Quasi artificial selection?

They are changing as a result of the interference of man - a sort of unintended consequence artificial selection is taking place in the wild - analogous to natural selection. And that is how Matthew explained NS and sly Darwin & Wallace then replicated https://t.co/vX8JyWLHxw pic.twitter.com/c2XxkGGTFA

— Dr Mike Sutton (@Criminotweet) November 10, 2018

Bent Book Review Debunked

 
Please take note if interested in how the scientific establishment ever so subtly relies upon actions of desperate shocktrooper toadies and trolls etc to cover-up independently verifiable facts that embarrassingly bust much beloved science myths linked to the careers of leading scientists who got their facts wrong. Get the independently verified and peer reviewed newly unearthed facts (here) that Wikipedia astroturfing bent editors are consistently and currently deleting on its Patrick Matthew and Mike Sutton (criminologist) pages.

It's good when an academic journal allows you the right to reply to an establishment toadying cock-eyed, contrived, misleading review of proper groundbreaking research that uncovered new facts, which shockingly prove beloved myths are now completely busted https://t.co/wwB8xCDbQU pic.twitter.com/1UyPx0LPek

— Dr Mike Sutton (@Criminotweet) November 9, 2018

.

pic.twitter.com/z4RoyFpwlj

— Dr Mike Sutton (@Criminotweet) November 8, 2018

Latest Interpretation is Hilarious: Newly discovered myth busting facts are a conspiracy

Desperate, arguably disingenuous & dishonest nonsense from an arch career Darwin worshiper misleading the press. Dr John Van Wyhe was very happily on the editorial board but resigned only when my bombshell #BigData mythbusting article was published in it https://t.co/eHYTc5UW92

— Dr Mike Sutton (@Criminotweet) November 5, 2018

Dr John Van Wyhe engages in typical Darwin worshipping fact denial behaviour to effectively claim the newly unearthed facts are a conspiracy

According John Van Wyhe the newly discovered facts are not facts but a silly conspiracy theory. How can newly unearthed and independently verifiable disconfirming facts for badly unevidenced beliefs be a conspiracy? Maybe a conspiracy to debunk myths?
1. https://t.co/y6D1rl1NIy

— Dr Mike Sutton (@Criminotweet) November 4, 2018

Facts trump claptrap everytime: 

Read this Amazon book review for what the newly unearthed facts actually mean for the history of science and history of science myth making and pseudo scholarship nurturing:
https://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/customer-reviews/RG1IFI095K0SU/ref=cm_cr_arp_d_rvw_ttl?ie=UTF8&ASIN=1541343964

I've one for the VC. Maybe one of his staff will use it & win a prize. Goes like this "I shouldn't feel I have to tell the press that newly discovered disconfirming facts for old mere beliefs are a silly conspiracy theory." e.g. staff member John van Wyhe: https://t.co/y6D1rl1NIy

— Dr Mike Sutton (@Criminotweet) November 6, 2018

Wallace the sly plagiarizing science fraudster by glory theft

What the sly plagiarizing science fraudster by glory theft, Alfred Wallace never admitted is that the editor of his famous Sarawak paper (Selby) cited Matthew's bombshell breakthrough before he (Wallace) wrote a single word on the discovery he replicated: https://t.co/yjnBYK6aji pic.twitter.com/AnqBSTsxSJ

— Supermythbuster (@supermyths) November 4, 2018

Just another random fact denial Darwin worshipping pillock

 

You must have flown in from a not exactly parallel universe. In this universe - as so much of the literature you are completely ignorant of explains - his book in question was published with Blacks of Edinburgh an Longman and co of London. Major publishers https://t.co/YVMhyqjyiX https://t.co/wXB4XoORvv

— Dr Mike Sutton (@Criminotweet) November 3, 2018

   You have to read the literature to get the facts, not the claptrap. 

-

Hilarious hypocrisy once again from #RichardDawkins. Richard, perhaps you should ask your faith-head acolyte toadies to come out of their fact denial bubbles of self-referential outdated ignorance and vote against their own no nothing faith led ignorance? https://t.co/xEe6IHwalb

— Supermythbuster (@supermyths) November 4, 2018

Facts are friends, not enemies of the truth

Even when independently verifiable mythbusting facts are presented, they can hit a wall of disbelief among mere believers, with a vested bias, in the myths they bust. "Facts are friends, not enemies of the truth," #NulliusInVerbaDarwinsGreatestSecret https://t.co/XbDoXh64gB

— Dr Mike Sutton (@Criminotweet) October 29, 2018

Our own Social Evolution Detected Darwin's Plagiarism

Isn't it amazing that as a species we have evolved to the point where we can use #BigData to prove that Charles Darwin & Alfred Wallace both plagiarised the theory of #macroevolution by #NaturalSelection from another whose work we now newly know their friends & influencers cited pic.twitter.com/5L4HscGhWE

— Dr Mike Sutton (@Criminotweet) October 27, 2018

+

It's why I had to have a flu shot Emilio. I got the flu last year but the darned virus just keeps on evolving. After a few million years I suspect it will evolve into a fact denying demented and obsessional Darwin superfan stalker 😎: https://t.co/icMMOyZIgT pic.twitter.com/5Klg10en9b

— Dr Mike Sutton (@Criminotweet) October 27, 2018

Charles Darwin's Bank Job

Read the article that provides yet further confirmatory evidence for Charles Darwin's plagiary here

