tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7571154437342215382.comments2023-05-23T05:41:15.239-07:00Patrick Matthew: Originator, Immortal Great Thinker and Proven Influencer on Natural SelectionDysologyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03470745701780667870noreply@blogger.comBlogger65125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7571154437342215382.post-51372331870923070182020-08-17T06:18:06.632-07:002020-08-17T06:18:06.632-07:00Thanks Ton. Yes something is desperately wrong. Wh...Thanks Ton. Yes something is desperately wrong. What they are doing is not science. Science is about truth, and truth always wins out in the end, just as Brian J. Ford says in his video. The reason they are behaving so unscientifically is because they are getting away with it and being rewarded for that. History will not be kind to them.Dysologyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03470745701780667870noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7571154437342215382.post-8143838107982068282020-08-17T06:05:20.121-07:002020-08-17T06:05:20.121-07:00Mike, you made a coherent and convincing point. Co...Mike, you made a coherent and convincing point. Combined with the recorded lecture of Professor Brian Ford on plagiarism, it shows that there is something wrong with the manners and behaviour in science. By the way, did you know that in the Netherlands we call you 'the Van Morisson of biohistory'? All the best with your useful and sound work. Ton Munnich, The NetherlandsTon Munnichhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01044385884604944265noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7571154437342215382.post-16634406399985228102020-02-28T03:44:35.478-08:002020-02-28T03:44:35.478-08:00Mike, much admiration for your sound work. Ton.Mike, much admiration for your sound work. Ton.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7571154437342215382.post-14193703146602625012020-02-24T17:26:18.325-08:002020-02-24T17:26:18.325-08:00Mike, much admiration for your sound and powerful ...Mike, much admiration for your sound and powerful correcting work.Ton Munnichhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01044385884604944265noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7571154437342215382.post-42309546154258720192016-11-05T11:49:31.654-07:002016-11-05T11:49:31.654-07:00Thank you so much for the valuable informationsThank you so much for the valuable informationsgraphics cardhttp://biggislims.tumblr.com/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7571154437342215382.post-83070177171352480272016-08-29T01:57:51.080-07:002016-08-29T01:57:51.080-07:00Or: "...although he is quite able to dictate ...Or: "...although he is quite able to dictate this letter to you and is quite able to write to other people this same month."<br /><br />e.g: https://www.darwinproject.ac.uk/letter/?docId=letters/DCP-LETT-4345.xml;query=1863;brand=default<br /><br />https://www.darwinproject.ac.uk/letter/?docId=letters/DCP-LETT-4335.xml;query=1863;brand=default<br />Dysologyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03470745701780667870noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7571154437342215382.post-13322369547993827912016-08-29T00:27:21.188-07:002016-08-29T00:27:21.188-07:00The letter should end:
...so that I am afraid it...The letter should end:<br /><br /> ...so that I am afraid it will be long before he can attend to any scientific subject other than stealing your work.Emilio Cervanteshttp://www.madrimasd.org/blogs/biologia_pensamiento/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7571154437342215382.post-32306318562458120432016-08-24T16:49:01.799-07:002016-08-24T16:49:01.799-07:00cuntcuntAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7571154437342215382.post-4572018611656545632016-08-20T06:00:52.707-07:002016-08-20T06:00:52.707-07:00In Mazur (2015), The Paradigm Shifters: Overthrowi...In Mazur (2015), The Paradigm Shifters: Overthrowing the hegemony of the culture of Darwin, citing Kuhn, James Shapiro explains how paradigm changes in the study of are first met with resistance by those with a vested interest in old debunked paradigms. But the themes he mentions of the power of human nature as driven by love and the love of power are most fitting to resistance paradigm changes in the history of scientific discovery:<br /> <br />'...over time and as technology develops, partly as a consequence of what the scientific enterprise is doing, new phenomena come up and can't be explained away any longer in the same way. In the end there are always a group of people who defend the existing belief system more than is justified by the empirical observations.'<br /> <br />George Beccaloni is clearly one of the current "group of people" who cannot accept the significance of the new data that has punctured the premise of the Darwin and Wallace Independent Discovery Paradigm. His behaviour on social media reveals the depths to which he has sunk in his desperate efforts to resist the new Matthewian Influence Paradigm.