Copying and plagiarising fraud in academia should not be tolerated

Student essay mills may be criminalised - EXCELLENT @philwane. But what's wrong with Sam Leth? @PlagiarismBad pic.twitter.com/3c0vDyjUqk

— Dr Mike Sutton (@Criminotweet) August 16, 2016

Fall of the House of Darwin IV

An interview with the biologist Professor James A Shapiro

From 'The Paradigm Shifters: Overthrowing the hegemony of the culture of Darwin', by Suzan Mazur. (2015) New York, Caswell Books:

Suzan Mazur: 'Should amateurs who are seriously challenging Darwinian scenarios be welcome to the evolutionary science discourse?'

James Shapiro:  'Well I don't see how you can exclude anybody. The point is not who's saying something or what their credentials are, but the value and substance of that they're saying.'

Get the low-down on  the news of that the original 'dual immaculate conception' paradigm is busted by the New Data discoveries on Charles Darwin's proven myth mongering dishonesty. Find out who both Darwin and Wallace knew, and who their influencers knew, and who their established influencer's influencers knew, who in fact did cite Matthew's 1831 book containing the original full prior-published bombshell original conception of macro evolution by natural selection before Darwin or Wallace wrote so much as a private notebook entry on the topic of organic evolution.  And read about the newly proven fact of Darwin's lying, plagiarising, science fraud by glory theft here : On Knowledge Contamination: New Data Challenges Claims of Darwin’s and Wallace’s Independent Conceptions of Matthew’s Prior-Published Hypothesis

On Science Fraud:

Just Google: "Alfred Russel Wallace science fraud" to get the devastating New Data facts pic.twitter.com/pR7OmHbgGg

— BlessedVirginDarwin (@OnNavalTimber) August 16, 2016

Belief is the Root of all Delusion: Dr Arlin Stoltzfus on Dr Mike Weale's Arguments that Darwin is Innocent of Lying and Plagiarising Glory Theft

Interestingly, those who discover paradigm changing and independently 
verifiable new data are often portrayed by desperately biased scholars
 with vested career and in-group establishment interests in the old but newly
myth-punctured paradigm as cranks. With painful irony, the real cranks are
 those who let their bias interfere with their critical  reasoning.

Dr Arlin Stoltzfus, referring to discussions between Dr Mike Weale and I on Weale's Blogsite The Patrick Matthew Project explains why Weale's loyal 'belief-based' Darwinite bias cannot trump the fact-based uncomfortable - newly discovered - truth in the story of the history of discovery of natural selection.

Stoltzfus, A. Friday, August 05, 2016 (Writing on the Sandwalk blog site).

'Darwin, by repeating the idea that no naturalist read or noticed Matthew's book, repeated a self-serving statement that he knew to be factually incorrect, because Matthew himself had pointed this out. These facts are not in dispute. Sutton describes these facts by saying it is "100% proved" that Darwin "lied".

In the cited web site, the case made by author Mike Weale is entirely based on quibbling about "lied" and "100 % proved", while bending over backward to give His Holiness Charles Darwin the benefit of the doubt. According to Weale, when His Infallible Holiness Charles Darwin says that "nobody read it", we must interpret this as the kind of harmless exaggeration that occurs every day-- of course His Holiness must have known that the book would have been read by *someone*, so obviously he wasn't intending to be taken literally (*). To accuse his holiness of "lying" would be to impute deception, which cannot be proved "100 %" because it requires an inference of motives (according to Weale).

Thus, Weale's case against Sutton rests on the same kind of scholarly double standard that we are now accustomed to seeing: (1) insisting on a literal interpretation of a rhetorically loaded version of Sutton's argument, while Darwin gets off easy precisely because Weale *refuses to hold Darwin to a literal interpretation*, and (2) insisting that Sutton can't rely on inferences or touch on the issue of intentions by invoking "lied", while Weale is free to defend Darwin precisely by appeal to inferences about Darwin's knowledge and motives (sentence above with *). '

Appeal for a Rational Way Forward

Please do something (no matter how small) to support veracity in the war for veracity over claptrap in the story of the discovery of natural selection. Because Darwinites currently dominate the scientific community, but they are behaving like an authoritarian religious deification cult. 

https://www.amazon.co.uk/Nullius-Verba-Darwins-Greatest-Secret-ebook/dp/B00M5DP46U

Modern advanced societies will be harmed by having an inaccurate history of scientific discovery, disseminated through the propagandising machinations of  palpably biased salaried academics and other powerful establishment in-group members. Only a crank could not see that.

