Were the Originator Matthew & Darwin the replicator atheists? On Natural Selection theory and the so called "God" https://t.co/kPWNqPdccf pic.twitter.com/pAkC4RNb6W
— Dr Mike Sutton (@Dysology) November 7, 2017
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
Tuesday, 7 November 2017
Darwin Played Hokey-Cokey with his "God"
+
Matthew, Chambers and Darwin on Natural Selection and "God"
We know that Patrick Matthew, the (1831) originator of the theory of macroevolution by natural selection (see Sutton 2017), truly believed in later life that a supernatural deity set nature up to evolve from original designed creations. But Matthew never included that notion in his 1831 book, 'On Naval Timber and Arboriculture', which contains the orignal complete theory of evolution by natural selection. Whether he believed such a thing in 1831 is far from knowable on the basis of currently known evidence. Scholars may debate forever about what he meant by the word "Providence" in that book - whether it be Scottish prudence, or a religious notion - we simply do not know.
What we do know is that in his 1831 book Matthew mocked superstitious priests:
Moreover, in the same (1831) book, (NTA) he clearly mocked the notion of a supernatural deity miraculously creating evolved new species.
Robert Chamber's, who cited Matthew's (1831) book 'On Naval Timber and Arboriculture' in 1832, and then cited Matthew's (1839) book 'Emigration Fields' before going on to write his own guide on arboriculture (1842), followed by his own hugely influential book on evolution 'The Vestiges' (1844), always kept the notion of a supernatural "Creator" in The 'Vestiges'. He went on from there, in his book review of Darwin's (1859) 'Origin of Species' to be apparently first to be second, (in 1859) with Matthew's (1831) original four word term for his discovery: the 'natural process of selection' - the same four words were originally shuffled by Darwin the Replicator (1859) into their only possible other grammatically correct equivalent: the 'process of natural selection'.
For his part in replicating Matthew's orignal ideas and then calling them "my theory", Darwin played hokey-cokey with the notion of a "Creator" in various editions of the Origin of Species. For example, in the first edition (1859) he makes no mention of the idea, but he wrote that the "Creator" set nature up to evolve in various subsequent editions from the third edition (1860) onward: see here .
Matthew's correspondence published in a German book - Hallier, E. (1866) Die sogenannte Darwin'sche Lehre und die Botanik Botanische Zeitung 24: 381-383 (Here), - which reveals why we know he did believe in later life that a 'creator' set things up to evolve: because he wrote that "creation must preclude selection" Although in 1871 there is a letter in the Darwin archive proving Matthew wrote to Darwin that: 'That there is a principle of beneficence operating here the dual parentage and family affection pervading all the higher animal kingdom affords proof. A sentiment of beauty pervading Nature, with only some few exceptions affords evidence of intellect & benevolence in the scheme of Nature. This principle of beauty is clearly from design & cannot be accounted for by natural selection.'
Earlier, in 1866, we see in his Botanische Zeitung communication that he writes that he has had prior correspondence to that with Darwin about what Matthew deems to be the limitations of selective power:
What we do know is that in his 1831 book Matthew mocked superstitious priests:
Moreover, in the same (1831) book, (NTA) he clearly mocked the notion of a supernatural deity miraculously creating evolved new species.
Robert Chamber's, who cited Matthew's (1831) book 'On Naval Timber and Arboriculture' in 1832, and then cited Matthew's (1839) book 'Emigration Fields' before going on to write his own guide on arboriculture (1842), followed by his own hugely influential book on evolution 'The Vestiges' (1844), always kept the notion of a supernatural "Creator" in The 'Vestiges'. He went on from there, in his book review of Darwin's (1859) 'Origin of Species' to be apparently first to be second, (in 1859) with Matthew's (1831) original four word term for his discovery: the 'natural process of selection' - the same four words were originally shuffled by Darwin the Replicator (1859) into their only possible other grammatically correct equivalent: the 'process of natural selection'.
For his part in replicating Matthew's orignal ideas and then calling them "my theory", Darwin played hokey-cokey with the notion of a "Creator" in various editions of the Origin of Species. For example, in the first edition (1859) he makes no mention of the idea, but he wrote that the "Creator" set nature up to evolve in various subsequent editions from the third edition (1860) onward: see here .
Matthew's correspondence published in a German book - Hallier, E. (1866) Die sogenannte Darwin'sche Lehre und die Botanik Botanische Zeitung 24: 381-383 (Here), - which reveals why we know he did believe in later life that a 'creator' set things up to evolve: because he wrote that "creation must preclude selection" Although in 1871 there is a letter in the Darwin archive proving Matthew wrote to Darwin that: 'That there is a principle of beneficence operating here the dual parentage and family affection pervading all the higher animal kingdom affords proof. A sentiment of beauty pervading Nature, with only some few exceptions affords evidence of intellect & benevolence in the scheme of Nature. This principle of beauty is clearly from design & cannot be accounted for by natural selection.'