<br /><br />The newly discovered phenomena of who Darwin and Wallace knew, and who their friends and influencers knew, really did read Matthew's prior publication of the hypothesis of macroevolution by natural selection, cannot be explained by the old and credulous Darwinite paradigm of tri-independent discovery of Matthew's prior published conception.<br /><br />A rational explanations page has been created on PatrickMatthew.com to present the facts and rational rguments that topple the tall tales told by Darwin and his deifictioncult of credulous wordshippers: http://patrickmatthew.com/rational%20explanations.html<br />Dysologyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03470745701780667870noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7571154437342215382.post-72509046285505929832016-08-17T12:55:50.181-07:002016-08-17T12:55:50.181-07:00Dear George Beccaloni (AKA Megaloblatta)
I'm...Dear George Beccaloni (AKA Megaloblatta) <br /><br />I'm afraid no one can take anything you write at face value as an honest opinion, not anymore. Because of your own dreadfully unethical and dishonest published behaviour, which has blotted your copy-book in that regard. <br /><br />The screenshot of this very blog post 100 per cent proves what you have been dishonestly up to on published social media.<br /><br />I strongly suggest you stop trying to invent ever more silly tall tales to now try to deal with the New Data that has bust the old Darwinian myth-excuse for denying Matthew's influence (the myth that Matthew's ideas went unread before Darwin and Wallace replicated them and claimed them as their own) and that you read the child's fairy story "The Boy Who Cried Wolf". It definitely will teach you something George. After that you should progress to Pinocchio. If you would like some help reading that one, perhaps an honest child might explain the morality of the message to you.<br /><br />I am very familiar with Zirkle George.<br /><br /> You can't even educate yourself, so stop being silly by deceiving yourself about educating me about anything other than your most insightful incredible dishonesty. <br /><br />I have a third peer reviewed journal article under review right now that cites Zirkle and expands and polishes his sound definition of natural selection. Moreover, amongs other things, his work led me to write this blog post in 2015: http://patrickmathew.blogspot.co.uk/2015_07_01_archive.htmlDysologyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03470745701780667870noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7571154437342215382.post-28427524034478952482016-08-17T10:09:43.846-07:002016-08-17T10:09:43.846-07:00Dearest Mike. IMHO you are a ranting, aggressive, ...Dearest Mike. IMHO you are a ranting, aggressive, abusive, dishonest, uninformed troll. I do strongly suggest you follow my earlier suggestions and take a biology degree so that you become sufficiently knowledgeable to argue in an *informed* way about the biological issues you clearly do not currently understand. Although you witter on about natural selection and how Matthew discovered it, you clearly do not understand what natural selection actually is - or the fact that Matthew DID NOT discover it. You are no different to historian John van Wyhe who writes how Darwin and Wallace discovered evolution! Evolution AND natural selection are ancient concepts Mike. The only positive outcome of my attempts to correct your countless errors is that I have decided to write a non-technical article which clearly explains who discovered what with respect to natural selection. You are welcome to comment on the article when published, but until then I will not waste my time trying to educate you. As a last attempt to make you understand the situation re. natural selection, here is another analogy: From ancient times people noticed that when apples fell off trees they moved downwards in a straight line towards the Earth and a few even noted this observation in print. In the 18th century Jim Hutton suggested there was an invisible force of attraction between objects and that the larger one pulls the smaller one towards it (he didn't name the force). A few decades later farmer Pat Matthew described the force as "gravitational attraction" and speculated that the orbiting of the planets around the Sun might be due to it, but he didn't explain how this might work. His speculations appeared in the appendix to his book on growing turnips, and no one noticed them... Another few decades went by until collaborators Chas Darwin and Alf Wallace explained in detail how the orbiting of the planets was explainable by the operation of this force (which Darwin named "gravity") plus other factors. Later workers worked out the fine mathematical details of how the force works. So Hutton might be regarded as the discoverer of gravity, Matthews was the first person who speculated that celestial mechanics might be explainable by it, Darwin and Wallace were the first people to attempt to actually explain it, and later workers were those who worked out the nitty-gritty details of how the force functions.<br /><br />Oh, as a start to your understanding of the history of natural selection I recommend you read Zirkle, C. 1941. Natural Selection before the "Origin of Species". Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society, Vol. 84 (1): 71-123<br /><br />Adiós Mike.Megaloblattahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15066413413406605963noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7571154437342215382.post-39968139453884254912016-08-17T04:04:42.106-07:002016-08-17T04:04:42.106-07:00This comment has been removed by the author.Megaloblattahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15066413413406605963noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7571154437342215382.post-28195736988953739162016-08-17T02:15:15.287-07:002016-08-17T02:15:15.287-07:00Dear George Beccaloni (AKA Megaloblatta), your eff...Dear George Beccaloni (AKA Megaloblatta), your efforts at making an argument in this - your claimed area of expertise (but in which you have - apparently it seems - not made a single discovery of your own) - whilst cherry-steppingley and jealously ignoring in dreadfully transparent biased and deliberate shameful propagandising, pseudo scholarly fashion - the uncomfortable newly discovered and independently verifiable fact that the old Darwinite paradigm of Darwin's and Wallace's claimed independent discoveries of Matthew's prior conception of the complete and detailed hypothesis of macroevolution by natural has now been bust, because I originally discovered that - as opposed to the old lie started by Darwin in 1860 and parroted without question as the truth in the literature by the credulous mynah bird myth parroting zombie hoard of Darwin myth worshippers (such as the Royal Society Darwin medal winners Ernst Mayr and Sir Gavin de Beer, among a host of others), Matthew's original bombshell work in actual fact was cited by Darwin's and Wallace's influencers and their influencer's influencers before either put so much as pen to private notepad on the topic of evolution of any kind. <br /><br />No wonder you now seek to continue to deny these newly discovered facts and their significance, given your transparent propagandising behaviour.<br /><br />Moreover, Darwin is a proven replicating and glory thieving science fraudster liar because he is proven to have known his sly "no naturalist / no one at all" read Matthew's prior-published conception was a lie when he wrote that tall-tale in 1860 and in 1861 - and in every edition of the 'Origin of Species' thereafter. That Myth, coined by Darwin, was a lie because Matthew had already told him in print in 1860 in the Gardener's Chronicle of two naturalists who did read his 1831 book pre-1858 and that it was banned by the public library of Perth in Scotland, because of the heretical work in it on the origin of species.<br /><br />Wallace is also proven to have been shamefully dishonest by deleting incriminating text in his transcriptions of his private letters in his autobiography. <br /><br />You George are proven to have been shamefully dishonest as well. Because this very blog post 100 per cent proves, by way of a screenshot, that you published a faux review of my book and then were caught, hilariously red handed, in that act of pseudo scholarship by my publisher. The shame of it George! The book that has so incensed you and made you so - apparently jealous and, arguably, professionally unethical - is 'Nullius in Verba: Darwin's Greatest Secret' (Sutton 2104). Just Google "Wallace Science fraud" and all the top hits will lead anyone straight to the facts that have so upset you, they have made you behave so shamefully. Is it because you are Curator of the Wallace Collection at the Museum of Natural History, London, George? Is that why you have so disgraced yourself, forever, George?<br /><br />The New Data facts that have so upset you George prove there were many opportunities for Matthewian knowledge contamination of the brains of the the shameless replicators Darwin and Wallace pre-1858. <br /><br />You - George need to move with the New Data - adapt or perish George.<br /><br />All the peer reviewed and published in a science journal - as opposed to his biased and his painful facts free ramblings on a silly little personal blog shrine to proven liars and science fraudsters, glory thieving sly replicators of prior-published work can be read here: http://www.nauka-a-religia.uz.zgora.pl/index.php/pl/czasopismo/46-fag-2015/921-fag-2015-art-05<br /><br />That peer reviewed article has now been read by over 6000 people - as proof of concept of it's title.