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 20 August 2015

Internet Dating with Darwin: New Discovery that Darwin and Wallace were Influenced by Matthew's Prior-Discovery

Darwin told deliberate lies to corrupt the history of the discovery of natural selection in his favour

There is only one occasion in the entire history of the world when a deliberate self-serving falsehood is not a lie, and that is when it is slyly told by Charles Darwin and judged by a Darwinist. See the discussion on The Patrick Matthew Project 



A comment left by me on Mike Weale's Patrick Matthew Project

 Meanwhile, I do think it important to recap on the facts of what Matthew told Darwin and then how Darwin followed what Matthew informed him of by writing the exact opposite (in his own favour) .

 What follows is the pertinent timeline of what was written by both men. I am saying here that Darwin lied but Mike Weale is claiming Darwin did not lie. I think the facts of Darwin's lies should be clearly stated and the data clearly presented. Here it is:

1. In 1860 in his first letter to the Gardener's Chronicle, to claim his rightful priority for his prior published the hypothesis of natural slection that Darwin replicated without citing him. Matthew wrote that his book had been reviewed by the famous naturalist botanist John Loudon.

Loudon’s  review (1832): of Matthew's (1831) book contained the following sentence:

‘One of the subjects discussed in this appendix is the puzzling one, of the origin of species and varieties; and if the author has hereon originated no original views (and of this we are far from certain), he has certainly exhibited his own in an original manner.’

Matthew (1860) in his first letter to the Gardener's Chronicle wrote:

'In your Number of March 3d I observe a long quotation from the Times, stating that Mr. Darwin "professes to have discovered the existence and modus operandi of the natural law of selection," that is, "the power in nature which takes the place of man and performs a selection, sua sponte," in organic life. This discovery recently published as "the results of 20 years' investigation and reflection" by Mr. Darwin turns out to be what I published very fully and brought to apply practically to forestry in my work "Naval Timber and Arboriculture," published as far back as January 1, 1831, by Adam & Charles Black, Edinburgh, and Longman & Co., London, and reviewed in numerous periodicals, so as to have full publicity in the "Metropolitan Magazine," the "Quarterly Review," the "Gardeners' Magazine," by Loudon, who spoke of it as the book, and repeatedly in the "United Service Magazine" for 1831, &c. The following is an extract from this volume, which clearly proves a prior claim.  ...'

Loudon was a famous naturalist, Yet in his 1860 reply to Matthew's 1860 letter Darwin wrote the exact opposite to what Matthew had just told him. See point 2, immediately below, for the hard evidence.

2. In his 1860 letter in the Gardener's Chronicle Darwin's first lie on this specific matter was written by his own hand:

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

To necessarily repeat the point already made, Darwin wrote the exact self-serving opposite to what Matthew had just informed him.

3. Naturally concerned that Darwin was denying the truth about the fact that his book had been read by other naturalists, and its unique ideas understood,  Matthew (1860)  then very clearly, in his second letter in the Gardener's Chronicle - by way of reply to Darwin's blatant self-serving lie  - wrote:

'I notice in your Number of April 21 Mr. Darwin’s letter honourably acknowledging my prior claim relative to the origin of species. I have not the least doubt that, in publishing his late work, he believed he was the first discoverer of this law of Nature. He is however wrong in thinking that no naturalist was aware of the previous discovery. I had occasion some 15 years ago to be conversing with a naturalist, a professor of a celebrated university, and he told me he had been reading my work “Naval Timber,” but that he could not bring such views before his class or uphold them publicly from fear of the cutty-stool, a sort of pillory punishment, not in the market-place and not devised for this offence, but generally practised a little more than half a century ago. It was at least in part this spirit of resistance to scientific doctrine that caused my work to be voted unfit for the public library of the fair city itself. The age was not ripe for such ideas, nor do I believe is the present one,..'

4. Despite being initially informed that the naturalist Loudon had read and reviewed his book Darwin lied in his letter of reply in the Gardener's Chronicle by writing that no naturalist had read Matthew's ideas. As can be seen in point 3, above, Matthew then corrected Darwin by informing him in detail of yet another naturalist who had read his original ideas on natural slection but was afraid t teach them for fear of pillory punishment. So what did Darwin do next?  He wrote to a famous and influential naturalist with the self serving lie that no one at all had ever read Matthew's book! To the famous French naturalist Quatrefages de BrĂ©au in his letter of April 25, 1861 Darwin wrote

: "I have lately read M. Naudin's paper; but it does not seem to me to anticipate me, as he does not shew how Selection could be applied under nature; but an obscure writer on Forest Trees, in 1830, in Scotland, most expressly & clearly anticipated my views—though he put the case so briefly, that no single person ever noticed the scattered passages in his book."?

