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 31 January 2020

Charles Darwin, Patrick Matthew and the Wikigate Scandal

Get the independently verifiable and expert peer reviewed facts, not the credulous propaganda fact denial claptrap

Darwin's Mentalist Zombie Horde: Lack of free will once in the cult of Darwin worship

So sad that the scientific establishment is so slow to admit when facts prove its most influential "leaders"  and icons and highly respected members and all the rag-tags on its fringes  are wrong in all those textbooks and articles and on social media etc and are now totally credulous losers. I really can't understand why they don't admit that right away when it's proven ๐Ÿ™ˆ๐Ÿ™‰๐Ÿ™Š.


See the Darwin lying cards collection Here 

Thursday 30 January 2020

Darwin is Toast

Following the New Data on his plagiarism. Darwin, most fittingly, is now toast.
Pass the marmalade.

In my book Darwin and Wallace are 100% proven liars and science fraudsters by glory thieving plagiarism.

A Criminologist in the field of botany and science fraud by glory thieving lies and plagiary

An expert peer reviewed paper at the intersection of botany and science fraud by plagiary and glory thieving lies.

Patrick Matthew was the first to introduce and propagate giant redwoods in the UK. Many of the trees he planted survive in Scotland today. Yet once again scientists known to Darwin and his cronies tried to steal that glory from him They too were finally exposed by the independently verifiable facts of Matthew's originality: Here

See giant redwoods in California - from where Matthew got his stock - Here

If you would like to see the Matthew redwoods, head for the Patrick Matthew Trail in Scotland - Here

Tuesday 28 January 2020

Darwin Lad George Beccaloni shows us what he is

Here, in this post, you can see the behavior and harassment rantings of just one of the rabid harassment troll Darwin Lads, I blogged about recently (here).

The Lad in question today is one George Becalloni, (herewho operates rather fittingly as a fact denial fake review writer of books he has never even read. Becalloni operates as an obsessive dysological harasser of the facts he so despises under the name of a giant cockroach - Megaloblatta

Beccaloni went bonkers about my book - writing a fake review of it even when he had not read a word of it. Why? Because he is totally obsessed with his love of Alfred Wallace (at the time of writing Beccaloni is working full time on lovingly curating Wallace's correspondence) learned that I originally discovered that Wallace's (1855) Sarawak paper editor Selby cited Matthew's (1831) book in 1842 and therein wrote about his radical ideas. Moreover, I also originally unearthed the fact that Wallace doctored a letter in his autobiography to hide the fact he was being paid off by Darwin and his cronies to join in with Darwin to plagiarize Matthew's theory in their (1858) Linnean society papers (facts here). This data, and much more besides in my book Nullius overturns the beloved Darwinite myth that Matthew could not have knowledge contaminated Wallace.

The record here of Beccaloni's harassment of the newly unearthed facts, that he so hates, switch between the comments below and others cited by me in my replies to him on the Darwin's Sandwalk website (archived here). On the Sandwalk you will find Dr Arlin Stoltzfus of the US National Institute of Standards and Technology conducting himself with all the scholarly objectivity of the proper scholar he is as he supports the evidence led, fact fueled, rational arguments for Darwin's and Wallace's plagiarism against the ludicrously desperate rantings against the facts made by the likes of  George Beccaloni.

Beccaloni makes the same mistake as the rest of the Darwin Lads, namely he thinks he is preying upon me. But being an idiot, he picked on the wrong person. As you can see in the comments below he merely preys upon himself with his own desperate angry stupidity.

Comments below are taken from this earlier blogpost on this blogsite about Beccaloni AKA Megaloblatta 

These comments - and my responses to them - are also published elsewhere on this blogsite.


