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, 29 April 2016

REKDAL'S POISON IRONY HYPOTHESIS


Today this blog post is heavily influenced by some brainy ideas in "Who Will Debunk The Debunkers?" by Daniel Engber (2016) FiveThirtyEight.com April 28th 2016. 6.30am




















Introducing “Rekdal’s Poison Irony Hypothesis”

And so it goes, a whirligig of irony spinning around and around, down into the depths. Is there any way to escape this endless, maddening recursion? How might a skeptic keep his sanity?” (Daniel Engber 2016)

Are those in a famously skeptical debunking group, or on a successful debunking campaign trail, more at risk of being blinded by their own smugness so as to be credulously less skeptical about their own conceptions of veracity regarding their own work?

Might this explain why Darwin scholars are in a sociological state of denial about:

(1) the very existence of facts that disconfirm their sacred mere beliefs that no naturalists read Patrick Matthew's original conception of natural selection before 1858?

(2) The plain fact that Darwin really is a proven serial liar in that regard (see Sutton 2014 and Sutton 2016 for the real facts).

And – with exquisitely painful irony – what warning might this serve for meta skeptics such as I?

Rekdal’s Hypothesis is a delightful cautionary hypothesis if ever there was one. But is it likely to be a good explanation for bias and error? Is it (a) Testable? (b) Disconfirmable? (c) Ironically capable of being varied if disconfirmed?












Thursday, 28 April 2016

Conspiracy Theory by Proxy

Responding to Dr John van Wyhe's written claims to the Scottish press that my, published in a science journal and peer reviewed, new, independently verifiable data, research findings are "very silly" a "conspiracy theory" and "not new", I have been compelled to write in the public interest a professionally moderated and reviewed article (Sutton 2016) on how his dismissive, mocking and disparaging comments can be understood within the wider phenomenon of uncomfortable fact denial propaganda in the "Darwin Industry."



Definition of a "conspiracy theory by proxy"

A conspiracy theory by proxy is where significant, independently peer reviewed, new and independently verifiable, factual, new data-led, paradigm changing discoveries of independently verifiable disconfirming facts, published in the scholarly literature, are summarily dismissed, without evidence, as being a silly conspiracy theory. In such cases, the person creating a 'conspiracy theory by proxy' produces no evidence that the new data discoverer has concocted any kind of conspiracy theory and may also deny that the data is new, deny it is veracious, deny it is significant or deny, without explanation, that it overturns existing knowledge beliefs. If those behaving in such a way have a vested career interest in suppressing the "New Data" then they are perhaps most likely to be either telling a deliberate lie, Frankfurtingly bullshiting (Frankfurt 2005), or else in a group "sociological state of denial" (Cohen 2001).

Ideally, anyone asserting that what has been said is a conspiracy theory should also demonstrate why. Accordingly, in current published absence of an easy reader on the history of discovery of natural selection, I have made some special "flash cards."  These are three from a series of ten lies Darwin told in order to steal Matthew's glory. More details with full references to the historic facts can be found  here. 






Jim Dempster's Correspondence: The Wavertree Letters [Letter 10]


Written in 1996. Undated. But written immediately after publication of his second book. This is the last of the 10 transcribed of the 11 Wavertree Letters from the retired surgeon and pioneering human organ transplant research scientist Jim Dempster to Ian Hardie of the Patrick Matthew Trust
Jim Dempster

Dear Ian,

Thanks for yours of the 11th.

Please give the books away as I have done here. The prof of Zoology at Edinburgh seems a nice guy; send him one. Send them to the academic departments in each big town.

 Hutton. I told you the mess Simmonds got into without looking up my book’s index! I spend some time on Hutton. He is the father of British Geology. Lyell took most of Hutton and added some relevant points and called it Uniformitarianism which dispensed with catastrophes (of Cuvier) and mass extinctions; these are now back after 170 years! If you find some on or thing new – look up the index. Harper will speak on Biodiversity. Diversity was introduced by Cuvier – the four main branches of animal life; he denied any heredity link along the branches but Lamarck added ‘branches’. Matthew introduced ‘diverging ramifications of life forms occupying a new field’ after a catastrophe. Edward Blyth (1835-37) came in with reiterate diversity and ramifications. Darwinists try to argue that Darwin introduced diversity; some mad American thought Darwin lifted divergence from Wallace. See my book. See page 132 for what Darwin missed in South Africa.

Photographs. The only one I have I sent to Australia for a Scot, based in Queensland, who wants to include in his book a word about Matthew.

I am sending you a brief outline of evolutionary paradigms. Paradigm is the ‘in’ word: American, of course! I have given the historical development of the ideas. Now that Cuvier’s catastrophes and mass extinctions are back Matthew’s paradigm is up do date. Darwin hated Cuvier – for some reason. Jealousy? He wrote that the catastrophes had been invented. This is in my book.

I have the impression that Darwinists are not aware that the “Lyell-Darwin evolutionary paradigm’ had abolished catastrophes and mass extinction. Test the audience on this!

