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, 20 May 2016

Patrick Matthew and the "New Data" facts

Wednesday, 18 May 2016

Don't be Punterized by Career Darwinites who Failed to Find the Facts


Behind the Mask of Respectability, Get the Fully Evidenced Facts Behind Blatant Darwin, Darwinist and Darwinite Fact Denial Behaviour - Here





The World's Top Evolutionary Biologists, Including Richard Dawkins, Admit that Patrick Matthew (1831) Conceived the Full Hypothesis of Macroevolution By Natural Selection Years Before Darwin and Wallace. But, Like Darwin, they Claim Matthew's Bombshell Ideas Went Unread Until After the Publication of Darwin's Origin of Species.  Today the "New Data" facts Prove Them Totally Wrong. They Were Read! And they Were Read By Darwin's and Wallace's Influencers and their Influencers Influencers - Loudon, Selby and Chambers - and by their other Associates and their Associates friends. Routes of Matthewian Knowledge Contamination are thus, Newly, 100 per cent Proven.

The Only Reason we Now Newly know Matthew's ideas were Read by Darwin's and Wallace's Influencers, Years Before Darwin and Wallace Replicated them, Each Claiming them as their Own, and Failing to Cite Matthew, is Because I Originally Discovered That - As opposed to the Old Knowledge Belief of None - Seven Naturalists Did In fact Cite Matthew's Book in the Literature Years Before 1858.

Don't be punterized by those who have built their academic careers out of ignorantly denying the importance of Patrick Matthew. Get the New Data facts, about those naturalists known to Darwin and Wallace, who read and cited Matthew's 1831 book in the literature pre 1858. Naturalists who Darwin scholars failed to find. Decide for yourself. Darwin's proven lies about the prior readership of Matthews ideas, and the newly proven routes of Matthewian knowledge contamination can be read in my latest peer reviewed science journal paper Here.

The full details and explanations, further lieas Darwin told about Matthew and others, Wallace's dishonest editing of one of his letters for his autobiography, a plagiarism text analysis and much more can be found in my book Here.



























































Beware of Hacked-Book Sites: Payload More Likely to be Malware


Back onto the subject of "atrotrufing" - which is systematically orchestrated fake grass roots responses to facts, of the kind currently being perpetrated by Wikipedia editors - I think I've spotted another example.

The new case in question is a website that claims to be offering a free (hacked) copy of my e-book "Nullius in Verba: Darwin's greatest secret"

I think the gleeful "look what I got for free" reviewer's pictures and language fails to match-up  to the type of folks who would want to read my book. Moreover pictures of men have girls names and vice versa.

POSTSCRIPT - 1645 GMT 18th May 2016 On second thoughts -  link to the hacked e-book site deleted, as the very link properties (being a php file) might just possibly contain malware. Better to be safe than sorry, I'm told. 

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX



Of course for just a few Pounds/Dollars/Euro etc,  it's available on Amazon - and also on my publisher's website (here), both of which are a much safer bet, I'd say. 

Darwin Scholar Makes Written Claims to the Scottish Press that My Independent Expert, Blind Peer Reviewed and Published in a Science Journal, Work is "So Silly" "Not New" and a "Conspiracy Theory"



















Michael Alexander of the Scottish Courier reports that Dr John van Wyhe is "rubbishing" my discoveries, reported in my latest peer reviewed science article, without any academic arguments to support why he wishes the Scottish public to believe the discoveries are "not new", why they are "so silly" and why they are a "conspiracy theory".

In his full statement to the press, where he effectively engages in fact denial regarding the new discovery of routes of knowledge contamination, Dr Van Wyhe wrote: 

      'Dr Sutton's allegations about a purported influence of Matthew on Darwin and Wallace are not new. This conspiracy theory is so silly and based on such forced and contorted imitations of historical method that no qualified historian could take it seriously.'

"Conspiracy theory" "Not new" "so silly" ? Really? 

So are new facts that reveal the existence of routes of possible knowledge contamination between Matthew, Darwin and Wallace really not new, silly & a conspiracy theory?

 Why would Dr van Wyhe deny the existence of 100 per cent proven, independently verifiable, newly discovered facts that completely overturn prior-knowledge beliefs in his field? Why write such a thing for public consumption about someone else's peer reviewed work? Is he "insanely jealous" or "wilfully ignorant"? What on Earth is the reason for such behaviour? Why deny the existence of 100 per cent proven newly discovered facts?