  1. Thanks for reminding me about my 'review'. I had forgotten about it and on re-reading it thought it was very good indeed. I stand by every word of it! One does not need to read your whole boring book to know the main points you make since you have recounted these endless times on your many websites on Matthew and elsewhere. I was thus not specifically reviewing your book, but assessing your ludicrous ideas, which you have expounded at length ad nauseam on the Web! Here is a nice example from my 'review' of your work: "Mike's speculations are sometimes rather odd - for example he says that Robert Chambers read Matthew's book (OK, fair enough), was influenced by Matthew's evolutionary arguments (where's the evidence?), and that this then prompted Chambers to write a book about evolution (i.e. Vestiges) several years later (wild speculation!). Yes, Chambers did write a book about evolution (then known as transmutation), but why did he not mention natural selection if he had understood the idea when he read Matthew's book? After all natural selection provides a mechanism for how evolution works - and the fact he didn't present a mechanism is the main weak point about Vestiges that led others to dismiss the book as idle speculation. Chamber's clearly missed an excellent opportunity to plagiarise Matthew's ideas... Note that although it is a fact that Wallace was inspired to become an evolutionist on reading Vestiges in 1845, he obviously didn't get the idea for natural selection from this book (as it isn't mentioned), and since evolution itself is a very old idea (dating back to ancient Greek times), Wallace (and Chambers for that matter) could just as easily have been inspired by evolutionary works published long before either Vestiges or Matthew's book - e.g. those by Erasmus Darwin (Charles' grandfather) from the 18th century." For more see

    1. My Dear "Megaloblatta" - AKA Dr George Beccaloni

      Unfortunately for you, you are being dishonest once again George.

      Firstly, as you well know, the points you repeat here have - in an attempt to formulate an argument against the New Data - been dealt with and dismissed with disconfirming evidence over the past two days. Therefore, your rather odd yet consistently unprofessionally rude and desperate desire to start all over again here is possible evidence that you may have some kind of biased memory issue, or worse some kind of a professional self-harm agenda. Please go back George and re read the facts, and study in detail how and why they deal with your plainly biased attempts at formulating arguments against them. Please begin from your comment here:

      Secondly, it appears to me the reason you are only dishonestly claiming you were fully aware of the facts in my book (which you had not read when you did so) in your shameful public defence here and now, in published social media, is because the full details of who exactly reviewed Matthew's book, who cited it, their relationship and influence to Darwin and Wallace, Darwin's and Wallace's proven lies were not in the public domain at the time of your deliberate and misleading faux review of my book that contains all those details. So you cannot have known then what you only now claim you did know then. So please, George, don't continue to dig yourself in even deeper than you already have done with your dishonesty.

      You really are a multiple victim of your own serial dishonesty George.

      Why not discuss this behaviour with a chartered psychologist who can help you work things through in this regard?

      With respect, might I kindly suggest you take a trip to the friendly blogsite of Professor Mark Griffiths to discuss this issue and what we know about such bias. Here:

      Also I see the Royal Society of Biology is similarly taking an interest in such biased behaviour and how it will hold you back:
  2. For the record, "Megaloblatta" is the pseudonym behind which someone who claims to be George Beccaloni, Curator of the Wallace Collection of the Museum of Natural History, London hides.

    1. And for the record "Mike Sutton" is the name of a criminological nutter!
    2. My dear Megaloblatta

      For the public record. On the Sandwalk blog you claim to be George Beccaloni - Curator of the of the Natural History Museum of London. Is that still who you claim to be / or think you are today?
    3. Mike: see my first post above. As you know the 'review' was written by me and as I began my post with "Thanks for reminding me about my 'review'" even you should have been able to put two and two together and realise that it must be George Beccaloni. Surely your great criminological skills are up to this most basic detective work...
  3. Oh, I see, obviously Prof. Mark Griffiths is your shrink. Well thanks for the recommendation, but unlike you, I don't have any psycological problems! I guess self delusion is one of yours - certainly the point I made about Chambers was not "dealt with and dismissed with disconfirming evidence over the past two days". In fact you have NEVER addressed it - at least I do not remember seeing you do so. So Mike: How exactly did Chambers pass on his supposed knowledge of Matthew's idea of natural selection to Wallace?" Please answer the question clearly and without your usual tangential ranting.