Simmonds will not be going to Dundee. There is so much in my book one has to spend weeks on it. Simmonds keeps on finding things and fails to look at my index. I have not missed much and the few points I have missed I have committed to essays. Did I send you ‘the Consequences of punctuated equilibrium’? I have discussed the theory in my book. Gould and Eldredge – lifelong Darwinist propagandists now have a new role an ‘anti-Darwin mode’ which is punctuated eq. This restores the catastrophes and mass extinctions and much else which disagrees with Darwinism. BUT little about Lamarck and Cuvier!

Kilpatrick. No enclosed article! The Scots have forgotten all their great men – Hutton, John Hunter (our Lamarck), Robert Grant (teacher of Darwin at Edinburgh and later prof. at University College, London – 1828). I deal with them in my book. Hunter is our link with Buffon and Lamarck. You could ask Kilpatrick who asked him to write on PM. Strange that pathologists should be interested.

By the way on the ecology front. Matthew was complaining about
Dempster's second book.
Published in 1996
the extravagant use of fertilisers in the 1860s. Guano had been discovered and imported. Also his concern about the forests. The poor nature of nursery trees – Darwin takes up this point and acknowledges Matthew.


For the organisers. Robert Smith is not in the Chambers Nat. Biographical Dictionary. Is he in the Scottish! If not send a brief statement to Prof John Horden, Univ of Stirling.

Addendum – Ecology.

If we accept that ecology is the study of plants and animals in their environment, then we are back to one of Lamarck’s main concepts approved of by no less than Darwin. See the Historical Sketch enclosed. Then turn to the first page, chapter 1 of all editions of the Origin of Species and there is a sentence with ‘the conditions of life’. Enclosed.

Then turn to the Historical Sketch where Matthew is considered and you will find Darwin pointing out that Matthew stressed ‘the conditions of life’. Enclosed. Darwin is very odd about the conditions of life. The phrase occurs all over the Origin and yet he admitted to Professor Semper in 1881! (See the book page 148) that he had not given sufficient weight to ‘the conditions of life’. Look at 2nd paragraph. Was he denying his Lamarckian attachment[?] Darwin was a Covert Lamarckian! Use the Historical Sketch and Lamarck’s concepts and you will find them all in the Origin without any reference to Lamarck. Lamarck referenced once; Cuvier once

The Creator referenced on average 6 times. Citation analysis would award first place to the Creator!

No Creator in Lamarck or Matthew. Stress that because the Origin is supposed to be completely natural science.

See my book page 212 – 2nd para – conditions of life

This is not in the [my] book.

