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

Thursday, 25 August 2016

The Patrick Matthew Puzzle

Until the publication of Nullius (Sutton 2014), it was universally proclaimed as a science "knowledge claim" that no naturalist /no one at all read Patrick Matthew's (1831) prior publication of the full hypothesis of macro evolution by natural selection before Darwin and Wallace (1858) and Darwin (1859) replicated it and, to excuse themselves for not citing Matthew, claimed to have done so independently of Matthew or anyone else.

In reality, Big Data analysis newly revealed in 2014 that Matthew's orignal ideas were read by at least 25 individuals, because they cited it in the published literature! Moreover, 19 of those who read it were in Darwin's inner social circle! Of the seven naturalists now newly known to have cited Matthew's book in print pre-1858, three played pivotal roles at the epicentre of Darwin's and Wallace’s published and unpublished work on natural selection before the ‘Origin of Species’ was first published in 1859.

In the picture below are some of the seven citing naturalists. Pictured are John Loudon, - Prideaux John Selby, - Robert Chambers and William Jameson of the East India Company.

The Patrick Matthew Puzzle question is: "Why is the extremely famous and influential naturalist Sir William Jardine also featured in this picture?"

Four of the Citing Seven Naturalists and Sir William Jardine.
Why is Jardine in this picture?



The Scientific Kidnapping of Patrick Matthew's Own Child

In her book 'Darwin's Ghosts: The Secret history of evolution' Rebecca Stott (2013) coined the ludicrous and easily disproven fallacy that Patrick Matthew was content with Darwin's acceptance of his priority for first conceiving the hypothesis of macro evolution by natural selection. The reality is that Matthew went to his unmarked grave fighting for recognition (see Sutton 2014 for the fully cited details). There being so many myths and fallacies in the history of discovery of evolution by natural selection, Stott's behaviour confirms the Dysology Hypothesis.



"Mr Matthew", ejaculated Emma Darwin, "my husband is more
 faithful to your own original child than you are yourself!" At that
precise moment the three knew she'd put her foot in it. You could
have cut the atmosphere with a snark.

Darwin's son Francis (Darwin 1887. p.302):

`Mr. Matthew remained unsatisfied, and complained that an article in the 'Saturday Analyst and Leader' was "scarcely fair in alluding to Mr. Darwin as the parent of the origin of species, seeing that I published the whole that Mr. Darwin attempts to prove, more than twenty-nine years ago."--Saturday Analyst and Leader, Nov. 24, 1860.'

Interestingly, years earlier, Darwin's wife Emma (Darwin 1863) used the same parent metaphor in a letter she wrote on Darwin's behalf to reply to a letter from Matthew that is - once again - unfortunately lost, which renders what follows rather cryptic:

`With regard to Natural Selection he [Darwin] says that he is not staggered by your striking remarks. He is more faithful to your own original child than you are yourself.'

Despite Darwin's defensive platitudes, Matthew had sufficient self-regard to continue asserting the truth for the publication record. In 1865, then 75 years old, he wrote to the German scientist Ernst Hallier to let it be known that natural selection was his discovery and concept and not Darwin's (Hallier 1866 p.382):

`Matthew himself wrote me about it in a letter of 6 October 1865, in which he first brought to my attention his book on naval timber and arboriculture, published on January 1st 1831, by Longman et Co London and Adam and Charles Black Edinburgh . He wrote: "I fully brought out the theory of competitive natural selection. This was about 30 years before Darwin brought out the same. In his preface to the edition of his work on the origin of species, Darwin states that I anticipated him by many years, and apologizes for his unintentional blunder. The fact is my work did appear before its time, when bigotry and prejudice were in the ascendant."'

The publication record therefore proves that, despite the most embarrassing lack of genuine expert knowledge among all the leading Darwinian authors on this subject - Stott being their mere toady - Patrick Matthew never ever gave up on letting the general public and other scientists know that natural selection was his original discovery!

