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 Patrick Matthew. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Patrick Matthew. Show all posts

Saturday 21 January 2023

Darwin, Wallace and the Role of the Murderous, Corrupt East India Company in the World's Biggest Science Fraud by Lies and Plagiary

 My Book Science Fraud: Darwin's Plagiary of Patrick Matthew's Theory shows just some of the now known connections between employees of the notoriously corrupt and murderous East India Company and the world's biggest science fraud.

John Lindley, (archive of page on Lindley) by way of just example was closely connected to William Hooker and Hooker's son Joseph Hooker./ Both were Darwin's friends and botanical mentors.  Hooker, Joseph, was Darwin's best friend. William Hooker, who lived and worked with his bachelor son Joseph, was in the pay of the East India Company - as were many connected to this disgraceful episode in the history of science and the cover up of Matthew's right to be acknowledged as the originator of the theory Darwin and Wallace stole.

My blog on the Lindsay's active deliberate  role in thwarting Matthew's botanical fame as the first to import and propagate giant redwoods in the UK can be read here (archived here). Lindley and his social network crops up again and again in the story of Matthew and Darwin - as does the so called "Honourable" East India Company. 

I have just ordered a biography of Lindley. More to follow once I have read it.




Sunday 17 July 2022

Dr Julian Derry and his pal Dr Joachim Dagg and their malicious activities are all recorded in a legal dossier that is now circulating

 

In an earlier blog post the empirical data proving the recent admission by Joachim Dagg that he maliciously plagiarised Dr Mike Sutton's original research data is revealed (here).

Dr Joachim Dagg who writes in his online profiles that he is a teacher and member of the Ronin institute has been publishing weirdly obsessive malicious falsehoods, mischievous misrepresentations and complete biased fact denial rhetoric about Dr Sutton's research for years. Why? Because in 2014 Dr Mike Sutton uncovered empirical data that proves, contrary to the old myth that nobody read his 1831 book and the theory of the natural process of selection in it until after Darwin and Wallace replicated it in 1858/59, that more than 30 people did cite Matthew's book before 1858 and that several of them were known and admitted major influencers of Darwin and Wallace. 

Ever since Sutton's 2014 bombshell research and the method used to find it has been published in books, book chapters and peer reviewed academic articles "Desperate Dagg" and his even more  desperate pal Dr Julian Derry have been maliciously misrepresenting Dr Sutton's original research in an attempt to rescue Darwin from what one rationally anonymous USA professor wrote today in an Amazon (verified purchase) book review: 

'Sutton also documented that the Darwin Industry has worked hard to re-bury the newly unearthed facts that Sutton uncovered by fact-denial and censorship. Darwin’s status has now taken a major hit and may be the start of his fall.' (The Professor 2022).

"The Professor" has written 459 Amazon reviews.

"The Professor's" profile on Amazon.com reads: 

"I am a college professor and author of numerous books, now in 14 languages. I also speak widely in the U.S. and several foreign countries. I am also very active in Jewish affairs."

In addition to Dagg running a ludicrous childish blogsite based on the psychology inside his own head, rather than actual physical reality, his friend Derry has an arguably even more ludicrous malicious one that actually has Dr Sutton's name as its title (typical page archived here)

Dr Julian Derry, when not falsely pretending to be affiliated with Edinburgh University,  describes himself to academic journals as an independent academic. In fact he owns a tatty Darwin Industry paraphernalia business called "Darwin Monkey" where he is is falsely claiming to be a visiting scientist at Edinburgh University (see here) in order to sell his silly cheap Darwinite ornaments to the gullible. 

Archived proof  Dr Julian (AKA J.F. Derry) Derry is a Darwin Industry paraphernalia selling business owner: https://archive.ph/rxnZ6

How do we know the serial harasser, serial liar, "anal rape threatening tweeter" and obsessed malicious stalker Dr Julian Derry is not affiliated to Edinburgh University? That one is so easy. It is because he let slip he has been fired from the University for maliciously constantly harassing members of the Carse of Gowrie Sustainability Group and others involved with funding and building the Patrick Matthew Trail in Scotland with National Lottery Heritage funding in the wake of Dr Mike Sutton's (2014) bombshell research breakthrough that has tipped Derry clean over the edge. The proof is here. Typed with Derry's own hands. 