Darwin elsewhere said that he could not find much evidence for ‘the conditions of life’ but that recently more evidence was appearing. Lamarck and Cuvier seem to have had enough evidence before Darwin was born; Matthew in the 1820s saw enough evidence. Some Darwinist may come in with this point. It seems to me that Darwin was hiding his Lamarckism.

~~~~~~~~~~


Notes and Comments by Mike Sutton


Here we see evidence that Dempster made sure free copies of his self-published book were distributed by the Patrick Matthew Trust, which funded its production.

Most importantly we see also Dempster's analysis of where Matthew's work fits into the various breakthroughs in thinking made in academic development of the field of organic evolution and natural selection. 

Note that Matthew was first with the divergent ramifications of life and that Blyth built upon that only after Matthew and only after, as my original discovery reveals (Sutton 2014), Blyth's editor! Loudon reviewed Matthew's book in 1832 and mentioned the question of Matthew's originality on the question of the "origin of species" no less!. 

 The importance of the bombshell discovery of this Matthew -> Loudon -> Blyth -> Wallace -> Darwin route of possible knowledge contamination is completely lost on poor old Dr John van Wyhe.

Dr van Wyhe tragically revealed to the Scottish press in an unseemly desperately jealous attempt to rubbish my uncomfortable original research discoveries that he weirdly thinks -  having failed himself to find any such significant new data of his own in his own field - that the "New Data" facts, which I discovered, are somehow magically transmuted, from independently verifiable disconfirming facts for the old Darwin scholar belief that no naturalist read Matthew's ideas before 1858, into a conspiracy theory. Perhaps he thinks a wizard did it? I'd better keep away from bonfires near de facto corporate "MacDarwinist" churches in that case!  

Note also that Matthew's book was complete heresy because he excluded any notion of a creator in it - which probably explains, in part, why it was not cited much in the first half of the 19th century. This fact is dealt with at length in Nullius (Sutton 2014). It explains also why, pre-1858, it was banned by the public library of Perth in Scotland and why, pre-1858, a naturalist professor of an esteemed university failed to teach the observations in it for fear of pillory punishment. This fact reveals just how biased and blindsighted to the facts Darwin scholars are when we consider than none have, like I, mocked Richard Dawkins (2010) for his desperately biased ludicrous insistence that Matthew cannot have understood the importance of his great breakthrough because he never "trumpeted it from the rooftops"! Really, Dawkins should get the "Darwin Award" for such wilfully ignorant stupidity. All these points are covered and explained with full references to Dawkins's nonsense, and other such "MacDarwin" de facto corporate stupidity in my recently peer reviewed science article (Sutton 2016), which, apparently, more likely than not, caused Dr John van Wyhe to resign from the journal that published it. Read the shameful facts of John van Wyhe's weird excuses here.

Matthew's (1831) outright mockery of Christianity in his book would, in part, explain why Darwin lied from 1860 onwards that no one had read Matthew's original ideas on natural selection. Perhaps Darwin was afraid of his ideas being proven to have come via knowledge contamination from those of an outright heretic? 

Dr John van Wyhe, like Richard Dawkins, really must try harder at history.

Wednesday, 27 April 2016

Dr John van Wyhe Misleads the Scottish Press by Claiming Newly Discovered Facts are a Conspiracy Theory Badly Discovered, Very Silly and Not New. Why?

When the Scottish Journalist Michael Alexander of The Courier newspaper in Scotland asked Dr Sagan - Editor of the respected Polish philosophy of science journal "Philosophical Aspects of Origin" - if he knew why the esteemed Darwin scholar, Dr John van Wyhe, resigned from the Journal's Expert Advisory Board in the wake of the publication of my peer reviewed article (Sutton 2016)    - that really does 100 per cent prove Darwin lied and 100 per cent proves that the world's leading Darwinists have been wrong for decades to claim that no naturalists read Patrick Matthew's prior publication of the full conception of macroevolution by natural selection - he received the following, statement to the press, reply by email a few days ago:
Dear Michael,
It is true that Dr. John van Wyhe was the member of the Advisory Board of our journal and resigned from it shortly after Dr. Mike Sutton’s article had been published. However, he didn’t reveal his reasons. Obviously, Dr. van Wyhe was entitled to resign from the board at any point and we respect his decision. We are not especially eager to speculate on the topic of his resignation, but, of course, one of the possibilities is that it was related to the publication of the controversial article of Dr. Sutton. We had not explicitly stated earlier our editorial policy, as we believed it was clear to anyone who looked into the broad range of the articles published in the journal. As things stand now, our editorial policy has been published on our website in order to avoid misunderstanding: www.nauka-a-religia.uz.zgora.pl/index.php/en/editorial-policy   
We adopt a Feyerabendian, pluralistic approach to knowledge and whenever it is possible, we publish articles presenting the views of various parties involved in a debate on a particular problem, provided they pass the reviewing process. For example, we have just published a critical review of Dr. Sutton’s book. This has been the case of every controversial concept, such as intelligent design or creationism, discussed in our journal. Thus, it should be clear that our journal’s aim is not to promote any particular view but that we are merely interested in enabling and facilitating an open debate on particular problems. We are aware, however, that this might prove unpopular in certain cases. It is our firm belief that a journal of philosophical character should adopt such approach and provide a venue for an open exchange of opinions.
Sincerely,
Dariusz Sagan
When Michael Alexander asked the esteemed Darwin scholar, Dr John van Wyhe   , about the recent publication of my peer reviewed paper in the respected Polish philosophy of science journal "Philosophical Aspects of Origin" , he asked also whether it was merely a coincidence that he resigned from the journal - of which he has been a member for several years - in it's wake. Alexander then received the following, 'statement to the press' reply by email a few days ago:
Dear Michael,
I resigned from the panel of the journal when I learned that they had misrepresented the nature of the journal when inviting me to join the panel. It was described as a journal about science and origins, when in fact the journal supports the creationist ideology called Intelligent Design. I had at any rate never had any further contact with them, so no content in the journal was ever seen by me before publication.
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.
By the way, someone has just sent me a review of Sutton: http://www.nauka-a-religia.uz.zgora.pl/images/FAG/2015.t.12/art.10.pdf   
Best wishes,
John van Wyhe

Readers should note the high levels of toxic irony in van Wyhe's behaviour.

Dr John van Wyhe condemns as 'a conspiracy theory' 'very silly and 'not new' the new, original and paradigm changing, independently verifiable, expert peer reviewed, (Sutton 2014   a and also Sutton 2016   ) new discoveries of facts that prove the world's leading Darwinists and all their followers, such as he, are wrong to claim that no naturalists read Patrick Matthew's original ideas before Darwin and Wallace replicated them. But why? Is it, possibly (who knows?) from being trapped in an arrogantly deluded belief-cyle in his superior scholarship, Dr van Wyhe does not think it necessary, when commenting to the press upon the original research findings - arising from the original and scholarly endeavours of other academics - to distinguish between the apparent gross inferiority of what might be his own unevidenced and now debunked beliefs and the proven superiority of the independently verifiable, 100 per cent proven new facts that completely debunk them? 
The "New Data" facts are that I originally discovered are in hidden publications in the dusty corners of the libraries of the world. This "New Data" bursts the myth that Patrick Matthew's original ideas were unread by anyone who could have influenced Darwin and Wallace with them pre-1858. Because what I have originally discovered is that, contrary to what the Darwin scholar scientific community has credulously bleated in their published work on this topic that "none whatsoever" read his original ideas before 1858, the proven fact of the matter is that seven naturalists did read Matthew's original ideas pre-1858. We know this as a new and proven fact because we only now newly know that they cited it in the literature! And let me be crystal clear about how original this bombshell discovery is. We only now know this as a 100 per cent proven fact, because I originally discovered this fact.
This "New Data" fact was first published in my book Nullius in Verba: Darwin's greatest secret (Sutton 2014b). Moreover, I originally discovered that Darwin knew four of the seven naturalists who cited Matthews 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 their influencer's influencers.
image
Dysology.org
The Google (1913)
In light of this bombshell discovery, Dr van Wyhe announces to the Scottish press that the disconfirming facts are a "conspiracy theory". Furthermore, to add further, arguable, ludicrosity to his proven perished old rubber thimbled, arguable, incompetence to find the facts for himself, he apparently, I would argue, jealously seeks to deny these facts are facts by rubbishing the hi-tech Big Data method that found them.
Of course, these are uncomfortable, original, and completely new bombshell paradigm changing facts that van Wyhe and all other Darwin scholars missed in the literature. I suspect the green gilled google monster has bitten them. Why else would van Wyhe fall head first into creating what we might now call "The van Wyhe Reflex" by blaming the method for finding the facts that are so disturbing he cannot, apparently, even bear to acknowledge their existence in a peer reviewed science journal article upon which he is commenting?
The professionally embarrassing problem for Darwinites is that they were all using outdated silly little orange rubber thimbles to turn pages to look for evidence. My method is analogous to the non-expert who found the Staffordshire Hoard with a metal detector. 
With respect, perhaps, according to his weirdly, arguably, jealous logic, Dr van Wyhe thinks the Staffordshire Hoard    is similarly a mere silly conspiracy theory, because it was found by an unemployed amateur with a hi-tech metal detector, rather than by a salaried expert scratching around with a toothbrush in the same place as thousands before him?
image

I respectfully suggest that Dr John van Wyhe needs to learn the very clear difference between a conspiracy theory and his own biased sociological state of denial.
More tellingly, if he wishes to only now distance himself from the journal that published my article on the "New Data" facts why did van Wyhe send Michael Alexander a review of my book Nullius in Verba: Darwin's greatest secret' that is published in the very same journal?
Could the reason for such apparently arguable palpable duplicity be because that review of my book is completely and disingenuously misleading?
The book review van Wyhe recommends is misleading because, writen by an ambitious PhD student, it takes just one minor finding from my book and presents that research as the book's main findings!
Anyone reading that review, who has read my book, or any of my peer reviewed articles on the topic, will be left in no doubt whatsoever that the actual "Darwin's greatest secret" that iexposed in my book is the newly discovered fact that seven naturalists actually cited Matthew's book in the literature pre-1858. And the next greatest secret the book review most weirdly leaves out is the detailed facts presented of Darwin's and Wallace's relationship with three of them!

The journal allowed me a right or reply to the unreviewed book review article that van Wyhe likes so much in the journal he left so amazingly coincidentally quickly after my peer reviewed article (an article which he clearly despises because he hates the newly discovered facts in it) was published. You can read it HERE.

Judge the independently verifiable facts for yourself. 
image

Darwin Scholars Failed to Adapt Favourably Enough to the New Environment of the Internet
Indeed, so wilfully misleading is that review of my book that I have been given a right to reply to it with the real facts.
The written defence of my work, revelations and criticisms of the pseudo scholarly dishonest responses to what has been newly discovered - and more besides - is now with Dr Sagan. He has informed me that it will be published in the forthcoming edition of Philosophical Aspects of Origin. My forthcoming response paper is entitled:
Perhaps, "going-forward" Dr John van Wyhe and other Darwinites will take the opportunity to explain themselves for misleading the public - via blatantly misleading fact denial statements to the Scottish press? Get the full details of their fact denial here.
Any serious and objective scholar, interested in understanding the historical context of the evolution of the discovery process from Matthew to Darwin, via Blyth should read Jim Dempster's 10th Wavertree Letter and my notes on the pseudo-scholarly historical scholarship of poor old Richard Dawkins and wilful ignorance of poor old John van Wyhe: Here.


(2)

A lesson in veracity about significant discovery for Dr John van Whye and others of similar uncomfortable-new-fact-denying ilk

It is a telling indictment of their limited abilities as self-proclaimed experts on the subject of all things Charles Darwin that neither Dr John van Wyhe, nor any other Darwin scholar in the World, has ever revealed, or discussed in print, Darwin’s serial published falsehoods, and their credulous parroting by esteemed Darwin scholars since. Instead, in the Darwinist literature, you will at best find these now newly proven falsehood have been dressed up and presented as the truth and then parroted by the likes of elite scientist scholars, such as the world’s leading Darwin scholars and Royal Society Darwin Medal winners, Sir Gavin de Beer and Ernst Mayr, for example. No wonder, then, that the likes of career Darwin scholar, John van Wyhe, do not wish you to know the actual facts.
Referring to the presentation of significant and neglected historic facts in this blog post - facts that are 100 per cent proven to exist because they are in the publication record - van Wyhe misled the Scottish press in a press statement on my 2016 peer reviewed article   by referring to the publication of these very same proven facts as a “conspiracy theory” and an imitation of “historical method”:
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.
It appears that Dr van Wyhe is claiming that it is a “forced” “imitation of historical method” to find the data he failed to find?
Dr van Wyhe must, it appears, think, therefore, that it is a conspiracy theory and “imitation of the historical method’ for me to present – chronologically – as I do below, with no comment whatsoever in that presentation, other than to underlines the relevant text in order to more easily allow the reader to see that it proves for itself, that:
(1) Darwin lied in 1860 by denying that any naturalist had read Matthew’s original ideas before 1858
(2) Darwin told the same lie in a letter to an influential French naturalist
(3) Darwin told the same lie again in the Origin of Species from 1861 (third and every subsequent edition) until the day he died.
(4) The most expert and esteemed Darwin scholars in the World credulously parroted those same lies.
(5) On the evidence we have so far, it does indeed seem, that neither Dr John van Whye not any other member of the de facto pseudo-scholarly and so-called “Darwin Industry” wish the public to be aware of these facts.
Please note: what follows is not evidence of any kind a conspiracy. Instead, it is simply evidence that Darwin scholars appear to be greedily lining their pockets at the expense of the truth.

A simple chronological presentation of significant and neglected historic facts that prove Darwin lied about the prior readership of Matthew’s discover and that Darwin’s same lies have been credulously parroted ever since by the world’s Darwin Scholars



John Loudon, the famous botanist naturalist, reviewed Patrick Matthew’s (1831) book ‘On Naval Timber and Arboriculture’, which is now acknowledged by the world’s leading Darwinists to contain the first publication of the full conception of macro evolution by natural selection. See: Gardener’s Magazine 1832, vol. VIII, p. 703.
'One of the subjects discussed in this appendix is the puzzling one, of theorigin 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.'
Patrick Matthew (1860): 1st open letter to Charles Darwin in the Gardener's Chronicle and Agricultural Gazette 7 April 1860, pp. 312-313 Reveals that the famousnaturalist botanist John Loudon Reviewed Matthew's book.
'This discovery recently published by Mr. Darwin turns out to be what I published very fully... as far back as January 1, 1831... reviewed in numerous periodicals, so as to have full publicity... by Loudon …and repeatedly in the United Service Magazine for 1831 etc.'
Charles Darwin (1860): Reply to Patrick Matthew in the Gardeners’ Chronicle and Agricultural Gazette 21 April 1860, no. 16, pp. 362-363
‘I think that no one will feel surprised that neither I, nor apparently any other naturalist, had heard of Mr Matthew’s views…’
Patrick Matthew (1860): 2nd open letter. Reply to Charles Darwin in the Gardener's Chronicle and Agricultural Gazette 12 May 1860, p. 433
'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… 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…’
Charles Darwin (1861) , Letter to Quatrefages de Bréau, J. L. A. De. 25 April :
‘…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…’
Charles Darwin, (1861) ‘On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection: Or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life’, 3rd ed:
'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 Gardeners’ Chronicle, on April 7th, 1860. 95'
Gavin de Beer (1962), “The Wilkins Lecture: The Origins of Darwin’s Ideas on Evolution and Natural Selection”, Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences. vol. 155, no. 960, pp. 321-338.
‘…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.'
Ernst Mayr (1982), The Growth of Biological Thought: Diversity, Evolution and Inheritance, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts, p. 499
‘The person who has the soundest claim for priority in establishing a theory of evolution by natural selection is Patrick Matthew … His views on evolution… neither Darwin nor any other biologist had ever encountered them until Matthew bought forward his claims in an article in 1860 in The Gardeners’ Chronicle'

Discussion

Apparently, it would be catastrophic for the Darwin Industry were any of Darwin scholars to admit the truth that, at least from 1860, when he knew the truth of who really did read Matthew’s bombshell ideas, before he replicated them and claimed them as his own independent conceptions, that Darwin was a science fraudster. But he was. Because, as you can see from his own words above, when he knew the very opposite to be true, that Charles Darwin lied in order to bury the fact of Matthew’s prior influence on Loudon (who then edited Blyth’s influential work). That fact makes Darwin a lying plagiarizing glory thief from 1860 onward. Because, by so lying, he succeeded in convincing the world that Matthew could not possibly have influenced him or any other naturalist before 1858.