Does Dr John van Wyhe not release the serious social dangers of encouraging fact denial in history, science and in wider society?

Tuesday, 17 May 2016

Read the Story, Read the Facts, Weigh the Evidence: Spread the News

The Courier Newspaper on Dr John van Wyhe's Expert Advisor Resignation

Today the journalist, Michael Alexander of the Courier - a Scottish regional newspaper - wrote an article on Dr John van Wyhe's resignation as an expert reviewer on the science journal Aspects of Origin, following the publication of my article on Darwin's proven lies and science fraud. "

Perthshire Charles Darwin claims are ‘so silly’, claims leading international academic

 "You can read it here - note there is also a comments section.

Please note I have written the first comment in this Courier article

I would like to thank Mike Alexander of the Chronicle for writing this article. The facts that Dr John van Wyhe does not like are the newly discovered facts of who - as opposed to the old now punctured myth started as a proven lie by Charles Darwin that none whatsoever - read Patrick Matthew's 1831 full prior-published conception of macro evolution by natural selection. What the professional Darwin Historian van Wyhe wants you to dismiss as "very silly" is the new and 100 per cent proven fact that "Routes of knowledge contamination" have been newly discovered between those who read Matthew's ideas before 1858 and Darwin and Wallace. In fact, it is far from "very silly" that Darwin's and Wallace's friends, correspondents, associates and influencers, and their influencer's influencers are newly discovered to have cited Matthew's book in the literature before Darwin and Wallace replicated Matthew's original ideas inside the book and claimed them as their own independent conceptions. Please do take this opportunity to click the link in the Courier article to my peer reviewed science article that reveals the New Data facts and what they mean for the history of discovery of natural selection and Scottish science history.

In the Public Interest

In the public interest, I have been compelled to write a professionally reviewed essay in response to John van Wyhe's written claims, which he submitted to the Scottish press, about my expert and independently peer-reviewed scholarly science journal publication of my original research findings. You can read it here (Sutton 2016).



















In his full statement to the press, where he effectively engages in fact denial regarding the new discovery of routes of knowledge contamination, Dr Van Wyhe wrote: 

      'Dr Sutton's allegations about a purported influence of Matthew on Darwin and Wallace are not new. This conspiracy theory is so silly and based on such forced and contorted imitations of historical method that no qualified historian could take it seriously.'

Why would Dr van Wyhe deny the existence of 100 per cent proven, independently verifiable, newly discovered facts that completely overturn prior-knowledge beliefs in his field? Why write such a thing for public consumption about someone else's peer reviewed work? Is he "insanely jealous" or "wilfully ignorant"? What on Earth is the reason for such behaviour? Why deny the existence of 100 per cent proven newly discovered facts? Does he not understand the serious social dangers of fact denial in our universities, in our telling of our history, in the sciences?

Possibly the Most Ironic Thing in the History of the World

image
This very can of spinach is used as a paperweight in my colleague, Roger Hopkins Burke's office at Nottingham Trent University, England
Possibly the most #ironic    thing in the history of the world is also about iron. Just how ironic is that?



Dr Mike Sutton (2016) Supermyths.comAttribution
The Popeye & Spinach Iron Myth is Possibly the Most Ironic thing of All Time

I wonder, what is the most ironic thing of all time?

What about the "Spinach Popeye Iron Decimal Point Error Myth" (SPIDES)? 

The myth was used inadvertently by expert sceptics who credulously believed it to be veracious, because they failed to check its provenance, as a most popular example of the need to check the accuracy of data before presenting it in order to prevent the creation and dissemination of fallacies and myths.

I suppose this is classed as "situational irony". However, now that you know about it, if you see someone using the myth as though it is veracious, is that not also a type of "dramatic irony"?


HealthWatch

I am most delighted that the esteemed HealthWatch    organisation, which is an independent charity for science and integrity in medicine, invited me to write an article on the myth that was first bust here on BestThinking, and has since been read by over 50,000 people.
My HealthWatch article can be read here (Sutton 2016)   .
I am hoping now to spread the word further about the SPIDES supermyth, in the hope - and it is only hope - because we can only hope without further research into what works in nutritional attitude change that my attempts will not back-fire and make things worse - that the humour and the irony of it all will help people make informed nutritional choices about iron.
image
The World Health Organisation (WHO) on Iron

I wonder, Will Professor Steve Jones (FRS) now be "knowledge contaminated" about Supermyths   ?

