With no original ideas of his own, Darwin stole Patrick Matthew's theory and pretended it was his own. When Matthew caught him, Darwin told serial lies about the true originator and who had read his book who Darwin actually knew. The details of the World's greatest science fraud are all in the book Darwin now holds ultimate responsibility for bringing into print in the 21st century. Darwin clearly never "anticipated" BigData.
Available from Curtis Press: Here
Available on Amazon: Here
When I contacted Professor Brian Ford to let him know that my "Selby cited Matthew discovery" research had twice been plagiarised in the Biological Journal of the Linnean Society it was me to who Brian responded with what he says in the above January 2022 video:
"If you’re in the public eye and you make an impression, people are going to steal your work. It's actually the ultimate compliment. If in science you haven't been plagiarised, it's because you haven't done anything decent. The minute you do, some miserable two-faced, dishonest bastard is going to come along and steal your work and claim it's his own."
Brian J. Ford 2022
NOW AVAILABLE AT AMAZON EUROPE (Here). Official release date Darwin Day 2022.
This book is jam packed with independently verifiable empirical data (most of it newly unearthed in the historic publication record by an original Big Data mining method known as IDD) evidence that both Darwin and Wallace plagiarised Patrick Matthew's prior published theory.
Don't be afraid of the facts. Even though many university professors are very afraid of them.
Copies of my new book "Science Fraud" can now be ordered in advance of its publication on Darwin Day - February 12 2022.
Visit the science book publisher Curtis Press to order your first impression first edition now: HERE
This book reveals the cast iron bombshell New Data that BIGDATA technology unearthed on Darwin's and Wallace's science fraud by plagiary it also exposes how members of the scientific community and other New Data hater Darwin super-fanatics ceaselessly tried (and failed) to have me fired from a senior academic position at Nottingham Trent University for daring to unearth the unwelcome empirical data that exposes the greatest science fraud by plagiary in history.
The verifiable facts in book shock the scientific establishment to the core.
.Pre-order now ...https://t.co/GekhxOR4VV pic.twitter.com/DfZ0yY9DWT
— Neil Shuttlewood, publisher with Curtis Press (@CurtisPress_) December 12, 2021
SCIENCE FRAUD: DARWINS PLAGIARISM OF PATTICK MATTHEW'S THEORY ...
— Neil Shuttlewood, publisher with Curtis Press (@CurtisPress_) December 18, 2021
A telling snippet from Emma Darwin to Patrick Matthew about Matthew's theory of the natural process of selection ...
"... He is more faithful to your own original child than you are yourself ..." pic.twitter.com/WCBRSrYlyD
Mike Sutton is Linkedin here
The Dagg and Derry Show Part II - Where they continue to write ludicrous made up inside their own heads tales about the history of science, leave a web of tangled junk for consumption by the credulous Darwinite horde and it seems to me that in the process they fail to cite their greatest influencer, on the topic of their silly article before it sinks into their own stupidity (click here on Hugh Dower's page and scroll down to the P.S. heading ).
What a pair of desperate nomarks.
Stayed at home plagiarising ‘till eighteen fifty-nine.
Found a sweet theory, buried out of time.
You know I'm happy now, happy as I can be.
Boy, I b'lieve to my soul, its done put that thing on me.
Net present value (One singer sotto voce)
Gimme your good ideas, to steal for this song.
I'm goin' to have my fun until I'm dead an' gone.
'Cause I'm happy now, an' I can't go wrong.
'Cause I got plenty money, I'm gon' carry this good work on.
Net present value (Two singers sotto voce)
I used to be like a dog, I was tied to a tree.
Now I got plenty ideas and Matthew's theory.
You know I'm happy now, happy as I can be.
If I die tomorrow, the world don't owe a thing to me.
Net present value (Three singers sotto voce)
I used to cry over my stealin', I was dumb as I could be.
Now I've got three books out, brought those new thrills to me.
I'm happy now, I'm happy now.
There's nothin' like a stolen song 'bout a stolen theory.
Net present value (Four singers sotto voce)
I got me two, three books written, sweet as can be.
I put that thing on them, and got a written guarantee.
That I can't go wrong, I mean I can't go wrong.
Nothin' like plenty money, good theories, lies, and song.
The Devil has a name. And its little name is: Net present value (Five singers sotto voce)
I got plenty fame by plag-risin, ev'ry day of the week.
All I do is walk around, eat, steal an' sleep.
You know I'm happy now, you know I can't go wrong.
'Cause I took plenty fools, Matthew’s theory and this song.
Get the facts and bury the claptrap at PatrickMatthew.com
On the inside of the dust jacket to his new book: "The Knowledge Machine: How an Unreasonable Idea Created Modern Science" Professor Michael Strevens writes:
"...science calls on its practitioners to do something apparently irrational: to strip away all previous knowledge - such as religious, metaphysical or political beliefs - in order to channel unprecedented energy into observation and experiment.'
Interestingly, it was certainly his religious heresy and possibly also his membership, as a Scottish regional representative (see here), of the radical political reformist Chartist movement that led 19th century writers, including some natural scientists (such as john Lindley, who despised and feared the Chartists), to do the dirty on Matthew (see here) or else fear to be associated with his bombshell 1831 breakthrough of the origination of the theory of evolution by what he called the 'natural process of selection.'