    1. Now don't be childish "George". Don't you have any colleagues who are psychologists then? Oh no. You won't in your institution will you. Well try getting out a bit more. Anyway, Re Chambers: Yes I have It's perhaps the psychological condition known as biased blindsight that stops you from seeing it George. Or something else perhaps? Please go back and read my typology of knowledge contamination that I replied to your comment in that regard with:
    2. So you can't explain it then Mike? I want to know the specific details of the Chambers' case of transmission of knowledge to Wallace. Please explain, rather than point me to some silly typology which doesn't explain the Chambers case. I think we'll have to come up with a new mechanism for transmission of knowledge - let's call it "Sutton's Magical Knowledge Transmission Theory".
    3. My Dear Megaloblatta (AKA George) What DO you actually see at all "George"?

      As you failed to see, I have explained it. And as you further failed to see, I explained to you that I explained it. And as you thrice failed to see, I directed you to the precise comment where I explained where I explained it to you. Anyway, your apparent bias blindsight problem aside:

      Common sense - and simple everyday observations of how ideas spread among academic colleagues - tells us that one does not need to fully understand something to simply pass it on manually or verbally- or to recommend it as reading material - to another (such as Darwin) who you know to be working on the exact same complex and taboo problem. Moreover, Darwin and Chambers met and corresponded. Sadly, however, much of Darwin's correspondence is missing - for various reasons including the fact he burned much of it himself.

      Moreover, George (unlike in your own proven case and that of Darwin and that of Wallace), there is no evidence that Chambers was dishonest. So he we should not be so ready to wonder why he never plagiarised another scholar's work just because he could have. Darwin and Wallace are proven liars. Chambers is not.

      Furthermore, Matthew was a Chartist and Chambers was an outspoken critical of political suffrage. Perhaps he wished not to cite a Chartist leader on such an important scientific conception? Who knows? Particularly after Matthew wove Charism into his original explanation of natural selection that may have bothered him. But we just don't know. But we do know that Chambers and Lyell (Darwin's mentor) were geological associates of the Edinburgh Geological society.

      Chambers' honesty is marked, for example, by the fact that he resigned from running for public political office rather than have to deny he was the author of the Vestiges when leaked claims that he was haunted his political campaign.

      Once again George. Knowledge contamination is explained in my peer reviewed science paper on the topic - and that paper has now received nearly 6000 views, which in some way is "proof of concept". For example, John van Wyhe has read it. The paper is here:

      And since you don't like reading (according to you) here is the typology:

      A three-fold typology of knowledge contamination:

      1. Innocent Knowledge Contamination: The spread of original ideas in a prior-publication via (a) subsequent published sources on the topic, which failed to cite the Originator as their source, or (b) word of mouth and/or correspondence to the replicator by those who read the Originator’s work or communicated with others who did — understood its importance
      in whole or simply in part — but failed to tell the replicator
      about its existence.

      2. Reckless or Negligent Knowledge Contamination: (a) The replicator reads the original publication, absorbs information such as original ideas and examples and terms, but forgets having read it — and never does remember. (b) The replicator reads the original publication and takes notes, but forgets the source of the notes. (c) The replicator is told about original ideas in a publication by someone — who understands their importance in whole or simply in part — who explains they come from a publication, but the replicator fails to ask the name of the author and title of the publication.

      3. Deliberate Knowledge Contamination (science fraud): The replicator reads the original publication, or is told about its contents, takes notes, or is given notes, remembers this, but pretends otherwise.

      Chambers comes out well in this story - as does Loudon - because both men have a reputation for incredible honesty that survives the centuries. It's a pity you blotted YOUR copy-book George. Who would trust you now?
  4. Mike are you really that thick - I asked exactly how WALLACE obtained the knowledge of natural selection from Chambers. I seem to remember you said he got it from Chambers anonymously published book "Vestiges", but the theory of natural selection was not in "Vestiges".

    1. Mike Sutton: No doubt your theory of 'Magical Knowledge Transmission' also applies to the two other people you think passed the idea of natural selection on to Wallace i.e. John Selby and John Loudon? As in the case of Chambers there is no known route for the transmission of this knowledge to have occurred. I can find no evidence that Wallace ever met or corresponded with either Selby or Loudon. He did correspond with Chambers, but it is clear that their first communication was in 1867. So, given these three people never met or corresponded with Wallace at least pre-1859 - there is NO way that they could have passed the idea of natural selection on to Wallace (even supposing they had absorbed the idea from Matthew's book). I am a scientist Mike and need hard evidence before I believe things. My null hypothesis is that the three people you think passed on information to Wallace (Chambers, Selby and Loudon) never did so as they had no communication with Wallace at least pre-1859. And don't forget that Wallace was out of the UK for a large proportion of his early adulthood - he spent 4 years in the Amazon and had been in the Malay Archipelago for 4 years before he independently discovered natural selection.
    2. My Dear Megaloblatta AKA George Becalloni

