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

Friday, 25 September 2020

Darwin the racist III



Thursday, 24 September 2020

Darwin the Racist II

 This blog follows on from Darwin The Racist 1


To make a totalitarian regime work successfully within the scientific establishment you need high functioning, authoritarian brains in positions of power and influence who are supported in their rhetoric and sly/delusional anti-scientific machinations by an army of credulous toadies all scrabbling for favours by acting as their shock troop harassment fanatics. Those high-functioning people will be cultured and thoughtful, but they will be in a state of denial of the facts, because they are blinded by their subjective beliefs and associated ideas. Here you can see the verifiable proof of such individuals at work in terms of the plagiarism of my research, supported by the science fraud by plagiary facilitating Linnean Society and its Chief Editor.   

Charles Darwin is a proven plagiarist of the entire theory of macroevolution by natural selection and a serial lying glory thief. The fully independently verifiable proof here, here and here. But the totalitarian Darwin Worship cult, operating within our bastions of science is seeking to bury the truth.

Charles Darwin was also a racist, who may well have caused The Holocaust


Sunday, 20 September 2020

How does this data alter the probability Darwin and Wallace really did have dual virgin conceptions of a prior published theory?

The answer to the question that is title of this blog is that it changes it hugely. It is far more likely than not they plagiarised Patrick Matthew's prior published theory of evolution by natural selection. 


Wednesday, 9 September 2020

Darwin The Racist's Statues are at Risk of Being Torn Down: Don't forget his plagiary may have caused the Holocaust too

 Charles Darwin was a racist: . Like so many sly racists, he engaged on racist projects, yet strove to pretend to the world that he was not a racist white supremacist. But he gave himself away in his own words. Darwin worshippers - many part of the Darwin Industry -  have tried to downplay and even deny the reality their hero was a nasty racist. All you need do is read the facts that flowed from Darwin's own pen - versus the tortured fact denial desperately dishonest interpretations of Darwinite superfanatics.  

Darwin was a sly racist, who did a great deal of harm in his subtle racists writings. 

Darwin, like so many racists in the public eye, presented one face to the world and another privately, whilst doing great harm undercover.

Disgusting Darwin the plagiarist science fraudster and his wife (who was also his cousin), privately and with incredible sly insensitivity (even for the Victorian era) gleefully nicknamed one another with the N word: and in doing so they privately, but, slyly, never in public, childishly mocked the plight of slaves.

There is much racism in Charles Darwin's (1874) book "The Descent of Man"

Darwin thought he was superior to others - who he thought were lower "races" of humankind and he bragged gloatingly about that:

There are, seemingly, moves afoot to remove offensive statues of Charles Darwin this year. Darwin was essentially a racist who also thought genocide was a natural - and beneficial -  phenomena of nature. Not only that, he probably caused the genocide of the Jews in the WW2. See my blog post on the evidence: Moreover, Darwin thought that White people are superior to people of colour and that the murderous rampages of his own kind was evidence of natural selection:

Being a racist, Charles Darwin - just like Patrick Matthew, from whom he plagiarised the entire theory of macro evolution by natural selection - also thought Anglo Saxons to be superior humans at the pinnacle of human evolution compared to other ethnic groups they preyed upon.

I was alerted to some of the examples - in his letters - of Darwin's racism in this very good book on the topic :

. style="clear: both; text-align: center;">

Charles Darwin bought a rifle and pistols because, in his own words, he was anticipating killing native islanders on his Voyages of the Beagle:

Get the facts, not the Corrupt Darwin Industry, fact denial pseudo-scholarship!



Tuesday, 8 September 2020

Faith in the honesty and supposed original genius of a proven liar and sly plagiarist is not science

Why do you believe in Charles Darwin? Why credulously believe in anything just because someone in authority says you should?  


Sunday, 6 September 2020

We don't need a smoking gun with so much gun smoke evidence always hovering around Darwin and his influencers

The more routes for knowledge contamination, reason has it, the greater the probability that one was taken.

Can we rationally ruminate on the likelihood of Darwin's guilt as a plagiarist from what remains of the lost, stolen or deliberately destroyed by Darwin, correspondence we have from him and his friends and associates? Well, we certainly can in light of the proven lies Darwin wrote in his letters and his book "The Origin of Species", including his confession to Joseph Hooker that he lied by claiming Patrick Matthew's theory was buried in only the Appendix of his book. Other than that, no one has any real idea what scandal or gossip Victorian men of science involved themselves in outside the world of their formal letters. Looking at the worst side of Victorian life and values, how many - for example - might have availed themselves of the plight of child prostitutes during their trips to London? We have zero idea on that one. Maybe some did. Maybe none did.

One thing is for sure however, and that is that Darwin and his associates and his influencers and his influencer's influencers were not exactly what they pretend to be in their correspondence. Who is? Writing that is no more speculative - in my mere opinion - than the reasoned opinion of anyone else that it is unlikely any of those who cited Matthew's 1831 book shared the ideas they read in it with Darwin or one of Darwin's friends or contemporaries, who could then have passed Matthew's ideas, or the title of the book containing them, on to Darwin. Why is it unlikely such a thing would happen? Unlikely based on what knowledge, as opposed to mere wishful thinking, is it unlikely?