There has been a "state of denial" canny indifference amongst most of the World's top Darwin scholars to the Supermyth busting "New Data" facts (e.g.Sutton 2016   ), which puncture the premise underpinning the old Darwinist paradigm of tri-independent discovery of Matthew's prior-published original conception of macroevolution by natural selection. 

I wonder, now, will the most esteemed and leading Darwinist Professor Steve Jones    (FRS) be "knowledge contaminated" on the topic of Supermyths and Charles Darwin - given that he is a notable patron of HealthWatch, which introduces the supermyth concept in its quarterly newsletter (newsletter 101) this month and given that he was on Radio 4   ,along with Dr Mike Weale, last year revealing - most unfortunately for the veracious history of scientific discovery - just how little he and Weale apparently understood - or else perhaps cared to share with the public - about the newly discovered and 100 per cent proven prior-readership of Patrick Matthew's original conception of macroevolution by natural selection by Darwin's and Wallace's associates, influencers and their influencer's influencers and Darwin's 100 per cent proven lies on that very topic (see Sutton 2014    for the Darwin and Wallace Immaculate Conception Supermyth bust). 
image


Interestingly, Dr Mike Weale - Professor Stephen Jones's Radio 4 Patrick Matthew and Charles Darwin programme associate - is well aware of my work on supermyths. When Dr Weale publically accused me on his website of creating my own supermyth on the story of Darwin, Wallace, and Matthew and the history of discovery of natural selection    I sent him a challenge, as a comment for consideration on his completely unevidenced disparaging accusation about my work, via the first approved and moderated (by Weale) comments section of his website. Weale then personally published my challenge to him to debate the issue with me in any prestigious university setting of his choice, time and place, with as many supporters as he needed, before an academic audience and on camera. Despite several attempts to get him to change his mind, Weale refused on the stated grounds that he feared I would mock him and "sling mud" at him for the world to see. See my recent article on the de facto "MacDarwin Industry" regarding how Dr Mike Weale's unevidenced accusation, and refusal to defend it in public, on camera, can be understood in context of wider pseudo scholarly Darwin scholar uncomfortable "New data" fact denial behaviour. Moreover, even Wikipedia editors are systematically deleting the facts of the published historical record on this topic and pretending to the public that they do not exist. See how I caught them in an online public encyclopedia fraud sting operation - here.

"Life has a funny, funny way of sneaking up, up on you...and everything blows up in your face!    "


Monday, 16 May 2016

Might Professor Steve Jones (FRS) perhaps become "knowledge contaminated" about Supermyths?


There has been a "state of denial" canny indifference amongst most of the World's top Darwin scholars to the  Supermyth busting "New Data" facts (e.g. Sutton 2016), which puncture the premise underpinning the old Darwinist paradigm of tri-independent discovery of Matthew's prior-published original conception of macroevolution by natural selection.

I wonder, now, will the esteemed leading Darwinist Steve Jones (FRS) be "knowledge contaminated" on the topic of Supermyths - given that he is a noted patron of HealthWatch, which introduces the supermyth concept this month?

You can read my article in HealthWatch here














What makes the Spinach, Popeye, and Iron Decimal Point error Supermyth (SPIDES), possibly, the most exquisitely ironic myth in the history of the world is the fact that, whilst believing it to be true, so many experts used it as an example of the need to check your data before publishing it.

The "New Data" facts are getting in the news

Wow! Birds of a feather really do flock together

Darwin Scholars and Creationists Might Just be Studying From the Same Pseudo-Scholar Manual : "The History of Science-Nazi's Fact Denial Guide"

CONCLUSION

Facts - historical facts,  newly discovered facts, 100 per cent proven facts, scientific journal peer reviewed facts have "little historical foundation" according to the creationist Michael Flannery.   No surprise there then. However, shockingly (yet academically interestingly) this is effectively the exact same pseudo-scholarly fact denial nonsense spouted to the Scottish press by the famous Darwin historian of science Dr John van Wyhe.