      It is obvious that what you read and what your biased brain makes you think you read are obviously two very different things. You keep proving that for us. Because, what I have written is that Wallace was influenced by Chambers. Surely even you know that. Wallace wrote as much in his private correspondence to his best friend.

      Chambers wrote on both organic and geological evolution - although not the theory of natural selection.Chambers is accredited by many noted scholars (including Darwin) with "putting evolution in the air" in the mid 19th century. I have never written that Wallace was influenced specifically on the topic of natural slection by Chambers. But Chamber's work obviously influenced him to think about organic evolution. This is most significant because Chambers read Matthew - indeed he cited both his books pre 1858 - and was apparently "first to be second" out of a search of over 35 million publications (later in his review of Darwin's 1859 "Origin of Species") to use Matthew's apparently original term "natural process of selection".

      You really should stop imagining things that are not in the publication record George, and not seeing what is there. Were you not so apparently severely afflicted with the psychologically recognised bias of cognitive blindsight in your research efforts you would know that. But more importantly you might have made an original discovery in your own field like I have, rather than trying desperately to magic the findings I have made away with either stupidity or dishonesty.

      Does that help George?
    3. My Dear Megaloblatta AKA George Becalloni

      Who was the chief editor of the Journal that published Wallace's 1855 Sarawak paper - the one that must be read alongside his Ternate paper of 1858? Yes. Bingo! Get-you-some-of-that discovery George! Selby! Selby, who I originally discovered cited Matthew in 1842! Are you jealous George? Well it's obvious you are. How did you miss making such a discovery in your own field George? That stings I can tell.

      And before you trolltypically seek to get me to re-hash all our old discussions on this - in which you are always soundly beat until you squeel - might I kindly refer your apparently cognitively blndsighted self back to them here:
    4. My Dear Megaloblatta AKA George Becalloni

      Oh yes...just one more thing, you asked another silly question.You asked me about how loudon could have influenced Wallace, and so here is your asnwer George. It should be blindingly obvious but YOU and all the Darwinite worship cult of zombie parrot hordes missed it, like they miss so much disconfirming evidence for their cultish belief in Darwin's and Wallace's miraculous immaculate conceptions of Patrick Matthew's prior publication of the full complex hypotheses of macro evolution by natural selection, along with the same original examples and original idiosyncratic analogies to explain and confirm it, and the same four words to name it - whilst surrounded and influenced by naturalists who DID read it before they replicated so much of it and then claimed it as their own with the 100 per cent proven (proven originally by me) fallacious excuse that no one at all/no naturalists read it before they did so.

      So are you ready? Here it comes:

      As Selby edited Wallace's famous Sarawak paper, so Loudon edited two of Blyth's highly influential papers of 1835 and 1837 on species variety and organic evolution! WOW! Get-you-some of-that original discovery George. Yeah baby! K-POW!

      I bet you wish it was you who discovered that doncha George. Of course you do.

      It shows how jealous you are that you keep on scuttling after it George. But scuttling after me all over the Internet like a cockroach after my leftovers with your green-gilled insults and gumptionless questions won't help take your foul pain away. The discovery is mine George and it always will be.

      It's going into the history books George. along with all my many other original discoveries in your field - including the discovery of Wallace's dishonesty by slyly doctoring a letter in his autobiography to conceal he was after money and favours from Darwin and his cronies for what they did to him at the Linnean Society in 1858 (see my book 'Nullius in Verba: Darwin's greatest secret' for the original-to transcription 100 -per cent proof and all citations to sources.

      What original discoveries have you ever made George?