Derry is currently insinuating that Dr Sutton had his own (Sutton's) Twitter accounts suspended for any one or more nastily nefarious reasons (here).


In reality, Dr Sutton has had only two twitter accounts suspended by Twitter. The account Dysology was suspended merely because it is owned by Dr Sutton. Dysology was automatically suspended after Dr Sutton's Criminotweet account mocked both Boris Johnson and Donald trump by way of calling them each a "total retard" for their obnoxious and stupidly serial lying dishonest character flaws.

So Dr Sutton was "cancel cultured" by Twitter bots for using a word to describe such things as the ignition timing on a motor vehicle being - yes wait for it..."retarded". 

Now, of course, Dr Sutton was not writing about ignition timing. He meant that both Johnson and Trump are "backward". But today it is no longer acceptable to use such terminology to describe idiot twits and utter pillock harmful serial liars as "retarded" or "backward" even when you are doing so to punch upward against heads of state - both of whom have been kicked out of office (Boris) and voted from office (Trump) for serially disgracing themsleves with proven serial lies, racism and various other dishonest utter nonsense.

 Dr Sutton has never sought to appeal his Twitter ban. Why not? Because he thinks he probably did deserve it for writing the word "retarded".

 That said, others may disagree. But Sutton was most certainly not cancelled from Twitter for the nonsense listed in the image above by the malicious serial liar, jealous and totally obsessed mischievous  misrepresenter of facts, tacky brass monkey monger and laughably apparent desperate wannabe but totally failed in the attempt pseudo-criminologist Dr Julian - Desperate - Derry. Because, at least according to his own Amazon author page, the year before Dr Mike Sutton first published his bombshell research findings on Darwin and Richard Dawkins and Patrick Matthew on the Best Thinking blogsite, 

J F Derry wrote a rubbish gutter trash book in 2012 entitled "serial killers". Today it can be bought for a mere 40p on eBay. According to Amazon this is Julian Derry, He appears to be a delusional wannabe criminologist, but has failed miserably at it. Of course he has.



In 2022, Dr Sutton has been asked to provide others with a forensic archive dossier file containing the harassment activities (including poison pen malicious emails)  written by Derry, Dagg and their other associate, Dr Mike Weale. This dossier is now circulating and being officially assessed for several serious pending actions. 

"The Professor" who only today published his honest five star review of Sutton's latest book "Science fraud" and noted that the Darwin Industry is working hard to re-bury the facts Sutton originally unearthed on Darwin and Wallace may well be reading the Dagg and Derry Dossier right now. Others certainly are. Facts always burrow to the top in the end.  

                                                                                           

                                                                            By Anon. 17.07.2022

                                                                            This is an archived blog post https://archive.ph/3NjSf

Monday 11 July 2022

Pitfalls of Plagiarism: The Case Study of Joachim Dagg AKA "Dagg The Plagiarist"

An important finding from my original research data on who cited Patrick Matthew's 1831 book "On Naval Timber and Arboriculture" before 1858 has been plagiarised by Joachim Dagg. 

The story of Dagg's research plagiarism in the Biological Journal of the Linnean Society is told on a couple of pages of my latest book (Sutton 2022) "Science Fraud", which is published by Curtis Press, and is available directly from the publisher (here).

 My book's full title is: "Science Fraud: Darwin's Plagiarism of Patrick Matthew's Theory". It can be ordered from any good bookshop, many online bookstores and is available on Amazon UK (here), elsewhere throughout all Amazon sites in Europe and most recently in the USA (here).

Dagg's Confession is now Published in the Public Domain

Last night Dagg let it slip that he is "rationalising" his plagiarism of my data. 

Such guilt neutralisation rationalisation is a well know pitfall leading people to commit acts of plagiarism (e.g. here) In his desperate haste to seek to rationalize his malicious plagiary, Dagg writes 1942. of course, the real date of Selby's newly discovered citation of Matthew's (1831) book is 1842. 



There is a page dedicated to the repeat plagiarism of  Dr Mike Sutton's original, prior published, research data on PatrickMatthew.Com. The specific page is here

Dagg's accidental confession is forensically archived here 

This blog post is archived here for easier citation and for posterity.