How will history treat van Wyhe's blatant fact denial? I wonder. See the facts of fact denial here




Why Natural Selection is the Unifying Theory of Biology

Sunday, 15 May 2016

A Good Explanation in Science

Friday, 13 May 2016

"New Data" Facts Drive Academic Darwinists to Spitting Obscenities and Being Disgracefully Dishonest


Caution some of the words written by Darwinists in response to my research are adult content 
rated 











'The De Facto " MacDarwin Industry" and it's Member’s Pseudo-Scholarly Corporate Denial of the Very Existence of Uncomfortable New Facts'

CLICK HERE ONLY IF YOU ARE 18 OR OVER



Wednesday, 11 May 2016

Darwin Scholar Donkeys Stop Braying Your Newly Debunked Claptrap and Get the "New Data" Facts

Mythbusting is rather like playing the card game "Donkey".

You take a main claim and then match every single one of the supporting "evidences" and "arguments" for it with relevant 100 per cent proven and independently verifiable facts. Sometimes the facts support the "evidences" and "arguments", sometimes they perfectly refute them.

When you are done, if the facts refute the main claim , then all that is left is a braying donkey insisting that the claim is still valid. Today, the facts reveal that Darwin scholars are nought but braying donkeys.


The "New Data" facts, which the powerful "Dawin Deification Lobby" are seeking to suppress by engaging in classic "fact denial tactics" to mislead the public, have made it into a peer reviewed science journal. Read the latest peer reviewed science paper that proves Darwin lied, plagiarised and was most likely highly influenced by Patrick Matthew.  Here




Sales of Richard Dawkins's e-book "Nullius in Verba: Darwin's Greatest Secret' Top Record 7 Million

Please Note: This blog may or may not be a parody; depending on what planet you are on.
'One of the best ways to ensure the success of your syndicated content and ebooks is to quickly raise your visibility. The dirty little secret of modern publishing is that books don't sell, authors sell. This is especially true in the digital world where the chaos of millions of titles and commingling of self-published and traditional books in online stores has readers more than ever selecting titles based on finding a writer they like.'
Please click the image below to more plainly see the theme of this blog post


WARNING!


And choosing to CLICK THIS LINK or not clicking it,
MIGHT SPLIT THE UNIVERSE FOREVER!
Oh Dear...now you've done it:





Don't be a silly braying debunked donkey. Get the peer reviewed science journal"New Data" facts: HERE   



Tuesday, 10 May 2016

Live Experiment with Corrupt Wikipedia Agenda Editor Bias

This is me. I stand firm and
 challenge the corrupt
Darwin Deification Industry
with 100 per cent proven facts
Here on the Patrick Matthew Blog, I have blogged several times on how corrupt Wikipedia is facilitating the deletion of significant facts in order to pursue a propaganda-driven Darwin deification agenda at the expense of the independently verifiable facts.
To date, these Wikipedia-Agenda-Editor-Clowns immediately delete any fully referenced - even scientific journal peer reviewed (Sutton 2104    and Sutton 2016   ) - mention of the 100 per cent proven, and independently verifiable fact that Charles Darwin lied about the prior-readership of the original ideas in Matthew's (1831) book, containing the full hypothesis of macro evolution by natural selection.

Academic corruption in an area such as the history of science is likely to be subtle. Were it any other way, perpetrators who deliberately hide significant facts from the public and their peers and students, would not be able to get away with it for very long. Subtlety is not evidence of any kind of conspiracy, it is simply the only effective way that so many criminal offences are committed by those who wish to avoid detection. And just as so many legitimate members of society facilitate crimes such as theft by selling highly specialist tools such as crow-bars, bolt cutters lock picks and slide hammers to the general public, so to do many of those involved in what we might name "academic agenda project fraud" work anonymously from the inside, slyly astroturfing   , or else simply assisting salaried academics to hide facts from the public by brute censorship in publications where they have power to delete facts that undermine any extremely carefully crafted and orchestrated agenda-view. Such subtle academic fraud, is today, and has for some time been happening, on the Patrick Matthew page on the Wikipedia encyclopaedia. Let me explain and reveal the facts:


This morning, using a relative's laptop PC - revealing it's IP address to Wikipedia and the public - I personally corrected the misleading information on Wikipedia's Patrick Matthew page   , which gave the typical Darwin deification inaccurate impression that Matthew's heretical ideas on natural selection were not noticed pre-1860. The new - 100 per cent proven, independently verifiable facts, that I added this morning, set the record straight, and are highlighted in this blog post in bold and italics:

Reviews[edit   ]

The United Service Journal and Naval and Military Magazine published an extended review in the 1831 Part II and 1831 Part III numbers of the magazine; it praised Matthew's book in around 13,000 words, highlighting that "The British Navy has such urgent claims on the vigilance of every person as the bulwark of his independence and happiness, that any effort for supporting and improving its strength, lustre, and dignity, must meet with unqualified attention." The review did not mention the appendix to the book.[11]   . However, it did, in Part II, on page 457 stridently criticise Matthew's then heretical conception of macroevolution by natural selection, which in fact runs throughout his entire book intertwined with his then seditious chartist politics: "But we disclaim participation in his ruminations on the law of Nature, or on the outrages committed upon reason and justice by our burthens of hereditary nobility, entailed property, and insane enactments."
Let us now wait, observe, and see if the Wikipedia Darwin deification agenda editors allow this disconfirming fact to survive on their so-called publicly editable "encyclopedia".
I predict that this fact will be deleted as part of the 156 year old Darwin Industry's corrupt propaganda campaign to deny Patrick Matthew's right to be considered an immortal great thinker and influencer in science. If it is it will not be the first time they have deleted this very same fact!
The deeply entrenched Darwinist myth, started as a deliberate proven lie by Darwin in 1860, that no naturalist read Matthew's ideas before 1858 was first blown to smithereens in my Thinker Media book "Nullius in Verba: Darwin's greatest secret" (Sutton 2014). Moreover, this 100 per cent proven fact, proof of Darwin's lies, along with the new 100 per cent proof of the newly discovered existence of many routes of Matthewian knowledge contamination of the brains of both Darwin and Wallace, passed scientific peer review in March 2016. See: 'On Knowledge Contamination: New Data Challenges Claims of Darwin’s and Wallace’s Independent Conceptions of Matthew’s Prior-Published Hypothesis'   
Wikipedia and the personal pocket lining lying Darwin Deification Industry will be dragged kicking and screaming into the 21st century by the disconfirming facts for their published pseudo scholarly fallacies, myths, lies and corrupt propagandising.

Experiment result 1


Postscript 10th May 2016 15.38

Within 90 minutes of the correct information being added to the Patrick Matthew page, about what is 100 per cent proven to have been written about Matthew's book in a published book review of 1831, we see The Wikipedia official editor Dave Souza - who is systematically deleting facts about Darwin and Matthew on this page - has deleted the fact just as predicted. And he did so inside 90 minutes of it being put onto the page.
Even though the source of this fact is cited to the very same source already referenced, Wikipedia editor Dave Souza brazenly, fallaciously claims that it is both un-sourced, contrary to the published source, and "dubious": CLICK HERE to see his edit of 8.58.
Proof Dave Souza is misleading the public and systematically deleting facts on Wikipedia in order to hide the fact Matthew's ideas on natural selection were read and understood by many others pre 1858.
Here is the proof from page 457 of the United Services Journal review of Matthew's (1831) book :CLICK HERE    to access the actual book and the very text on the page he claims does not exist:




Page 457 of the United Services Magazine 1831, book review of Matthew's On Naval Timber and Arboriculture
Wikipedia Editor Souza has done this same thing before (Click to see the facts and discussion of his past behaviour) regarding fully cited sources to Darwin's proven lies on the prior readership of Matthew's book. He claims the cited sources don't exist and when met with protest that he is lying he then is able to actually ban's the complainer from editing anything ever again on Wikipedia! How corrupt is that? 

Is there one or many people hiding behind this Wikipedia editor name Dave Souza?
Here is an image of the entire page containing the text Souza wishes to hide from the general public as part of a systematic Darwin Industry uncomfortable fact deletion campaign Page 457 of the United Services Journal (1831) book review of Matthew's "On Naval Timber"   


image

















Saturday, 7 May 2016

More Darwin Worship Fact Denial Propaganda

Peter Bowler (1983, p. 158) Evolution: the history of an idea, (1st and all revised editions). Berkeley, CA: University of California Press. p158    :

"One writer has even gone so far as to hail Matthew as the originator of the modern evolution theory (Dempster 1996). Such efforts to denigrate Darwin misunderstand the whole point of the history of science ...Darwin's notebooks confirm that he drew no inspiration from Matthew or any of the other alleged precursors."