      If you would like to know more in your own field - that you have obviously failed to learn (otherwise you would not ask such silly gumptionless and jealous questions), George, then look up the relationship between Loudon and William and Joseph Hooker (it's in my book 'Nullius in Verba: Darwin's greatest secret'). If your brain allows you, you will then learn that they were so close George. And what do normal folk do when they are really close and scholars George. Wait for it. This is going to be a really big one for you. Are you ready for this intellectually amazing revelation? Here it comes... BLAM! YES! They TALK GEORGE.

      And what was the relationship between Wallace and William Hooker George? BAM! Here it comes George - and it's hard to believe a self-proclaiming Wallace expert missed this one: because William Hooker, father of Darwin's best friend Joseph Hooker, was Wallace's personal mentor, and correspondent!

      BLAM! Howdya like dem crab apples George? They met and corresponded before 1858.

      Do I have to spell it out to you yet again that people talk and that many of their letters from the 19th century are - just like those of the 20th - known to have been thrown out, routinely destroyed or lost?

      Does that help to answer your latest jealous and silly troll question George?
    5. I will address your points one by one. The first is your lie in your post above that "I have never written that Wallace was influenced specifically on the topic of natural selection by Chambers"

      This is contradicted by the following statement you made some time ago:

      "Knowledge contamination from Matthew to Darwin and Wallace is thus uniquely proven in ‘Nullius in Verba: Darwin’s greatest secret’ – the ground-breaking book, which 100 per cent proves that Matthew influenced both Darwin and Wallace through three major naturalist who cited his 1831 book: John Loudon, Prideaux John Selby and Robert Chambers." (see

      So what's going on in your mind Mike? Did Chambers pass on the idea of natural selection to Wallace or not? If not then it is a total irrelevance to mention that Wallace was influenced by Chambers' book "Vestiges". So what that he was - we are talking about how Wallace got the idea of natural selection, not why did Wallace become interested in the idea of evolution in the first place...
  5. This comment has been removed by the author.
  6. This comment has been removed by the author.
  7. You say that Selby may have passed on the idea of natural selection to Wallace, yet there is no evidence that Selby and Wallace ever met or ever corresponded. So the idea could only have been passed on to Wallace by Selby by Sutton's Magical Knowledge Transmission Theory. So what that Selby edited Wallace's essay. Wallace sent it to the journal, Selby edited it, and it was published... And your point is? And NO there is no evidence at all that Selby and Wallace corresponded about any editorial issues - Wallace was in the Malay Archipelago and letters took months to get there and back. Mike - you need to start thinking like a scientist, not a sociologist. You need hard facts, not wild speculation...

    1. Read my reply to your original George. It contains the answer -clearly and simply stated that your apparent "blind sight" psychological brain-bias is apparently preventing you from "seeing". Have you read that Royal Society of Biology blog post on biologists having brain bias yet? link in an earlier reply to you above (did you "see" it?). You know the one that explains how it is holding you back George.
  8. So that leaves Loudon.. Myself and the Darwinite worship cult of zombie parrot hordes do not accept that there is any hard evidence to suggest that Matthew's idea of natural selection was transmitted from Loudon to Wallace. That's what you don't get Mike. That you need HARD EVIDENCE not SUPPOSITION. You need evidence that would stand up in a court of law, not the sort of speculative gobbledegook nonsense as published by The Sun. Yes, Mike that's what your ideas are - speculative gobbledegook nonsense.

    1. Well now we are in the realms of subjective opinion George. And you and the myth parroting Darwin worship zombies are entitled to your mere opinions.

      But the objective and very hard fact is that I (not you) have discovered independently verifiable hard facts that completely puncture the "no naturalist read Matthew's original ideas pre-1858" premise upon which is built the paradigm of Darwin's and Wallace's independent conceptions of Matthew's prior published hypothesis. And this explains your clear jealousy and outrageously dishonest publications on social media regarding those discoveries.

      More peer reviewed science journal articles are in progress George and your unscientific behaviour is fully documented and cited to published sources in social media in one.

      It's not time for you to do anything now George. You've done it all to yourself already.