Belief is the Root of all Delusion: Dr Arlin Stoltzfus on Dr Mike Weale's Arguments in favour of Darwin's Innocence: https://t.co/sFRKTIQmBz

— Dr Mike Sutton (@Dysology) August 13, 2016

Fall of the House of Darwin III

#juxtasupposin pic.twitter.com/mrEBgmSMzN

— Dr Mike Sutton (@Dysology) August 11, 2016

George Beccaloni caught reviewing a book he never even read

Dr George Beccaloni, curator of the Wallace Collection at the Natural History Museum, London, is very active on the internet in trying to downplay the significance of the New Data in the story of  the discovery of natural selection.

I suspect the reason for his behaviour is because of the discovery that Selby - who was Wallace's Sarawak paper editor - had earlier cited Matthew's (1831) book, containing the full and original conception of macro evolution by natural selection. And yet - like Darwin, whose friends and influencers also read and cited Matthew's book before he wrote a word on natural selection - Wallace claimed to be an independent discoverer of Matthew's prior published conception. Now, in addition to the circumstantial evidence that Wallace was 'knowledge contaminated' via Selby by Matthew's work before he published on it, Wallace is also proven to be dishonest.

Because he is proven dishonest, nothing Wallace wrote about his supposedly immaculate conception of Matthew's prior-published work, should now be taken at face value. Wallace is proven to have been dishonest by way of my original discovery that he doctored the transcription of one of his personal letters in his autobiography to conceal the fact he thought he was owed money and favours by Darwin, Lyell and Hooker for the role they played in deceiving the Linnean Society into believing he had consented to their reading of his paper with, and after, Darwin's on natural selection. The frequently broke Wallace did indeed receive plenty of money and favours with their assistance thereafter.

A picture speaks more than a thousand words when it is a screenshot of what he gets up to online. Judge him for yourselves. See how my publisher Bob Butler confronts Beccaloni with the fact he has not even read my book: "Nullius in Verba: Darwin's greatest secret", which contains the very uncomfortable "New Data" on both Darwin and Wallace. And yet Beccaloni posted his faux review of my book in several places on the Internet in an observable and independently verifiable desperate knee-jerk pseudo scholarly attempt at de-facto fact-denial of the facts he had not even looked at! Such palpably deliberately biased and essentially dishonestly misleading behaviour is outrageous from a salaried scientist.  Beccalloin's apparent pride in this unethical behaviour, and further dishonesty, is established by the many comments of his to that effect in the comments section to this blog post.

Dr George Beccaloni, Curator of the Wallace Collection of the 
Natural History Museum London 
writes a faux-review of my book, parades it around the Internet, and is then forced 
by my publisher to admit he has not even read it. 
What kind of scholar would do such a dishonest thing?

Source:  https://www.facebook.com/RichardDawkinsFoundation/posts/10203052284926063

Bob Butler How do you know "wrongly accused", I was able to determine you haven't bought the book yet. The newly revealed research is fairly compelling and convincing. Surely even a Darwinist will look at research before declaring it wrong.

6 August 2014 at 16:57 · Like

George Beccaloni I know for a fact that there is no 'hard evidence' that any of the people who supposedly read Matthew's book passed on Matthew's ideas about 'natural selection' to Darwin or Wallace. If there was such evidence it would be newsworthy!

6 August 2014 at 17:11 · Edited · Like

Bob Butler BTW, it looks like the reviewer on the The Alfred Russel Wallace Website hasn't read the book either and is just restating the old arguments... you know the same logic Watson and Crick used to defend their refusal to acknowledge Rosalind Franklin's discovery of DNA's double helix.

