Daylighthood

very nice idea, indeed.

— Simon Singh (@SLSingh) April 22, 2018

Darwin Industry real ale

Photography (c) Andy Sutton

No matter how many pints of this good beer one drinks, it cannot transmute a prior published theory into one of Darwin's origin. Moreover, following responsible drinking guidelines one would have to give the Darwin Industry a considerable amount of cash, brain and liver damage for it to change Darwin's many proven lies about the true originator of natural selection - Patrick Matthew - into the "truth" as perceived only by a deranged Darwin worshipper.

+

Following responsible drinking guidelines @AlcoResearchUK one should never drink so much of this excellent ale that resulting brain damage would change Darwin's many lies about the true originator of natural slection into deranged perceived "truth" https://t.co/QZrHPkhyRW pic.twitter.com/V0o4csLExb

— Dr Mike Sutton (@Criminotweet) April 20, 2018

+

See this paper Darwin worshippers.? https://t.co/Z9AVuv9vDF

Well, I am very sorry for you to have say that this is just the analogous intellectual bolo punch for your daft as a brush fact denial nonsense.

The sucker punch knockout is well on its way https://t.co/ID6nSzIXFJ

— Supermythbuster (@supermyths) April 20, 2018

1st of Four Articles Coming out on the IDD Method and Darwin's and Wallace's Newly Proven Plagiarizing Science Fraud by Glory Theft

Google searches uncover plagiarism and false accreditations at the heart of scientific community #news #academicnews #Science https://t.co/nvD9qFvHhr

— Holly Sutton (@Hollyonline) April 16, 2018

=

Prof Mark Griffiths & I just had peer reviewed article published.
Its official, the IDD method used to prove Darwin & Wallace plagiarised Matthew is a research "method". Proven too: Dawkins did not 1st coin the term or concept "Selfish Gene". More besides: https://t.co/waIQjoe3EE pic.twitter.com/POAk6l5277

— Dr Mike Sutton (@Criminotweet) April 16, 2018

=

The first of 4 articles is out on the IDD method and mythbusting (re the plagiarism by Darwin and wallace facts) @TeessideSitP More to follow...No 1: https://t.co/2JaOaW4lag

— BlessedVirginDarwin (@OnNavalTimber) April 16, 2018

=

Milton Friedman always admitted - in the teeth of the false flattering claims he did - that he never coined the term "There's no such thing as a free lunch". Because there isn't. What about @RichardDawkins though https://t.co/2JaOaW4lag He never coined the term 'Selfish Gene' pic.twitter.com/DzvZcaot08

— BlessedVirginDarwin (@OnNavalTimber) April 17, 2018

Brian J Ford and his battle against fake news in science

Brian J Ford on Fake news.
He has written on that important topic before on Darwin, the man who - contrary to the Darinite myth - did not discover macroevolution by natural selection at all - see https://t.co/OW7uDgBIDe https://t.co/5x14jao0kC

— Dr Mike Sutton (@Criminotweet) April 14, 2018

On how to treat Dysology

On #Dysology

Some people, having found a rock to cling to for dear intellectual life, then eat their owns brains.

Watch out pseudo scholars we are coming to get you in expert peer reviewed literature. You are our monkeys in our circus now 🐵🙈🙉🙊🐒

https://t.co/eSnFXXhsR3

— Dr Mike Sutton (@Criminotweet) April 13, 2018

My Circus, My Monkeys! More Bombshell News

#BombshellNews
Prof @DrMarkGriffiths and I have just had our peer reviewed article accepted for a distinguished journal. The topic? We'll let you know that as soon as the article is published. But I would bet my monkeys and my circus that it's going to make the national press.

— Dr Mike Sutton (@Criminotweet) April 12, 2018

+

The juvenile sea squirt wanders through the sea looking for a rock to cling to. On finding one, it no longer needs its brain. So it…

... eats it pic.twitter.com/gwpC0d6Yz4

— Marcus Chown (@marcuschown) April 12, 2018

+

A wonderful explanatory analogy @DrMarkGriffiths to fathom (pun intended) those who uncritically cling to old paradigms after they have been proven to be punctured by newly discovered independently verifiable facts https://t.co/eSnFXXhsR3

— Dr Mike Sutton (@Criminotweet) April 12, 2018

Did they or didn't they?

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

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. Natural History Museum

I'm a Duhwinist

In my spare time I prove that those who worship Charles Darwin are not very bright.

Yes I'm a duhwinist #duhwinist 🙄 pic.twitter.com/cXVILMg3VX

— Dr Mike Sutton (@Criminotweet) April 9, 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"

I'm told it is a must-read for work on rejection of new evidence by scientific establishments.@DrMarkGriffiths

— Dr Mike Sutton (@Dysology) April 8, 2018