What appears to have got Darwin scholars, such as van Wyhe, hopping mad is that, besides discovering Loudon was in fact a naturalist well known to Darwin and his friends, I have also newly and originally discovered a further six naturalists who also read Matthew’s original ideas and cited his 1831 book before 1858!
One of these other six naturalists, Selby, then went on to be editor of Wallace’s (1855) famous Sarawak Paper on evolution! Moreover, Selby was a friend of Charles Darwin’s father, and of Darwin’s close friend Leonard Jenyns. Furthermore, Selby and Darwin sat on many scientific committees together. Another of these six citing naturalists is Robert Chambers. After reading Matthew’s book and citing it in 1832, Chambers went on to meet with Darwin, was a correspondent of his and is famously acknowledged for the book he wrote after citing Matthew’s book.
image
Nullius in Verba
Chambers's famous book – The Vestiges of Creation - is said to have “put evolution in the air’ in the first half of the 19th century. Wallace said Chambers was his greatest influence. Famously despising Chartists (Matthew was a Chartist leader in Scotland and wove his seditious politics in with his theory of natural selection) Chambers, like many other wealthy naturalist gentlemen of science of the time, had many a good reason not to cite Matthew’s influence on natural selection I(this is covered at length and fully evidenced in my book - Sutton 2014   )
Far more details, new discoveries and a fully evidenced and fully referenced, discussion of the context of how these and other naturalists were definitely, and others easily could have been, influenced by Matthew is all covered in my 2016 article   , which, apparently, Dr John van Wyhe does not wish you or any other member of the public to read.
Instead of being punterized by Dr van Wyhe’s arguably silly nonsense about these newly discovered fact being "silly", why not do what he, arguably, would rather you did not. Why not actually read my peer reviewed science article for yourself here (Sutton 2016   ). Then you can make up your own mind. If you read it, you will find in that article where I present the chronologically ordered published facts of Darwin’s 100 per cent proven lies, along with further significant and original new evidence of the fact that John Loudon went on to edit two of Edward Blyth’s most influential papers on the topic of organic evolution.

HELP FOR Dr JOHN van WYHE
With respectful good humour, perhaps Darwin scholars having difficulty grasping the new topics of "knowledge contamination" and Darwin's plagiarising science fraud, might benefit from reading a book like "History of Natural Selection for Dummies". Since no such easy-reader is currently available, in the spirit of scholarly goodwill, I have made three special flash cards.
The cards below are intended to be cut out and pasted onto some card. It is recommend that they are then sealed by pasting some varnish, or at least some PVA glue, over the card. Several coats will be sufficient to provide a reasonable seal against stains from academic blood sweat and tears.
Armed with these three cards, the student of good scholarship can then begin to learn how to tell the painful difference between a fully evidenced fact and their mere biased opinion that the fact has, in fact, debunked.
You will see I have used red ink to help to make the facts, Dr John van Wyhe thinks are "a conspiracy theory" as clear as possible for his arguably biased brain to try to comprehend.
My book "Nullius in Verba   " contains a further seven of Darwin's lies. If Dr van Wyhe buys it he will be able to fashion seven more cards to complete the set of 10. 
image
Mike Sutton 2016Public Domain
Charles Darwin is a proven serial liar and plagiarising science fraudster by glory theft
image
Mike Sutton 2016 - Patrick Matthew.comAttribution
Charles Darwin is a proven serial liar and plagiarising science fraudster by glory theft
image
(c) Dr Mike Sutton - PatrickMatthew.com - 2016Attribution
Charles Darwin is a proven serial liar and plagiarising science fraudster by glory theft
image


What is published can be 100% proven to exist

Employees of the De Facto Monopolising "MacDarwin Industry" are Today Misleading the Public about Uncomfortable "New Fact" Discoveries in the History of Science


Don't be punterized by what Darwin scholars are writing in their desperate and cowardly pseudo scholarly attempts to bury 100 per cent independently verifiable new data.

 Read the "New Data" facts for yourself: Click here and get up to speed with the bombshell peer reviewed proof that Charles Darwin lied about the prior readership of Patrick Matthew's 1831 published conception of the full theory of macroevolution by natural selection - and much more besides!



Monday, 25 April 2016

Poem for a Darwinist

My Dear honest Darwinist,
I don't know how to tell you this. But I feel you should know that we've seen him doing it, and the letters between them.
What he read and then wrote proves he lied about another.
He's been cheating on you, for 156 years! He has a "child" by this other, Matthew, person:







Darwin's 100 per cent proven lies are published in a peer reviewed science journal: http://www.nauka-a-religia.uz.zgora.pl/index.php/pl/czasopismo/46-fag-2015/921-fag-2015-art-05


Down House (Home of the Darwins). Bromley. Kent.
Dear Sir
Mr Darwin begs me to thank you warmly for your letter which has interested him very much. I am sorry to say that he is so unwell as not to be able to write himself.
With regard to Natural Selection he says that he is not staggered by your striking remarks. He is more faithful to your own original child than you are yourself. He says you will understand what he means by the following metaphor.
Fragments of rock fallen from a lofty precipice assume an infinitude of shapes—these shapes being due to the nature of the rock, the law of gravity &c— by merely selecting the well-shaped stones & rejecting the ill-shaped an architect (called Nat. Selection could make many & various noble buildings.
Mr Darwin is much obliged to you for sending him your photograph. He wishes he could send you as good a one of himself. The enclosed was a good likeness taken by his eldest son but the impression is faint.