Charles Darwin’s Tangled Bank Job: Just More Evidence of his Science Fraud by Plagiary

Posted about 1 year ago | Comments Off on Charles Darwin’s Tangled Bank Job: Just More Evidence of his Science Fraud by Plagiary

– By Mike Sutton –

A recent review in the Guardian newspaper    of the historian A.N. Wilson’s book on Charles Darwin points out –  quite correctly – many of Wilson’s mistakes and his failure to understand what the process of natural selection is. The book review is written by Victorian history expert Kathryn Hughes. However, waxing lyrical in credulous regurgitation of the romance and lies about Darwin’s supposed good nature and original genius, she uses the cliched example of Darwin’s supposed observations of a tangled bank in nature as supposed evidence of his originality. Hughes writes:

‘His most famous motif, the one that everyone remembers because it leaps off the page with such unforced joy, is that of the tangled bank. Based on his daily observations of a stretch of land near his home, Darwin describes a buzzing ecosystem that is home to plants, birds and insects “all dependent on each other”. Here, he implies, is a microcosm for how we too might imagine our lives.’

But, once again, this is just another example of Darwin replicating Patrick Matthew’s (1831) original theory, general novel explanatory ideas and all his supporting examples, explanatory analogies of difference and original terminology.

I could add a wealth of examples of how many of Matthew’s prior-published ideas, original terminology, and confirmatory evidence were replicated by Darwin. Those examples are provided in my book “Nullius in Verba: Darwin’s greatest secret   ” but – given the tangled bank example used in the Guardian review one should look at what the statistical geneticist Dr Mike Weale tells us about Professor Donald Forsdyke’s observations of Darwin’s tangled bank text and its similarities to an evidentiary example provided by Patrick Matthew almost three decades earlier. The text below is taken from the comments section of Weal’s website “The Patrick Matthew Project” and are addressed to me:

“Mike, were you aware of the following interesting similarity between a famous passage of Darwin’s, and something that Matthew wrote in NTA? I thank Donald Forsdyke for pointing out the Matthew quote (see the end of his last video in his educational video series (https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL59A9C65FB0DCED9E).

The Darwin quote, from the last paragraph of “On the Origin of Species”, is: “It is interesting to contemplate an entangled bank, clothed with many plants of many kinds, with birds singing on the bushes, with various insects flitting about, and with worms crawling through the damp earth, and to reflect that these elaborately constructed forms, so different from each other, and dependent on each other in so complex a manner, have all been produced by laws acting around us.”

The Matthew quote, from pp.229-30 of NTA, is: “Look at the broken mound, with its old picturesque trees and tangled bushes; there is the ancient root where the throstle had its nestlings, which are now at large on the leafy boughs, and are tuning their yet unformed notes to melody. Now every twig has raised its new column of foliage to the sun; and branch, and root, and stone, embellished all over in the richest variety of cryptogamic beauty, swarm of insect life.”

The scene is used differently (to contemplate Nature’s laws by Darwin, to contrast beautiful Nature with boring manicured parks by Matthew), but the similarity of the picture is striking.”

NOTE: NTA is an acronym for Matthew’s book ‘On Naval Timber and Arboriculture.’

When will historians face the concrete fully evidenced truth and choose it over the romance and lies about Charles Darwin, which they have been hoodwinked to believe in?The most telling question is this: ‘Just how many supposed multiple coincidences of this kind are required in the story of Matthew and Darwin to convince scientists and historians that Darwin more likely than not plagiarised Matthew’s prior published discovery of evolution by natural selection, and in doing so committed the world’s greatest science fraud?’ My book is jam packed with them. Jam-packed with independently verifiable evidence of Darwin’s lies and Matthew’s influence on other naturalists known to Darwin and Wallace and his influence on their greatest influencers and their influencer’s influencers before either Darwin or Wallace penned a word on the topic of evolution. How can this be so? Because it is newly discovered those naturalists actually cited Matthew’s book and original ideas long before Darwin and Wallace replicated them. Andl Matthew’s work was cited by naturalists long before Darwin excused his and Wallace’s failure to cite Matthew by lying that no naturalist had read Matthew’s work. It was a lie because Matthew had twice prior informed Darwin that the exact opposite was true.

Darwin, the patron saint of atheists in fact kept the notion of a supernatural being in several editions of his Origin of Species. Read the whole context of his “tangled bank” job from that book and you will see this fact:

Now, by way of contrast, see how Matthew (1831) , the originator of the theory Darwin and Wallace stole, had the courage – years earlier – to commit heresy by mocking such an unscientific superstitious notion:

As I fully reveal in my book Nullius , it was for such reason, as Matthew explained to Darwin in the pages of the Gardeners’ Chronicle of 1860, that his work was banned by libraries and renowned university academics feared to repeat his ideas for fear of pillory punishment. But you won’t read those facts in any ignorant Darwin bashing book penned by a born again creationist, nor in any penned by a credulous and biased, cherry-picking, Darwin worshipper.

Why is Darwin still credited with things he never did?

Similarly, he is credited with Discovering Theory of Macroevolution by Natural Selection in so many publications. But he did no such thing (nor did Wallace) they plagiarised it from Patrick Matthew:
1. https://t.co/eHYTc5UW92
2. https://t.co/3XMQL72PHL
3. https://t.co/CLKiPRJoQT pic.twitter.com/9MaWqekUIs

— Dr Mike Sutton (@Criminotweet) October 23, 2018