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

Friday, 19 January 2018

Do You Know What Time It Is? It's Time To Add Darwin to the List

+ +


Mike Sutton
Mike Sutton
Dr Mike Sutton is the author of 'Nullius in Verba: Darwin's greatest secret'.


Jul. 16, 2015 4:47 am
Categories: CounterknowledgeDysology
Gwyn Macfarlane

'When a number of conflicting theories co-exist, any point on which they all agree is the one most likely to be wrong.' (Macfarlane 1984, p. 253   ).

I have no idea about whether or not Macfarlane's Law   has universal applicability. He applied it to the story of the discovery and development of penicillin as a useful myth-busting device in his work to show the Fleming eclipsed role of Macfarlane's Oxford University associate, Howard Florey, in the development of penicillin as systemic medicine.
Macfarlane writes of his law in a footnote on page 253 of his superb book    on Alexander Fleming:
'Dr D. L. Cowen has been kind enough to refer to this principle as 'Macfarlane's Law' but the author cannot claim complete originality, since it emerged during a casual conversation with a now anonymous colleague at a now-forgotten International Congress.'
Macfarlane (1984, p. 253   ) found his law applied to the story of penicillin:
'The one common assumption made by all those who have tried to explain Fleming's lack of success was that he was convinced of the immense potential value of his discovery and did his best to establish this against the odds that proved too great for him.'
Essentially, Macfarlane makes a strong case that Fleming simply failed to personally take his initial discovery of penicillin and its germ killing powers forward, due to a combined lack of pure intuitive experimental curiosity and particular departmental philosophy against undertaking experiments without sufficient evidence to warrant them. Hence, Fleming failed to undertake the experiment to inject penicillin into an infected animal after his only injection experiment (into a rabbit) suggested penicillin would not survive more than four hours inside a patient. Fleming simply saw that penicillin might be usefully developed as a topical medicine to treat local infection sites. Florey, on the other hand, did the experiment by injecting penicillin into an infected mouse. And the rest is a most complex and fascinating history.
I find Macfarlane's law applies also when it comes to the many pre-Sutton 2014   competing explanations for why Charles Darwin supposedly failed to read Patrick Matthew's (1831) prior published complete theory    of natural selection.

Macfarlane's Law Disproves the Majority View about Darwin

What all the insensibly named, because they are competing, 'majority view' Darwinist explanations for why Darwin supposedly never read Matthew's prior-published hypothesis of natural selection, have in common (see Nullius    for the details) for the details) is a common assumption (premise) - often overtly stated as an unquestionable 'knowledge belief' that Darwin was a profoundly honest person. But he wasn't. His private autobiography - written not for publication but for his family - revealed with apparent honesty, ironically, that as a child he was a compulsive attention seeking and self-glorifying liar ( Darwin 1876   ):
'I may here also confess that as a little boy I was much given to inventing deliberate falsehoods, and this was always done for the sake of causing excitement.'
Nullius in Verba
Not much should be made of that, I include it here only to show that there might just have been something pathological about Darwin's serial dishonesty as an adult naturalist.
Darwin’s biographer, Clarke, was convinced that Darwin must have read Matthew’s (1831) book. He wrote (Clarke 1984:    130-131).:
'Only the transparent honesty of Darwin’s character, which shines out so brightly from the archives, makes it possible to believe that by the 1850s he had no recollection of Matthew’s work.'
Every other competing Darwinist excuse for why Darwin supposedly never read Matthew's book is based on the now debunked pre-Nullius    'knowledge belief', which was started by Darwin's proven deliberate self-serving lie that no naturalists had read Matthew's ideas before Matthew told Darwin about them in the press in 1860. Hence, they all agree, on what we now know is the fallacy that Darwin was being honest when he claimed that information was, to his knowledge, the case. We know Darwin was deliberately lying, because before Darwin wrote that fallacy, Matthew had informed him that the naturalist John Loudon had reviewed his book. Moreover, in response to Darwin's blatant lie that apparently no naturalist had read it, Matthew, in the Gardener's Chronicle in 1860, told Darwin about yet another naturalist who was aware of his original ideas but feared to teach them. And yet still Darwin went on to repeat his lie in the third edition of the Origin of Species and in every edition thereafter!
Competing Darwinist 'explanations', all based on the newly proven fallacious premise of Darwin's honesty, for why Darwin supposedly failed pre-1858 to read the one book in the world he most needed to read, include the following:
  • Matthew's book was inappropriately titled
  • Matthew's book was on an obscure topic
  • Matthew's book was on a topic that would not interest a naturalist
  • Matthew's ideas on natural selection were limited to a couple of paragraphs in an obscure appendix
  • Matthew's book was unread by any naturalists
  • Matthew's book was unread by anyone known to Darwin or Wallace
  • No one mentioned in the literature Matthew's unique ideas on natural selection
  • Matthew's ideas were not clearly written
  • Matthew wrote nothing original on natural selection
These competing Darwinist excuses for why Darwin and Wallace were supposedly not aware of Matthew's book, and the easy debunking of them all, with facts and reason, can be read in Nullius   ,, where I prove that Darwin told six lies in order to eclipse Patrick Matthew's prior discovery of natural selection. Here is the biggest of the lot:

The Myth of Darwin's Honesty is Bust by the Facts

There is newly discovered, cast iron, 100 per cent, proof that Charles Darwin, in collusion with his best friend and botanical mentor Joseph Hooker, blatantly and self-servingly, lied, in the Gardener's Chronicle, when he wrote in 1860 that apparently no naturalist had read Matthew's (1831) prior-published ideas, before Matthew brought them to Darwin's attention in 1860. Consequently, Darwin further lied when he wrote in the third edition of the Origin of Species (1861), and every edition thereafter, that Matthew's unique ideas had passed unnoticed until 1860.

My original discoveries create a big problem for Darwinists

Good scholarship in any field involves questioning. And so I think the best application of Macfarlane's law is that given by Root-Bernstein who writes that we should question: '...most the the data that best fit your expectations and focus instead upon the unsolved problems, anomalies, and paradoxes of your field.' (Root-Bernstein 1993).   
The new problem that Darwinists now have to solve is:
How on Earth did Darwin and Wallace discover Natural Selection independently of Matthew's prior published hypothesis of it; despite the newly discovered fact that they were influenced and facilitated on the same topic by naturalists they knew who had long before read and cited Matthew's book, which contains it?
If Darwinists can solve this new problem, rationally and convincingly, in light of just how many of Matthew's original ideas and examples Darwin and Wallace replicated, along with his powerful Artificial Versus Natural Selection Explanatory Analogy of Differences, and his terminology,* then, and only then, can they solve what we might name the Anomalous Paradox Problem of Darwin's and Wallace's Immaculate Conceptions of Matthew's Prior Published Hypothesis.
Of significant note also, is the fact that the problem of claimed independent replication of a full, complete, appreciable, original and unique prior-published, problem solving and game-changing idea, hypothesis or theory, whilst in contact with those who are 100 per cent proven to have read the publication containing it, is unique in the history of scientific discovery to the story of Matthew, Darwin and Wallace. That makes it a most important anomaly, which has been ignored for the 155 years following the publication of Darwin's Origin of Species, but it is dragged now into the spotlight by my new discoveries.
Kuhn's seminal work on the Structure of Scientific Revolutions explains   : 'A shift in professional commitments to shared assumptions takes place when an anomaly subverts the existing tradition of scientific practice.' Darwinists will need now take note that the anomaly of Darwin's and Wallace's essential immaculate conceptions of a prior published theory has been highlighted by the New Data that their influencers had read it before they replicated it. Moreover, the Darwinist 'anomaly dodging' assumption, of Darwin's and Wallace's remarkable honesty, which they have shared and relied upon in order to deal with Darwin's and Wallace's so-called 'independent' discoveries of Matthew's prior published discovery, is newly bust in the light of Wallace's now proven dishonesty and Darwin's blatant lies.
If exceptional claims do require exceptional evidence, then that is exactly what Darwinists must provide now in light of the New Data presented in Nullius   .
Notably, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, which means that, to repeat the point already made, what remains in Darwin's and Wallace's massively decimated private correspondence archives, private diaries, and Darwin's torn apart, missing pages and scribbled out text private notebooks and essays – dated as written in the exact same year, or after, Darwin's influential friends and associates, and Wallace's Sarawak paper editor, read and cited Matthew's work - is quite obviously not extraordinary evidence in support of their claimed 'independent' discoveries of Matthew's prior-published discovery of the natural process of selection.
Moreover, it is a fact that the New Data greatly highlights the anomaly of Darwin’s and Wallace’s supposed ‘independent discoveries’ of Matthew's ‘natural process of selection’. This represents the start of a paradigm change.
According to Kuhn (1970 p. 62)    the characteristics of paradigm changing discoveries include the:
'... previous awareness of an anomaly, the gradual and simultaneous emergence of both observational and conceptual recognition, and the consequent change of paradigm categories and procedures often accompanied by resistance.'
Paradigm changes in our knowledge of the history of scientific discoveries are not arrived at by making scientific discoveries, although new technologies may be essential facilitators for the discovery of new knowledge about that history. There are, however, usefully analogous factors involved. All Kuhn's elements of paradigm change in science are to be found in the story of Matthew, Darwin and Wallace. There is the anomaly of Darwin's and Wallace's 'immaculate conceptions' (independent discoveries) of Matthew's prior published discovery. There is the new BigData ID hi-technology facilitated observation that influential naturalists, known to Darwin and Wallace, in fact did read, and cite, Matthew's book pre-1858, which represents an original, anomaly highlighting, paradigm shifting, discovery of a great paradox in the history of the discovery of natural selection. Finally, there is the fact that the change of paradigm to Darwin and Wallace having been more likely than not influenced by Matthew's prior-published work long before 1858, and the new research procedures I used to bring it into existence, are meeting resistance from those still wedded to the old 'majority view' of Darwin and Wallace as independent discoverers. See for example Dr Mike Weale's position paper    on my discovery of the New Data. Every criticism in it can be rebutted by reference to reason and the newly discovered facts (here).
Progress in search engine technology, combined with Google's Library Project of over 30 million searchable books and other publications, has transformed the anomaly of Darwin's and Wallace's claimed dual independent discoveries of Matthew's prior-published original ideas from a mere vexation into a crisis in the history of scientific discovery.
The issue of Patrick Mathew's priority over Darwin and Wallace for his own prior-published and cited discovery is not something that the history of scientific discovery can ethically or sensibly ignore if it is to be of any use in helping us to understand how the discovery of natural selection occurred. Such knowledge is important, because it is fundamental in developing ways to increase the chances of making other great discoveries in the future.
*For the published proof of just how much of Matthew's unique and original 1831 ideas and content Darwin and Wallace replicated see e.g.: Sutton    (2014); Dempster    (1995); and Dawkins, in Bryson    (ed) (2010).
(c) Darwin and WallaceAttribution
Miracle Double Immaculate Conceptions of the Blessed Virgins Darwin and Wallace of Matthew's prior published hypothesis of natural selection