Unevidenced "I just know" state of denial bias

 Discussion

Beccaloni's knee-jerk dismissal of the original and significant findings in my book, which are the first to completely refute the myth started by a lie told by Darwin and parroted ever since by what Dr Arlin Dr Arlin Stoltzfus , of the University of Maryland, Institute for Bioscience and Biotechnology Research, poignantly refers to as "the zombie hoard" of  Darwin worshipping - myth parroting myna birds - that no naturalist known to Darwin or Wallace read Matthew's prior published conception of macro evolution by natural selection before they replicated it and claimed it as their own dual independent conceptions, was made when Beccaloni had no idea whatsoever (because he had not read my book) who it was who read Matthew's book pre-1858, and that they then influenced Darwin and Wallace and their influencers and their influencer's influencers before either of those two mere replicators penned a single word on the topic.

Becalloni's behaviour is not dissimilar to Professor James Moore's incredible claim as reported in the Daily Telegraph national newspaper  (incredible because Moore is a self-proclaimed expert on this topic) that "I would be extremely surprised if there was any new evidence had not been already seen and interpreted in the opposite way.”  

Personally, I am extremely surprised that Professor James Moore claims to be unaware that the nationally newsworthy discovery that  as opposed to the old Darwinite "knowledge belief" of none whatsoever that naturalists in fact have been originally and newly discovered by me in 2104 to have read and then cited  Matthew's book pre 1858. Because that discovery is completely new - 100 per cent verifiable by way of the publication record (so this is something we can now 100 per cent know, because it is so absolutely hard-evidenced) and therefore has never been discussed before and, therefore cannot possibly be interpreted in the opposite direction. And the originality of my findings are verified as new and original in two subsequently expert  peer reviewed journal articles here and here.

The de-facto fact denial behaviour of Beccaloni and Moore was then replicated by John van Wyhe of the University of Singapore who similarly misinformed the Scottish press by a personal press statement email to the Journalist Michael Alexander (sent on to me for information) about his opinions of my original peer reviewed newly published  research (Sutton 2016), in a peer reviewed journal - from whose advisory board he resigned in the immediate wake of my publication in it:

"Dr Sutton's allegations about a purported influence of Matthew on Darwin and Wallace are not new.

This conspiracy theory is so silly and based on such forced and contorted imitations of historical method that no qualified historian could take it seriously."

Van Whyhe's claims were later diluted by Alexander in the press to read:

'Dr John van Wyhe, a senior lecturer at the Department of Biological Sciences, at the National University of Singapore, said the recent claims by Dr Mike Sutton of Nottingham Trent University were “so silly” and “based on such forced and contorted imitations of historical method that no qualified historian could take it seriously. “ '

Perhaps by way of the same arguably jealous logic, Dr van Wyhe similarly believes the Staffordshire Hoard is a conspiracy theory because it was discovered by a non-historian with a metal detector?

The behaviour of these three professional Darwinites certainly confirms the Dysology Hypothesis and is worthy of further research by psychologists and sociologists interested in how uncomfortable newly discovered significant facts, which lead to paradigm changing new discoveries, face a biased reception by those with a professional new fact denial agenda.

My college, a chartered psychologist, Professor Mark Griffiths, is particularly interested in this specific pseudo scholarly behaviour and is ready and willing to talk with biased Darwinists about that behaviour and their new fact denial beliefs. Here.

Ask Royal Society of Biology @DrMarkGriffiths to fund case study research on Biologists bias https://t.co/faRY8kS4uS pic.twitter.com/gDuWC72hpx

— Supermythbuster (@supermyths) August 10, 2016

Most fittingly, Dr George Beccaloni provides us with confirmatory evidence for the extremely simple concept of knowledge contamination:

Concept: proof
1. Paper "knowledge contamination" = 6k+ readers.:https://t.co/6K7Wm5UvfI
2. Beccaloni contaminated: https://t.co/hv0gtOwcTC

— BlessedVirginDarwin (@OnNavalTimber) August 11, 2016

George Beccaloni caught reviewing a book he never even read

Dr George Beccaloni, curator of the Wallace Collection at the Natural History Museum, London, is very active on the internet in trying to downplay the significance of the New Data in the story of  the discovery of natural selection.

