Nullius in Verba in paperback (second edition) now out

1st paper back of my book 'Nullius in Verba: Darwin's greatest secret' now available on Amazon. See my blog on it: https://t.co/fNLb8PbNmu pic.twitter.com/rgGv8EtyRz

— Dr Mike Sutton (@Criminotweet) July 20, 2017

£10 note

https://t.co/YL4VkrR7sP pic.twitter.com/VfcWGUfgTv

— Dr Mike Sutton (@Criminotweet) July 18, 2017

Big Data Proves Experts are Spreading so called "Bullshit" about Alfred Wallace

According to Harry H. Frankfurt, the Princeton University expert philosopher of  "On Bullshit", the difference between a liar and a bulshiiter is that the former is concerned with the truth but the other could not give a.... (ahem) care. The liar knows what the truth is and wishes to convince us that the opposite position is true. The bulshitter, however, does not care what is true when making a claim, only that you believe what they say is true.

In yesterday's Guardian newspaper you can find an article on Alfred Wallace. It's, arguably, a load of grade-F philosophical-grade bullshit, because it studiously ignores the fact Matthew - not Wallace or Darwin originated the theory of macroevolution by natural selection (see: Sutton 2015). But the greatest dollops of bovine incontinence come with the claims in the Guardian that:

1. Alfred Wallace coined the term "Natural Selection."
2. Alfred Wallace coined the term "Darwinism"

OK, so let's look at the independently verifiable facts. The earliest so far discoverable published use of the term "Natural Selection" in a biological/actuarial/sense is by Corbaux (1833). At that time Wallace was just 10 years of age. See Nullius in Verba: Darwin's greatest secret for other independently verifiable  earlier and later examples of published use of this term - all published before Wallace wrote a word on the topic!

Wallace did not coin the term Darwinism. In reality, the modern usage of the term was coined by Huxley in 1860 (see here) . The term was also used to refer to Charles Darwin's grandfather as early as 1840 (see here).

So that's several more piece of bullshit bagged and dropped in the dysology bin.

Moreover, when Wallace was just 9 years old, in 1832, John Loudon wrote of Patrick Matthew's (1831) origination of the theory of macroevolution by natural selection that he appeared to have something orignal to say on "origin of species" no less!  (see: Loudon, J.C. 1832. Matthew Patrick On Naval Timber and Arboriculture with Critical Notes on Authors who have recently treated the Subject of Planting. Gardener’s Magazine. Vol. VIII. p.703.). 

Among seven naturalists who cited Matthew (1831) pre-1859 Loudon went on to edit two influential papers on evolution written by Blyth, who was a great influence on both Darwin and Wallace. This is just one of several routes for Matthewain knowledge transfer that have been newly discovered (see Sutton 2015 for more information).

Perhaps the Guardian should at least bother to fact-check claims before going into print to spread even more myths on the topic of the discovery of the unifying theory of biology.

An article in the Guardian on the genuine originator, Patrick Matthew would perhaps help to set the factual record straight in the press. Here is some real news! And also here.


Conclusion

That sloppy mythmongering article in the Guardian confirms the Dysology hypothesis:

.Letting scholars get away with publishing fallacies and myths signals to others the existence of topics where guardians of good scholarship might be less capable than elsewhere. Such dysology then serves as an allurement to poor scholars to disseminate existing myths and fallacies and to create and publish their own in these topic areas, which leads to a downward spiral of diminishing veracity on particular topics.