<br /><br />Beware the Frozen Donkey Hypothesis George: <br /><br />On one harsh 19th century winter night, a donkey froze where it stood on a Parisian boulevard. At daybreak, the people seeing it so lifelike, tried to shoo and beat it out of the way, not realizing it could not move on because it was dead!Dysologyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03470745701780667870noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7571154437342215382.post-67938385367509364022016-08-17T00:07:13.810-07:002016-08-17T00:07:13.810-07:00Jim Dempster's family is well aware of your pu...Jim Dempster's family is well aware of your published deceptions and online behaviour George, as well as of that of other Darwinities His daughter published a poem about it: https://www.bestthinking.com/thinkers/science/social_sciences/sociology/mike-sutton?tab=blog&blogpostid=23866Dysologyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03470745701780667870noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7571154437342215382.post-24074931268103983022016-08-16T22:51:20.867-07:002016-08-16T22:51:20.867-07:00Unfortunately for you George Becalloni (AKA Megalo...Unfortunately for you George Becalloni (AKA Megalobloata) the facts will not "go away". You keep purposefully missing this uncomforting point in your attempt to make an argument against the painful and hard New Data facts. Once again let me help you out. Let me refer you to the famous literature - once again - where all the leading evolutionary biologists - even Alfred Wallace admitted that only Matthew got there first with natural selection by natural selection. Of course, Wallace admitted this in a private letter only. To find those references simply Google "on knowledge contamination". Dysologyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03470745701780667870noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7571154437342215382.post-49112502183245118532016-08-16T10:47:30.382-07:002016-08-16T10:47:30.382-07:00Dear George Beccaloin (AKA Megloblata)
For this t...Dear George Beccaloin (AKA Megloblata)<br /><br />For this to follow my line of reasoning George, you would need to show that Hutton conceived the hypothesis of macro evolution by natural selection and published it. He did no such thing. We've been over this George. You know that. <br /><br />All the world's leading Darwinists agree that only Matthew was first to conceive the idea of macro evolution by natural selection.. You keep cherry stepping away from the facts that don't fit your deliberately biased and personal career serving faux-history George.<br /><br /> Your history is as fake as the review you wrote and trolled across the internet of my book when you had not even read it.<br /><br /> So it is YOU who is deceptive George. Any it is you who is proven to be so. Your dishonesty is the subject of this blog post.<br /><br />Where do I pretend I never read Dempster? I dedicated my book Nullius to him.<br /><br /> Nowhere do I claim that I discovered Hope taught Matthew George - so don't try your silly and typically dishonest trollish tricks here. <br /><br />Your thinking is shown to wrong again George. I hope this reply helps you to see that.<br />Dysologyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03470745701780667870noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7571154437342215382.post-84401062723400066652016-08-16T02:53:25.522-07:002016-08-16T02:53:25.522-07:00This comment has been hidden from the blog.Dysologyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03470745701780667870noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7571154437342215382.post-31939329531301993402016-08-16T00:32:05.736-07:002016-08-16T00:32:05.736-07:00This comment has been hidden from the blog.Dysologyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03470745701780667870noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7571154437342215382.post-39628478629238160672016-08-15T05:47:03.531-07:002016-08-15T05:47:03.531-07:00For a summary of my arguments against Sutton's...For a summary of my arguments against Sutton's fallacious allegations see my article here: http://wallacefund.info/content/did-patrick-matthew-independently-discover-natural-selection AND my answer to the question "Were Darwin and Wallace the first to discover natural selection?" here: http://wallacefund.info/faqs-myths-misconceptionsMegaloblattahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15066413413406605963noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7571154437342215382.post-68746147882559368332016-08-15T04:50:29.753-07:002016-08-15T04:50:29.753-07:00This comment has been hidden from the blog.Megaloblattahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15066413413406605963noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7571154437342215382.post-29773341783064824842016-08-15T04:33:26.750-07:002016-08-15T04:33:26.750-07:00This comment has been removed by the author.Megaloblattahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15066413413406605963noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7571154437342215382.post-76218495369057373072016-08-15T03:50:08.232-07:002016-08-15T03:50:08.232-07:00Mike: Your writings are as deceptive as ever. It w...Mike: Your writings are as deceptive as ever. It was Dempster who 'revealed' "that Matthew, like Darwin - was taught by Thomas Charles Hope at Edinburgh University." However, neither you nor Dempster pointed out the 'inconvenient truth' that Hope was one of “Hutton’s strongest supporters”... So using your own logic, Matthew must have been "knowledge contaminated" by Hope i.e. Matthew stole Hutton's theory of natural selection from information which 'must' have been passed on to him by Hope. It was I who first made this astonishing discovery Mike - and I trust you will credit me with it. For