In 1874 Patrick Matthew went to an unmarked grave, somewhere in Errol churchyard in Scotland, having fought all his life, without success, for the recognition he deserved for discovering natural selection many years before Darwin and Wallace. For example, at the 1867 British Association for the Advancement of Science conference in Dundee, Scotland, which was attended by Darwin's friends Charles Lyell, Robert Chambers and Alfred Wallace - Matthew (1867), then aged 77 years, was platform blocked! He complained in the press that he was strategically prevented from speaking about his discovery. No one listened then, because Darwin and his adoring Darwinists had so cleverly, yet fallaciously, portrayed Matthew as a deluded crank.

Wednesday, 24 August 2016

Shattering the Darwin Myth I. Charles Darwin's Plagiarising Crookery. On Darwin, Robert Grant and Interloping Glory theft


Grant was livid that Darwin had slyly capered off with his - at that time unpublished - original discovery, found more evidences to support it and then presented it at a learned society! Weirdly, but typically, Darwin saw no shame in it.


Darwin's successful perpetration of the world's greatest plagiarising science fraud by glory theft, of Patrick Matthew's prior-published discovery (see Sutton 2016) was preceded by an simpler act of the same sly ilk against the Edinburgh University scholar Robert Grant.

'Darwin's sly, thunder-stealing actions made Grant realize he had made a big mistake in sharing the complex details of his discovery ahead of its full publication. The ambitious Darwin, obviously with no original ideas of his own, unexpectedly exploited the information Grant shared in confidence. He wanted "in" on Grant's exclusive breakthrough, and so made sure to get his very own glorious supporting evidence for it. Grant, quite rightly, slapped the capering interloper down. Poor, wee, upset Darwin, indeed!'
Source of text  Mike Sutton (2014) Nullius in Verba: Darwin's greatest secret: Here 

 https://kindle.amazon.com/post/Y0pvUEUWTbevr71HJA3Euw

Darwin's own account of his presentation at the Plinian Society at the of Grant's discovery - supported by Darwin's extra evidences - can be read here. Unsurprisingly, given what we know of Darwin's serial dishonesty, it contains nothing of Grant's fury at Darwin's glory theft.  In that regard, elsewhere, Darwin slyly tried to spin the truth to make it look like Grant had an irrational territorial hissy-fit (see Sutton 2014 for all the details).



When they Delete the Facts and Publish Lies about You, then you Know You've Arrived

Monday, 22 August 2016

The Fact-Wedgie Awards 2016

The 2016 Fact Wedgie Award.  Science Category Winner: The Royal Society.


For failure to accept the new and paradigm busting facts (Sutton, 2014 and 2016), which have been discovered in the history of discovery of natural selection, the annual Fact-Wedgie Award - for being most wedgied by new and uncomfortably embarrassing facts - goes to the Royal Society.



Please act against denials of fact: Vote on the open letter to the Royal Society: Here






Sunday, 21 August 2016

Smoking Gun Evidence: What is it Exactly? Proposing the Concept of "Gunsmoke Evidence"



The term "smoking gun" is generally held to mean an item of of incontrovertible incriminating evidence. My 19th edition of Brewer's Phrase and Fable (2012. p.1253) explains:
 'The phrase acquired a particularly apt association with the widely diverging views, before, during and after the invasion of Iraq in 2003 about whether Saddam Hussain still possessed WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION. Their discovery would have been hailed by the finders as a smoking gun.'    

At the time of writing, Wikipedia is once again wrong in its etymology, this time to claim that the term 'smoking gun' derives from an 1893 Sherlock Holmes story. 

Anyway, better than mere 'smoking gun' incriminating evidence of Wikipedia's mistake exists, because  it is 100 per cent proven to have been used in published print at least as early as 1878 (Appleton's Journal. p. 17):

'Two men approached, the younger with a smoking gun:

"So it's you, is it?" said she as he came up.
"It is I" said he with a smile.
"Well I think you've got very little to do to go round shootin' fleckers. This one in particular. I was just gettin'  used to him."

On Smoking Gun Evidence in the story of who really did read Patrick Matthew's prior published origination of the hypothesis of natural selection.