+

Independently verifiable facts prove the Guardian just published two large pieces of grade-F bullshit on science: https://t.co/s0YgUIrQn8 pic.twitter.com/V3sdYgiraO

— Dr Mike Sutton (@Criminotweet) July 17, 2017

Dear Snoozepapers: Please do try to keep up with the news

@hannahdev The Guardian might like to keep up with the news on origination of macroevolution by natural slection: https://t.co/oTnieXrFRH pic.twitter.com/nxDXUXSiUT

— Dr Mike Sutton (@Criminotweet) July 17, 2017

People who lack integrity will refuse to give credit where credit is du... https://t.co/4HfrVpSueW #maxaxioms pic.twitter.com/fNMqBrXpz8

— Faydra Deon (@faydra_deon) July 17, 2017

+

@hannahdev @DrMarkGriffiths Newly discovered, peer reviewed, Independently verifiable facts puncture old myths: https://t.co/a5OiCKcJfY pic.twitter.com/dYMGgsNPeu

— Supermythbuster (@supermyths) July 17, 2017

+

Re the Guardian Article on Wallace
1. He did not coin Darwinism: https://t.co/Kpficemt6J
2. Nor "Origin of Species" https://t.co/2KiNu7lmOF pic.twitter.com/10gRi1qEmN

— Dr Mike Sutton (@Criminotweet) July 17, 2017

The Guardian Publishes Fake Facts about Wallace

"Absolute rubbish. Who on earth wrote this and why did the Guardian's Editor not fact-check it? The literature r..." https://t.co/uHb2xXQzam

— Dr Mike Sutton (@Criminotweet) July 16, 2017

Cognitive Contamination

On Cognitive Contamination Pandemics
1. https://t.co/V2XSYmloUN
2. https://t.co/E8QuuMzsSL pic.twitter.com/4Dm734wmH7

— Dr Mike Sutton (@Criminotweet) July 15, 2017

Lies

@Criminotweet @SethS_D Hey Mike, apparently big data exposes lies and self deceptions. Were you aware of his? https://t.co/BGicO4vfoN

— Rhabdouchos (@rhabdouchos) July 14, 2017

+

If I said no - I'd be a liar. Like Darwin! https://t.co/tb9R0OWK4Q

Thanks for this Andy...I'l have a read. 😎 https://t.co/bbIbiOOucF

— Dr Mike Sutton (@Criminotweet) July 14, 2017

Royal Society want's a book recommendation

Book reports on BigData disproving the mere beliefs of the world's leading scientists that P. Matthew was not read: https://t.co/tb9R0OWK4Q pic.twitter.com/Ky4BYoANLs

— Dr Mike Sutton (@Criminotweet) July 14, 2017

The Facts are Friends of Science Whether or not Some People Hate Them

I'm going to "Peggy Edwards, American botanical and natural science illustrator " See you there? https://t.co/b5BS0yzsTh via @EventbriteUK

— Dr Mike Sutton (@Criminotweet) July 12, 2017

+

More fair that scientists admit that independently verifiable facts are the friends, not enemies of science. Whether they like them or not.

— Dr Mike Sutton (@Criminotweet) July 13, 2017

Coming soon.Paperback Vol 1 of Nullius (abridged and updated)

Here @faceblindandy @DrMarkGriffiths is the blurb for the back of the paperback Vol 1 of the abridged second edition of Nullius in Verba pic.twitter.com/TvpCUJMOkH

— Dr Mike Sutton (@Criminotweet) July 12, 2017

Lies your biology professor told you

Blessed are the immaculate conceptors St Darwin and St Wallace. https://t.co/6K7Wm5UvfI pic.twitter.com/sr4qM7AcM0

— BlessedVirginDarwin (@OnNavalTimber) June 25, 2017

+
 Don't be fooled again. Get the independently verifiable disconfirming facts for their lies and propaganda here: PatrickMatthew.com

On Heritage and Sustainability in Scotland

At the intersection of Sustainability, Heritage, Biology & the Criminological study of plagiarism by science fraud: https://t.co/5gYTtOyzjn

— Dr Mike Sutton (@Criminotweet) June 22, 2017

Scientific Glee Clubs Refuse to Accept Uncomfortable Facts About Darwin

But try telling Darwin worshippers running glee clubs not to reject newly discovered facts:https://t.co/6x3GgP2Jjahttps://t.co/Ts5EQd4J1m https://t.co/tyar3ai02J