more details see my blog post here: http://wallacefund.info/content/did-patrick-matthew-independently-discover-natural-selectionMegaloblattahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15066413413406605963noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7571154437342215382.post-48100460879471614752016-08-15T03:34:15.256-07:002016-08-15T03:34:15.256-07:00Mike: It is YOU who are wrong - go away, study and...Mike: It is YOU who are wrong - go away, study and understand the writings of Darwin, Wallace and modern evolutionary biologists. To start you off, here is lesson on how natural selection drives MICROevolutionary change: https://www.pearsonhighered.com/campbell10einfo/assets/pdf/Campbell_Biology_10e_Chapter_23.pdf As one of my colleagues famously said MKike "macroevolution is the product of microevolution writ large". More to follow...Megaloblattahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15066413413406605963noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7571154437342215382.post-14056092647793726782016-08-15T02:57:13.244-07:002016-08-15T02:57:13.244-07:00My Dear My Dear Megaloblatta - AKA George Becallon...My Dear My Dear Megaloblatta - AKA George Becalloni <br /><br />George you are hilarious. Thank you. The laughter you provide is very much appreciated. You have a great gift. Very special George. <br /><br />Your hairspring dishonesty or confusion - it is hard to tell which, may one day become legendary. Well done. <br /><br />I respectfully suggest you read the peer reviewed articles and books of the leading Darwinists - all of whom write simply "natural selection" to refer to the general principle of macro evolution by natural selection. I have explained this well known fact to you many times. But you don't seem to be able to admit the truth. How strange.<br /><br />Once you have done so, I suggest you read to books that may help you with your dishonesty difficulties:<br /><br />They are "On Honesty" and "On Bullshit". Both books are written by the University of Princeton philosopher Professor Harry. H. Frankfurt. I shall certainly be referencing them in my future work, where I use the data you have provided - by way of your most professionally embarrassing abusive foul-penned desperate and palpably jealous comments in the comments section of this blog site and elsewhere on the Internet (screen shots are great evidence) to reveal how my original New Data discoveries (as published in peer reviewed academic journals and my book Nullius) have so incensed you - because they are made in your field of expertise, but where you and your similarly desperately jealous and dishonest troll friend friend Dr Dagg have made no original discoverers of your own. Not one single discovery. How strange is that? Can you explain it for us George? What have you been doing?<br /><br />So once again - "Thank you for the valuable data - published in the public domain of social media". Much appreciated.Dysologyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03470745701780667870noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7571154437342215382.post-3289913169269971272016-08-14T13:25:51.573-07:002016-08-14T13:25:51.573-07:00You're talking claptrap again Mike - time to t...You're talking claptrap again Mike - time to take a biology degree. In the interim I suggest you do one of your "Big Data" analyses - use Google to search for the terms "natural selection microevolution"... You will see that a lot of statements you have so confidently and aggressively made are crap Mike..<br /><br />Darwin, Wallace and modern biologists realise that evolution is a continuum from micro- to macro- evolution. So natural selection might lead to evolutionary change within a species (e.g. a population of mice with pale fur living amongst dark rocks might evolve dark fur to better camouflage them against predators), and the same mechanism may lead to two parapatric populations evolving into new species. It's the same mechanism Mike. Mathew did not discover natural selection.<br /><br />Here is a hypothetical analogous example to help you better understand the argument I am making Mike:<br /><br />Jim Hutton was a clock maker in the 17th century who invented a new mechanism to drive the mechanism of a clock - the hairspring. He believed that clocks couldn't be made any smaller than the one-foot tall examples he produced - and the idea of a tiny device which could be slipped into a pocket was scoffed at by him and his fellow clock makers. A few years later a farmer named Pat Matthew speculated that a tiny hairspring-driven timepiece was possible, but he didn't make one. Technological developments in the following decades led to partners Alf Wallace and Chas Darwin actually designing and constructing the first pocket watch, which was driven by the same design of hairspring that Jim Hutton had invented. So Pat had a nice idea which he never followed through, whilst Chas and Alf actually created the device which Jim couldn't conceive of using the mechanism that Jim had actually invented!Megaloblattahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15066413413406605963noreply@blogger.com