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

















Sunday, 8 May 2016

"The Blind Eye is the Backward Eye": The Social Danger of Darwin Scholar Fact Denial Punterizing Propaganda Techniques


I think that allowing any kind of fallacy and myth to be accepted as veracious might just create an enabling environment in which credulous belief in far more serious myths and fallacies might flourish and lead, ultimately, to significant social harms, with murderous hate crimes and genocide being at the far end of a "states of denial spectrum" . 


The dreadful story of August Landmesser - the man who refused
 to salute Hitler - is an example of the blindsight paradox

As founding Director for the Nottingham Centre for the Study and Reduction of Bias, Prejudice and Hate Crime, at Nottingham Trent University, I see this as a particularly important topic worthy of further scholarly research.

In the Public Interest

In the public interest, I have been compelled to write a professionally reviewed essay in response to online obscene and misogynistic abuse, other abuse, and claims, which have been 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).



To avoid mockery and humiliation in a fact fight fuelled scholarly debate, one needs to bring something more than mere unevidenced opinions. 



The main aim of this blog post is to encourage readers to not let pseudo scholars punterize the public with their unevidenced mere agenda-driven fact denial opinions. I wish to encourage others to do what I do, which is to insist that fact deniers and concealers provide independently verifiable facts of their own if they wish to challenge the significance, or very existence, of independently verifiable and 100 per cent proven facts, which they find uncomfortable. 
In his excellent book "State of Denial" the late Stan Cohen (2001, p. 138) wrote: 
'Collective memory is pressed into shape by being repressed.

'Uncomfortable knowledge, though, can be forgotten without direct state manipulation. Whole societies have an astonishing ability to deny the past - not really forgetting, but maintaining a public culture that seems to have forgotten.The blind eye is the backward eye. When circumstances change -  renewed pressure from victims, the chance opening of an archive - then newspaper editorials (without irony) remind us that 'this is what we always knew'.
The "New Data" fact that seven naturalists - as opposed to the old Darwinist story of "none" - read patrick Matthew's book, containing what leading darwin scholars admit is the full prior published hypothesis of natural selection, before Darwin and Wallace (1858), Darwin (1859) replicated the hypothesis without citing Matthew, was first published in my book Nullius in Verba: Darwin's greatest secret (Sutton 2014). Moreover, I originally discovered that Darwin knew four of the seven naturalists who cited Matthew's book pre-1858 and that three of them played major roles at the epicentre of influence and facilitation of the work of Darwin and Wallace and that of their influencer's influencers (see Sutton 2016).
Of course, these bombshell new discoveries are uncomfortable "tri-independent discovery paradigm" busting independently verifiable "New Data" facts about the newly discovered 100 per cent proven routes of possible knowledge contamination (see Sutton 2106) that Darwin and Wallace scholars, such as Dr John van Wyhe, Professor James Moore, Professor Vince Gutschick Mr Julian Derry, Professor Nathaniel Comfort Dr Mike Weale, and Dr George Beccaloni  (See also here for more on Beccaloni) have railed aggressively against with nought but unevidenced, misleading / dishonest, new fact-denial/fact-concealment propaganda.

Every Darwin scholar defence, raised so far against the "New Data" facts has been completely rebutted with reference to independently verifiable facts: Here.



Please note, contrary to the sly and misleading fallacies written about me by Darwin scholars, I have, in fact, never once claimed it is 100 per cent proven that Darwin and Wallace read Matthew's book, as several of the above scholars have claimed or implied. Instead, I have very plainly and deliberately written that, when all the evidence is weighed together, that I personally believe, subjectively, that it is more likely than not proven beyond
all reasonable doubt that they did. And I have very pointedly and clearly insisted that others must read and weigh all the "New Data" facts together to reach their own subjective opinion on the matter (see Sutton 2014). 

What is 100 per cent proven is that Darwin's friends and influencers, and his and Wallace's influencers and their infuencer's influencers read Matthew's (1831) book (because they cited it and the ideas in it), that Darwin read five books that cited Matthew's (1831) book, knowledge contamination routes from Matthew to Darwin and Wallace are now discovered, Darwin lied about the prior readership of Matthew's book, and he told several more lies besides in order to steal Matthew's glory by way of plagiarising science fraud after 1860, and that Wallace lied in his autobiography by deleting incriminating text in his transcription of a letter he sent his Mother. See Sutton 2014  (and 2016) or all these 100 per cent proven facts and their contextual details. 