Speculating, for example as some have, that the Vestiges would have been better had Chambers read Matthew is based on no more than a mere presumption that Chambers was a plagiarist - or else a presumption that he did not despise the Chartist Matthew (Chambers was famously very much against the vote for the working classes) - or that Chambers agreed fully with Matthew's theory. But the fact Chambers cited both of Matthew's books and famously loved reading and was supposed to have had a photographic memory is evidence his brain may well have been influenced by Matthew. We know, from admissions of it in their own correspondence and publications, that Chambers influenced both Darwin and Wallace. So Chambers is just one more newly unearthed route for knowledge contamination - via Chambers's The Vestiges of Creation book.

One major point here is the fact we know humans are very bad at keeping secrets. That acknowledgement of human behaviour is the exact same reasoning against conspiracy theories such as the daft idea of NASA's faked moon landing. Namely, too many people at NASA would have had to be in on it to keep it a secret. Correspondingly, the more people who knew about Matthew's ideas the more likely they shared them - or the title of the book containing them - directly with Darwin and/or via his other friends, associates and correspondents (so many of Darwin's letter are lost or else he destroyed them). Moreover, the list of those we newly know did read Matthew's ideas is growing.

Also, we know Matthew (at least if we believe him - and unlike Darwin he has never shown himself to be a liar) did discuss his ideas with that professor of a renowned Scottish University who feared to teach or write about them; as Matthew told us all in the Gardeners' Chronicle in 1860. And we know that in 1831 the United Services Journal told its readers - in writing - not to even contemplate Matthew's ideas on the laws of nature. So those then heretical ideas surely were spoken and written about pre 1858.

Then add to all of the above reasoning and evidence the proven fact that Darwin did not discover the theory of evolution by natural selection while on the voyages of the Beagle observing finch beaks in the Galapagos islands (see Sulloway 1983) but, by his own admission, got it from reading books, originally four-word-shuffled Matthew's earlier original "natural process of selection" name for his theory to its only grammatically possible equivalent "process of natural selection" (see Sutton 2017). Then, add to that fact the fact that earlier in his 1844 private essay (as Eiseley (1981) so importantly discovered) replicated Matthew's (1831) highly idiosyncratic foresters trees selected by mankind to be raised in nurseries versus those selected in the wild by nature - surely establishes on a balance of reasonable probabilities that the proven serial liar Darwin was at least influenced by Matthew pre-1858 and more likely than not read and deliberately plagiarized his book. Don't you think dear reader? And if that is not enough to convince you then consider that fact that as opposed to Darwin's proven lie (see Sutton 2014) that no naturalist read Matthew's (1831) bombshell breakthrough pre-1858 that several known to have influenced Darwin and Wallace and their influencers did so (see Sutton 2015). And to cap it all, add to that other lies Darwin told about his influencers not influencing him (see Dower 2009). Then, as if that is not enough to convince the most obstinate Darwin worshipper to rethink, on top of that cap we must consider the great weight of circumstantial evidence that the Big Data IDD method (Sutton and Griffiths 2018) unearthed on who was apparently first to be second in print with what the IDD method revealed are apparently original terms and phrases ('Matthewisms') coined by Matthew in his 1831 book. At which, point I must direct you to the current nonsense that the obscene and obsessed malicious cyber-stalker and Darwin fanatic Derry has added to the Patrick Matthew page on Wikipedia from the idiotic blog site of Dishonest Dagg The Plagiarist that I have mistaken books containing these Matthewisms for something other than what they so obviously are. The point is not what the publications that were apparently first to be second are about, but the possibility that those who wrote them might have been knowledge contaminated from reading directly or from someone else who read Matthew's book. Clearly, some of those who were first to be second with 'Matthewisms' were closely associated with Darwin (evidence here). A further discussion on the first to be second (F2B2) hypothesis can be found in this article, that is a response to a desperately disingenuous and essentially dishonest review of this area of my research. 

Who edited the journal that published Blyths' influential articles on species and varities, articles that Darwin scholars know influenced Darwin, and some of Blyth's articles Darwin admitted influenced him? It was Loudon. What did Loudon read and review in 1832? It was Matthew's (1831) book. What did Loudon say it contained? Something seemingly original on the question of "origin of species", no less! That is evidence for a route of knowledge contamination from Matthew to Loudon to Blyth. But when it comes to the F2B2 question, my research (Sutton 2014) further uniquely unearthed the fact that Blyth's friend and twice co-author Rober Mudie (Mudie was born in Forfarshire - same Scottish county as Matthew) was apparently first to be second with Matthew's apparently unique term "rectangular branching".

So the routes for Matthewian knowledge contamination of Blyth are proven and should not be ignored. Blyth did not get the theory of evolution by natural selection into any of his papers - he thought species were immutable, but his very likely influencer Matthew (1831) did originate the theory. Not mentioning these facts - or seeking to bury them under lies - as Wikipedia does - would be cherry picking the data to suit the conclusion you wish to reach. Would it not? 

