We need to see what they say in their defence. If they deny it, then we need to see, verify, collect, present, & weigh independently verifiable evidence that supports the accusation they plagiarised. That's what I did in the Darwin, Wallace & Matthew case https://t.co/CLKiPRJoQT https://t.co/TohAFN4zpR
— Dr Mike Sutton (@Criminotweet) April 11, 2018
Please click the title above for the latest blog post
Wednesday, 11 April 2018
Did they or didn't they?
Monday, 9 April 2018
Facts Trump Desperate Claptrap Everytime: President Donald Trump believes vaccines cause autism and some people believe Darwin and Wallace had immaculate conceptions of a prior published theory, which is now miraculously transmuted by their own wishful magical beliefs into a different theory
In his 2013 book 'Charles Darwin: Destroyer of Myths', Andrew Norman - perhaps being an unacknowledged greater expert than the experts Darwin and Wallace and a greater expert than Matthew, the originator of macroevolution by natural slection - effectively writes that he thinks they were all wrong and that Matthew (1831) - who uniquely called his bombshell breakthrough the 'natural process of selection' and which Darwin (1858) originally four-word shuffled into 'process of natural selection' in his replicating work did no such thing. Trying to come to, arguably, "covering-up" terms with the New Data, which I predicted would happen (Sutton 2014), some arguably desperate Darwinists have written down and developed their own various desperate versions of this same type of magical thinking and had it published in the Journal of the Linnean Society. Unsurprisingly, this is the journal of the very same Linnean Society that facilitated in 1858, and has thereafter supported through publications in its journal - in breach of the universally accepted Arago Ruling on priority for discovery in science - Darwin's and Wallace's plagiarising debacle of Matthew's (1831) original and prior-published discovery of macroevolution by natural selection.
This type of arguably magical thinking makes old claims that are simply the same type as those by Andrew Norman, and of many other authors some time before him. Effectively, that Matthew's and Darwin's versions of macroevolution by natural selection are fundamentally different theories. How amazing on the topic of the history of scientific discovery that these Darwinists think they actually know more about that historic topic than the world's leading experts did on it themselves at the time of their replications of Matthew's breakthrough. Surely they mislead themselves that they believe they could ever know more than Matthew, Darwin and Wallace knew themselves on this topic of their own work at the time when Darwin's and Wallace's glory-stealing plagiarism problem occurred in the 19th century. I mean, this arguably desperate revisionist behaviour is so funny you could not make it up. Someone should write a comedy play or stage-musical about it. I bet that one day they will. It's analogous in my opinion to claiming that obsessive Monty Python fans know more about the content and reason for John Cleese's Ministry of Silly Walks techniques than he knew in developing them and then carrying them out on film himself.
Meanwhile dear readers, avoiding the silly walks of these poor desperate folk...
....Here are the actual independently verifiable facts that exist like fossil evidence in the historic publication record from those who surely would know more on this matter than anyone else alive then or since - i.e. Matthew, Darwin and Wallace themselves:
On 1st January 1831 Patrick Matthew’s book: ‘On Naval Timber and Arboriculture’ (NTA) was published by two major publishers: Adam Black of Edinburgh, and Longman and Co. of London. Together, the body of NTA and its appendix, contain the first published theory of macro evolution by what Matthew called the ‘natural process of selection’. For confirmation of this claim, that Matthew was undoubtedly the first to discover and go into published print on the full concept of macroevolution by natural selection, see: Darwin (1860a), Wallace, (1879), Mayr (1982), Dempster (1996), Wainwright (2008), Cock and Forsdyke (2008), Dawkins, (2010), Rampino (2011), Ford (2011), Sutton, (2015) and Weale (2015).
When called on it in the press by Matthew in 1860, Darwin (1860) was compelled to admit that Matthew got the whole thing first; and he (Darwin) of all people, like Matthew, would have known that for a fact. For example, in the third edition of the Origin of Species, Darwin (1861, p. xiv) wrote:
‘In 1831 Mr Patrick Matthew published his work on ‘Naval Timber and Arboriculture,’ in which he gives precisely the same view on the origin of species as that (presently to be alluded to) propounded by Mr Wallace and myself…’.
For his part, Wallace (1879, p. 142) eventually admitted in a letter:
‘Mr. Matthew apprehended the theory of natural selection, as well as the existence of more obscure laws of evolution, many years in advance of Mr. Darwin and myself…’.
Independently verifiable facts such as these trump desperate claptrap every time!
For more on these facts and all supporting references to the facts in this blog see Nullius in Verba: Darwin's greatest secret
For the facts of Donald Trump's claptrap see the Healthwatch paper I co-wrote pictured below.
with Henn and Gibson Here
References
Darwin, C. R. (1861) On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection. Or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life. (Third Edition) London. John Murray.
Wallace, A. R. (1879a) 9 May. Letter to Samuel Butler. Unique WCP identifier: WCP1586. Wallace Letters Online.
I'm a Duhwinist
In my spare time I prove that those who worship Charles Darwin are not very bright.