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

Part Four of the Serialisation of Science Fraud: Darwin's Plagiarism of Patrick Matthew's Theory int e Sunday Express (Scotland)

 Sunday 3rd April 2022 we see thee fourth instalment of "Science Fraud: Darwin's Plagiarism of Patrick Matthew's Theory" Here


Now read the facts and then, if you care about the importance of truth, do something to help stop the continuation of the credulous and ignorant teaching of false facts as education in our schools and universities. 

Get the book Here on the science publishers website 

Get the book at Amazon 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. 

.



.

Friday 21 February 2020

Samuel Butler Nails Charles Darwin's Sly Glory Thieving Plagiarism in the 19th Century

Samuel Butler's identification that Darwin in 1859 plagiarized Matthew's 1831 book is strangely absent from Wikipedia - the world's worst encyclopedia. Wikipedia paid, astroturfing (fake grass roots), Darwin worship cult editors have a habit of slyly deleting uncomfortable, yet independently verifiable, facts about Matthew to continue the Darwin supermyth. Wikipedia editors were caught out in an editor fraud trap doing just that HERE


.




'Mr Patrick Matthew epitomised their doctrine more tersely , perhaps, than was done by any other of the pre-Charles-Darwinian evolutionists.' 




What Butler failed to understand without the benefit of my BigData IDD method is that Matthew (1831) was first to coin the term 'natural process of selection' in published print and Darwin (1859) was later first to coin the exact yet slyly four-word-shuffled term 'process of natural selection'. Most importantly,  the IDD method also unearthed that Robert Chambers (anonymous author of the best selling Vestiges - see page 249 below), who cited Matthew's book decades before Darwin and Wallace had put so much as pen to private notebook on the subject of evolution, was apparently first to be second in print with Matthew's original term (see the facts newly unearthed in the historic publication record: Sutton 2014, 2015, 2016). Matthew's four word term was plagairised by Darwin because it is so essential to explain the theory of macroevolution by natural selection, it being (a) natural (b) a process and (c) selection by nature. For the same reason of requiring Matthew's essentially necessary components, Darwin and Wallace were also compelled to plagiarise his unique artificial versus natural slection explanatory analogy of differences. Darwin - in a private essay (Darwin 1844) which was later published, even plagiarized Matthew's highly idiosyncratic, arboricultural and foresters, artificial versus naturally selected trees explanatory analogy of differences to make the theory understandable (read that story here). 

Page 87 of Butler's 'Luck or Cunning'

Above we see Butler suggesting (as Darwin's biographer Clarke later did) that Darwin suffered from cryptoamnesia when he plagairised Matthew. (see a relevant blog post on this page of Butler's book Here)


On page 249 of his 1887 book 'Luck or Cunning', Samuel Butler quite rightly points out the historic habits of plagiarism among key writers in this particular field. Not only was Darwin a dreadful plagiarist, who passed the theory of others off as his own, but so did Matthew and those who came before both of them. 

The key point Butler failed to comprehend, however, is the fact that (as Sir Gavin de Beer, Ernst Mayr and Richard Dawkins all later showed) only Matthew was first in published print with the complete theory of macroevolution by natural selection. Butler also failed to realize precisely what Darwin and Wallace stole from him and the number of their prior-influencers, influencer's influencers, friends, and even Wallace's Sarawak paper editor - Selby - who prior read and cited Matthew's (1831) book and the orignal ideas in it (see Sutton 2016) before Darwin's' and Wallace's great science fraud by plagiary and lies.

Are the questions actually the answer to Darwin's and Wallace's plagiarism of Matthew and Dagg's sly and jealous plagiarism of me? 



1. Did Matthew's failure to cite his influencers allow Darwin and Wallace to neutralize their guilt in plagiarizing Matthew's book and lying about who they knew who prior read and cited it? 

2. Did the fact Matthew, the regional atheist Scottish Chartism leader, broke all the rules of the scientific community in his heretical mocking of "God" and Christian religion, inclusion of politics and news in his book allow Darwin and Wallace the guilt neutralization excuse not to cite him as their influencer?

3. Does the fact I mock credulous Darwinite cultists, who refuse to face the newly unearthed facts on Darwin's lies about Matthew and plagiarisng science fraud, political leaders, religious folk, and Richard Dawkins for not admitting that he never coined the term selfish gene give Dagg and the dreadful Linnean journal editors the guilt neutralization excuse they need to jealously and slyly plagiarize my Selby cited Matthew original discovery? (see the facts on Dagg the Plagiarist Here). See the facts on Dawkins and the Selfish gene supermyth here and here.