Darwin and Wallace (1858) and Darwin (1859) replicated Matthew's origination of macroevolution of natural selection. They failed to cite Matthew, and they claimed to have arrived at Matthew's prior-published bombshell concept independently of Matthew. Darwin and Wallace excused themselves for doing so by claiming (as a proven lie in Darwin's case) that Matthew's ideas were unread by any naturalist  / anyone at all before 1860. In reality, as opposed to the credulous zombie-hoard mynah birding of Darwin's lies (e.g. de Beer 1962, Mayr, 1982), by Darwin's followers and promoters, the Darwinists, Darwin's and Wallace's friends, associates, correspondents and facilitators and their influencers influencers, the naturalists Loudon, Chambers, Selby and Jameson all read and cited Matthew's book pre 1858 (see Sutton 2014).

So what constitutes 'smoking-gun' evidence in this case?  I would propose that there are three areas where the usefulness of the phrase needs to be examined.
  1.  Smoking gun evidence that Darwin or Wallace read the original ideas in Matthew's (1831)book themselves or in some other way copied from it.
  2. Smoking gun evidence that, as opposed to the 'no naturalists read it' premise, that other naturalists did read Matthew's orignal ideas pre-1858.
  3. Smoking gun evidence that Darwin lied in 1860, and in 1861 (and in every edition of the 'Origin of Species' thereafter) when he claimed that no naturalist / no one at all read Matthew's orignal ideas before 1858. 
Smoking gun evidence

The 'New Data' discovered in 2014 and first published in Nullius in Verba provides better than mere smoking gun evidence for 2 and 3 above. We know other naturalists did read Matthew's orignal ideas pre-1858, because they cited his 1831 book before that date and mentioned those original ideas. The 100 per cent proof of the matter exists in the print record of the 19th century published literature.  And Darwin's lies are proven because before he wrote them Matthew informed him in print in the Gardener's Chronicle (1860), very clearly and forcefully, that at least two naturalists did read his ideas and that his book was banned by the public library of Perth in Scotland (see Sutton 2015 and also Sutton 2016). But, with regard to point 1, above, we have not discovered a letter to or from Darwin or Wallace, or a notebook or diary entry, anywhere, that indicates Darwin or Wallace read or were told about Matthew's (1831) book before they replicated so much of Matthew's orignal work. But the fact that much of Darwin's and Wallace's and the notebooks and correspondence of other 19th century naturalists is lost or destroyed means that absence of evidence in this regard cannot rationally be considered as evidence of absence it ever happened.

However, what we do have with regard to point 1 is solid proof that some form of pre-1858 Matthewian knowledge contamination of the minds of Wallace and Darwin could have happened via Loudon, Selby, Chambers, Jameson and others newly discovered to have read and cited Matthew's (1831) book pre-1858.

And we know that knowledge contamination can take place in at least three main ways (see Sutton 2016):
  1. Innocent Knowledge Contamination: The spread of original ideas in a prior-publication via (a) subsequent published sources on the topic, which failed to cite the Originator as their source, or (b) word of mouth and/or correspondence to the replicator by those who read the Originator’s work or communicated with others who did — understood its importance in whole or simply in part — but failed to tell the replicator about its existence. 
  2. Reckless or Negligent Knowledge Contamination: (a) The replicator reads the original publication, absorbs information such as original ideas and examples and terms, but forgets having read it — and never does remember. (b) The replicator reads the original publication and takes notes, but forgets the source of the notes. (c) The replicator is told about original ideas in a publication by someone — who understands their importance in whole or simply in part — who explains they come from a publication, but the replicator fails to ask the name of the author and title of the publication. 
  3. Deliberate Knowledge Contamination (science fraud): The replicator reads the original publication, or is told about its contents, takes notes, or is given notes, remembers this, but pretends otherwise.