Earlier, in 1866, we see in his Botanische Zeitung communication that he writes that he has had prior correspondence to that with Darwin about what Matthew deems to be the limitations of selective power:
Saturday, 4 November 2017
Why the topic of Darwin's and Wallace's Plagiarism is now "owned" by the social sciences
There is an 1831 citation of one item of Matthew’s (1831) published
work in a German book. Click here
The cited work is on the topic of Matthew's lightning rods
experiment, and it attributes the Matthew experiment to von Matthew Esquire, author of the treatise On Naval Timber. The fact Matthew's experiment is translated into German for a German readership,
and appeared first in Robert Jameson's Philosophical journal is important. It is important because Jameson, who was Regius Professor of Biology, taught Charles Darwin at Edinburgh University in 1827.
Jameson's nephew William Jameson – a correspondent of William Hooker the father of Darwin’s best friend Joseph Hooker - later cited Matthew's (1831) ideas on natural selection pre-1858. William Jameson did so in 1853 (see Nullius 2017).
The 1831 German translation of Matthew's correspondence to Robert Jameson's journal and the fact Matthew's earlier and rather cranky experiment, which found no evidence to support earlier observations of others that lightning conductors improved the growth of trees or other plants in their immediate vicinity, is in Jameson's Edinburgh New Philosophical journal, which is just one more item amongst many of Matthew's prominently published work that proves Matthew was far from an obscure Scottish writer on forest trees. Matthew, reasoned in his observations that the reason for more luxuriant plant growth near lightning conductors might be because the soil had been particularly well turned near where they were sited. Professor William Jameson's journal reproduced a lengthy communication by Matthew on this rather weird and wonderful lightning rod experiment and then noted his 1831 authorship of On Naval Timber and Arboriculture. As early as 1831, Matthew had, therefore, on the basis of this one independently verifiable fact alone, an international reputation as an experimental gentleman agricultural naturalist science author, in an esteemed journal, edited by a most esteemed biologist.
Moreover, it is Robert Jameson who is widely believed to be the anonymous author who was first to use the word "evolved" in 1826 in a biological evolutionary sense (see Dempster 1996.p. 143) for an analysis of competing ideas about who was the author). As I explain my 600 page Kindle e-book (first edition) of Nullius in Verba:Darwin's greatest secret, the undergraduate Darwin offended Robert Jameson by capering off and presenting his own evidences in Jameson's field of interest ater Jameson introduced him and tutored him in his unpublished pioneering work on sea sponges.
The german translation effectively cites The Edinburgh New Philosophical journal v.11 (1831). Matthew's experiment can be found on pages 386 to 388. And in this article in the journal edited by Robert Jameson we see the journal records that Matthew is the author of NTA.
This adds one more citation to the list of 24 pre-1858 citations of Matthew's book that is contained in Nullius in Verba: Darwin's greatest secret. Read the abridged paperback (vol 1) Nullius in Verba for more of the newly discovered facts.
Another citation - bringing List 1 to 26, is added by The Quarterly Review citation of it in 1833 on pages 125 and 126. The author of the piece referred to Matthew's 'Critical Notes' in NTA as pert nonsense Click Here.
As further evidence he was not an obscure Scottish writer on Forest Trees, as Darwin (1861) sought to portray him in order to downplay Matthew's right to both first and foremost priority for the theory Darwin replicated and referred to fallaciously thereafter as "my theory", Matthew's (1831) NTA was listed among the few new scientific books published in 1831 (here).
The list of those discovered to have cited Matthew's (1831) book pre 1858 is growing. The Quarterly Review cited it in 1833 on pages 125 and 126. The author of the piece referred to Matthew's 'Critical Notes' in NTA as pert nonsense Click Here
+
Jameson's nephew William Jameson – a correspondent of William Hooker the father of Darwin’s best friend Joseph Hooker - later cited Matthew's (1831) ideas on natural selection pre-1858. William Jameson did so in 1853 (see Nullius 2017).
The 1831 German translation of Matthew's correspondence to Robert Jameson's journal and the fact Matthew's earlier and rather cranky experiment, which found no evidence to support earlier observations of others that lightning conductors improved the growth of trees or other plants in their immediate vicinity, is in Jameson's Edinburgh New Philosophical journal, which is just one more item amongst many of Matthew's prominently published work that proves Matthew was far from an obscure Scottish writer on forest trees. Matthew, reasoned in his observations that the reason for more luxuriant plant growth near lightning conductors might be because the soil had been particularly well turned near where they were sited. Professor William Jameson's journal reproduced a lengthy communication by Matthew on this rather weird and wonderful lightning rod experiment and then noted his 1831 authorship of On Naval Timber and Arboriculture. As early as 1831, Matthew had, therefore, on the basis of this one independently verifiable fact alone, an international reputation as an experimental gentleman agricultural naturalist science author, in an esteemed journal, edited by a most esteemed biologist.