Tuesday 4 February 2020

Timeline of Darwin's and Wallace's Plagiarism and other Reactions to Patrick Matthew's Bombshell Breakthrough of 1831


Boom💣 Boom💣 Boom💣Boom💣 

Bombshell Timeline


See the timeline of reactions, including the plagiarism of Darwin and Wallace, pre-1858 citations by agriculturalists and scientists known to Darwin and Wallace, and Darwin's sly lies: HERE

Tuesday 28 January 2020

On Jim Dempster and Patrick Matthew

Dempster's work is essential to understand just how much of Matthew's theory and prose was plagiarized by Darwin and Wallace: HERE



Paul Harris Publishing, the company that published this, Dempster's first book on Patrick Matthew went in receivership two years later (Glasgow herald 1985). Eleven years later Dempster (1996) re-published, with the much maligned vanity publisher ‘Pentland Press’ what was essentially the same book, quite expanded, clarified and edited to remove some of the unnecessary repetition of the first. This seminal work is the world’s first and most comprehensive account of Matthew’s (1831) work. Unfortunately, Pentland Press collapsed with unpaid debts in 2002 (see Mirror 2002).

If its detailed facts rather than a future collectors item you are after I recommend you buy, Dempster's 1996 later book. However for a few dollars, if I were you, I'd buy a fine copy of this 1983 book, its rare and will increase in value now that Darwin's and wallace's great sceince fraud is proven.

Before the World's greatest science fraud was proven in 2014, Dempster wrote in this book that there is no need to accuse Darwin of plagiarising the work of Patrick Matthew because it is already well established that he acted badly in not citing his influencers in the first edition and other editions of the Origin of Species (Dempster, 1983 p. 64):

‘There is no need to charge Darwin with plagiarism. His scholarship and integrity were at fault in not providing all his references in the Origin: he had after 1859 another twenty years in which to do so. What one can say is that denigration of Patrick Matthew was unwarrantable and inexcusable.’

But if those three sentences do not, in fact, say that Darwin had seen Matthew’s work, replicated it, and then perpetrated a long-running science fraud by never admitting he had prior-knowledge of Matthew’s discovery, what do they say?

However, as Dempster made clear, Matthew also accepted at face value, in print at least, Darwin’s excuse that he had arrived at the theory independently. Consequently, despite Dempster’s able championing of Matthew, Darwinists retained their solution to the problem of Matthew’s prior discovery by affixing him with their mutually approved status of obscure curiosity. Refusing to give the originator of natural selection his due credit for discovering it – no matter how good and complete his hypothesis - Darwinists stuck to their guns – in the teeth of Dempster’s superb scholarship - by claiming that there was no evidence that Matthew had influenced a single person with his discovery. Filling in the knowledge gaps as to what really happened to Matthew’s ideas between their publication in 1831 and Wallace’s, (1855), Darwin’s and Wallace’s (1858) and Darwin’s (1859) replication, Darwinists simply parroted Darwin’s Appendix Myth, Scattered Passages Myth and Mere Enunciation Myth as plausible devices to enable them to accept Darwin’s fallacious tale that Matthew’s ideas went unread by natural scientists until Matthew drew Darwin’s attention to them in 1860. All three of the above myths are now uniquely bust in my own paper (Sutton 2014).

Bibliography and referenecs

Bowler, P.J. (1983) Evolution: the history of an idea. Berkeley. The University of California Press. p.158.

Darwin, C. R. (1837) Notebook B: Transmutation of species (1837-1838)]. CUL-DAR121. Transcribed by Kees Rookmaaker. Darwin Online,

Darwin, C. R. (1842) Unpublished Essay on natural selection. See Darwin Online.org.uk.

Darwin, C. R. (1844) Unpublished Essay on natural selection. See Darwin Online.

Darwin, C. R. and Wallace, A. R. (1858)On the tendency of species to form varieties; and on the perpetuation of varieties and species by natural means of selection. Journal of the Proceedings of the Linnaean Society of London.

Darwin. C. R. (1859). On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection. Or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life. London. John Murray.

Darwin, C. R. (1861) On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection. Or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life. (Third Edition) London. John Murray.