This is one among many instances of Darwin worship propaganda. The independently verifiable facts - as opposed to Bowler's incorrect and misleading assertions - confirm nothing at all of the kind. The facts prove the case otherwise. For example, Darwin's notebooks prove that before 1858 Darwin held in his hands five books that cited Matthew's (1831) book containing the full prior published theory of macroevolution by natural selection.

DON'T BE PUNTERIZED BY BIASED AGENDA-DRIVEN PROPAGANDA: Read "On Knowledge Contamination: New Data Challenges Claims of Darwin’s and Wallace’s Independent Conceptions of Matthew’s Prior-Published Hypothesis." By Mike Sutton (2016)

(Sutton 2016) to see exactly how misleading Peter Bowler is being when it comes down to the actual evidence of what we can really, definitively, with any degree of confidence say about Darwin's private essays and notebooks (footnote references excluded here) :

'As an argument that reliable evidence exists to disconfirm evidence that Matthew influenced Darwin, Bowler argues: “Darwin’s notebooks confirm that he drew no inspiration from Matthew or any of the other alleged precursors”.  Bowler’s seemingly compellingly plausible argument is worthy of further
examination in light of the independently verifiable facts. And, in light of the New Data about who we newly know did read the ideas in Matthew’s book, and most importantly when they read them, these actual facts confirm that Bowler’s argument is rendered redundant.

To begin with, there is little on natural selection, beyond a mere hint at it, in Darwin’s (1837) private “Zoonomia” notebook. 98 Not until his private essays (1842, 1844), do we see Darwin’s acknowledgement of evidence for the general process of natural selection. By 1842, Loudon had cited Matthew’s book many times following his 1832 review. And 1842 was the same year in which Selby cited Matthew. But it was not until Darwin’s jointly presented paper with Wallace  that the full hypothesis, which Matthew had prior-published, was written down by Darwin.

Following Matthew’s (1860) first priority claiming letter in The Gardeners’ Chronicle, of 7th April, Darwin wrote on 10th April to his friend Lyell that he had ordered a copy of Matthew’s book. This might be taken as strong confirmatory evidence that Darwin had never read Matthew’s book or been influenced by its original contents. Rationally, it is nothing of the sort. Darwin’s letter to Lyell merely proves, and only then if the proven liar Darwin was then telling the truth, that he did not have a copy of Matthew’s book in his possession in 1860. Darwin could easily have prior-borrowed a copy from an associate and made extensive notes. Or been supplied by others with such extensive notes. He could just have easily borrowed a copy many years earlier from the London Library, which was founded in 1841, the same year Darwin joined, and the year before he penned his private 1842 essay on natural selection. Or Darwin might have borrowed a copy of Matthew’s book years earlier from Mudie’s Library — founded in 1842 — because he was a noted keen member of both lending libraries.

There is no mention of Matthew’s (1831) book in any of Darwin’s (1838) handwritten Books to Read and Books Read private notebooks until Matthew’s (1860) claim to priority letter was published in The Gardeners’ Chronicle. However, the old adage that absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, is particularly pertinent in this particular case in light of the new hard evidence unearthed from the publication record of Darwin’s bad faith regarding his account of the readership of Matthew’s book. Rationally, therefore, we should, as objective scholars, no longer simply assume that Darwin did everything in good faith. The fact of the matter is, and it is facts we must now focus on, that there is no proof, other than the dates he wrote on them in the privacy of his own home, that those dates on Darwin’s notebooks and private essays were honestly written and are therefore accurate. Furthermore, it is a fact that Darwin’s notebooks are devoid of many pages — due to them having been torn out — and that much of the remaining text in them has been scribbled out so as to deliberately render it completely illegible.

So what do the facts enable us to know for sure about the latest possible date when Darwin’s private notebooks and essays were written?' See bullet-point timeline in Sutton (2016) for the detailed answers.


It is deeply regrettable that so many influential scientists, whilst claiming loudly to despise unevidenced beliefs, share the same irrational propensity for blind belief worship as the religious and dogmatic. Get the faith-free independently verifiable facts: http://www.nauka-a-religia.uz.zgora.pl/index.php/pl/czasopismo/46-fag-2015/921-fag-2015-art-05