Now we know the above facts do we not have a scientific duty to consider and weigh them? 

And there is so much more evidence than this in my books (Sutton 2014 and 2017). 

Just how many otherwise stunningly miraculous multiple "coincidences" are needed to sum the the probability they are not all a coincidence?

Darwin, by his own proven lying behaviour, has lost the right to be accorded the benefit of the doubt when it comes to any question of his honesty about his influencers.

I do think it is 100% proven on a balance of reasonable probabilities (the civil law) test of guilt - as opposed to 100% proven beyond reasonable doubt (the criminal test of guilt) that Patrick Matthew's (1831) theory influenced both Darwin and Wallace to plagiarise his theory in their paper of 1858 and in Darwin's (1859) Origin of Species. 

A conversation via email with another Darwin, Wallace and Matthew scholar influenced me to write this section to this blog post Patrick Matthew. But who would know he influenced me to write this unless I wrote here that he did so and named him accordingly? For that reason, I have not attributed him as my influencer. That failure is not done out of meanness, but to prove my point that absence of evidence is not evidence of absence in a case such as this. 

A smoking gun confession from Darwin or one of his cronies may well exist for those who insist upon it. And I know several places to go digging for it.  But I'd need a large grant to fund that particular excavation project. 





Saturday, 5 September 2020

Contemplating Charles Darwin's 'Naval'

 Although others explain that Darwin returned from the voyages of the Beagle still believing species to be immutable (see Sulloway 1982)  and only came to think about evolution by natural selection by reading books years later, according to his son, Francis Darwin (see Oldroyd 1984) [archived:], Charles Darwin perhaps began to think and write in his private notebooks the first tiny germ of his thoughts about evolution (that would eventually led him to write about macroevolution by natural selection) in 1832 whilst on the voyages of the Beagle. That was the year following publication of Matthew's (1831) book, which contains the first publication of the theory. However, despite mentioning Eiseley several times, Oldroyd's article most conveniently completely ignores the evidence Eiseley found that Darwin plagiarised Matthew’s  theory, by way of the discovery that Darwin, in his private essay of 1844, replicated Matthew's highly idiosyncratic forester's explanatory analogy of differences between trees selected by mankind in nurseries versus those selected by nature. Indeed, Oldroyd conveniently fails to mention Matthew at all, despite the fact Darwin and Wallace each admitted Matthew got and had published the whole theory before they replicated it - supposedly miraculously independently of one another and completely co-incidentally.

Although it is only a rational possibility that Darwin knew about Matthew's (1831) book, poignantly entitled 'On Naval Timber and Arboriculture' whilst on the voyages of the Beagle - incidentally a a Royal Navy naval ship, the possibility should be considered a probability. Darwin is a proven serial liar about Matthew and his other influencers (e.g. see Sutton 2015 on his proven lies about Matthew, and see Hugh Dower on his proven lies about von Buch), so Darwin has lost all rights to be given benefit of the doubt on any of his stories about how he came to think and write about the theory of evolution by natural selection. 

Notably, 1832 was the year in which Loudon (a naturalist well known to Darwin and his closest associates) published a review of Matthew's bombshell book and wrote that Matthew appeared to have something to say on what he termed the 'origin of species'. That was the phrase Darwin would later adopt for the title of his book of 1859, which replicated Matthew's theory, originally four word shuffled Matthew's original name for it from 'natural process of selection' to 'process of natural selection', replicated Matthew’s artificial v natural selection analogy of differences and stole many more of Matthew's highly idiosyncratic explanatory examples. And we know Darwin was receiving publications, via correspondence sent by friends, when the Beagle was at various ports from as early as 1832 (e.g. here).

Darwin would later claim – as a direct lie after Matthew wrote to him in 1860 explaining that Loudon reviewed his book and another naturalist professor of an eminent university read but feared to teach the theory in it – alternately that no naturalist / no one whatsoever read Matthew’s book and the original ideas in it before 1860.

The fact remains that, whatever possibilities are determined to be rational probabilities by different writers on Darwin Wallace and Matthew, Charles Darwin is a proven serial liar and plagiarising glory thief.#

To conclude, readers of this blog post might wish to contemplate the fact that if Darwin did not plagiarise Matthew's (1831) complete theory of evolution by natural selection in 1858/59, Matthew's four word name for it (natural process of selection - shuffled by Darwin to process of natural selection) and highly idiosyncratic analogies and examples to explain it, in a book read and then cited pre-1858 by Darwin's and Wallace's key influencers and influencer's influencers and Wallace's Sarawak paper General editor, Selby, then the fact Darwin first found fame by writing about his voyages on a naval ship and the theory that made him most famous was fully published, years before he put pen to private paper on the topic, in a book entitled 'On Naval Timber and Arboriculture' is just one more of a multitude of incredible, miraculous, multiple coincidences in the story of Matthew, Darwin and Wallace (see Sutton 2017 for the others).


Wednesday, 2 September 2020

So the Editor of the Biological Journal of the Linnean Society and Oxford University Press are Being Childishly Malicious?

A biologist just emailed today  to tell me why they think my research is being repeat plagiarised by the Linnean Society.