— Supermythbuster (@supermyths) May 30, 2017

New Data Led Hypothesis

https://t.co/77wRjpj1Nn

— Supermythbuster (@supermyths) May 29, 2017

Proof Darwin was a serial liar and glory thieving plagiarist

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 the origin 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 famous naturalist 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'

DARWIN'S LIES HAVE BEEN CREDULOUSLY PARROTED AS "TRUE" EVER SINCE

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'

+

If scientists know to "trust proven lies" but be skeptical of the current "truth" where does that lead Darwinists?: https://t.co/0hvyAOQbkq pic.twitter.com/e0zpXqUBj4

— Dr Mike Sutton (@Dysology) May 29, 2017

Hopping Mad Darwin Worshippers

@TakeThatDarwin Looks like actual facts touched a credulous Darwin worship nerve. A top psychologist cares. He can help you there: https://t.co/GIRRldc9vK pic.twitter.com/sOD9tZU9ka

— Supermythbuster (@supermyths) May 20, 2017

+

NTU Super Professor Dr Mark Griffiths, top Psychologist, sets record straight on my original bombshell discovery https://t.co/MeDKC9uRmi pic.twitter.com/5PPoPgDwRC

— Dr Mike Sutton (@Dysology) May 20, 2017

+

Support for new facts from top scholars, such as Super Professor @DrMarkGriffiths, led to funding The Matthew Trail https://t.co/MZFg74TtW9

— Supermythbuster (@supermyths) May 20, 2017

+

Heritage & Sustainability owes debt of gratitude to scholars such as @DrMarkGriffiths
1. https://t.co/ZylqHJjxrR
2.https://t.co/ju9da16LKC pic.twitter.com/ilh5X0Xmp8

— Dr Mike Sutton (@Criminotweet) May 20, 2017

+

Personally, "going forward" ..ahem..I hate claptrap and bullshit. I only believe in independently verifiable facts: https://t.co/gu80m5tP3s pic.twitter.com/0gbssvaF06

— Dr Mike Sutton (@Criminotweet) May 18, 2017

Why Did a Forrester first Discover Macroevolution by Natural Selection

Why did a forrester discover natural selection before Darwin?
Here:
1 1913 - https://t.co/61xz9o1JuG
2 1915 - https://t.co/GqOJs2ChAL pic.twitter.com/UsuLj1j5DL

— Dr Mike Sutton (@Criminotweet) May 16, 2017

Gandhi's Four Stages of Veracity Acceptence

Scotland. We are currently at Gandhi Stage One on the New Data discovery about Darwin: https://t.co/ju9da16LKC … pic.twitter.com/SeASlvnZj6

— Dr Mike Sutton (@Criminotweet) May 13, 2017

Latest News on Patrick Matthew from Scotland

Latest newspaper story in Scotland on Darwin's plagiarism. Note this: Desperate fact denials can't stop the truth: https://t.co/ju9da16LKC pic.twitter.com/4Ov992Ttum

— Dr Mike Sutton (@Criminotweet) May 11, 2017

In Scotland they are building a national heritage trail to celebrate the man whise discovery was stolen by Darwin https://t.co/kCHfPwA00p pic.twitter.com/izV0EQNAqz

— Supermythbuster (@supermyths) May 13, 2017

Anyone wishing to disseminate the truth is welcome to take and use the following information:

It is essential that we use the veracious power of independently verifiable facts only in tackling those who wish to keep Matthew buried in oblivion with mere unevidenced rhetoric, cherry picking dysology, fallacies, myths and outright, and de facto, fact denial behaviour. And that we make it clear that is how we will argue for a veracious history of scientific discovery and influence of the unifying theory of biology. Otherwise - in my experience with them to date - Darwinians will seek to confuse the world further with mere unevidenced opinions to support their newly punctured paradigm of tri-independent discovery of macro evolution by natural selection by Matthew, Darwin and Wallace.  

Please do feel free to use the bullet points below anywhere in any way you see fit. 

What follows are bulletproof, independently verifiable, facts.