5. Then in 1861 in the Third Edition of the Origin of Species - and in every edition thereafter, Darwin continued that exact same great self serving lie about Matthew's book,  and who read the ideas in it. That lie  corrupted - for 155 years - the history of the discovery of natural slection. Darwin (1861) wrote in the third edition of The Origin of Species -despite being informed of the exact opposite by Matthew only the year before:

. Unfortunately the view was given by Mr. Matthew very briefly in scattered passages in an Appendix to a work on a different subject, so that it remained unnoticed until Mr. Matthew himself drew attention to it in the Gardener's Chronicle,' on April 7th, 1860.'

Small wonder then that Darwin's Darwinist's - being named for their lying hero - failed to check the truth of the matter. By way of example, Sir Gavin de Beer - Royal Society Darwin Medal winner - wrote Darwin's great lie as the "gospel according to Darwin" truth: And - to necessarily repeat the point thrice made -  until I personally put the record straight not a single person corrected his award winning credulous Darwin deification claptrap:

 "...William Charles Wells and Patrick Matthew were predecessors who had actually published the principle of natural selection in obscure places where their works remained completely unnoticed until Darwin and Wallace reawakened interest in the subject.'

Conclusion:

Darwin was a self-serving deliberate liar. The record is independently verifiable. Darwin wrote the very opposite to which he had twice been informed was the truth by the very trustworthy man whose ideas he replicated without citing their originator's prior publication of them. And Darwin wrote those falsehoods - because ...just as de Beer's ludicrously acclaimed text goes to prove- they were needed to wrestle priority away form the true biological father of natural selection.

Mike Weale does not think Darwin lied. I say it is as clear as the long nose on the end of Pinocchio's lying face that Darwin did - and the independently verifiable facts above absolutely prove it.

Tuesday 18 August 2015

Matthew the Liar?


Patrick Matthew wrote in the preface to his 1831 book 'On of  Naval Timber and Arboriculture':
Matthew (1831) On Naval Timber and arboriculture . Preface

The anonymous author of the Edinburgh literary Journal (1831), who wrote a review of Matthew's book, found that completely implausible and said as much when they wrote that Matthew had copied  the work:':


'...in the original works on planting, from whence they are copied, namely those of Miller, Marshal, Pontey etc, authors that Mr Matthew never had the "curiosity" to examine.'
Therefore, the anonymous author of that review was, in effect, claiming that Matthew had plagiarized the work of others, which  he thought Matthew claimed not to have read.
But did Matthew claim in the above paragraph from his preface that he had not read those works. I think not. Because, on a careful reading he seems to be saying that others who had not read those works would find Matthew presumptuous.
To date, therefore, it seems that there is no evidence that Matthew (unlike Charles Darwin) ever wrote a deliberate falsehood (lie).
Indeed, seven days later the Edinburgh Literary Journal (1831, July 9th, p. 28)  describe Matthew as being honest:
"Our friend the Editor has already found our familiar of considerable use. Its swiftness fits it admirably for reconnoitring the operations of any enemy. Last Monday we sent it across to Perthshire, that it might keep an eye upon Mr Patrick Matthew's motions. The honest gentleman had cut a most respectable bludgeon from one of his crab-trees, but was sitting irresolute in his garden chair." 
That Matthew's own imaginary stick is imagined to have been cut from his crab apple tree is unlikely to be of insignificance to whoever implied, jokingly, on July 9, 1831, that Matthew was an enemy, since on pages 283 to 285, Matthew (1831) explains that Siberian crab apple wood is the strongest apple timber by far.
Why was Matthew described by the the Edinburgh Literary Journal as an enemy? There are many possible reasons for that assertion - from Matthew's natural selection heresy on the question of the origin of species, his mocking of the Scots hero Sir Walter Scott, to his radical libertarian politics They are all discussed in Nullius in Verba: Darwin's greatest secret




Darwin the Liar - or "Inventor" of Falsehoods about Patrick Matthew.


From: The Autobiography of Charles Darwin by Charles Darwin
"Invention"! That's ironically true. Darwin is newly proven a self-serving serial-lying plagiarist 
Darwin wrote in his autobiography:
'Therefore my success as a man of science, whatever this may have amounted to, has been determined, as far as I can judge, by complex and diversified mental qualities and conditions. Of these, the most important have been—the love of science—unbounded patience in long reflecting over any subject—industry in observing and collecting facts—and a fair share of invention as well as of common sense. With such moderate abilities as I possess, it is truly surprising that I should have influenced to a considerable extent the belief of scientific men on some important points.'

For more evidence and detail on Darwin's serial lying, or "invention" read Nullius in verba: Darwin's greatest secret.

