception. Selby, in particular, enjoyed a considerable extent of professional involvement with Darwin’s best friend Jenyns and Darwin's mentors: Lyell, Joseph Hooker, William Hooker, Huxley and Strickland - facts here.

(7) Together with the geologist Lyell, Hooker orchestrated the Great Linnean Debacle of 1858 in which Darwin and Wallace committed the world's greatest science fraud by plagiarising Matthew's (1831) prior published theory of evolution by natural selection. Matthew originally called it the 'natural process of selection' and Darwin originally four word shuffled that name to 'process of natural selection'. Darwin had no choice but to steal Matthew's name for his theory it being about selection that was natural and a process. Moreover, he therefore had no choice but to also steal Matthew's essential original explanatory analogy of differences between natural and artificial selection.

(8) The Biological Journal of the Linnean Society - the direct descendant of the journal that published Darwin's and Wallace's disgraceful plagiarism of Matthew's theory, has allowed Weale and Dagg to twice plagiarise my original research revelation that Selby cited Matthew in his book of 1844. Read the disgraceful fully evidenced and referenced facts here.

(9) The editor of the Biological Journal of the Linnean Society thinks that plagiarism of my research finding is not plagiarism. Just how incredibly thick or corrupt  are these biologists?

(10) Selby and Loudon are just two of seven naturalists (six newly unearthed by me) in a list of more than 20 newly discovered (See Sutton, 2014a, 2014b, 2015 and 2017) authors to have read and cited in print, all before 1858, Matthew's (1831) book containing the first full published theory of macroevolution by natural selection. 

Unfortunately, in her article, Sheet-Pyenson makes no mention of Matthew and fails to mention that Loudon reviewed Matthew's book in 1832 and so does not make the important connection between that fact and the fact that Loudon remained editor in chief and owner of the journal that published Blyth's highly influential articles. Hence on the topic of knowledge contamination she misses my precise Matthew to Loudon, Loudon to Blyth, Blyth to Darwin "knowledge contamination" route argument in the case of Loudon being the owner and editor in chief of the journal that published Blyth's articles. But most importantly she does reveal a new (to me at least), second Selby, route for Matthewian knowledge contamination of Darwin's brain via Selby's articles in Loudon's The Magazine of Natural History journal.

The preponderance of evidence for Darwin's and Wallace's plagiarism of the entire theory pf evolution by natural selection just keeps growing, as does the corruption that exists at the heart of our so-called scientific community.




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. Stalkers, Harassers and abusers 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 realize 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.