Gunsmoke evidence

From the solid evidence from the correspondence and publication record of the 19th century (see Sutton 2104 for the fully cited proof of the following facts) we know that academics talk and share sources and ideas. We know that editors insist on changes and insertions to text and we know that Loudon edited two of Blyth's influential articles - which influenced Darwin and Wallace. We know that Loudon was a friend of Lindley (William Hooker's best friend, who was the father of Darwin's best friend Joseph Hooker) and a correspondent of William Hooker. And we know that William Hooker was Wallace's mentor and correspondent from as early as 1848 and that they met before Hooker wrote a letter of introduction for Wallace in 1848 so that he could set off specimen collecting for cash - some of which came his way from Hooker. We know that Selby edited Wallace's Sarawak paper,  was a friend of Darwin's father and Darwin's good friend and most frequent correspondent Jenyns. We know that Selby was a close associate of William Hooker's circle and we know that Chambers met and corresponded with Darwin pre-1858. Moreover, we know that Jameson was a regular correspondent of William Hooker pre-1858. All this, if not "smoking gun" evidence, is certainly evidence of multiple whiffs of gunsmoke; a type of evidence classed as "circumstantial evidence". In the story of Darwin, Matthew and Wallace there is an awful lot if it - and much more than is covered in this blog post (see Sutton 2014) This circumstantial evidence, combined with more than smoking-gun proof of Darwin's lies, and proof that the original ideas in Matthew's (1831) book were cited by Darwin's and Wallace's influencers and their influencer's influencers pre-1858, completely punctures the 'no naturalists read Matthew's orignal ideas pre-1858' and the 'honest Darwin' myth' - upon which is founded the old paradigm of Darwin's and Wallace's supposed dual independent conceptions of Matthew's prior-published hypothesis.



Conclusion

We do have two important items of better than smoking gun evidence of Matthew's pre-1858 influence on Darwin's and Wallace's work on natural selection. These are points 1 and 2 below. And we do have smoking gun evidence, as well as lots of gun smoke evidence in point 3 below:
  1. We 100 per cent know that the orignal ideas in Matthew's (1831) book were read by Darwin's and Wallace's influencers and their influencer's influencers before Darwin and Wallace replicated them. This is better than 'smoking gun' evidence, because it absolutely disproves the 'no naturalist read Matthew pre-1859' premise that underpins the old Darwinite paradigm of Darwin's and Wallace's dual independent conceptions of Matthew's prr-published hypothesis.
  2. We 100 per cent know Darwin lied when he claimed no naturalist /no one at all read Matthew's prior-published ideas before he replicated them. This is also better than 'smoking gun' evidence, because it completely disproves the honest Darwin premise that also underpins the Darwinite paradigm of Darwin's independent conception of Matthew's prior-published hypothesis.
  3. Due to our rational understanding of the concept and typologies of  of 'knowledge contamination' we have a lot of smoking gun, evidence that those who read Matthew's (1831) orignal ideas had many opportunities to influence Darwin and Wallace and influence their influencers with Matthew's original ideas  many years before 1858. This represents "gun smoke evidence" that such knowledge contamination took place.
  4. We have no smoking gun evidence that Darwin and Wallace did copy Matthew's orignal ideas or were knowledge contaminated by them pre-1858.
From this four-point analysis, it can be argued that insistence upon smoking-gun evidence to substantiate claims of Darwin's and Wallace's probable Matthewian 'knowledge contamination' is based upon a misunderstanding of the better than mere smoking gun paradigm busting facts of the New Data in this story and of the gun-smoke significance of the multiple examples of newly discovered clear routes for Matthewian knowledge contamination of the pre-1858 minds of Darwin and Wallace.


Please note: Wikipedia's corrupt editors are not averse to altering its story-lines by plagiarising my orignal discoveries and passing them off as their own (as they did with my unique discovery of the origination of the term 'moral panic') - so their fallacious account of the origin of the term "smoking gun" will undoubtedly change at some point, but without citation to this blog post. 





Mathew and the DNA Conception Question


Did Matthew really first conceive, by inspired deduction, the idea of DNA?





















On page xiii: of his book, Evolutionary Concepts in the Nineteenth Century, Dempster (1996) writes:

"Patrick Matthew's importance derives from the fact the first naturalist to set correctly the organic history of the world.  To that he added the mechanism of the Natural Process of Selection. And to that he added an inspired speculation: 'Does organised existence, and perhaps all material existence, consist of one protean principle of life capable of gradual circumstance-suited modifications and aggregations, without bound under solvent or motion-giving principle, heat or light?' That principle we now call DNA."

