Foul Trolls Serve as Volunteer Shock-Troops for the Darwin Industry
According to Kuhn (1970 p. 62) the characteristics of paradigm changing discoveries include the:
'... previous awareness of an anomaly, the gradual and simultaneous emergence of both observational and conceptual recognition, and the consequent change of paradigm categories and procedures often accompanied by resistance.'
'... previous awareness of an anomaly, the gradual and simultaneous emergence of both observational and conceptual recognition, and the consequent change of paradigm categories and procedures often accompanied by resistance.'
Challenged by the logical scholarly demands of the New Data presented on PatrickMatthew.com some upset Darwinists are getting themselves into a proper old lather in the 'resistance' to the newly discovered facts. Here is the fact-led challenge they hate:
How on Earth did Darwin and Wallace discover Natural Selection independently of Matthew's prior published hypothesis of it; despite the newly discovered fact that they were influenced and facilitated on the same topic by naturalists they knew who had long before read and cited Matthew's book, which contains it? Moreover, why did Darwin lie when, contrary to what Matthew informed him, he wrote that no naturalist had read Matthew's original ideas before 1860? Furthermore, why, after Matthew informed him a second time of yet another naturalist who read his original ideas, did Darwin continue his lie that no one read Matthew's ideas from the third edition of the Origin of Species onward?
How on Earth did Darwin and Wallace discover Natural Selection independently of Matthew's prior published hypothesis of it; despite the newly discovered fact that they were influenced and facilitated on the same topic by naturalists they knew who had long before read and cited Matthew's book, which contains it? Moreover, why did Darwin lie when, contrary to what Matthew informed him, he wrote that no naturalist had read Matthew's original ideas before 1860? Furthermore, why, after Matthew informed him a second time of yet another naturalist who read his original ideas, did Darwin continue his lie that no one read Matthew's ideas from the third edition of the Origin of Species onward?
In response to the New Data demands on biased brains, this typical Darwinist worshiping troll displays wonderful unintended comic humour "i" . Now that's one for posterity. The abusive specimen resorted to a typical torrent of foul-penned misogynistic ("c-"word) abuse. The example of his/her craft below is actually publishable and worth a laugh.
At least i understand how punctuation works, credulous fuckwit.
@Criminotweet @Ah_Science @SITP @OnNavalTimber pic.twitter.com/DbSFvGwWgP
— Marco d'Beast (@U_Megabyte) August 9, 2015
Darwin Deifying Atheist Trolls Hate the New Data on Darwin and Matthew.
For another interesting example of 'resistance' see this one from a named academic - Professor Comfort - who was obviously very upset by my fact-led peer reviewed academic journal paper on his hero's fraud (See Sutton 2014 The hi-tech detection of Darwin’s and
Wallace’s possible science fraud:
Big data criminology re-writes the history of contested
discovery):
@darwinsbulldog Do you know this guy? The paper's an ignorant piece of crap.
— Nathaniel Comfort (@nccomfort) December 30, 2014