Here are the independently verifiable facts. All are fully referenced to their published sources in my open access peer reviewed science article HERE http://www.nauka-a-religia.uz.zgora.pl/index.php/pl/czasopismo/46-fag-2015/921-fag-2015-art-05

1.  Darwin fully (1860, 1861) admitted that Matthew got the entire full theory of evolution before he and Wallace.

2. Darwin (1860, 1861) lied when he wrote that no naturalist and no one at all had read Matthew's prior-published work, because Matthew twice informed Darwin in published print in the Gardener's Chronicle that the exact opposite was true. Matthew explained to Darwin that his work was heretical in the first half of the 19th century and that even a professor of an esteemed university feared to teach it for fear of the "cutty stool" (being pilloried in church), and that Perth public library banned his book for the same reason.

3. Matthew's ideas were not buried solely in the appendix of his (1831)  book. Darwin lied when he made that claim in every edition of the Origin of Species from the 1861 3rd edition onward. Because Matthew's (1860) first letter to the Gardener's Chronicle on this issue included swathes of text from the main body of his (1831) book on natural selection.  Darwin wrote to his best friend the famous economic botanist Joseph Hooker that it would be "splitting hairs" to admit the truth of that matter. 

4. My original research  (Nullius in verba: Darwin's greatest secret 2014) uncovered the fact that - as opposed the the myth started by Darwin as the premise to support his and Wallace's claimed independent discoveries of Matthew's prior published hypothesis - other naturalists in fact did read Matthew's original conception before he brought it to Darwin's attention in the Gardener's Chronicle in 1860.

5. In fact, as opposed to none at all - 25 people cited Matthew's book in the literature pre 1858. Seven naturalist read those ideas, because they are among the 25 who cited Matthew's book in the literature. Darwin knew four of those naturalists.  

6. Three of those four naturalists played major roles at the epicentre of influence on Darwin and Wallace and on their friends, influencers and influencer's influencers. 

7. Those three are John Claudius Loudon. Prideaux John Selby and Robert Chambers.

8. Loudon - who was best friends with the botanist John Lindley and William Hooker (father of Darwin's best friend Joseph Hooker) went on to be owner chief editor of the journal that published two of Blyth's most influential papers on organic evolution. Darwin fully admitted from the 3rd edition of the Origin of Species (1861) onward that Blyth was his most useful and prolific informant on the topic. Lindley went on to lie in order to steal Matthew's right to national fame as the first to import and propagate giant Californian redwoods in Britain.

9.  Selby was a friend of Darwin's father and best friend of Darwin's great friend and most prolific correspondent Leonard Jenyns. Most importantly, Selby was chief editor of the journal that published Wallace's (1855) Sarawak paper on organic evolution. 

10. Chambers was the anonymous author of The Vestiges of Creation. That is the book attributed by Darwin scholars with "putting evolution in the air" in the first half of the 19th century. Darwin and Chambers corresponded and met pre-1858. Both Darwin and Wallace admitted its influence on society and their own work. Wallace wrote that Chambers was his greatest influencer.

11. Wallace would later write that Matthew was one of the most original thinkers of the first half of the 19h century. Wallace should know the truth of that matter. Wallace's recognition of Matthew's originality means - logically - that Matthew was one of the most original thinkers of the entire 19th century. And that makes him one of the most original thinkers of all time.  

So why is the scientific establishment keeping up the sly old silent treatment about Matthew? Please disseminate the facts. We deserve a veracious history of the discovery of the unifying theory of Biology.

Darwin worshippers. "You can't just slam their beliefs. You have to show them a better way. Give them hope"

OK: https://t.co/E8QuuMzsSL pic.twitter.com/jYUofApY3R

— Dr Mike Sutton (@Criminotweet) May 12, 2017

Take a look behind the curtain hiding Darwin's lies and plagiarism

Take a look behind the dusty old curtain put up to conceal the truth from you. Yes YOU! https://t.co/SIYkUapJnj pic.twitter.com/UvjirpVp5l

— Dr Mike Sutton (@Criminotweet) May 7, 2017