Book Crime!

Matthew and Extinction Events And on Evolution Occuring Between Them

Thursday, 18 January 2018

Google Research Forces Publication of Encyclopaedia Britannica's New Page on Patrick Matthew

Identity Verified


Having deleted the myth started as a lie by Darwin that no naturalist / no one whatsoever read Patrick Matthew's (1831) prior published theory before Darwin and Wallace replicated it and claimed it as their own, I am pleased to see that the Encyclopedia Britannica has now also deleted the Appendix Myth from its page on Patrick Matthew.  The encyclopedia could benefit form making it clearer that whilst it is correct (e.g. see Rampino) that Matthew's catastrophic extinction events version of the theory is more correct than Darwin's now debunked uniformitarian beliefs, Matthew also explained evolution by natural slection occurring between extinction events:

Matthew (1831) wrote clearly on how evolution occurred over great lengths of time between extinction events: (see Sutton 2014)

‘…diverging ramifications of life, which from the connected sexual system of vegetables, and the natural instincts of animals to herd and combine with their own kind, would fall into specific groups, these remnants in the course of time moulding and accommodating their being anew to the change of circumstances, and to every possible means of subsistence, and the millions of ages of regularity which appear to have followed between the epochs, probably after this accommodation was completed affording fossil deposit of regular specific character.’

Mike Sutton

PLEASE NOTE The (Sutton 2014) e-book of Nullius in Verba Darwin's greatest secret (CITED BELOW) is currently unavailable due to criminal and civil book piracy investigations into hackers, cyberstalkers and ID fraudsters (see bottom of page at on the original e-book) However, the abridged (vol 1) paperback (Sutton 2017) is available from all amazon stores, libraries and bricks and mortar bookshops e.g. 

Thinker in Science / Social Sciences / Sociology
Mike Sutton
Mike Sutton
Dr Mike Sutton is the author of 'Nullius in Verba: Darwin's greatest secret'.

Google Research Forces Publication of Encyclopaedia Britannica's New Page on Patrick Matthew