I suspect the reason for his behaviour is because of the discovery that Selby - who was Wallace's Sarawak paper editor - had earlier cited Matthew's (1831) book, containing the full and original conception of macro evolution by natural selection. And yet - like Darwin, whose friends and influencers also read and cited Matthew's book before he wrote a word on natural selection - Wallace claimed to be an independent discoverer of Matthew's prior published conception. Now, in addition to the circumstantial evidence that Wallace was 'knowledge contaminated' via Selby by Matthew's work before he published on it, Wallace is also proven to be dishonest.

Because he is proven dishonest, nothing Wallace wrote about his supposedly immaculate conception of Matthew's prior-published work, should now be taken at face value. Wallace is proven to have been dishonest by way of my original discovery that he doctored the transcription of one of his personal letters in his autobiography to conceal the fact he thought he was owed money and favours by Darwin, Lyell and Hooker for the role they played in deceiving the Linnean Society into believing he had consented to their reading of his paper with, and after, Darwin's on natural selection. The frequently broke Wallace did indeed receive plenty of money and favours with their assistance thereafter.

A picture speaks more than a thousand words when it is a screenshot of what he gets up to online. Judge him for yourselves. See how my publisher Bob Butler confronts Beccaloni with the fact he has not even read my book: "Nullius in Verba: Darwin's greatest secret", which contains the very uncomfortable "New Data" on both Darwin and Wallace. And yet Beccaloni posted his faux review of my book in several places on the Internet in an observable and independently verifiable desperate knee-jerk pseudo scholarly attempt at de-facto fact-denial of the facts he had not even looked at! Such palpably deliberately biased and essentially dishonestly misleading behaviour is outrageous from a salaried scientist.  Beccalloin's apparent pride in this unethical behaviour, and further dishonesty, is established by the many comments of his to that effect in the comments section to this blog post.

Dr George Beccaloni, Curator of the Wallace Collection of the 
Natural History Museum London 
writes a faux-review of my book, parades it around the Internet, and is then forced 
by my publisher to admit he has not even read it. 
What kind of scholar would do such a dishonest thing?

Source:  https://www.facebook.com/RichardDawkinsFoundation/posts/10203052284926063

Bob Butler How do you know "wrongly accused", I was able to determine you haven't bought the book yet. The newly revealed research is fairly compelling and convincing. Surely even a Darwinist will look at research before declaring it wrong.

6 August 2014 at 16:57 · Like

George Beccaloni I know for a fact that there is no 'hard evidence' that any of the people who supposedly read Matthew's book passed on Matthew's ideas about 'natural selection' to Darwin or Wallace. If there was such evidence it would be newsworthy!

6 August 2014 at 17:11 · Edited · Like

Bob Butler BTW, it looks like the reviewer on the The Alfred Russel Wallace Website hasn't read the book either and is just restating the old arguments... you know the same logic Watson and Crick used to defend their refusal to acknowledge Rosalind Franklin's discovery of DNA's double helix.

Unevidenced "I just know" state of denial bias

 Discussion

Beccaloni's knee-jerk dismissal of the original and significant findings in my book, which are the first to completely refute the myth started by a lie told by Darwin and parroted ever since by what Dr Arlin Dr Arlin Stoltzfus , of the University of Maryland, Institute for Bioscience and Biotechnology Research, poignantly refers to as "the zombie hoard" of  Darwin worshipping - myth parroting myna birds - that no naturalist known to Darwin or Wallace read Matthew's prior published conception of macro evolution by natural selection before they replicated it and claimed it as their own dual independent conceptions, was made when Beccaloni had no idea whatsoever (because he had not read my book) who it was who read Matthew's book pre-1858, and that they then influenced Darwin and Wallace and their influencers and their influencer's influencers before either of those two mere replicators penned a single word on the topic.

Becalloni's behaviour is not dissimilar to Professor James Moore's incredible claim as reported in the Daily Telegraph national newspaper  (incredible because Moore is a self-proclaimed expert on this topic) that "I would be extremely surprised if there was any new evidence had not been already seen and interpreted in the opposite way.”  

Personally, I am extremely surprised that Professor James Moore claims to be unaware that the nationally newsworthy discovery that  as opposed to the old Darwinite "knowledge belief" of none whatsoever that naturalists in fact have been originally and newly discovered by me in 2104 to have read and then cited  Matthew's book pre 1858. Because that discovery is completely new - 100 per cent verifiable by way of the publication record (so this is something we can now 100 per cent know, because it is so absolutely hard-evidenced) and therefore has never been discussed before and, therefore cannot possibly be interpreted in the opposite direction. And the originality of my findings are verified as new and original in two subsequently expert  peer reviewed journal articles here and here.