      Happy explaining old chap.
    2. Where are you publishing it - "The Sun" perhaps, or will it be in "The Daily Mirror"? I am preparing my own "bombshell revelations" about you and Matthew which I will publish soon...
  9. Your final point about Wallace is that he is a liar because he deleted two words from a letter he published in his autobiography. I can assure you that editing letters prior to publication in this way was standard practise at this time in order to not print something which may be deemed controversial etc. Wallace did it, his biographer Marchant did it, so did Darwin's son Francis with Darwin's letters. This is not dishonesty, it is simply exercising the right for privacy and propriety. I can especially see why he removed the word "assistance" as people would have thought him presumptive. This is what you said in your book "Nullius":

    "I have received letters from Mr. Darwin & Dr. Hooker, two of the greatest most eminent Naturalists in England which have highly gratified me. I sent Mr. Darwin an essay on a subject in which he is now writing a great work. He shewed it to Dr. Hooker and Mr Darwin Sir C. Lyell, who thought so highly of it that they immediately read before the Linnean Society. This insures me the acquaintance and assistance of these eminent men on my return home."

    Most importantly, please note that in the book you are currently reading my transcription of this excerpt from the original, scanned and uploaded version of Wallace's letter. Hence, the text above retains its original grammatical imperfections, along with the most crucially telling words—"immediately" and "assistance"—in its last sentence. More incriminating than that is the fact that these same two words are deleted on page 365 of Wallace's (1905) autobiography.

    Wallace's deletion of those two words is evidence he wanted to hide the fact that he extorted money and position from Darwin and his cronies. Wallace's editorial deceit was no doubt to seek to ensure that the general public should never learn of how he perceived Darwin's dishonesty and ungentlemanly, unethical behavior as an opportunity to be milked for all it was worth. Wallace knew that the word "immediate" would be taken as evidence that he had not been first consulted prior to the joint presentation of his paper. And "assistance" means that he was going to get what he now considered his pecuniary and professional dues from Darwin and his two cronies.

    Wallace's carefully doctored, published version of his own letter loses its sinister undertone that was in the last two sentences of the original (Wallace 1903, p. 365):

    "I have received letters from Mr. Darwin and Dr. Hooker, two of the most eminent naturalists in England, which have highly gratified me. I sent Mr. Darwin an essay on a subject upon which he is now writing a great work. He showed it to Dr. Hooker and Sir Charles Lyell, who thought so highly of it that they had it read before the Linnean Society. This ensures me the acquaintance of these eminent men on my return home."

    It is not surprising that Wallace removed the word "assistance" in his autobiography, because in addition to being assisted by way of various payments from Darwin and Lyell for help with their works, he was assisted by way of introductions to all the right societies and clubs."
  10. My Dear Megaloblatta - AKA George Becalloni

    You are replying to the hard - newly discovered - facts with nothing more than subjective mere opinion George.

    You provide zero independently verifiable evidence to support your claim that such key word deleting editing by naturalists, of their own transcribed letters, in their autobiographies, was deemed appropriate and acceptable in the 19th century, let alone now.

    The hard fact is that Wallace deleted incriminating words from his own transcription of his own letter. Moreover, and most significantly, those very words he deleted revealed he expected payment and services from Darwin and his cronies. The fact is those same people - Darwin and his cronies Lyell and Hooker - then made cash payments to him and secured him others.
  11. Copied from the Sandwalk blog:
    NEWS FLASH: Matthew a "Knowledge Contaminated" Plagiarist and Liar!

    Using "Big Data" research methods (i.e. Google Books) I have proved (sensu Mike Sutton) that Patrick Mathew stole the idea of natural selection from fellow Scott, James Hutton. Matthew was "knowledge contaminated" by one of "Hutton's greatest supporters" Matthew’s lecturer at Edinburgh University, Thomas Charles Hope, who taught Matthew in 1808. So Matthew can no longer be credited as an independent originator of the concept of evolution by natural selection and Sutton should change the name of his website from "Patrick Matthew: Originator, Immortal Great Thinker and Proven Influencer on Natural Selection" ( to "Patrick Matthew: Plagiarist and Liar".

    For the full sordid details of my "independently verifiable, evidenced" "bombshell discovery" see
  12. My Dear My Dear Megaloblatta - AKA George Becalloni

    Apart from many other problems with your thinking, one big problem you have with your latest attempt to make any argument - in this particular latest incompetent effort of yours - is that only Matthew was first with the full prior published idea of maroevolution by natural selection.