Dawkins, R. (2010). Darwin’s Five Bridges: The Way to Natural Selection In Bryson, B (ed.) Seeing Further: The Story of Science and the Royal Society. London Harper Collins.

Dempster, W. J. (1983) Patrick Matthew and Natural Selection. Edinburgh. Paul Harris Publishing.

Dempster, W. J (1996) Evolutionary Concepts in the Nineteenth Century. Edinburgh. The Pentland Press.

Glasgow Herald (1985) Contract for Paul Harris. June 29th. page 15:

Gould, S. J. (2002) The Structure of Evolutionary Theory. Harvard. Harvard University Press. pp. 137-141.

Hamilton, W. D. (2001) Narrow Roads of Gene Land, Volume 2: Evolution of Sex. Oxford. Oxford University Press.

Hamilton, D. (2012) A History of Organ Transplantation. Pittsburgh. University of Pittsburgh Press.
Hopewell, J. (2009) Dempster, William James (1918 - 2008), Plarr's Lives of the Fellows Online. THE ROYAL COLLEGE OF SURGEONS OF ENGLAND.

Hopewell, J. (2014) Early History of the Treatment of Renal Failure. British Transplant Society.

Info.com. (2014) What was the World’s greatest science fraud:

oekes, M. Porter, K.A. and Dempster, W.J. (1957). Immediate post-operative anuria in a human renal homotransplant. British Journal of Surgery. Volume 44, Issue 188, pages 607–615, May.

Joekes, M. (1997) ISN VIDEO LEGACY PROJECT. http://cybernephrology.ualberta.ca/ISN/VLP/Trans/Joekes.htm
Volumes 3-4. p. 280-295.

Mayr, E (1982) The growth of biological thought: diversity, evolution, and inheritance. Cambridge, Mass. Harvard University Press.

Shermer, M. (2002) In Darwin's Shadow: The Life and Science of Alfred Russel Wallace: A Biographical Study on the Psychology of History. Oxford. Oxford University Press.

Sutton, M. (2014) Internet Dating with Darwin: New Discovery that Darwin and Wallace were Influenced by Matthew's Prior-Discovery. BestThinking.com:

Wallace, A. R. (1855) On the law which has regulated the introduction of new species. The Annals and Magazine of Natural History. Series 2. 16. 184-196

Wallace, A. R. (1858) Paper presented to the Linnean Society in: Darwin, C. R. and Wallace, A. R. (1858)On the tendency of species to form varieties; and on the perpetuation of varieties and species by natural means of selection. Journal of the Proceedings of the Linnaean Society of London.






Reviewed in the United Kingdom on 19 April 2014
Format: PaperbackVerified Purchase
William James Dempster, the author of 'Evolutionary Concepts in the Nineteenth Century' (Dempster 1996) , died aged 90 years in 2008. The name W.J. Dempster has gone down in the annals of both the history of transplant surgery and, thanks to this book, the history of the discovery of natural selection.

It in in this book that Dempster ably champions the great contribution to knowledge that was made by Patrick Matthew many years before Wallace and Darwin replicated Matthew's discovery, his name for it and the examples he used to explain it.

Dempster unearths many examples of Charles Darwin’s poor scholarship, lack of integrity and unwarranted, yet self-serving, denigration of Patrick Matthew - the little known true originator of the theory of natural selection.

For the most part the Darwinists sought to bury Dempster and this book in oblivion by way of the silent treatment, but on rare occasion Dempster’s books did attracted scorn from Darwinists. One particular scholar of the history of science reveals his own bias in a laughable example of desperate muddled thinking and failure to understand the importance of questing for veracity in history:

Bowler (1983 p.158):

‘One writer has even gone so far as to hail Matthew as the originator of the modern evolution theory (Dempster 1996). Such efforts to denigrate Darwin misunderstand the whole point of the history of science: Matthew did suggest a basic idea of selection, but he did nothing to develop it; and he published it in an appendix to a book on the raising of trees for ship building. No one took him seriously, and he played no role in the emergence of Darwinism. Simple priority is not enough to earn a thinker a place in the history of science: one has to develop the idea and convince others of its value to make a real contribution. Darwin’s notebooks confirm that he drew no inspiration from Matthew or any of the other alleged precursors.’