The de-facto fact denial behaviour of Beccaloni and Moore was then replicated by John van Wyhe of the University of Singapore who similarly misinformed the Scottish press by a personal press statement email to the Journalist Michael Alexander (sent on to me for information) about his opinions of my original peer reviewed newly published  research (Sutton 2016), in a peer reviewed journal - from whose advisory board he resigned in the immediate wake of my publication in it:

"Dr Sutton's allegations about a purported influence of Matthew on Darwin and Wallace are not new.

This conspiracy theory is so silly and based on such forced and contorted imitations of historical method that no qualified historian could take it seriously."

Van Whyhe's claims were later diluted by Alexander in the press to read:

'Dr John van Wyhe, a senior lecturer at the Department of Biological Sciences, at the National University of Singapore, said the recent claims by Dr Mike Sutton of Nottingham Trent University were “so silly” and “based on such forced and contorted imitations of historical method that no qualified historian could take it seriously. “ '

Perhaps by way of the same arguably jealous logic, Dr van Wyhe similarly believes the Staffordshire Hoard is a conspiracy theory because it was discovered by a non-historian with a metal detector?

The behaviour of these three professional Darwinites certainly confirms the Dysology Hypothesis and is worthy of further research by psychologists and sociologists interested in how uncomfortable newly discovered significant facts, which lead to paradigm changing new discoveries, face a biased reception by those with a professional new fact denial agenda.

My college, a chartered psychologist, Professor Mark Griffiths, is particularly interested in this specific pseudo scholarly behaviour and is ready and willing to talk with biased Darwinists about that behaviour and their new fact denial beliefs. Here.

Ask Royal Society of Biology @DrMarkGriffiths to fund case study research on Biologists bias https://t.co/faRY8kS4uS pic.twitter.com/gDuWC72hpx

— Supermythbuster (@supermyths) August 10, 2016

Most fittingly, Dr George Beccaloni provides us with confirmatory evidence for the extremely simple concept of knowledge contamination:

Concept: proof
1. Paper "knowledge contamination" = 6k+ readers.:https://t.co/6K7Wm5UvfI
2. Beccaloni contaminated: https://t.co/hv0gtOwcTC

— BlessedVirginDarwin (@OnNavalTimber) August 11, 2016

Dr Arlin Stoltzfus on the Darwinite Mynah Bird Parroting Zombie Horde

Read Dr Arlin Dr Arlin Stoltzfus , of the University of Maryland, Institute for Bioscience and Biotechnology Research on the New Data. 

I particularly approve of his term "zombie horde' to refer to the mynah bird parroting Darwin deification cult: Here.

'Sutton gathers the evidence that Matthew's book was not just read by naturalists, but (1) received multiple published reviews and (2) was cited by (3) naturalists in Darwin's circle of acquaintances and influences. Loudon's review actually mentions that Matthew's book contained interesting ideas on the origin of species. To find out why naval arboriculture was so interesting to Brits, you'll have to read Sutton, or just consider the basis of the British Empire in 1831. '

Most "education" involves accepting the squawkings of obedient myna birds. Get the facts: https://t.co/UUpZjTHO3e pic.twitter.com/Xm8aFqQiSY

— Dr Mike Sutton (@Criminotweet) August 11, 2016

Greater power of occupancy in the literature of lies, myths and other falsehoods strangles veracity

A lot of the environment is in fact organic life itself.

The originator of macroevolution by natural slection, Patrick Matthew (1831) wrote about what he coined the "natural process of selection", In part he explained as evolution by natural selection with regard to what he called a "power of occupancy". Matthew used this example to explain that a tree might in fact grow better outside its "natural" environment (the soil and climate in which it is found in nature) but is prevented from doing so by other tree species that would overwhelm it through having a "greater power of occupancy".  And he backed up his claim with real examples, This point was picked up by Jameson, So much for the myth that Matthew never backed up his ideas with examples of observations from nature. 

