100 per cent proof that what is published can be100% proven to be there in print

.@religulous I can 100% prove you wrong. Place your hand over my tweet and remove it 100 times. The word "wrong" is 100% proven to be there

— Dr Mike Sutton (@Dysology) July 1, 2016

Careerism Leading to Intellectual Corruption at the Heart of the Scientific Community

CAREERISM = the policy or practice of advancing one's career at the cost of one's integrity https://t.co/A2T1JS5ezH pic.twitter.com/YcNAFokLpi

— Dr Mike Sutton (@Criminotweet) June 29, 2016

Right of Reply to Misleading Book Review

The science Journal Philosophical Aspects of Origin kindly allowed me a right of reply to Grzegorz Malec's review of my book  You can read my reply here.


Excerpt from:

Darwin’s Greatest Secret Exposed:Response to Grzegorz Malec’s De Facto Fact Denying Review of My Book - By Mike Sutton

To necessarily repeat the point already made, Darwin’s greatest secret is that he and Alfred Wallace fallaciously claimed alternately that no naturalist and no one at all read Matthew’s prior-published discovery and explanatory examples of natural selection before they replicated both. The “New Data”, originally presented in my book, conclusively proves that is a fallacy. The proof of the fallacy is in the previously undiscovered 19th century printed words in publications that absolutely prove Matthew’s book, and the original ideas in it, were cited by influential naturalists, known both to Darwin and Wallace and their influencers, and their influencers’ influencers, before they replicated those same ideas — claiming they alighted upon them independently of Matthew’s prior publication of the same. Darwin would later fallaciously excuse himself from 1860 onward by claiming those ideas were unread before he and Wallace replicated them. Darwin is proven to have lied in writing that excuse, because he wrote that as an absolute self-serving lie after Matthew had informed him of two influential naturalists who read and understood his original ideas, and their significance, and that his book had been banned, because of those same bombshell heretical ideas, by Perth Public Library in Scotland. Credulous Darwin scholars have been parroting their namesakes’ lies about the supposed lack of pre-1858 readership of Matthew’s original ideas ever since. They have done so in order to necessarily construct and maintain the now newly busted myths that support the Darwinist paradigm of tri-independent discovery of Matthew’s prior-published conception of macro evolution by natural selection.

Conclusions and the Way Forward 

Alarmingly, there are scientists and historians of science working in our universities today who are prepared to deny that facts exist, or else — for whatever reason — to misrepresent work through cherry picking, de facto fact denial behaviour and other gross distortions of published evidence, that effectively misleads the public about their existence and what they mean for the history of scientific discovery.

Darwinists, named for their much deified hero, have traditionally worshipped Darwin for his honesty, integrity and originality. The “real facts”, newly discovered and originally presented in my book, originally prove they have been worshipping nothing more than a lying, replicating glory thief. In other words, they have credulously bet their careers on the wrong scientist. We should not expect an admission of this inevitability to be forthcoming anytime soon. Because esteemed research teaches us that paradigm changes in science take time and are at first met with fierce resistance.

As we were discussing @DrMarkGriffiths Just one example of fact denial behaviour exposed: https://t.co/3iHuQ1yjdq pic.twitter.com/SYjDacaISD

— Dr Mike Sutton (@Dysology) June 29, 2016

Why Darwinists Need to Face the New Facts Rather then Deny they Exist

Today, I wrote the the comment below on a blog about my work: http://www.intellectualtakeout.org/blog/did-darwin-plagiarize-idea-natural-selection

A good point to try to get to the bottom of the matter.

I suggest it is important to stick to facts alone.

It is a 100 percent certain (because what he wrote is actually in print in the publication record ) fact that three times after Matthew had informed him that the very opposite was true that Darwin claimed Matthew's original ideas had not been read pre-1860. That proven deliberately misleading lie deflected attention away from the fact - discoverable at the time - because Matthew in 1860 informed Darwin about Loudon having read and reviewed his book in 1832. This is important because Loudon was a most famous and influential naturalist who then went on to edit two of Blyth's highly influential articles on organic evolution. And Darwin - from 1861 onward admitted Blyth had been a prior-greal informant for his work on natural selection. Hence, here we see that another factiod - the Darwinist myth (based on Darwin's lies) that Matthew's original (1831) ideas were unread pre-1858) is burst. This new information reveals one route of knowledge contamination from Matthew's pre-1858 conception to Darwin's replication. Hence, the facts prove that the premise underpinning the paradigm of Darwin's independent discovery of Matthew's prior-published conception of macroevolution by natural selection is now a punctured myth. Am I a crank for discovering that - as opposed the old factoid - published by the world's leading Darwinists that no naturalist had read Matthew's ideas that in fact Loudon was a naturalist who edited the articles of Darwin's great influencer? Am I a crank for busting the myth that no naturalist had read Matthew's ideas before 1858? Moreover Darwin knew Loudon. He heavily annotated his work and he spoke highly of it in correspondence.