For 155 years, top Darwinists have - to their eternal shame - credulously believed and so trumpeted as true Darwin's self-serving lie about the originator of natural selection. They did so in order to be able to make themselves believe that Darwin and Wallace discovered natural slection independently of Matthew's (1831) original and prior published book containing it. Today, despite the fact I have 100 proven Darwin a liar and 100 per cent proven that top naturalists known to Darwin  and Wallace did read Matthew's 1831 before they replicated so much of its original content in 1858, Darwinists such as James Moore have willfully refused to engage with the paradigm changing New Data. Perhaps that is to be expected. After all, they are named for a proven serial lying replicator, and their top Royal Society Darwin medal winning Darwinist guru's, such as Sir Gavin de-Beer, are proven to be credulous believers in Darwin's sneaky lies.

Visit the Patrick Matthew website PatrickMatthew.com to learn more about the true biological father of natural selection.

Monday 17 August 2015

Confirmatory evidence for the Frozen Donkey Hypothesis

I wrote a few months ago in a blog post on the Frozen Donkey Hypothesis that the failure of willfully ignorant pseudo-scholarly Darwinists to engage with the paradigm changing New Data on who really did read Matthew's (1831) prior-published hypothesis of natural selection would create an open field that others would occupy and so come to eventually over-top Darwinists as trusted scholars of the veracious history of the discovery of natural selection.  The publication in August 2015 of a paper by the Creationist, Dominic Stratham (Stratham, J. (2015) Did Darwin plagiarize Patrick Matthew? JOURNAL OF CREATION 29(2) , is confirmatory evidence for my Frozen Donkey Hypothesis:

If one encounters a frozen donkey in the road, standing, for all the world as though alive, no amount of reasoning, patience, impatient berating or rational cajoling will entice it to shift its position. The donkey is not merely being stubborn. Why not? Because it is bereft of life. The donkey can think no more, all mental faculties have ceased to be. The only solution is to go around it. Darwinist historians of science are behaving like frozen donkeys. Unable to adapt to a sudden change in their circumstances, they succumb to those circumstances. If they continue to do so they will be circumvented by scholars better able to adapt to the New Data. Once significantly circumvented, Darwinist historians of science will lose their power of occupancy in the literature on the topic of the discovery of natural selection. Once that happens they will shortly become intellectually extinct.

Debate on why Darwinists should be thoroughly ashamed (here).

Saturday 15 August 2015

de Beer, Dawkins and the Dysology Hypothesis

The dreadful scholarship of eminent Darwinists, who have for the past 155 years deified the serial liar Charles Darwin, confirms the Dysology Hypothesis that unchecked poor scholarship in any field creates an intellectual spiral of decline. 

Credulous Darwinist belief in Darwin's lie that Matthew's ideas had not been read before 1860 enabled the eminent Darwin 'expert'  Royal Society Darwin Medal winner de Beer (1962) to write the absolute shameless claptrap that no one at all had read Matthew's book before 1860 and Richard Dawkins (2010 in Bryson) to ridiculously blame Matthew for not trumpeting his heretical, seditious, and scientifically taboo deduced ideas from the rooftops when it was against their own rules, created following William Pitt's 'gagging Acts' (see Secord 2003), for scientific societies such as the Royal Society and British Association for Advancement of Science to discuss them. 

Weirdly, deBeer and Dawkins - like so many 'expert' and renowned Darwinists - writing with such presumed authority on Matthew seem, not to have read his second letter in the Gardener's Chronicle (1860) where he told Darwin of a naturalist who had read his original ideas but dared not teach them for fear of pillory punishment! 

The irrefutable facts of their past and current behaviour suggests that anyone calling themselves a 'Darwinist' is seemingly going to be intellectually incurable of researching and writing any kind of veracious history of the discovery of natural selection by a man not called Darwin.The pseudo-scholarly shame of it! We should not really expect Darwinists to admit this, of course.

Affordable Cognition

Affordable Cognitive Defense for Good Thinkers



image
Thinker Media & Thinker Books
image
ThinkerBooks Inc.Attribution
Support Best Thinking Bloggers
image
Nullius in Verba
Your time and your brain are your most valuable assets. Don't take either for granted. If you are looking for ways to find previously undiscovered, argument winning, independently verifiable facts, you might care to think about buying my book 'Nullius in Verba'  In it you will find out how to uniquely discover your own brand new, hard, confirming or dis-confirming facts.
My simple to use new Big Data technology method will work in any area of your interest, allowing you to bust myths and fallacies, thereby providing you with a solid foundation upon which to make your own unique and significant contribution to veracious hard-evidence-based knowledge.
  • They may tell you that it's not what you say but the way that you say it. However, in the real world, in the long-run, facts trump claptrap every time.
If you want to impress your friends, confuse your "enemies", and greatly enhance your cognitive armory to deal with mere clever rhetoric and soft-beliefs masquerading as knowledge, then read Nullius in Verba today.
In this book, in plain English, I lead by example to show you exactly how easy it is to make simple and freely available new Big Data research technology and techniques work for you.