You express yourself kindly interested about his family. We have 5 sons & 2 daughters, of these 2 only are grown up. Mr Darwin was very ill 2 months ago & his recovery is very slow, so that I am afraid it will be long before he can attend to any scientific subject.
Dear Sir
Yours truly E. Darwin
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Follow Me on Twitter at Criminotweet: Here   

Saturday, 23 April 2016

Darwin Exposed by his Greatest Secret: His lies about routes of knowledge contamination are 100% proven

Don't be punterized by lies. Get the facts: http://www.nauka-a-religia.uz.zgora.pl/images/FAG/2015.t.12/art.05.pdf


Jim Dempster's Correspondence: The Wavertree Letters [Letter 9]

Wavertree 17.5.98

 Dear Ian,



 I wonder if you read the Oldie? Enclosed is Smullen’s article. I hear he contacted you. No offer of an apology is forthcoming and The Oldie pretend they don’t know who he is. …

Only one biologist has taken any interest in my book. A palaeontologist at Bristol University has bought my book and seeks my help with his work on James Hutton! He was a sort of Renaissance man – interested in many subjects – breeding, geology, moral philosophy, chemistry and latent heat (from Black) which started him on vulvanism. He built a house overlooking Salisbury Crags and the view stimulated his interest in geology and now he is recognised as the founder of Geology. John Hunter was the same – anatomist, geologist, surgeon, fossil collector and essays on natural history. There is a bit of all this in my book.

Then Charles Lyell came along with his Uniformitarianism which Hutton and Hunter had recognised so many years before. Penguin has recently reprinted the first edition of Lyell’s Principles with a foreword by Jim Secord of Cambridge (an American who has been here since 1980) which is quite dishonest. The first edition in anti-Lamarck but the 12th edition is pro-Lamarck!

 Hope you are all well

Best wishes,

Jim


Notes and Comments by Mike Sutton 

This looks like someone called Smullen wrote something published in the "oldie" that upset Jim Dempster.

 Here Dempster reveals also that he thinks there is some kind of coordinated deliberate dishonesty afoot to conceal Lyell's move towards Lamarckinsm. 

Friday, 22 April 2016

The First to Be First in the "First to Be Second" Competition


Further information related to this competition can be found on the "Errors & Updates" page on Patrick Matthew.com

I will give one free copy of my book Nullius in Verba: Darwin's Greatest Secret to whoever is first to find each and any other of the terms in the list below  is not a unique Matthewism.

The authors listed in List 2 are those in my book who I found were "apparently first to be second" into published print with apparently unique Matthewisms that were apparently first coined in 1831

In other words, I will give a free copy of my e-book to  anyone who is first to prove that any of the currently remaining terms was published in the literature before January 1st 1831 (the date Matthew's book was first published).

To be clear, a total of 29 free books are currently on offer as prizes in this contest.

One book can be won for each "apparently unique Matthewism" by the person who shows that they first discovered it isn't.

Note: the terms must precisely match those listed below, the same words and in the same order, and they must have been published in English before 1831. Latin or any other language does not count.

 Note: number 22 is now out of the running.

An individual can win as many copies (or redeemable vouchers for the book) as they are able.

The first received correct entry received for each of the remaining terms in the list wins a book for each first to be received correct entry they make.

To submit your evidence, simply cite the source you have found and the relevant page number - along with a clickable link to the relevant publication - in the comments section to the blog post you are currently reading.


List 2 - from Nullius in Verba: Darwin's greatest secret

1.1832 – Mudie: ‘rectangular branching
2.1833 – Ellerby: ‘plants so far asunder
3.1835 – Main: ‘luxuriant growing trees
4.1834 - Conrad: ‘admixture of species
5.1834 – Roget: ‘living aggregates
6.1834 – Low: ‘long continued selection
7.1836 – Rafinesque: ‘evinced in the genus
8.1837 – Wilson: ‘threatened ascendency
9.1837 – Anonymous[1]: ‘nature’s own rearing
10.1837 – Dovaston: ‘sport in infinite varieties
11.1838 - Anonymous translator: ‘portion of the surface of our planet
12.1840 – Buel: ‘infirm progeny
13.1840 – Swackhamer: ‘beat off intruders
14.1841 – Johnson: ‘adapted to prosper
15.1841 – Hill: ‘deeper richer soil
16.1842 – Selby:  ‘greater power of occupancy
17.1844 – Low: ‘overpowering the less
18.1846 – Emmons: ‘habits of varieties
19.1846 – Alabama Supreme Court: ‘Infirmity of their condition
20.1848: - Charnock: ‘stiffest and most obdurate
21.1849 – Emmons: ‘deteriorated by culture
22.1852 – Wilkin: ‘figure is best accommodated’ – Disproven by Grzegorz Malec in 2016
23.1853 - Andrews ‘impressions and habits acquired
24.1854 – Mure: ‘dogmatical classification
25.1855 – Fishbourne: ‘power to permeate
26.1855 – Laycock: ‘mental or instinctive powers
27.1856 – Gazlay: ‘adaptation to condition
28.1858 - Powell: ‘restricted adaptation
29.1858 – Floy: ‘law manifest in nature
30. 1858 – Leidy: ‘impressions in insects





Free Lifetime Offer for Darwinists: Cognitive Colonic Irrigation




Thursday, 21 April 2016

Jim Dempster's Correspondence: The Wavertree Letters [Letter 8]

Wavertree 26.8.97

Dear Ian …

I am beginning to think that Darwinists are people who do not know much about Darwin’s writings. I wrote Ernst Mayr of Harvard (sent him a copy of the book as well) and asked him why he had used an essay by Kentwood Wells (see pages 162-69) rather than Darwin’s statement dealing with Patrick Matthew. He replied in a nice letter and admitted he had never seen Darwin’s statement. That essay of Kentwood Wells is now the received wisdom in England. Poor Norman Simmonds’ essay was turned down by the editor of Biologist because his essay did not conform to that of Kentwood Wells.

We can’t win.

Admittedly Mayr only took a few points from that essay (see page 168).

I have got together an essay on punctuated equilibrium which shows that neither Gould nor Eldredge are aware of what Darwin has in the Origin.

Natural Selection as an Algorithmic process is all the rage now together with self replicating genes! …

The concepts do not seem to me to take us much further in explaining the mystery of speciation or life itself.

 Best wishes,

 Jim