And that is just the beginning - because besides Loudon I discovered that out of 25 people who cited Matthew's book pre-1858 that six other influential naturalists - who are known to have influenced both Darwin and Wallace also cited Matthew's book and the ideas in it pre 1858. - indeed before either Darwin or Wallace put pen to private notepad on the topic - cited Matthew's book and the original ideas in it pre-1858.

Many of the new mythbusting details are in my latest peer reviewed science article on the topic. http://www.nauka-a-religia.uz....

I think the cranks are those who cannot accept painfully new disconfirming facts for their cherished unevidenced beliefs that have led them to deify Darwin - who is newly proven to be a liar as well as a mere replicator, whose friends and influencers were capable of finding Matthew's ideas. So what do the real cranks wish to reward Darwin for now? Being a liar and poor scholar - who could not (he claimed) find the one book in the word that he most needed to read because he replicated the original and highly complex theory, and very same idiosyncratic explanatory examples, in it - well have been influenced by the originator of very same great idea he was 28 years too late with yet still called "my theory" by using the exact same four words to nae it that Matthew used 28 years earlier? Matthew (1831) originally and uniquely called it the "natural process of selection" Darwin (1859) four word shuffled that term into "process of natural selection".

Do Darwinists wish now to believe in Darwin's and Wallace's dual miraculous immaculate conceptions of Matthew's ideas - whilst Darwin and Wallace were surrounded and influenced by men whose brains are now proven to have been fertile (to some admittedly unknown degree) with Matthew's original ideas? Just like the Blessed Virgin Mary then? Who is the crank. I mean...really? it's time Darwinites got real and stopped crankily fact denying what I have uniquely discovered. 

On Knowledge Contamination

PARADIGM CHANGING ARTICLE ON KNOWLEDGE CONTAMINATION HAS KNOWLEDGE CONTAMINATED WELL OVER 4000 BRAINS

(Click for free inoculation    against the dreaded pseudo scholarship virus)

Article on knowledge contamination has now knowledge contaminated well over 4000 people! https://t.co/LMpbVPMAh6 pic.twitter.com/BjteqsVwz3

— Dr Mike Sutton (@Dysology) June 26, 2016

The Academic Abuse Continues: This time its from Associate Professor Jason Rosenhouse

I sent an email today to Associate Professor of mathematics, Dr Jason Rosenhouse of James Madison University (USA).

My email was sent in response to his abusive blog about my research.

On his blog, Jason Rosenhouse is engaging in abusive criticism based upon de-facto fact denial in the published public domain regarding fact that Darwin's and Wallace's known influencers read Matthew's original ideas pre-1858. Indeed, based on what I have discovered, and what he is not aware has been discovered, according to Jason has published his opinion that I am a "big time crackpot". He writes:

 ' Apparently a big-time crackpot named Mike Sutton has made the astonishing discovery that Patrick Matthew, a Scottish farmer, anticipated Darwin in an appendix to an obscure book called Naval Timber and Arboriculture, published in 1831.'

I wrote the polite email to him to inform Jason Rosenhouse where he could find the facts about my research of which he is so apparently ignorant, and to thank Jason for so kindly being such an apparently ignorant doofus to enter the data of his de facto fact denial into the public domain so that he can be quoted and cited for the historical record in my forthcoming scholarly work and that of other scholars on the topic of de facto fact denial in academia.

What AssProf Rosenhouse ignores in his unevidenced (and therefore apparently pseudo-scholarly) criticism of my peer reviewed, published original research findings  (see Sutton 2016) is the brand new original and independently verifiable discovery that overturns all prior Darwinist knowledge claims that Matthew could not have influenced Darwin with the bombshell ideas in his (1831) because it was believed (fallaciously it now turns out) that the ideas in his book went unread by any naturalists until Matthew told Darwin about them in 1860. Jason is also, seemingly, completely ignorant of the fact that Darwin deliberately lied when he wrote that Matthew's ideas went completely unnoticed until 1860. Because Matthew had prior informed him of two naturalists who had read it, one who feared pillory punishment were he to teach Matthew's ideas and the fact Matthew's book had been banned by Perth public library in Scotland for it heretical ideas on natural selection.

I let Jason know that I will pay a visit to his university when I am next in the USA so that he can have the manly and scholarly chance to call me an apparent crackpot to my face. Meanwhile, Jason is now data in the story of desperate, and fiercely ignorant resistance to the new data facts that completely punctures the myth upon which stands the old paradigm of tri-independent discovery of macro evolution by natural selection. I thanked him for that in my email and do so again here.

For use by scholars in the future, I have archived Rosenhouse's apparent abusive blogpost in case it ever disappears.  Meanwhile, you can read it here- if its not yet deleted or heavily edited.

My Email to AssProf Jason Rosenhouse (sent 26th June 2016)

Dear Professor Rosenhouse

I see - without, apparently, having even bothered yourself to find out about the  actual details of what you criticise that you have used social media to publish that you think I'm a "crackpot". Here: http://scienceblogs.com/evolutionblog/2016/05/02/crackpots/  How weird of you.