Feb. 23, 2016 2:03 pm
Categories: CounterknowledgeDysology
Google Forces Encyclopaedia Britannica to Evolve on History of Discovery of Natural Selection
I am quite heartened to learn by private correspondence today that, following a letter from Jim Dempster's daughter - Soula Dempster - the Encyclopaedia Britannica has entirely re-written its Patrick Matthew page to reflect many of the "real facts" as opposed to the old Darwinist "false facts"- such as the old Darwinist myth that the original ideas on natural selection in Matthew's (1831) book went unread before Matthew brought them to Darwin's attention in 1860 - after Darwin (1859) had replicated them in The Origin of Species without citing their originator.
Nevertheless, at the time of writing the Encyclopaedia Britannica does, unfortunately for veracity, continue with the old debunked Darwinist "Appendix Myth   "as though it is true rather than a falsehood started as a deliberate lie by Darwin in 1860.
As early as 1842 - the year Darwin penned his first private essay on natural selection - Wallace's Sarawak paper's editor, and Darwin's Royal Society associate and friend of his father and of his great friend Jenyns - Selby cited Matthew's book many times and wrote that he could not understand why Matthew claimed, incidentally in the main body of his book not in its appendix!, that some trees could thrive in non-native areas. Matthew's explanation was an example of his original natural versus artificial selection explanatory analogy of differences, which both Darwin and Wallace replicated. Selby was like many naturalists at the time a deeply religious man who believed the Christian God placed all of his designed species in the designed place most suited to them. Matthew's accurate observations were heresy. Another naturalist, Jameson - of the East India Company - a regular correspondent of William Hooker - who was the father of Darwin's best friend Joseph Hooker - wrote in 1853 of the importance of the exact same Matthew observation on timber growing - citing Matthew. All these original New Data details - with full independently verifiable references - are in my book Nullius in Verba: Darwin's Greatest Secret   .

Click to view    the Encyclopaedia Britannica page in question. 

Historically, this is an interesting and most ironic development because in my book Nullius I originally revealed    that Matthew's (1831) book was advertised on 3/4 of a prominent page of Part 5, Volume 2 of the Encyclopaedia Britannica 1842.
It is most ironic that Google technology, which I (Sutton 2014   ) originally used to show exactly who really did read and cite Matthew's (1831) book and the ideas in it on natural selection pre 1858, allows us to show the Encyclopaedia Britannica that it is wrong to claim Matthew's book and the orignal ideas in it went unread, because as early as 1832 and in 1842 this hugely influential in the 19th century encyclopaedia was citing and advertising Matthew's book.
  • Google, therefore, has helped the Encyclopaedia Britannica to evolve to be veracious on the topic of the discovery of evolution with evidence it should have known about, but clearly did not.
  • Only because it has recently been "computerised" - and hence discoverable on the Internet - as part of the Google Library Project, was I able to find that evidence on my 14-year old clunky laptop, sitting at home whilst watching TV. Now that's what I call progress, because I don't like paper libraries.
Matthew's (1831) book was prominently advertised in the Encyclopedia Britannica from 1832 onwards
Significantly, the above advert had in fact been in the published literature since 1832 in the Encyclopaedia Britannica. Because, as Dr Mike Weale usefully points out on his Patrick Matthew Project website   :
'Note that although the official publication date for the 7th Edition of the Encyclopaedia Britannica was 1842, in reality it was published in instalments starting in 1827. Volume 4 was available in bound form in 1832, which explains why all the books in the publishers’ advertising insert (“lately published by Adam Black, Edinburgh, and Longman, Rees, Orme, Brown and Green, London   “) are from 1831-2 (for example, Memoirs of the Wernerian Natural History Society, Vol 6   ). Coincidentally, Volume 21 (the last volume, which really was published in 1842) contains a citation of Matthew’s book    in its article on “Timber”. The advert is very similar to the Edinburgh Literary Journal (1831) advert, except the quotes from reviews have been updated. Even the aggressively negative review from the Edinburgh Literary Journal is quoted as a “Sample of Venom”, perhaps to pique the reader’s interest!''

In 2015 Dr Mike Weale discovered    an additional individual - who cited Matthew's book before Darwin and Wallace replicated the original ideas and explanations in it without citing Matthew - bringing the known total to 26, He writes:
'Selected citation #4. Augustin Francis Bullock Creuze. Article on “Timber” Encyclopaedia Britannica, 7th Edition (1842), Vol. 21, p.291   
This brief citation is noteworthy for confirming that Matthew’s (1831) book was regarded as “valuable” by the author of the 1842 Encyclopaedia Britannica article on “Timber”. Note that Volume 21 really was published in 1842, unlike the other volumes which although they stated “1842” on their title pages were in reality published in earlier years. The article is signed “(B.Z.)”, identifiable as Augustin F. B. Creuze (1800-1852) via the Table of Signatures    in Volume 1. Creuze also authored other articles for the Encyclopaedia Britannica, including a lengthy one on “Ship-building” that was published as a separate treatise   , but Matthew is not cited in it. The article reproduces a table from Matthew’s book on the “number of concentric layers of sap-wood”. The citation is also noteworthy for making a reference to the “many things irrelevant to its subject” in the book. A similar opinion was expressed in the 1860 review of the book   , likely by James Brown.
The following table of the number of concentric layers of sap-wood observed in various species of timber trees is extracted from a valuable work on Naval Timber by Patrick Matthew; a work which abounds in much sound practical information, though mixed up with many things irrelevant to its subject.'

More on the significance of what was written in the Encyclopedia Britannica advert for Matthew's (1831) book