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
Showing posts with label Mike Sutton. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Mike Sutton. Show all posts

Saturday 30 September 2023

Podcast on why the evidence led truth of the story of Charles Darwin's science fraud by plagiarism matters

Fake Desperate Darwin Worship Cult book reviews of "Science Fraud: Darwin's Plagiarism of Patrick Matthew's Theory, all failing to mention the empirical data in the book, are so bad they defy the laws of physics.


Transcript of the League of Nerds interview by Miles Power talking to Dr Mike Sutton


POWER The talk youʼve just given was about Charles Darwin and how you donʼt believe he was the first to come up with the idea of natural selection. What evidence do you have that he might not have been the first?

SUTTON There is a lot of evidence and published explanations are available in the orthodox history of science that Matthew fully articulated the complete theory of evolution by natural selection. Probably the most powerful of those explanations is from Richard Dawkins (2010) in Bill Brysonʼs edited collection Seeing Further, where Dawkins fully admits the only person who could be attributed with having the full theory of natural selection, prior to Darwin, is Matthew.

POWER Who was Matthew? 

SUTTON Patrick Matthew in 1831 wrote a book called On Naval Timber and Arboriculture, which many of the few historians of science writing on the specific topic fully admit articulated the entire theory of natural selection, 28 years before Darwin wrote Origin of Species. 

POWER And did it definitely have the theory for natural selection in it?

SUTTON Well, both Darwin and Wallace when confronted by Matthew in 1860 admitted it had the full and entire theory of natural selection. Subsequent to that, many experts have said he is the only person with the full precursory explanation for natural selection. 

POWER In the talk you just gave, you kind of said Darwin knew about it. 

SUTTON Well, the current explanation for how Darwin and Wallace came up with natural selection independently of Matthew and independently of each other is that they were all unique originators of the theory of natural selection. In other words all three were supposed to have come up with it independently of each other. The reason Darwin is on the back of the £10 note and it is his statue in the Museum of Natural History in London is because he came up with so many confirmatory examples. And the story is that Matthew in particular never influenced anyone with his ideas. Darwin wrote in his defence after being challenged by Matthew [1860a , 1860b] in the Gardenerʼs Chronicle: “Neither I nor any naturalist known to me read Matthewʼs book.” 

POWER You in your talk said thatʼs not the case. You even cited people who cited Matthewʼs book. Is that correct?

SUTTON What Matthew couldnʼt do that we can do now in 2014 using Googleʼs Library Project is to look prior to 1858, when Darwin and Wallace (1858) both had their papers presented before the Linnaean Society, and a year before the publication of Darwinʼs Origin of Species, to see whether anyone cited Matthewʼs book in the literature. Whilst the current story is that nobody did, in fact we find now that it was cited by 25 people [Note: in Sutton [2022] this has now been updated to 30]. This is new information. Seven naturalists cited it. Did Darwin and Wallace know any of them? Yes! They knew three. 

POWER They cited the book, but did they cite anything in it that had anything to do with natural selection?

SUTTON John Loudon [1832] wrote a review of Matthewʼs book that literally said Matthew had something “original to say on the origin of species.” That is not a new discovery by me. That is in a small amount of the literature written by others. But what people donʼt know is that Loudon went on to both edit and publish [Edward] Blythʼs papers that were influential for Darwinʼs work on natural selection, some of which Darwin admitted influenced him.

POWER Darwin had published his Origin of Species in 1859, right? So that is well before. 

SUTTON Darwin published 29 years later than Matthew. That was 28 years after Loudonʼs review. So we must ask next, who else cited Matthewʼs book who was known to Darwin and Wallace? Robert Chambers [1832] cited Matthewʼs book. Unlike Loudon, Chambers did not write about Matthewʼs book containing the theory of natural selection. He only cited what Matthew wrote about the pruning of trees. But Chambers [1844], who was a geologist, went on to publish The Vestiges of Creation, which is hailed by experts [e.g., see Secord 2000) as a major precursor to Darwinʼs Origin of Species, the most important book on evolution pre-Darwin. The book that is said to have “put evolution in the air.” Chambers also cited Matthewʼs [1839] second book Emigration Fields. So we know Chambers was reading Matthew. Chambers knew Darwin. They met and corresponded long before 1858. And Wallace [1845] wrote that Chambers was his greatest influencer on the topic of the evolution of species.