William Jameson was a botanist, deputy surgeon-general and superintendent of the East India Company. He cited NTA in 1853 noting Matthew's original findings that trees could grow better outside their "natural environments". 

 In 1854, the year after Jameson cited Matthew's original discovery, William Hooker (friend of Darwin, Mentor of Wallace, and father of Darwin's best friend Joseph Hooker) who was empowered to make such decisions for the East India Company from Kew, blocked his application for promotion. See my book Nullius in Verba for the fully referenced details.

Darwin and Wallace would later replicate Matthew's original prior-published ideas - including replicating his original explanatory analogies - and claim them as their own. To date, their deceptions have a greater power of occupancy in the literature than veracity, because Darwin's and Wallace's newly discovered lies about the non-existence of any prior-readership of Mathew's book are being strangled by a hostile environment known as The Darwin Industry.

The evidence to support this is in my latest peer reviewed article: http://www.nauka-a-religia.uz.zgora.pl/index.php/pl/czasopismo/46-fag-2015/921-fag-2015-art-05 where you can lean just how many people in fact did read Matthew's ideas (because they are newly discovered to have cited Matthew's book pre-1858)  - and their relationshops to Dariwn and Walace - before that pair replicatred them in 1858.

Uncomfortable and unwelcome facts are perhaps the most important: https://t.co/ZIHmoVPver pic.twitter.com/t814W0itVy

— Supermythbuster (@supermyths) August 12, 2016

Fall of the House of Darwin Part 2

Fall of the House of Darwin. A disgrace to the Royal Society

ERASMUS DARWIN

Years before his own great science fraud (Sutton 2016),  fellow of the Royal Society, Charles Darwin's (FRS) grandfather (Erasmus Darwin FRS) almost got away with the first recorded case of pharmacological plagiarism by claiming that Withering's discovery of digitalis as a cure for dropsy was that of his own deceased son. Erasmus sought to build up his own fame by slyly establishing that it was a Darwin family discovery (see here).  Full details can be read here. 

This was not Erasmus Darwin's only famous act of plagiary. He also plagiarised verses from the poet Anna Seaward for his most famous poem The Botanic Garden.  Here,

+

Erasmus Darwin Museum in Lichfield is smashing. I recommend it. My 9 year old had great fun. But weirdly, just as Charles Darwin's House at Down makes no mention of his plagiarism of natural selection, Erasmus's fails to mention his of digitalis discovery https://t.co/WMxr6fR8Zw pic.twitter.com/L4xOD9iUwT

— Dr Mike Sutton (@Criminotweet) April 8, 2018

Fall of the House of Darwin: Part 1

It is proven that Darwin lied from 1860 onwards in order to corrupt the history of discovery of natural selection by successfully creating the myth, which he knew to be a fallacy when he wrote it - because he had been informed the opposite was true, that no naturalist/no one at all read Patrick Matthew's (1831) prior-published complex hypothesis of the macroevolution by natural selection - and Matthew's unique explanatory examples, analogies and same four words to name it - before he replicated the entire thing and referred to it as "my theory" thereafter when he knew it was no such thing.

Moreover, Darwin's and Wallace's friends, associates, influencers and influencers influencers are newly discovered to have cited Matthew's book and written about his original ideas before Darwin or Wallace so much as put pen to private notepad o the very same topic.

In light of New Data: https://t.co/Ts5EQd4J1m
Reconsider Darwin - strpped of the aura of contrived respectability pic.twitter.com/dWdoLQ4vYV

— Supermythbuster (@supermyths) August 2, 2016

Like those with religious faith in miracles, which is
the only explanation for the hugely and uniquely improbable,
died in the wool Darwinities effectively believe in the immaculate conception
of Matthew's prior published hypothesis whilst surrounded by naturalist friends and
associates whose brains were fertile to some unknown degree
with Matthew's original prior-published ideas. Because they cited
his 1831 book and mentioned them in the literature before Darwin or Wallace penned
so much as a private note on the topic

Fall of the House of Darwin:

The truth will always out

1 - https://t.co/6x3GgP2Jja …

2. https://t.co/Ts5EQd4J1m pic.twitter.com/g7wop6sH1k

— Supermythbuster (@supermyths) August 3, 2016