— Dr Mike Sutton (@Criminotweet) April 9, 2018
Yes I'm a duhwinist #duhwinist 🙄 pic.twitter.com/cXVILMg3VX
Sunday, 8 April 2018
Psychology of rejection of new facts in science
Many thanks to rationally skeptical friend @rhabdouchos recommended reading: "Maslow 1954, Motivation and Personality. Chapter :, A Psychological Approach to Science"
— Dr Mike Sutton (@Dysology) April 8, 2018
I'm told it is a must-read for work on rejection of new evidence by scientific establishments.@DrMarkGriffiths
Why I'm a Duhwinist
In my spare time I prove that those who credulously worship Charles Darwin are not very bright.— BlessedVirginDarwin (@OnNavalTimber) April 9, 2018
Yes I'm a Duhwinist #duhwinist 🙄#duhwinism
Charles #Duhwin pic.twitter.com/ivoEUoy8sI
Saturday, 7 April 2018
The most circumstance suited = survival of that most fit
+"If you recognized me in less than two seconds, you are smart, if not... "
— Pablo Rodas-Martini (@pablorodas) April 7, 2018
(158) pic.twitter.com/PtS5h1Owxs
I did and I also associated it with the work of the true originator of macroevolution by natural selection #PatrickMatthew https://t.co/R3Ra087tHe pic.twitter.com/FOwu3BrwrO
— Dr Mike Sutton (@Criminotweet) April 7, 2018
Why is the scientific "establishment" remaining so silent about the fact there is a Royal Homeopath? A Telling Question Indeed!
++Does the scientific "establishment" keep cannily silent when embarrassed by disruptive facts & so hide behind dreadful malicious & malevolent people in the hope that will disincentivize whistle-blowers on official stupidity?— Dr Mike Sutton (@Criminotweet) April 7, 2018
1. https://t.co/n4SHKnsRhS
2. https://t.co/gTFdPp4PX4 pic.twitter.com/CeWax0VOYv
WHY @EdzardErnst are top scientists in the scientific establishment in the UK and the USA so weak-kneed afraid to stand up in public & speak out on any major independently verifiable disruptive disturbing & embarrassing facts about influential people? https://t.co/1Q5o86ldZZ https://t.co/ts1Hu5Bldc— Dr Mike Sutton (@Dysology) April 7, 2018
+
+Regarding major "disruptive" academic research now being conducted on the behaviour of so called "neo-liberal universities" @lizmorrish, I wonder are you aware of the incredible story of Edzard Ernst? For anyone who isn't, here is a good place to begin https://t.co/n4SHKnsRhS
— Dr Mike Sutton (@Criminotweet) April 7, 2018
+Scientists in S. America telling dreadful truth about giant carrots
— BlessedVirginDarwin (@OnNavalTimber) April 7, 2018
(1) https://t.co/rMyHx9ztjI
as likely to impact on greed-fuelled business interests there as telling truth about giant lies in the Darwin & homeopathic Industries here
(2) https://t.co/fITDgipaH6
#KeepSilent pic.twitter.com/92XqYlljVu
+Arguably, impact of "expert knee trembling coward syndrome" circuitously led to the highly influential president of the USA promoting Wakefield's lethal anti-vax dishonest nonsense to this day: But they can respond to his tweets on it. They're live in here https://t.co/V2XSYmloUN pic.twitter.com/uH9oGdnQ8K
— Dr Mike Sutton (@Criminotweet) April 7, 2018
On trying to understand academic cowardice: According to one major historian of science 'J. D. Bernal' @lizmorrish @david_colquhoun We understood back in 1969 why particularly "disturbing" research results are not likely to be welcome in our universities: https://t.co/uJqrmmlLLi
— Dr Mike Sutton (@Criminotweet) April 7, 2018
Artificial Selection and the "ruling class"
The Queen really has a homeopath? If this is true then Patrick Matthew, the heretical and seditious Chartist leader plagiarised originator of macroevolution by natural selection, was right about artificial selection being the varietal ruination of the intellect of ruling classes pic.twitter.com/u0YBOYKlQC
— Dr Mike Sutton (@Criminotweet) April 7, 2018
Friday, 6 April 2018
Harassment and Malicious Falsehoods
+If anyone is interested in how those using disruptive technologies to make independently verifiable disruptive discoveries in the history of scientific discovery get harassed, obscenely abused, maliciously libelled & cyber stalked see THES comments sectionhttps://t.co/gTFdPoNeyu
— Dr Mike Sutton (@Criminotweet) April 6, 2018
His university investigated him on what many think was a ridiculous and malicious charge and that gave him heart problems! Subsequently, @HealthWatch123 awarded @EdzardErnst its Courageous Award https://t.co/ln7uxLmcLd Scientists should be brave enough to stand up and speak out! https://t.co/2LZtEfAfFC
— Dr Mike Sutton (@Criminotweet) April 7, 2018
Thursday, 5 April 2018
Superb Jim Dempster Books Headed to Scotland
I have just come into possession of several boxes containing well over 100 of Jim Dempster's last book. They are all brand spanking new!
— Dr Mike Sutton (@Criminotweet) April 5, 2018
The aim is to get each one into the hands of those who would like to read his superb scholarship.
Who was Dempster? https://t.co/d9Qc4cEaGE pic.twitter.com/exIslQrgjO