Friday, 18 January 2019

The Evolution of Fraud

Tuesday, 15 January 2019

Credulous Darwin Worshippers

Darwin and Wallace worshippers (those who unscientifically and credulously desperately deify the proven liar and plagiarist Charles Darwin and his plagiarist friend Alfred Wallace) have lost their pants in public as a result of the new data that has acted like an unwelcome enema, leading them to soil themselves in public (e.g. here).

Here is just one very small, yet not insignificant, example of the New Data (detected with the innovative Big Data  IDD research method), which completely debunks the Darwinist myth, started as a lie by Charles Darwin (because Matthew had already told him the opposite was true) that Matthew was a little know author on scottish forest trees, whose original ideas no one read. In reality, Matthew's (1831) work was prominently advertised in the Encyclopedia Britannica (p. 407) of 1842, the very year in which Darwin wrote his first private essay on the topic of Matthew's prior published theory of what Matthew originally coined the 'natural process of slection' and Darwin four-word shuffle plagiarized into the 'process of natural slection'. This is just one of so many newly uncovered examples of the prominence of Matthew's book and the bombshell breakthrough ideas in it in the first half of the 19th century.

Wednesday, 9 January 2019

On The Loudon Blyth Connection: Matthewian Knowledge Contamination Probability

We know that in 1832 Loudon reviewed Matthew's (1831) book and most significantly noted that Matthew had something original to say on what he called 'The Origin of Species' no less. Other writers, such as Eiseley and Dempster have noted that Loudon was founder and editor of the Journal that later published Blyth's important articles in the 1835 and 1836 on natural selection. However neither writer appears to have noted - because they most certainly never pointed it out - that Loudon (as editor) could have in some way provided a route for unique Matthewian  knowledge contamination of Blyth's brain - and therefore of Darwin's and Wallace's  brains, pre-1858. Because we know both Darwin and Wallace read those Blyth articles before they replicated Matthew's theory.