This is How Uncomfortable New Data Upsets the Credulous

Care to see how paradigm changing new discoveries upset history of science belief systems? .Check comments section: https://t.co/OocIGchKM0

— Dr Mike Sutton (@Dysology) July 30, 2016

What are Irrational Fact Denying Darwinists Afraid of? A Professor of Psychology Perhaps?

Prof. Mark Griffiths (Ph.D)

Interestingly, it is rather telling, I think, that not one of the many active "New Data" fact denying Darwin scholars has yet dared to post a comment on Professor Mark Griffiths' blog on the topic of the veracity and significance of what really has been newly discovered in the field of the history of discovery of macro evolution by natural selection. Does he really look so scary? Or are they afraid of a diagnosis from this chartered psychologist?

Visit his blog site (here) to see what he has to say on my original and independently verifiable research findings (Sutton 2014 and 2016   ), which have so upset members of the scientific community that they are currently fact denying to the press and on social media.

NOTE Not one single Darwiinite has yet dared to comment on Professor @DrMarkGriffiths blog on the New Data on Darwin https://t.co/MXoXca3eJU

— BlessedVirginDarwin (@OnNavalTimber) July 29, 2016

Patrick Matthew was a Famous Chartist Leader. Lindley and Owen all Despised Chartists, Darwin Certainly Feared Them

Both Lindley and Owen drilled militia's to confront the libertarian socialist Chartists (Sutton 2014). Darwin - a member of the landed gentry, like Selby and Chambers (BOTH OF WHOM  CITED MATTHEW'S 1831 BOOK) , despised Chartists. By way of a knowingly published falsehood Lindley - who wrote two papers on naval timber - never cited Matthew but believed in species transmutation was a friend of Loudon - who cited Matthew and his discovery. Lindley stole Matthew's glory for being first to import and propagate giant redwood trees in Britain.

Patrick Matthew, from whom Darwin plagiarized natural selection, was a Chartist leader. Darwin despised Chartists: https://t.co/dIPqFqucLV

— Supermythbuster (@supermyths) July 29, 2016

For independently verifiable and peer reviewed newly discovered evidence of Darwin's more likely than not plagiarism. See:  "On Knowledge Contamination"

The Linnean Society has Dreadfully Biased History of Institutionalized Ignorance

To its shame, the linnean Society has a long history of dreadfully biased behaviour:
1. https://t.co/xDj1nzvjpr
2. https://t.co/dq5ygZlEv3

— Dr Mike Sutton (@Criminotweet) July 28, 2016

Psychology and Darwinite Irrational Fact Denial of the New Data

Selective memories: Charles Darwin, obsession, and Internet dating https://t.co/CtcpGWEfF9 via @DrMarkGriffiths

— macroevolution.net (@Macroevo) July 26, 2016

World's Greatest Conspiracy Theory

Newly discovered de facto fact denying scientists have argued themselves into an intellectual corner where their position is, logically, subconscious belief in a great 19th century conspiracy of silence. 

Get the facts, see the arguments and evolve faster than the speed of establishment science vested interests.

Public Domain

The Great Matthewian Conspiracy Theory

Get the newly discovered facts that Darwinities currently deny exist: https://www.amazon.co.uk/Nullius-Verba-Darwins-Greatest-Secret-ebook/dp/B00M5DP46U   

Catch up with the latest scientific literature on evolution of the concept of knowledge contamination Here   

Read just some examples of fact denial of what has been newly discovered Here

Perhaps the reason this one conspiracy theory is so successful is because it mimics evolution in nature by appearing to be something other than what it really is; veracious knowledge.

NOTE: This is a parody. Reason suggests Darwin was a lying plagiarist.

World's most successful conspiracy theory is so cleverly camouflaged as veracity.https://t.co/FWBx2rHoWq pic.twitter.com/1eeefsNp5S

— Supermythbuster (@supermyths) July 27, 2016

Additional Information on Knowledge Contamination

My article 'On Knowledge Contamination' (Sutton 2016) reveals who really did read Matthew's book and the original ideas on natural selection in it before 1858 and their relationships to Darwin and Wallace, their friends and influencers and influencer's influencers - as opposed to the myths started by Darwin that no naturalists/no one whatsoever did so before Matthew brought his work to Darwin's attention in 1860.

We know that in 1832, the naturalist John Loudon reviewed Matthew's (1831) book: Loudon, J. C. (1832) Matthew Patrick On Naval Timber and Arboriculture with Critical Notes on Authors who have recently treated the Subject of Planting. In the Gardener’s Magazine and Register of Rural & Domestic Improvements, Vol 8 (1832), pp. 702-3:

"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."

One very important point overlooked in my article is that Darwin's notebook of publications read, which contains an alphabetical list of books read by Darwin between 1838 and 1858, records that he may well have recorded in his own hand that he intended to read the 1832 edition of the Gardener's Chronicle.

In his notebook of books to read Darwin wrote in 1842 - in the same year he completed his first private essay on natural selection that he should read Vol 8 of  the Gardener's Magazine. That volume contained Loudon's (1832) review of Matthew's book.

Darwin wrote: "March 12th Gardener’s Magaz.  Vol 7th. & 8th. vol."

However, whilst this main volume ordering ran throughout the series, it must be added that each decade had a sub-order of volumes that began at vol 1 all over again. So we can see that volume VIII of 1832 is displayed as such:

We cannot know, but Darwin might have meant (though if he did he did not write it) that he wanted to read volumes 7 and 8 of the new 1840's decade - written as "new series". We can see how vol VIII of the new decade - "new series" - is displayed in 1842.

The fact Darwin made his notebook entry in 1842 and that Vol. 8 of the new decade was in that same year is highly suggestive that Darwin meant vol VIII of 1842.

Darwin's lies after 1860 - when Matthew's first letter to the Gardener's Chronicle informed him of Loudon's review - and his complete lack of curiosity regarding the conveyance of that fact, and of the fact - conveyed in Matthew's second letter to the Gardener's Chronicle - that another naturalist had read his original ideas and feared pillory punishment were he to teach them, should be weighed in light of the fact that before his Origin of Species (Darwin 1859) was completed, Darwin - apparently - did own Vol. 8 of 1832. And owned it from 1838 - the year he opened his first private notebook on evolution). I've not established the veracity of this (if its true, it's not easily verifiable online) but Andrew Norman  ( 2013) p. 173 writes with great exactness and certainty that Darwin owned these. Note however, that he tells us very clearly is only what is inside the front cover  of  Volume 7, of 1831 when (as his writing clearly shows he knows) Loudon's review is in Volume 8 of 1832:

'Volumes 2-13 (1827-37) of Gardener's Magazine (i.e. including the 1832 number which contained the review of Matthew's book) were also to be found in Darwin's personal library. However inside the front board of volume seven (for 1831), are to be found the initials of Robert Waring Darwin, Charles Darwin's father. Clearly, therefore, these volumes (which include those for 1831-36 when Darwin was sea on HMS Beagle) were acquired by Robert for his library at the Mount in Shrewsbury, and Darwin presumably acquired them  only after his father's Death in November 1838.'

NOTE If the initials RWD are not inside vol 8 of 1832 in Darwin's personal library (accepting for now the veracity Andrew Norman's confident published account that the volume is there - because I cannot detect it being their from any online accounts for the publications in Darwin's Library) that most certainly would not "clearly" mean that that one particular volume was acquired from his father's library.  All that we would know however, is that at some time before his death Darwin owned a copy of the all important vol. 8 of the 1832 Gardener's Magazine, containing Loudon's most telling review. The most telling question I have at the moment is to ask why Andrew Norman does not tell us what is or is not inside the front board - and elsewhere - on Vol 8 (1832) if it is actually in Darwin's personal library collection. If it is there then the Darwin Library project has not yet scanned it and has not listed it. If it is there, it is essential - in the interests of the veracious history of scientific discovery - that the entire volume, and in particular Loudon's review, is scrutinised for any annotations by Darwin or anyone else. 

Further Dysology attached to this story

At the time of writing a website of The University of South Carolina has confused the Gardener's Chronicle with the Gardener's Magazine

They write: 

And Who Was Patrick Mathew?

Patrick Mathew, “Appendix: Note B,” in his On Naval Timber and Arboriculture.
London: Longman, Rees, . . . 1831. Original glazed cloth.  Purchased from the C. Warren Irvin, Jr. and Josie B. Irvin Endowment.

Shortly before Darwin set out on his voyage with the Beagle, this book by an otherwise unknown Scottish orchardman and Chartist, Patrick Mathew (1790-1874), anticipated by nearly thirty years the theory we know as natural selection.  As Darwin later asserted, he could hardly be expected to know of Mathew’s work, when it had appeared as an appendix to a book on a different subject (but Mathew’s book was reviewed in the Gardener’s Chronicle, and Darwin did get old copies of that forwarded to him on his voyage . . .).

NOTE: Such mistakes are further confirmation of the Dysology Hypothesis.

Showing Scientists the Irrationality of Darwin Deification

It's not rocket science. But overturning irrational Darwin deification is arduous work: https://t.co/E8QuuMzsSL pic.twitter.com/tDIGpwbfuR

— Dr Mike Sutton (@Criminotweet) July 24, 2016

How do we defrost Darwinites?

How on Earth do we defrost frozen donkey Darwinites?

(1) https://t.co/oBIRDECJGj

(2) Frozen Donkey Hypothesis: https://t.co/TnMtwezQbo

— Dr Mike Sutton (@Dysology) July 23, 2016

Discovery - or not as the case may be Could be genuine. Darwin was a bad speller after all.

Darwin's lost diary discovered 1/2 burnt. Writes he hopes no one notices.the truth, which is https://t.co/LMpbVPMAh6 pic.twitter.com/EqbQ0V13Fn

— Dr Mike Sutton (@Dysology) July 23, 2016

Myths About Darwin (No, 4) The Darwin Got It but Matthew Never Extinction by Natural Selection Myth

According to William D Stansfield (1977) The Science of Evolution. Newy York. Macmillan,

(Stansfield, p. 31) Darwin wrote:

'I feel as if my book (Origin of Species) came half out of Sir Charles Lyell's brain.'

This is totally wrong. Darwin's Origin of Species was not published untill 1859. The closest Darwin got to writing what Stansfield claims is in an 1844 letter to Leonard Horner:

'I always feel as if my books came half out of Lyell’s brains & that I never acknowledge this sufficiently, nor do I know how I can, without saying so in so many words—for I have always thought that the great merit of the Principles, was that it altered the whole tone of one’s mind & therefore that when seeing a thing never seen by Lyell, one yet saw it partially through his eyes— it would have been in some respects better if I had done this less—but again excuse my long & perhaps you will think presumptuous discussion.'

We should expect as much complete nonsense because there is so much of it in the Darwin deification industry. So Stansfield confirms the Dysology hypothesis, and it is not long before examples pop out of his book as further confirmation of the general acceptance of falsehoods about Patrick Matthew's influence, and the contents of his 1831 book, by the scientific community.

Dysology about Matthew has facilitated the enabling environment that enabled Stansfield to to get away with writing so much more nonsense to be published for consumption as though it were true. And his completely erroneous nonsense is published by the prestigious Macmillan publishing house, no less!

Clearly Stanstead had no more read Darwin's original correspondence than he had carefully read Matthew's (1831) original  book. Because on page 32 he writes:

'Matthew did not conceive of the role that natural selection could play in the extinction of species'

This is yet another Darwinite myth, told to enhance Darwin's reputation at the expense of the originator whose work he replicated. In reality, on page 381 of his 1831 book On Naval Timber, Matthew wrote:

Note that here Matthew is mocking the notion of divine interference in the creation and extinction of species: "Discover an almost complete difference to exist between the species... of one epoch from that of every other." And "...admit, either of repeated miraculous creation; or a power of change,..." Now, if Matthew is not explaining the role of natural selection to create new species though a power of change then I am one of the amazing golden unicorns that gave Darwin and Wallace their miraculous cognitive contraceptives!

What Matthew's extinction explanation explains is superior to Darwin's. Matthew's included catastrophic extinction events as well as how species evolved from branching from a common ancestor that would eventually become extinct as new species did better in the same ecological niche. Darwin - parroting Lyell's uniformitarian ideas - rejected catastrophic extinction events. Matthew was right and Darwin wrong.

See Sutton (2016, p. 176 for the respective references):

'From the third edition of the Origin onwards, Darwin (1861), a follower of Lyell’s erroneous uniformitarianism, jumped at the chance to bolster Lyell’s theory and denigrate Matthew by referring to him as a catastrophist. Dempster made this injustice abundantly clear. Punctuated equilibrium — essentially Matthew’s discovery — is accepted in science today but, as Dempster noted, its Darwinist purveyors sought to keep the originator of that theory buried in footnote oblivion. In a more well-known account, Rampino explains just some of the detail conveyed by Dempster'