Darwinists have no dis-confirming facts to bring to a fact fight to argue against the newly discovered 100 per cent  proof of potential Matthewian knowledge contamination routes of the pre-1858 brains of Darwin and Wallace


For their part, Darwin apologists have no 100 per cent verifiable proof that Darwin or Wallace conceived the
Sutton (2014)
The Bombshell Book that
Re-Wrote the History of
Discovery of Natural Selection
theory of macro evolution by natural selection independently of Matthew's (1831) orignal conception. The best evidence they have is Darwin's private notebooks and essays. But these do not help them a jot, because several of Darwin's and Wallace's associates, and their associate's friends and associates, and their influencers, and their influencer's influencers, had read and cited Matthew's (1831) book, and mentioned the orignal ideas in it, before Darwin even began his first relevant private notebook of 1837-38 (Loudon and Chambers) and in the same year he penned his first private essay of 1842 (Selby). See Sutton 2014 and Sutton 2016 for the fully referenced and independently verifiable fact-led details. T
he unwelcome "New Data" facts prove also that both Loudon and Chambers, and Wallace's (1855) Sarawak paper's editor Selby, and Jameson - the regular correspondent of Wallace's mentor and correspondent William Hooker (William being the father of Darwin's best friend Joseph Hooker) - all cited Matthew's (1831) book before Wallace made his first private jottings on the topic. Finally, Darwin's pre-1858 notebooks in fact prove that Darwin held in his hands five books that actually cited Matthew's 1831 book!

The newly rendered useless evidence of the existence of his notebooks and essays aside, the only remaining evidence Darwin scholars have that Matthew's (1831) book could not possibly have influenced Darwin pre 1858 is a letter that Darwin wrote to his great friend  Charles Lyell in 1860.

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

See Sutton 2014 for all of the references to these independently verifiable facts and much more besides that Darwin scholars apparently do not want you to read.

What Possible Motives Might Darwin Scholars have for Propagandising to Deny or Hide Uncomfortable New Facts?


I strongly suspect that professional jealousy and fear of ridicule for their own poor scholarship in failing to find what I originally discovered, in equal proportions, drives the shamefully pseudo scholarly propagandising behaviour and cannily indifferent silence of Darwin scholars who are aware of the "New Data" facts.

Dr John van Wyhe attempted to mislead the Scottish people by claiming my
peer reviewed science paper (Sutton 2016) is a conspiracy theory

I challenge any leading Darwin scholar to debate the "New Data" facts with me before an academic audience, the wider public and the press. 


Dr Mike Weale, who has written (Weale 2015) - with zero evidence to support his mere opinion that the evidence Darwin read Matthew's ideas is weak - adamantly refuses to face me in an academic debate before his peers to defend his completely unevidenced accusations that I have created a supermyth of my own about Darwin and Matthew. Weale writes, by way of excuse, that he fears, despite knowing the fact I have presented and debated  the "New Data" facts before skeptical audiences in universities and elsewhere, that I will mock him in public (Weale 2016) for his unevidenced opinions. The fact of the matter is that Weale's Darwin worship propagandizing opinions are completely disconfirmed by the new hard facts he refuses to engage with in any kind of rational honest open and public debate. 

The "New Data" facts are chasing dishonest propagandising Darwinists
For the sake of veracity in the history of scientific discovery, I will continue to present my research findings and debate them in public before academic audiences and beyond. I am more than willing to debate the facts with any leading fact denying and propagandising Darwin scholar, historian of science, or biologist who cares to do so before video cameras, 

Darwin scholars should consider me and my publications and presentations on the "New Data facts a standing open challenge to all the dishonest scientists and historians lining their pockets by misleading the public in order to promote the pseudo-scholarly publications and  profiteering paraphernalia of the Darwin deification industry.


There is a 156 year old tradition of shameful pseudo-scholarly propagandising fact denial dishonesty and blatant lying in the Darwin industry, beginning with the it's namesake's own 100 per cent proven plagiarising science-fraud by glory theft (see peer reviewed journal article proof: Sutton 2014 and Sutton 2016sly self-serving lying about the prior readership of the original ideas in Matthew's (1831) book.