A third person is Prideaux John Selby [1842] who cited Matthew many times in his book and he did write about Matthewʼs theory, about how he did not understand what Matthew wrote about trees being circumstance suited. Selby edited Wallaceʼs [1855] Sarawak paper on the evolution of varieties and species which was a major influence on Darwin.  So out of only seven naturalists newly discovered to have read Matthewʼs book before 1858, three of them played major roles at the epicentre of influence on Darwin and Wallace. The question I ask is this: If contrary to where the newly unearthed data points, if somehow Matthew never influenced Darwin, are those citations of Matthew by Darwinʼs and Wallaceʼs influencers and facilitators, and their influencerʼs influencers just an amazing tri-coincidence, even though such a multiple coincidence appears improbable as simple coincidence? Improbable beyond rational belief and reason?

POWER But anyway, you said in your talk that people like Richard Dawkins have dismissed Matthew by asking why he didnʼt sing his theory from the rooftops if he thought he came up with an interesting theory. So what is your take on that?

SUTTON First of all, to my knowledge Dawkins is not currently aware of the new data on who we now newly know did cite Matthew pre-1858. What Dawkins has written about is the fact some experts know and have fully admitted Matthew fully articulated the theory of evolution by natural selection before Darwin or Wallace. Dawkins is not writing about anything I have discovered. Dawkins admits Matthew got the full thing, but he says that does not matter because Matthew did not influence anyone. Dawkins says “Nobody read it.” We now know thatʼs not true. Dawkins asks: “Why didnʼt Matthew, if he knew what he had, trumpet it from the rooftops?” But there are books written about why Darwin delayed publishing the theory for over 20 years because he was supposedly afraid of being labelled a heretic and of being prosecuted for heresy. So, you canʼt have it one way and not the other. In 1831 there were riots. Matthew was a head of the Chartists. He provided a scientific explanation for why people were being kept out of their natural place by politics and the social class system. He was lucky his book wasnʼt burned.

Now, if we write Matthew out of the story, we donʼt really understand how natural selection was discovered. We need to know how Matthewʼs story fits the discovery of natural selection. 

POWER For me, personally, theories stand up on their own. It doesnʼt matter who creates them. It doesnʼt matter about the history behind them. From a scientist's point of view, history is interesting, but itʼs always wibbly-wobbly. It is not set in stone. People see things through rose-tinted glasses. History, I guess, is written by the winners, isnʼt it? [Laughs].

SUTTON Well, then we are talking about PR and game playing rather than understanding how the most groundbreaking discovery of all time was really made. If we are not really interested in how Mathew discovered it…. 

POWER I wouldnʼt say we are not interested. I mean it is really interesting… 

SUTTON Does it matter?

POWER Yes it does. Someone in the talk used the old analogy that you are just asking how many angels can dance on a pin. He was basically asking “Does it matter?” And I was thinking “Yes of course it matters. We have to have an accurate history.” That is why we have historians. 

SUTTON If we can collect enough valid data about how all breakthroughs are made it might help us to make new ones. We can only do that with veracious data. We donʼt want wrong data. 

So what we get to at the end of the day is the question “Was Darwin influenced by Matthew?” I think Iʼve shown by way of the people we know influenced Darwin, who we now newly know read Matthew, that it is more likely than not that he was. Knowledge contamination seems to me, subjectively, to be more likely than not. We now need to look at Matthew in more depth in order to understand how he arrived at this discovery. 

The other argument is justice. Letʼs put aside the legacy that descendant relatives of Matthew would have, if you just look at injustice. If we let people get away with science fraud by plagiary, if they think they can get away with it for over 154 years and no-one will care, because it doesnʼt really matter, then their own legacy is secured. Is that not giving people a license to commit such science fraud so long as they can get away with it? As a criminologist, I think justice is important. Justice to Matthew. 

We must simply take a look at the facts, it doesnʼt matter that I am not a biologist. Since the great enlightenment, facts must stand on their own. The veracity of them is not determined by who discovered them. 

We now know for an empirical evidence-based fact it is not true that no naturalist read Matthewʼs book before Darwin and Wallace replicated the big idea in it. These are newly discovered facts. Darwin and Wallace said that no-one who they knew who was a naturalist read Matthew [1831 ] before 1858, we now know that is simply not true.

You can listen to the interview on YouTube HERE





Sunday 15 January 2023

The Patrick Matthew Song

 This song is to accompanied by violin. The Patrick Matthew Violin (made by a master violin maker) will be completed in 2023. Performances of the Scottish heritage instrument will be by leading soloists and by players at grass roots levels upwards.