Then in the 21st century, the breakthrough of Big Data searching in Google's library of millions of books (Sutton and Griffiths 2018) allowed me (see e.g. Sutton 2015) to find and then to observe in the historical publication record that it is a science myth that no naturalist read Matthew's theory before Darwin and Wallace replicated it (along with many of his essential highly idiosyncratic explanatory examples and analogies). Moreover, I then conducted and experiment (here) to reveal how even to this day the quasi-religious cultish Darwin Industry is involved in fact denial of what exists in the printed publication record about what 19th century readers wrote on Matthew and his theory before Darwin (1858, 1859) and Wallace (1855, 1858) plagiarized it and then defended their action by claiming no single person had read Matthew's theory before he claimed it was his in a published letter of 1860.
Therefore, it is scientific attitude and techniques that allowed the "knowledge machine" of science, based upon independently verifiable new data, to replace the myth of Darwin's and Wallace's miracle independent conceptions of a prior published theory (that was read and cited by their friends and influencers before they replicated it See Sutton 2017) with the facts of their plagiarism of Matthew and historical and modern day machinations of Darwin fanatics to try to bury the facts of it from the wider public.
Strevens (p. 7) reasons that the fundamental rule of science is that any dispute between people about what is the truth of something must be made made with refence to empirical evidence. However, that said, he points out that the significance of the evidence is a separate matter and must be determined outside of this "Iron Rule" of evidence.
Regarding the new data that I uncovered, which proves all the scientists were wrong to parrot Darwin's lie that no single person read Patrick Matthew's (1831) book On Naval Timber, that data is evidence Matthew's book was read, because at least 30 people are now proven to have cited it in the literature before Darwin and Wallace replicated the theory in it in 1858. To date, the only arguments made against the argument that Darwin plagiarised Matthew are unscientific arguments, because they are based on no evidence. Take for example, Moore's unscientific knee jerk rejection argument against the Darwin Plagiarised Matthew Hypothesis (in Knapton 2014) - a ludicrous argument that is on Wikipedia's Patrick Matthew page as though it is valid rather than unscientific opinion:
“I would be extremely surprised if there was any new evidence had not been already seen and interpreted in the opposite way.”
In reply to Moore, at least according to the hard evidence of his unevidenced reply to the New Data evidence of Darwin's plagiarism and his proven lies about Matthew (Sutton 2017), "I would be extremely surprised if he knows what a scientific argument is, or how to conduct one."
Strevens (p.24) points out that most scientists do not follow any particular paradigm because they believe it is well supported by the evidence, or because it is the "official one" or because it is the one best funded, instead the reason the follow it is because they cannot imagine the truth being different to it. And on p. 25) he explains further:
"Scientists, like anyone else, see and understand things at any one time from a particular worldview ...it shuts down scientists' capacity to comprehend genuine novelty. ...if the old worldview is incompatible with the new, then you can't see the new view from the perspective of the old either. The new view is simply out of sight."
On page 98, Strevens tells us that what works against this problem in science is what he calls "The Iron Rule" and that is data from observations or experiment that confirm or disconfirm current ideas, knowledge claims, hypothesis and theories.
"The iron rule encourages, instructs, obliges, or forces contending scientists to engage each other with observable fact alone. ...The rule thereby harnesses the oldest emotions to drive the extraordinary attention to process and detail that makes science the discriminator and destroyer of false ideas."
And it was by way of my application of this iron rule to bust with newly detected observable facts in the historical publication record the self-serving supermyth started by Darwin that the theory of macroevolution by the natural process of slection that is in Patrick Matthew's (1831) book 'On Naval Timber and Arboriculture' (NTA) was totally unread by anyone whatsoever/any naturalist before Darwin and Wallace replicated it in 1858. I found at least 30 people cited NTA in the literature pre-1858, and that means many more, probably many thousands more besides, read Matthew's 1831 theory before 1858. Because most people who read something do not then go into published print to write about it. Especially not when to do so breaks the scientific and wider establishment strictures against writing anything that questions theological doctrine about the origin of species on our planet, which was the case in the first half of the 19th century, before Robert Chambers (newly discovered to have cited NTA pre 1858) put evolution in the air in his anonymously authored best selling book 'Vestiges of the Natural History of Creation' and was then acknowledged by Wallace as his greatest influencer, and was also avidly read by Darwin pre-1858.
~~~
With apologies to Longfellow, here is a little bit of educational doggerel for all you other fact-hater Darwin super fans out there:
The thing about the history of Matthew, Darwin and Wallace is that it is a tale of story making about story making. How to turn it into a veracious and coherent narrative is a challenge for the 21st century.
Members of the cash-cow Darwin Industry know the new data is now out. They know the truth has now shown Darwin was a serial liar and plagiarising science fraudster. But they are playing for more time. Wikipedia, which is edited by member of the Darwinite cult, is complicit in publishing utter claptrap about what has been found. Why? Because they know that many people don't want an uncomfortable truth to reach them.
Do you want the hard truth of the comfy lies? Both can be found here - both fully identifiable for what they are.