On page 207 of his book, Evolutionary Concepts in the Nineteenth Century, Dempster (1996) writes:

'Molecular biology is a sign of the times. The centre of gravity of evolutionary studies has gradually moved fro the earth sciences to  microbiology. In considering the host of  molecules which are and have been studied, then one can appreciate that DNA given time can create anything. The wonder is that only Patrick Matthew has conceived that there might be a Proteus-like principle: '...capable of gradual circumstance-suited modifications and aggregations (Note F Appendix). Without that speculation he also saw clearly that life was a series of 'diverging .'

And on p. 208 of the same book Dempster has it:

'Today we would combine with time DNA's ability to create any living creature of plant. Patrick Matthew envisaged a Proteus principle of life; DNA would fit that speculation.'




Power of occupancy

I have blogged earlier on how an essay by Benjamin Franklin may have motivated and influenced Matthew to put his original conception of macro evolution by natural slection into a book on naval timber. My book "Nullius in Verba"  explains how the intensely religious naturalist Selby (Wallace's Sarawak paper editor and friend of Darin's father and Darwin's great friend Jenyns) mentioned that he did not understand this when he cited Matthew's book in 1842.  Later, the naturalist Jameson correspondent of (William Hooker, father of Darwin's best friend Joseph Hooker and mentor of Wallace) mentioned its implications as important when he cited Matthew's book in 1853 (some details here) with regard to the fact that timber could in fact thrive better in areas other than those where it was naturally found  where Christians believed .  The reason being that some trees, with a greater power of occupancy, occupy the best soil areas  - in nature - thereby successfully competing against other species.

What follows are text images form Matthew's (1831) book On Naval Timber on the topic of power of occupancy.


Page 302

Page 303






































Page 357



Page 384
















Page 387

Matthew's understanding of the power of occupancy of certain species in nature informed the philosophy of his second book 'Emigration Fields' Matthew (1839) in which he proposed the lower classes of the British take over the lands of others, since the aristocracy enjoyed an unnatural power of occupancy in British society.


Saturday, 20 August 2016

Rational Explanations
















Get the facts, rationally argued. Here


Darwin an Co were shown how to understand macroevolution by natural selection by
 Matthew's (1831) prior-published bombshell heretical conception many years before 
Darwin and Wallace replicated it and then claimed to have done so independently of
 Matthew.

Dr Arlin Stoltzfus on the Credulous Darwin Deification Cult Zombie Hoard

Dr Arlin Dr Arlin Stoltzfus (2016), of the University of Maryland, Institute for Bioscience and
Biotechnology Research on the New Data, teaches brainwashed Darwin worship cult members the importance of objective scholarship and the dangers of fact denial in science (From the Sandwalk blog, August 2016):

 'I would be happy to explain to you what is the point of exploring the evidence regarding who deserves credit for an idea such as natural selection. The point is the same as for any other idea: as a scholar, one wants to get this right, because correct attribution is an important part of the social fabric of scholarship, including science. The correct source for natural selection, under the normal rules of attribution, is Patrick Matthew. If, instead, everyone decides to give credit to some revered figure who came in second-place, then this diminishes scholarship and science, and makes it into more of an elite popularity contest. Here's a rhetorical question for you: would you like credit to go to scientific royalty, or would you like science to be more of a meritocracy?

Everyone agrees that Darwin had more influence. There is no difficulty in adjusting our language to respond to this fact, e.g., consider the case of the Modern Synthesis. Mayr, Simpson and Dobzhansky clearly were the most influential in promoting modern neo-Darwinism, but we attribute the actual combination of Darwinism and genetics to Fisher, Haldane and Wright. We could simply refer to Darwin in the same way-- we could say that natural selection was proposed by Matthew, and perhaps Wells, then popularized by Darwin and his influential social circle.

However, what has happened in this case is that, when the evidence that contradicts misinformation peddled by Darwin and his followers is brought forth, Darwinian zombies lurch forward with the same ignorant dismissals, non sequiturs, and so on, which are then cut down, which just makes room for the next wave of zombies.

So, the point is really about the zombie horde. If there were no zombie horde, then the point would be about attribution, but given that the horde is activated whenever Darwin is criticized, the zombie horde becomes the central issue.'





















A series of flashcards that set out Darwin's proven self-serving and glory-theft plagiarising lies about the pre-1858 readership of Matthew's (1831) original ideas can be found on the Patrick Matthew Blog: Here