"You Who Lie With Darwin"   

(AKA "The Patrick Matthew Song" 

In the tune of "Scots Wha Hae") 

 

 

You who lie with Darwin dead,

Who Alfred Wallace astray led,

Welcome to your muddled head, 

Theory thievery.


(Narration)

‘… if the first description was originally imperfect, & had been superseded by any better description, it would perhaps be better to omit all reference to it, for the sooner such an author’s name was buried in oblivion the better.’

(Charles Darwin 1849)

Yesterday's the day, not now the hour,

See the face of Darwin dour,

See approach old Linnean power,

Lies and plagiary.


(Narration)


‘This discovery recently published by Mr. Darwin turns out to be what I published very fully... as far back as January 1, 1831... reviewed in numerous periodicals, so as to have full publicity...by Loudon…and repeatedly in the United Service Magazine for 1831 etc.’

(Patrick Matthew 1860)


You are just a fraudster's knave!

You will fill a dullard's grave!

Nothing but a liar's slave!

Full of credulity.


(Narration)


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

(Charles Darwin 1860a)


It's Patrick Matthew's Natural law,

Facts and empirical data draw,

Truth not Darwin's spin of yore!

Why not follow me?


(Narration)


‘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,..’

(Patrick Matthew 1860a, p.433)



Darwin lied and Darwin stole!

Alfred Wallace's same role!

BigData down their rabbit hole,

Found dysology!


(Narration)

‘…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…’

(Charles Darwin 1861a) 

‘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 Gardeners’ Chronicle, on April 7th,

1860.’(Charles Darwin, 1861, p.xv)


Lay the theory stealers low!

Myths fall, facts their foe!

Matthew's words in every blow!

It's Scotland's theory!!!

 

"...on what is termed Darwin's Theory of Natural Selection, but which theory was published by me about thirty years before Darwin (honourably acknowledged in his last edition by Darwin) at a time when man was scarcely ready for such thoughts, I surely had the best right to be heard upon this subject. Yet others were allowed to speak upon it, and its parent denied to do so. Such is the conduct of a Society terming itself the British Association for the Advancement of Science." 

Matthew (1867) the Dundee Advertiser . September 12. 

 



                  Arrangement and part composition by Mike Sutton January 14th 2023.


Archived. Here


See also the blues number "Darwin The Kidnapper" HERE

 

 Other great performances of Scots Wha Hae (the Stanza by Robert Burns)

 Here https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jZiUHG2u4G0

Here https://youtu.be/WgskbClWZ68?t=1

Here https://youtu.be/o5kE3of1Lzo?t=2


Saturday 12 November 2022

The Patrick Matthew Violin

 In 2023 the Patrick Mathew Scottish heritage violin will be completed. 

This instrument is being made by a famous master violin maker, whose instruments are played by leading soloists and approved as "as good as my Petrus Guarneri" by Nigel Kennedy. 

The Patrick Matthew instrument has been specially commissioned by Dr Mike Sutton to celebrate the great Scottish Enlightenment science hero and original author of the theory Darwin and Wallace stole with the help of Darwin's powerful pals.  

Halloween 2022, when pressed by the journalist Sonia Poulton, Mike talks a little about this project for the very first time.

 In 2023 Scotland, and the world will be hearing a lot more from The Patrick Matthew violin.

The October 31 2022 news show clip of Mike talking with Sonia Poulton and Sean Ward about the notion of "haunted" violins and about the special commissioning of  The Patrick Matthew Scottish heritage violin is below.




The video of professional performance violinist Ursula Donnelley playing the "Haunted Tobin" violin is in the video below:




More about the Tobin Violin, which is for sale, here

The current "for sale" price of  The Tobin violin is here
 

Sunday 1 May 2022

UK National and Regional Press Coverage of "Science Fraud: Darwin's Plagiarism of Patrick Matthew's Tgheory"

 Science Fraud in the press since published in the UK ans Europe in February 2022



1. The Mail on Sunday (Feb 2022) (archived)

In Press Reader  (archived)  

2. Sputnick (Feb 2022) (archived)

3. The Scottish Sun (Feb 2022) (archived)

4. The Times (Feb 2022) (archived in full)

and here

5. The Courier (Feb 2022) (archived) (pdf)

6. The Daily Squib (Mar 2022) (archived)

7. Sunday Express (Mar 2022) 

8. Sunday Express serialized 1 (13 Mar 2022)

9. Sunday Express serialized 2 (20 Mar 2022)

10. Sunday Express serialised 3 (27 Mar 2022)

11. Sunday Express serialised 4 (3 Apr 2022)

12. The Courier (April 30 2022) (archived)

Tuesday 26 April 2022

Even in Democratic Societies We are not Immune from Establishment Lies and Propaganda



Are YOU immune to being credulously hoodwinked to ignore or hate facts so much you can't see them?