Pentland Press’ the vanity publisher of this book collapsed with unpaid debts in 2002 (see Mirror 2002) yet new and second-hand copies can be picked up at bargain process here on Amazon. Snap yours up, because I expect them to become collector’s items now that Darwin's and Wallace's great science fraud was proven in 2014.

‘Evolutionary Concepts in the Nineteenth Century’ is essential reading for anyone interested in seeing further than the fallacious pens of biased Darwinists who, never having read a word of Matthew’s original book, insist on parroting Darwin’s snaky lie Matthew merely buried his ideas in one or two scattered passages in the book’s Appendix, when in fact Matthew’s (1831) ideas on natural selection run throughout the entire book. By way of fact-based example, it is in the main body of the book that Matthew used the analogy of artificial selection as a heuristic device to explain natural selection and it is where he called upon naturalists to conduct experiment to test his hypothesis. What Dempster failed to discover, however, in all three of his books on the topic, is that it is also in the main body of Naval Timber and Arboriculture where Matthew (1831) uniquely named his breakthrough the ‘natural process of selection’. That finding is important because, Darwin who started the self-serving Appendix Myth, uniquely shuffled those same four words into their only other grammatically correct equivalent: the ‘process of natural selection’. Darwin (1859) used that shuffled term – nine times in the Origin of Species. A year later, he claimed to have had no prior-knowledge of the Originator’s book (see Sutton 2014).

Where Dempster's valuable contribution makes a ground breaking difference is in his reasoned arguments, supported with a multitude of his own new evidence, that Matthew should be hailed as the true discoverer of natural selection, simply because he most certainly did more than merely enunciate it, he worked it out and published it in detail as a complex and fully comprehensive law of nature. Moreover, Matthew got it right and Darwin wrong when it came to comprehending the impact of geological disasters on species extinction and emergence. Yet, from the third edition of the Origin onwards, Darwin (1861), a follower of Lyell’s erroneous uniformitarianism, jumped at the chance to denigrate Matthew by referring to him as a catastrophist. Dempster (1996) made this injustice abundantly clear, but if you can find a Darwinist, or any other biologist, admitting as much and citing Dempster then you've found one more than I have. Punctuated equilibrium – essentially Matthew’s discovery - is accepted science today but, as as Dempster (1996; 2005) noted its Darwinist purveyors sought to keep the originator of that theory buried in footnote oblivion. Rampino (2011) explains some of the detail.

However, as Dempster made clear, Matthew also accepted at face value, in print at least, Darwin’s excuse that he had arrived at the theory independently. Consequently, despite Dempster’s able championing of Matthew, Darwinists retained their solution to the problem of Matthew’s prior discovery by affixing him with their mutually approved status of obscure curiosity. Refusing to give the originator of natural selection his due credit for discovering it – no matter how good and complete his hypothesis - Darwinists stuck to their guns – in the teeth of Dempster’s superb scholarship - by claiming that there was no evidence that Matthew had influenced a single person with his discovery. Filling in the knowledge gaps as to what really happened to Matthew’s ideas between their publication in 1831 and Wallace’s, (1855), Darwin’s and Wallace’s (1858) and Darwin’s (1859) replication, Darwinists simply parroted Darwin’s Appendix Myth, Scattered Passages Myth and Mere Enunciation Myth as plausible devices to enable them to accept Darwin’s fallacious tale that Matthew’s ideas went unread by natural scientists until Matthew drew Darwin’s attention to them in 1860. All three of the above myths are uniquely bust (Sutton 2014).

It’s a crying shame too that only after Dempster's death did biologists such Dawkins (2010) and Bowler (2013), respectively, cite and treat more fairly Dempster’s classic ground-breaking work on Matthew's unique contribution to knowledge.

Dempster’s informed reasoning that Matthew should be duly recognized and celebrated as an immortal great of science, with full priority over Darwin and Wallace, is now confirmed by the newly disproved arguments of leading Darwinists such as Mayr (1982), Gould (2002), Shermer (2002), Hamilton (2001) and, most recently, Dawkins (2010). Because their biased Matthew denial opinions have their roots in Darwin’s, newly debunked, self-serving myths and lies (see Sutton 2014).

Most crucially, Dempster’s stalwart scholarship and excellent books on Matthew’s significant contribution to knowledge played a priceless role in helping me to finally set the historical record straight by proving that Darwin and Wallace were enormously influenced by Matthew’s prior-discovery of the natural process of selection before each replicated it while claiming to have discovered it independently.