Moreover, it is Robert Jameson who is widely believed to be the anonymous author who was first to use the word "evolved" in 1826 in a biological evolutionary sense (see Dempster 1996.p. 143) for an analysis of competing ideas about who was the author). As I explain my 600 page Kindle e-book (first edition) of Nullius in Verba:Darwin's greatest secret, the undergraduate Darwin offended Robert Jameson by capering off and presenting his own evidences in Jameson's field of interest ater Jameson introduced him and tutored him in his unpublished pioneering work on sea sponges.
The german translation effectively cites The Edinburgh New Philosophical journal v.11 (1831). Matthew's experiment can be found on pages 386 to 388. And in this article in the journal edited by Robert Jameson we see the journal records that Matthew is the author of NTA.
This adds one more citation to the list of 24 pre-1858 citations of Matthew's book that is contained in Nullius in Verba: Darwin's greatest secret. Read the abridged paperback (vol 1) Nullius in Verba for more of the newly discovered facts.
Another citation - bringing List 1 to 26, is added by The Quarterly Review citation of it in 1833 on pages 125 and 126. The author of the piece referred to Matthew's 'Critical Notes' in NTA as pert nonsense Click Here.
As further evidence he was not an obscure Scottish writer on Forest Trees, as Darwin (1861) sought to portray him in order to downplay Matthew's right to both first and foremost priority for the theory Darwin replicated and referred to fallaciously thereafter as "my theory", Matthew's (1831) NTA was listed among the few new scientific books published in 1831 (here).
The list of those discovered to have cited Matthew's (1831) book pre 1858 is growing. The Quarterly Review cited it in 1833 on pages 125 and 126. The author of the piece referred to Matthew's 'Critical Notes' in NTA as pert nonsense Click Here
+Arguably, due to weak scholarship of historians & biologists, criminology now owns the topic of Darwin's replication https://t.co/kMxeW8hTUN pic.twitter.com/9AvVwW5FUS— Dr Mike Sutton (@Criminotweet) November 4, 2017
On von Matthew Esquire the Scot: https://t.co/KxK5iS96F2 pic.twitter.com/KTDJbTuS6I— Dr Mike Sutton (@Dysology) November 6, 2017
Thursday, 26 October 2017
Four Star Book Review of Nullius
+Latest Amazon review of #Nullius @DrMarkGriffiths @a8drewson @Silverwriter @RogerHBurke @NTU_staff @NTUPublicSoc https://t.co/APmJ0ILQWQ pic.twitter.com/4iIGCntYsD— Dr Mike Sutton (@Criminotweet) October 26, 2017
Supermyth of Darwin's legendary honesty, integrity and originality is bust. He was a plagiarist, liar & glory thief https://t.co/zdJmCNKNvu
— Supermythbuster (@supermyths) November 2, 2017
Saturday, 21 October 2017
Book Review Copies Now Available
Free copies of "Nullius in Verba: Darwin's greatest secret" which I would like social scientists to book review. Interested? 👍 Message me pic.twitter.com/dl9U5X68Aa
— Dr Mike Sutton (@Criminotweet) October 21, 2017
Newly Discovered and Independently Verifiable Facts are PR Disaster for the Scientific Establishment
Intersection of criminology of science fraud by plagiarism, biology, history of science, heritage & sustainability: https://t.co/Msat1abadf pic.twitter.com/qjfRhGvkIG
— Dr Mike Sutton (@Criminotweet) October 21, 2017
Thursday, 19 October 2017
Social Scientists do Science!
Just a little note to support my science research kindly scrawled at The @Ri_Science Royal Institution of Science https://t.co/tlutLE9oU0 pic.twitter.com/TzP4lV7JiM
— Dr Mike Sutton (@Criminotweet) October 19, 2017
Dear Royal Society, about you breaking your own Arago ruling convention
The thumbs up still beating the thumbs down on my open letter to the Royal Society @royalsociety https://t.co/SLmOLiS8Eo
— Dr Mike Sutton (@Criminotweet) October 19, 2017
Wednesday, 18 October 2017
5 Star Book Reviews of Nullius
I am honured that fellow criminologists are giving 5 Star reviews for my book on the World's greatest science fraud https://t.co/qas6Kru7VA pic.twitter.com/IHItmgeBnH
— Dr Mike Sutton (@Dysology) October 18, 2017
Gonzo Style
On doing it Gonzo Style @a8drewson = Gonzo is that you don't cover the story, you become the story. https://t.co/KIZmMczrms pic.twitter.com/IjhhPyMxHe
— Dr Mike Sutton (@Criminotweet) October 18, 2017
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)