History will look back at us and laugh. But perhaps today we still time now to have the last laugh.

Do YOU know what time it is? 

Get the empirical facts before its too late for YOU

 https://thedailyjournalist.com/thethinker/even-in-democratic-societies-we-are-not-immune-from-establishment-lies-and-propaganda/



Thursday 21 April 2022

Wikipedia Patrick Matthew Page is being Run by Putin Type Kremlin Type Propagandist Liars, Fact Denial, Empirical Data Brute Censors!

 If you take a visit to the Wikipedia Patrick Matthew page and if you can tell desperate nonsense put there by desperate Darwin worshippers to hide newly unearthed empirical data that proves Darwin lied and plagiarised the entire theory of macroevolution by natural selection, from empirical facts, why not spend time reading the newly unearthed empirical facts rationally and calmly explained. 

No wonder members of the desperate so-called "Darwin Industry" are running about like headless zombie chickens. Dr Mike Sutton's bombshell data has blown their little clucking heads clean off!

Brief outline of empirical facts, all rationally explained Here (archived for citation Here)

Zombie chicken Darwin propaganda guano on Wikipedia (archived on 21st April 2022 for future scholars to cite ) Here

Most of the Wikipedia propaganda about Patrick Matthew and its content that is seeking to refute empirical research into Darwin's plagiarism of Matthew's theory and associated lies is complete lies and misinformation that has been put there, or else contains the claptrap written by those who have not actually read the new data on Darwin's and Wallace's fraud, by those caught deleting the empirical facts on who actually did read and then cite Matthew's book and the theory in it pre-1831. 

The nasty empirical fact deleting propagandists include Wikipedia corrupt Darwin Industry support editor "Dave Souza" - fully outed having been caught out deleting new found empirical facts in an experiment (before he was finally forced to stop deleting them when his activities were recorded) and he is now named and shamed in "Science Fraud" with all the evidence archived).

The ludicrous efforts of  Dr Dagg and Dr Mike Weale are also on the Wikipedia Patrick Matthew page. Both of these men maliciously plagiarised Dr Sutton's original prior published Selby data in papers they had published in the Biological Journal of the Linnean Society. Both Weale and Dagg are now named and shamed for posterity for that behaviour and, in Weale's case far worse besides, in "Science Fraud".) All such behaviour of theirs is fully evidenced as malicious activities and is cited to fully archived sources in "Science Fraud".

The malicious obsessive lies and harassment activities of  Dr Julian Derry are all over that Patrick Matthew Wikipedia page. This vile and Darwin obsessed individual has committed dozens of acts of nasty criminal harassment via poison pen emails etc and even sent the author of Science Fraud a vile obscene anal rape tweet. Dr Julian Derry's vile obscene and harassment behaviour is fully recorded and also fully archived and referenced. He is named and shamed and fully referenced to archive sources in "Science Fraud".

Science fraud, the bombshell 2022 book is available from all good book shops and on Amazon: HERE Or direct form the science publisher Curtis Press HERE

No wonder Wikipedia is the world's worst encyclopedia. The shame of it is now published and will be read about for centuries to come.


This blog post is archived for scholarly citation. https://archive.ph/K5uyS


Monday 4 April 2022

Third instalment of the part-serialisation of Science Fraud: Darwin's Plagiarism of Patrick Matthew's Theory in the the Scottish Sunday Express

 Sunday 27 April The Scottish Sunday Express 3rd instalment of the serialisation of Science Fraud (the book).

Read it here.


What are you waiting for? This is an international disgrace. The so-called "Darwin Industry" has been profiteering of a massive lie since 1859! 

The history of science and discovery is corrupted by fake facts. 

Students must write the wrong answers to be marked right in their essays and exams. This is massively embarrassing. 

Read the facts and then help to set the record straight. 



Available on Amazon books: Here.

Monday 21 March 2022

Serialization of "Science Fraud" continues in the Scottish Sunday Express Newspaper

 Sunday March 20 2022 saw the second part of the on-going serialisation of  "Science Fraud: Darwin's Plagiarism of Patrick Matthew's Theory" in the Scottish national press via the Scottish Sunday Express.

