Science Fraud Book on Facebook

 There is now a Facebook page for those interested in having an empirical evidence led history of science rather than the current art based dominance: https://www.facebook.com/groups/1194911951494796

Splitting the Darwin and Wallace Supermyth

 The empirical data who actually did read Matthew's (1831) published theory before Darwin and Wallace 1858/59) replicated it splits the Darwin and Wallace independent co-discoverers supermyth 

The Patrick Matthew Burial Project

 “It’s like taking one history, and putting it right on top of another, like taking one man’s legacy and putting it right on top of another, until one day, it gets pushed down so deep, buried so deep, can’t no one ever find it no more,” 

                                                         The Burial (2023) by Maggie Betts.

We have been profoundly misled by The Darwin Industry. Matthew's (1831) book that contained the full theory of evolution by natural selection was read before Darwin and Wallace supposedly each independently originated it in 1858/59.  Moreover it was cited in the literature pre-1858 by their admitted greatest influencers and their influencer's influencers.

Read this academic article On Knowledge Contamination

No One Expects the Fact Denial Expedition. Well, of course, actually, they should, or not, as the case may be

 Today I put a comment on The Conversation, on an article about Darwin being given more credit than he deserved for research on earthworms. 

I fully expect the empirical fact zombie horde of the Darwin Industry to arrive and write the usual lies and delusional brainless claptrap that characterizes all such passive aggressive, and downright aggressive, credulous authoritarian types.

Here is an image of my comment, in case it gets weirdly deleted. Here is the link to it https://theconversation.com/how-a-little-known-clergyman-studying-worms-by-candlelight-in-the-1700s-inspired-charles-darwin-but-didnt-get-the-credit-he-deserved-227089

How to better spread the empirical evidence led bust of the Darwin Supermyth

Given that so many people follow famous people like cattle, if I change my name to Richard Dawkins what would that do for book sales? By the way, Darwin superfan, Richard Dawkins has written empirical fact denial nonsense about Patrick Matthew. As Science Fraud, the book, proves with empirical evidence.

The Jim Twins V the Matthew, Wallace and Darwin Triplets v Supernatural Explanations v Knowledge Contamination Explanations

 One question that is raised in Science Fraud, the book is: How many multiple coincidences in a  real life story sum to the probability that they are not merely coincidental at all?

Some people think that the sheer number of individual remarkable coincidences in the  Jim Twins story of twins who were separated at birth and led entirely independent lives before being reunited after more than 30 years, surely do sum to raise the hypothesis that some kind of strange unknown force governs the universe.

The Jim Twins (Information taken from the New York Times 1979).

■ Each married and then divorced a woman named Linda. Their second wives were both named Betty.

■ One named his first son James Allan, the other named his first son James Alan.

■ Each man grew up with an adopted brother named Larry.

■ During childhood, each owned a dog named Toy.

■ Both twins had law enforcement training and had worked part time as deputy sheriffs in their Ohio towns 70 miles apart.

■ They shared many common interests, such as mechanical drawing, block lettering and carpentry.

■ Both said their favorite school subject was math, their least favorite, spelling.

■ They vacationed at the same, three‐block‐long beach near St. Petersburg, Fla., both getting there and back in a Chevrolet. (but holidaying at different times from one another).

■ Their smoking and drinking patterns were nearly identical. Same brand of cigarettes smoked for example.

Taken together these coincidences do on the face of it appear extraordinary and many may see them as difficult to explain as mere coincidence.

But coincidences do happen, which is why we have a word for it, and if there really was no single or multiple knowledge contamination routes between the twins leading one to influence the other, or others to influence both, then it seems rational that the story requires a better explanation than genetic inheritance, or at least a more sophisticated explanation than what is currently available.

The Matthew v Darwin and Wallace Story

On this blog site, on the Patrick Matthew website and in the book Science Fraud you will discover how, not just that Darwin and Wallace replicated Matthew's (1831) original full theory of macro evolution by natural selection, but also used the exact four same words to name it and support and then explain it with the same explanatory analogy of differences between natural and artificial selection, replicated much of Matthews original prose but also his expert examples of fruit trees and apple hybridization to explain the importance of ecological niches and new varieties leading eventually to new species.

The Wallace and Darwin multiple replications would surely be as difficult to explain as mere coincidence as the story of the Jim Twins were it not for:

1.  The multitude of examples of newly discovered (independently verifiable empirical data) multiple routes of direct and indirect knowledge contamination between Matthew and the two replicators Wallace and Darwin

2.  The proven serial lies told by Darwin about Matthew's prior readership,

3. Wallace's letter to his mother that he dishonestly altered in his autobiography to conceal the evidence) that Darwin and his pals were paying him to play ball with Darwin's tall tale of independent replications of the same theory. 

And so, what we have in the Matthew v Wallace and Darwin story as opposed to the Jim Twins story is not another supernatural hypothesis case of possible strange unknown forces governing human affairs but a simple case of science fraud by plagiarism and serial lies. And why does nobody really care about this? The answer is in the 2023 Springer Science book chapter by Dr Sutton and Dr Griffiths: The Patrick Matthew Effect in Science.

If you would like to ponder the Jim Twins story further in terms of asking yourself could it be more than pure multiple coincidence, then you might like to see this article on Elon Musk thinking we might be living in one big simulation, governed by aliens. If that explanation is true then perhaps the Jim Twins are a programming error (a The Matrix film type bug in the simulation) and perhaps not a bug, the Matthew v Darwin and Wallace Story is just a creative joke at the expense of the gullible (simulations of scientists and wannabee proper scientists known to those in the know as rabid Darwin worshipers) in the simulation? Have a look at this.