~~~

Notes and Comments by Mike Sutton

(Mayr 1982 The Growth of Biological Thought: Diversity, Evolution and Inheritance p.499):

'The person who has the soundest claim for priority in establishing a theory or evolution by natural selection is Patrick Matthew (1790-1874). He was a wealthy landowner in Scotland, very well read and well traveled (Wells 1974). His views on evolution and natural selection were published in a number of notes in an appendix to his work On Naval Timber and Arboriculture (1831). These notes have virtually no relation to the subject matter of the book, and it is therefore not surprising that neither Darwin nor any other biologist had ever encountered them until Matthew brought forward his claims in an article in 1860 in the Gardener's Chronicle.''
The Royal Society Darwin Medal winning Ernst Mayr was completely wrong, and easily discoverable to be so, when he wrote those words. Because naturalists are by definition biologists. And Matthew told Darwin - indeed told us all - of John Loudon's review of his ideas in the Gardener's Chronicle in 1860. And Loudon was a noted botanist - a naturalist - so by default a biologist.

The statement to which Dempster refers is most likely that by Darwin (1860) in the Gardeners Chronicle where he lied by writing the opposite to what Matthew had prior-informed him. The lie was that no naturalists had read Matthew's original ideas pre-1858. 
It is interesting that despite receiving a copy of Dempster's book, which revealed just how dishonest Darwin was, Mayr never corrected the palpable ignorant and pseudo-scholarly nonsense he had written about Matthew.
My recent article on this topic (Sutton 2016) - published in a peer-reviewed science journal - reveals Darwin's sly lying very clearly, step-by-step. The renowned Darwinist historian, John van Wyhe, resigned from the journal's Expert Advisory Board as soon as my article was published.

The article by Kentwood Wells is very ill informed, poorly researched, and contains errors of fact. It is beloved by Darwin scholars simply because it agrees with their mythology. My book, "Nullius" sets the record straight on Well's ludicrously poor scholarship and shameless "Darwin Lobby" anti-Matthew propagandising.

History will not be kind to biased career-Darwin scholars

Expert Advisor John van Wyhe Resigns following publication of article on Darwin's 100 % proven lies


 I was informed by confidential reliable inside sources in an email yesterday that possible “Darwin Industry” political concerns about Dr John van Wyhe’s    role on the Expert Advisory Board of the philosophy of science journal, that published my peer-reviewed article on Charles Darwin’s proven serial lying about the pre-1858 readership of Patrick Matthew’s original ideas on natural selection, are behind his recent resignation from the journal.

So for the record, the public facts of the matter are this

The 100 per cent proven facts in my peer reviewed paper, are published in the Polish philosophy of science journal Filozoficzne Aspekty Genezy, Philosophical Aspects of Origin. Moreover, the esteemed Darwinist Senior Lecturer on the history of science, Dr John van Wyhe, who has been an active member of the Polish science journal's expert advisory board since at least 2014, was on the journal’s board before, at the time this paper was submitted, during its peer review process, and also immediately after it was published. Soon after publication, for some reason unknown to me, Dr van Wyhe resigned that position.
In light of the “New Facts”, these are interesting times to be a Darwin scholar.