 . .   

The article can be read here. 

.



.

Monday 7 March 2022

Oh the Satire of it all: The Daily Squib Nails the Credulous Darwinite Zombie Horde to the floor of their own stupidity

Today (07 March 2022) The Daily Squib sets the record straight on the Charles - The Dirty Plagiarist -Darwin, the "Darwin Industry" and its enablers - such as the fact censoring and malicious disinformation spreading pseudo-scholars of Wikipedia. Here (archived here) .





The cat is out of the bag on Charles Darwin's filthy science fraud by lies and plagiarism and no amount of the traditional fact denial pseudo scholarship of the Darwin Industry can ever get it back in
https://t.co/QgQGmQ8wcM @CurtisPress_ @DailySquibs @DAILYSQUIB @SoniaPoulton
. .

Sunday 23 January 2022

SCIENCE FRAUD

 NOW AVAILABLE AT AMAZON EUROPE (Here).  Official release date Darwin Day 2022.


This book is jam packed with independently verifiable empirical data (most of it newly unearthed in the historic publication record by an original Big Data mining method known as IDD) evidence that both Darwin and Wallace plagiarised Patrick Matthew's prior published theory. 



FACTS

Don't be afraid of the facts. Even though many university professors are very afraid of them.


I tried to avoid speculation of any kind in the book "Science Fraud" and I have emphasized that fact in interviews with several journalists in the UK who are going to publish the story on Darwin Day (Feb 12th 2022). But getting the facts accepted by the scientific community will depend upon three things, (1) honest intellectual curiosity on the part of Darwin scholars and others (2) objectivity in accepting that verifiable facts are facts (3) being prepared to scientifically debate what all those facts mean, rationally, given the preponderance of the "new data" evidence of knowledge contamination of Darwin's and Wallace's pre-1858 brains.


Wednesday 9 December 2020

Charles Darwin. Why is he the most influential person in the entire history of the world? Ask the 96 thousandth 853rd most influential.

 

Darwin is ranked the most influential influencer of all time. But why? .

 

.

Thursday 15 October 2020

Brian J. Ford on Plagiarism in Science and Holds up a copy of Nullius in Verba!

Top scientist Brian J Ford holds up my book "Nullius" as solid scientific evidence evidence of Darwin's Plagiarism of Patrick Matthew  






.

Friday 24 January 2020

Professor Brian J Ford on Darwin's Plagiarism and Fashionistic Fashionism

The eminent scientist professor Brian J. Ford and I have both been plagiarized. Brian told me of his worst experience in a personal email communication, so I will not reveal it here. I expect he will share it with the world in his own time. In my case, I have been plagiarized a few times. Most recently my unique work was plagiarized by "Darwin Lad" Dr Joachim L Dagg in the Linnean journal (the very same journal that allowed Darwin and Wallace to plagiarize Patrick Matthew in 1858!).  Dagg - who has cyber-stalked me for years - and written two nonsense reviews of my book Nullius in Verba: Darwin's greatest secret - knows I discovered it yet still passed off my Selby cited Matthew in 1842 orignal discovery as though he had discovered it for himself (facts here)

Brian Ford has written two articles on Darwin's lack of originality on the the theory of evolution by natural selection (here and here). Most importantly, in his 1971 book 'Nonscience' Professor Ford writes (p. 142) on how some scientists are famous not for their genuine originality but for hoodwinking the world they were genius originators simply because they published on a bombshell breakthrough at the most timely - what Ford names "Fashonistic" - time: 


'Charles Darwin used much the same kind of ploy too, by writing his thesis at exactly the most Fashionistic time, when everyone was discussing it. He wasn't the first to propose his particular interpretation, of course, but his use of Fashionism and the clothing of the argument in detailed observations of animals in general made the whole project an obvious winner." 

What Professor Ford does not write, but which is perfect support for his 'Fashionism' argument is what Matthew wrote to Darwin and the entire world in a published open letter of  May 12th 1860 in the Gardeners Chronicle and Agricultural Gazette (p 433): that his work was read and cited but that many feared to cite it - including an eminent professor - and that it had been brute censored (see Sutton 2017 p. 111 for the fully referenced details). In that and in an earlier published letter of April 1860 Matthew clearly told Darwin and the world that the world was not ready for his theory in 1831 when it first appeared in print.

.

Please note: This blog post has been added to Professor's Ford's bibliography on this topic area: Here


.