By so by ably championing Matthew, against all odds, Dempster's stalwart scholarship rescues those who read it from the unquestioning mythical stories told by Darwinists desperate to keep their namesake from veracious scholarly dissection.

As Matthew (1831, p. vii) so presciently wrote:

'...the man who pursues science for its own sake, and not for the pride of possession, will feel more gratitude towards the surgeon, who dislodges a cataract from the mind's eye, than towards the one who repairs the defect of the bodily organ.'

Today, we can, if we so choose, read Dempster in light of the newly discovered facts about what really happened to the ideas in Matthew's book pre-Origin (Sutton 2014). By so doing , we can at last see further than the end of Darwin's fallacious pen, and further than the lingering Victorian smog of faux-skepticism born of adoring Darwinist propaganda.

Biblography and References

Bowler, P.J. (1983) Evolution: the history of an idea. Berkeley. The University of California Press. p.158.

Darwin, C. R. (1837) Notebook B: Transmutation of species (1837-1838)]. CUL-DAR121. Transcribed by Kees Rookmaaker. Darwin Online.

Darwin, C. R. (1842) Unpublished Essay on natural selection. See Darwin Online.org.uk.

Darwin, C. R. (1844) Unpublished Essay on natural selection. See Darwin Online.Org.uk

Darwin, C. R. and Wallace, A. R. (1858)On the tendency of species to form varieties; and on the perpetuation of varieties and species by natural means of selection. Journal of the Proceedings of the Linnaean Society of London.

Darwin. C. R. (1859). On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection. Or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life. London. John Murray.

Darwin, C. R. (1861) On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection. Or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life. (Third Edition) London. John Murray.

Dawkins, R. (2010). Darwin’s Five Bridges: The Way to Natural Selection In Bryson, B (ed.) Seeing Further: The Story of Science and the Royal Society. London Harper Collins.

Dempster, W. J (1996) Evolutionary Concepts in the Nineteenth Century. Edinburgh. The Pentland Press.

Dempster, W. J. (2005) The Illustrious Hunter and the Darwins. Sussex. Book Guild Publishing.

Hamilton, W. D. (2001) Narrow Roads of Gene Land, Volume 2: Evolution of Sex. Oxford. Oxford University Press.

Hamilton, D. (2012) A History of Organ Transplantation. Pittsburgh. University of Pittsburgh Press.

Hopewell, J. (2009) Dempster, William James (1918 - 2008), Plarr's Lives of the Fellows Online. THE ROYAL COLLEGE OF SURGEONS OF ENGLAND.[...]
Hopewell, J. (2014) Early History of the Treatment of Renal Failure. British Transplant Society.

Joekes, M. Porter, K.A. and Dempster, W.J. (1957). Immediate post-operative anuria in a human renal homotransplant. British Journal of Surgery. Volume 44, Issue 188, pages 607–615, May.

Joekes, M. (1997) ISN VIDEO LEGACY PROJECT. Volumes 3-4. p. 280-295.

Mayr, E (1982) The growth of biological thought: diversity, evolution, and inheritance. Cambridge, Mass. Harvard University Press.

Mirror (2002) The Book Worm Turns Up Yet Again.

Rampino, M. R. (2011) Darwin's error? Patrick Matthew and the catastrophic nature of the geologic record. Historical Biology: An International Journal of Paleobiology. Volume 23, Issue 2-3.

Shermer, M. (2002) In Darwin's Shadow: The Life and Science of Alfred Russel Wallace: A Biographical Study on the Psychology of History. Oxford. Oxford University Press.

Sutton, M. (2014) Internet Dating with Darwin: New Discovery that Darwin and Wallace were Influenced by Matthew's Prior-Discovery. BestThinking.com.

Wallace, A. R. (1855) On the law which has regulated the introduction of new species. The Annals and Magazine of Natural History. Series 2. 16. 184-196

Wallace, A. R. (1858) Paper presented to the Linnean Society in: Darwin, C. R. and Wallace, A. R. (1858)On the tendency of species to form varieties; and on the perpetuation of varieties and species by natural means of selection. Journal of the Proceedings of the Linnaean Society of London.

Dr Mike Sutton is author of
Nullius in Verba: Darwin's greatest secret
review image








































































































































































































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


.