    Everyone - apart from you it seems is well aware that we use the term "natural selection" to mean the more precise term "macro evolution by natural slection" unless we specifically state otherwise. I have explained the well know fact to you several times before. But you keep forgetting it.

    Sadly, in your continued obsessively seemingly jealous desperation to discover something in this field, you keep overlooking the facts that make you look so silly for being so fundamentally wrong in the field in which you claim to be expert. For what you miss in your biased cherry picking is this: I cite one Thomas Hope in my book "Nullius in Verba: Darwin's greatest secret" (which you have read - but this is a different Thomas Hope) - fully explaining that in 1831 - the same year that Matthew published his book on 1st Jan 1831 (what day and month was Hope's published on George?) it seems fair to say (from an analysis of 35 million books) that both Matthew and Hope were first with the phrase that year "diverging ramifications". Hope used it in hs essay 'The Origins and Prospects of Man'. Now please do try to keep up George because, as I explain in my book:

    "...Hope's explanations for the observable differences between Black Africans, White Europeans and Malay peoples is that each different [so called by Hope] "original type" of human was created separately as [he believed] were all species - serves to reveal how much further and uniquely advanced were Matthew's original ideas than those of his Regency contemporaries, who were trying also to understand the problem and variety of species in organic lifeforms.'

    And as you know George - also in my book "Nullius" I reveal that Matthew, like Darwin - was taught by Thomas Charles Hope at Edinburgh University.

    Everyone knows Matthew - and with great and profound heretical mockery - clearly rejected the other Thomas Hope's idea of individual miraculous creation of species George. That's why he and no Thomas Hope, of any variety, is attributed the originator of natural selection by the world's leading Darwin scholars.

    I "hope" this helps you understand that you failed again George. But this latest record of your further failed attempts, due to ignorance and apparent cognitive blindsight, is excellent data. Thank you for that.

    1. 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:
    2. Dear George Beccaloin (AKA Megloblata)

      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.

      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.

      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.

      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.

      Where do I pretend I never read Dempster? I dedicated my book Nullius to him.

      Nowhere do I claim that I discovered Hope taught Matthew George - so don't try your silly and typically dishonest trollish tricks here.

      Your thinking is shown to wrong again George. I hope this reply helps you to see that.
    3. 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:
  13. 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..

    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.

    Here is a hypothetical analogous example to help you better understand the argument I am making Mike:

    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!
  14. My Dear My Dear Megaloblatta - AKA George Becalloni

    George you are hilarious. Thank you. The laughter you provide is very much appreciated. You have a great gift. Very special George.

    Your hairspring dishonesty or confusion - it is hard to tell which, may one day become legendary. Well done.

    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.

    Once you have done so, I suggest you read to books that may help you with your dishonesty difficulties:

    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?

    So once again - "Thank you for the valuable data - published in the public domain of social media". Much appreciated.

    1. 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: As one of my colleagues famously said MKike "macroevolution is the product of microevolution writ large". More to follow...
    2. 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".
  15. For a summary of my arguments against Sutton's fallacious allegations see my article here: AND my answer to the question "Were Darwin and Wallace the first to discover natural selection?" here:
  16. 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.

    No wonder you now seek to continue to deny these newly discovered facts and their significance, given your transparent propagandising behaviour.

    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.

    Wallace is also proven to have been shamefully dishonest by deleting incriminating text in his transcriptions of his private letters in his autobiography.

    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?

    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.

    You - George need to move with the New Data - adapt or perish George.

    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:

    That peer reviewed article has now been read by over 6000 people - as proof of concept of it's title.

    Beware the Frozen Donkey Hypothesis George:

    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!

    1. This comment has been removed by the author.
    2. 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.

      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

      Adiรณs Mike.
  17. Dear George Beccaloni (AKA Megaloblatta)

    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.

    The screenshot of this very blog post 100 per cent proves what you have been dishonestly up to on published social media.

    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.

    I am very familiar with Zirkle George.

    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.

    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:
  18. 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:

    '...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.'

    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.

    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.

    A rational explanations page has been created on to present the facts and rational rguments that topple the tall tales told by Darwin and his deifictioncult of credulous wordshippers: