Creationists fear Matthew and are fact denying about his origination of macroevolution by natural selection

.@BiologiaPensamt @ShareThis Proof article completely wrong & why a creationist has motive to fact deny Matthew's origination pre Darwin pic.twitter.com/v6rPeVmjq9

— BlessedVirginDarwin (@OnNavalTimber) November 3, 2016

Origin of the term Darwinist

Darwinists think "Darwinist" was coined by creationists as term of abuse. But Darwinists are dreadful at history: https://t.co/X44f4ga0BT pic.twitter.com/qteg5PyxKH

— Dr Mike Sutton (@Dysology) November 3, 2016

Applied Criminology

@James_Treadwell Many thanks.
Two new articles on the way. Meanwhile post telegraph:
1. :https://t.co/yMLRSHW8Vc
2. https://t.co/LMpbVPMAh6 pic.twitter.com/nKdJd5NHW6

— Dr Mike Sutton (@Dysology) November 2, 2016

+++

. Also by Sagan: @wgugg @michaelshermer @C_Darwin_OFB @WallaceFRS https://t.co/E8QuuMzsSL pic.twitter.com/RDg67Fo0fq

— Dr Mike Sutton (@Criminotweet) November 1, 2016

++

Charles Darwin's Lying Plagiarism Has Dragged Science into the Gutter https://t.co/RvL0yfkMp6 : pic.twitter.com/n88Th5qcna

— BlessedVirginDarwin (@OnNavalTimber) November 2, 2016

One Stupid Scholarly "Expert" at a Time

Tackling - one at a time - the last bastions of "expert" scholarly stupidity: https://t.co/dLa68m8PSH pic.twitter.com/KnRkb0YUGk

— Supermythbuster (@supermyths) November 1, 2016

Kuhn was right about resistance to paradigm changing discoveries

Kuhn was absolutely right:

Fierce 'fact denial' resistance to paradigm changing discoveries: SEE: classic examplehttps://t.co/BwSq1I5QF8 pic.twitter.com/FNmfLq2YIf

— Supermythbuster (@supermyths) November 1, 2016

Dr Mark Griffiths is IN

New facts create eddy currents of veracity at the confluence of biology, sociology of science, criminology & psychology: HERE   

Click the image below to enlarge for ease of reading

Extraordinarily Credulous Darwinites

As the psychologist Patrizio E. Tressold (2011) reminds us 


' “Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence” was a phrase made popular by Carl Sagan who reworded Laplace's principle, which says that “the weight of evidence for an extraordinary claim must be proportioned to its strangeness” (Gillispie et al., 1999). This statement is at the heart of the scientific method, and a model for critical thinking, rational thought and skepticism everywhere.'

It is extraordinary to claim that Darwin and Wallace independently conceived Matthew's prior published hypothesis of macro evolution by natural selection, because new evidence proves that Darwin's and Wallace's friends and influencers and their influencer's influencers read Matthew's prior publication containing that orignal hypothesis and then cited the book containing it before either of those replicators put so much as a pen to private notebook on the topic. If. under such conditions for knowledge contamination, Darwin and Wallace conceived Matthew's prior published and cited hypothesis independently of that publication, then that is something remarkably unlikely, because it is completely without the remotest parallel in the history of scientific discovery.  

Get the independently verifiable facts. HERE

++

@mpigliucci @stefanako71 @DrMarkGriffiths Serious scientists take it seriously: https://t.co/Ea0I736oEk pic.twitter.com/VZsUjpojQq

— BlessedVirginDarwin (@OnNavalTimber) October 22, 2016

A Telling Silence

Telling Silence on New Evidence that Darwin Was a Lying Plagiarist who stole entire hypothesis of Natural Selection: https://t.co/ZylqHJjxrR pic.twitter.com/hzLXQIa1hU

— Dr Mike Sutton (@Criminotweet) October 21, 2016

++

Take that Veracity: https://t.co/1QLZG7EGJW pic.twitter.com/uUEsjmFlAM

— Dr Mike Sutton (@Criminotweet) October 21, 2016

Children are now Ahead of the Childish Myth Believing Royal Society

Especially incredibly bright primary school children in Scotland are ahead of the Royal Society on the facts https://t.co/pPgoyU5XDh pic.twitter.com/QDCgmiW3lW

— Dr Mike Sutton (@Criminotweet) October 14, 2016

On Richard III and Patrick Matthew: The Age of Scientific History Versus The Last Bastions of Childish Improbabilities

Rationally skeptical fact-led historians have revealed that the long-told history of Richard III is based for the most part on fabricated and otherwise un-evidenced storytelling (see for example Potter 1983; Ashdown-Hill 2015).

 After the Tudor usurpation of the throne it was necessary to justify to the populace, who believed in the divine sovereign right of the "Crown" to demand absolute loyalty and obedience, that Henry VII's army's slaughter of their monarch King Richard III at the Battle of Bosworth was justified homicide of a ruler who was less, not more, than a normal human being.

Bit by bit, a few 19th, and many 20th and 21st century historians have peeled away at the layers of mythology about Richard III, revealing them to be baseless fictions, written as Tudor propaganda by supporters of Henry.

Bit by bit, one 20th century anthropologist (Eiseley 1979) and a few 20th and 21st century scientists (Dempster, 1995 ; Wainwright, 2010) and one sociologist (Sutton 2014 and  2016) have peeled away at the layers of mythology about Patrick Matthew, the originator of the concept of macroevolution by natural selection, revealing them to be unevidenced stories, deliberate lies written by Darwin and disproven fallacies written by his supporters as Darwinite propaganda.

What Jeremey Potter (1983. p. 6) cites as Horace Walpole's so eloquent dismissal of the last bastions of Richard III liars, mythmongers and their mynah-birding dupes can equally be said of those who currently cling to the ludicrous and now newly completely evidence-led debunked notion that Darwin and Wallace had virgin cognitive conceptions of Patrick Matthew's prior published theory, and orignal explanatory examples and analogies to explain it, after their friends, correspondents and influencers and influencer's influencers and facilitators cited it in the literature:

'Horace Walpole is the spokesman in this pithy summary of their case: "The Reign of Richard III has so degraded our annals by an intrusion of childish improbabilities that it places that reign at a level with the story of Jack-the Giant Killer."

And so, with apologies to Walpole (1798) , similarities between the cases of the treatment of Richard III and Patrick Matthew suggest to me that something similar should be written about the treatment of the latter:

The first and foremost priority that has been awarded to Darwin and Wallace, the replicators of Matthew's prior-published and prior-cited orignal conception of macroevolution by natural selection, has so degraded our annals of the history of scientific discovery by an intrusion of childish improbabilities, that it places the claimed historical fact of Darwin's and Wallace's dual independent conceptions at a level with the story of  The Virgin Mary. 

Incidentally, the same IDD research method that originally disproved the expert knowledge claim that no naturalists / no biologists read Matthew's (1831) orignal conception before Darwin and Wallace (1858) and Darwin (1859) replicated it without citing him, has unearthed something else orignal and intriguing about a Sheriff of Nottingham, the Mayor of Nottingham and Richard III's alabaster tomb memorial at Greyfriars Abbey in Leicester: Click Here to Read the Story.

Old Nottingham manuscript DISCOVERY of NEW DATA now in the capable hands of the Richard III Society research experts https://t.co/ntIuoIsENj pic.twitter.com/s7GAUZUPCN

— Dr Mike Sutton (@Dysology) October 19, 2016