You are welcome to your uninformed abusive opinion Jason - but might I suggest you actually do a little research before jumping in like an ignorant doofus and abusing and publicly defaming another university scholar on published social media. What on Earth are you thinking of man? You do realise I'm sure that such behaviour is against the social media  code of conduct of your University - don't you? Don't worry - I have absolutely no intention of reporting you. I'm interested in ideas and facts and how others resist - by de facto fact denial behaviour - new discoveries of 100 per cent proven facts. So I welcome what you have published - for the historical record.

Your blog reveals that you don't even know who  we now newly know - thanks to my original research - actually did read Matthew's ideas pre 1858 and how this new discovery completely demolished the old Darwinist story that no naturalist read Matthew. Have you heard of  Robert Chambers (author of the Vestiges of Creation) or Prideaux John Selby (editor of Wallace's Sarawak paper)? How about the fact Loudon (who cited Matthew) went on to Edit two of Blyth's famously influential articles on organic evolution? Well if you have then you know they are newly discovered to have read and cited Matthew's book pre-1858. And if you know that fact then you could only have got it from reading my original "crackpot" (claims you) research. 

If you feel like finding out the independently verifiable new facts. It's all here: http://www.nauka-a-religia.uz.zgora.pl/index.php/pl/czasopismo/46-fag-2015/921-fag-2015-art-05 Of course, the problem is, you actually have to read something to find out.

There may be lots of crackpots criticising Darwinists Jason, everyone knows that, but I think we both know they do not do so using new data that completely disconfirms prior knowledge claims by the world's leading Darwin scholars. 

Might I suggest you come up to speed with the facts by reading the independently verifiable disconfirming facts for the current paradigm of tri-independent discovery of macro evolution natural selection and the proof that Darwin lied about the prior readership of Matthew' original ideas.

Anyway, thank you for your ignorant, rude and deliberate public defaming insults. Indeed,  thank you for publishing your silly and uninformed abuse and attempt to attack my reputation with childish insults based on no more than your pseudo scholarly ignorance. I have archived it and will be citing you in future scholarly articles regarding  how those who make new discoveries of uncomfortable facts are so defamed by pseudo scholars.

So thanks for the valuable published insulting data Jason. When I'm in the USA next I will take a trip to your university and make a point of asking you face to face, as one university academic to another, if you still think I'm a crackpot and would like to tell me so to my face. 

Best wishes

Mike

Debate the Facts

Answer:Did Patrick Matthew came up with the theory of natural selection before Charles Darwin? https://t.co/ZezsLR5lbs

— Dr Mike Sutton (@Dysology) June 24, 2016

The Ad Populum Fallacy

AD POPULUM FALLACY @TeessideSitP

1, https://t.co/tTzWn7zqS1
2.https://t.co/EEQRXGvTPw
3.https://t.co/6K7Wm5UvfI pic.twitter.com/QLQAl9MH7X

— BlessedVirginDarwin (@OnNavalTimber) June 23, 2016

Myths about Darwin (No 1.) The Darwin Archive Myth

On my way home from work one evening in May 2016, I happened to glance in the window of a second hand book shop. A small paperback on Darwin had caught my attention. I went in and purchased it for a mere £1.50.

The book is Entitled simply "Darwin". It is authored by Jonathan Howard and published in 1982 as a rather prestigious Oxford University Press paperback.

On opening it I was amazed to find that Chapter One begins by spouting one complete fallacy after another about Darwin.

I have not yet progressed beyond page 1, but decided to I would write a blog post for each fallacy I find in the book and publish them here as I read my way through it

Darwin Fallacy No.1. (page 1, of Howard 1982)

'Darwin then married his first cousin, and the family seems to have thrown practically nothing away ever since... The notes and records of a whole lifetime's scientific work have been maintained virtually intact.'

In reality, we know that several of Darwin's notebooks and essays are missing. His remaining notebooks are missing many torn out pages, he destroyed copies of letters he sent, others are lost or missing and he habitually burned many of the letters he received.

From (Sutton, M. 2014. Nullius in Verba:Darwin's Greatest Secret).

'As Beddall (1968, p. 310) so precisely puts it in her excellent and classic article on the Linnean Debacle: "It seems surprising that all the material relating to the most dramatic (not to say traumatic) moment in his life should disappear." While absence of those letters is not proof of what was in them, we are nonetheless rationally permitted to weigh that absence in the balance when such absence is both markedly peculiar to suspicious events and is explained away by contradictory evidence from Darwin's son. To be specific, Francis Darwin wrote contradictory accounts, claiming that his father saved all his important letters,[175] and then claiming the opposite—that his father habitually burned them (Darwin 1887, p. 119 and page v, respectively).'

Reference

Howard, J. (1982) Darwin. Oxford University Paperbacks.

Holes Found in Darwin's Immaculate Conception Stories in the Holy Darwinite Bible

Holes discovered in holy Darwinite Bible's immaculate conception of natural selection story https://t.co/6x3GgP2Jja pic.twitter.com/pFSDF5KM4u

— Supermythbuster (@supermyths) June 19, 2016