1. The Dark Side of Darwin: http://archive.vn/OjeTa
2. Darwin's Guilty Secret: http://archive.vn/EJg26
+
.I see you cover Loudon issue, with more than Dempster got before (your unique circumstantial evidence Darwin read Matthew), but don't say Loudon was a naturalist or mention his Magazine of Nat. Hist. & his membership Linnean soc etchttps://t.co/L7wkY86y1yhttps://t.co/3xIEeZ2PEC— Dr Mike Sutton (@Dysology) January 7, 2019
No conflict Hugh. You are an unusually honorable & accurate, rightfully inquisitive person. Re merits writer v naturalist - now on that point I do disagree, because it's important Darwin's lie be proven. Yet, I unearthed he was EDITOR of Blyth's influential papers read by Darwin— Dr Mike Sutton (@Dysology) January 7, 2019
Not only is it proven that Darwin deliberately and slyy lied in an act of science fraud by post hoc glory thieving plagiarism when he wrote that apparently no naturalist read Matthew's prior published theory, but it is newly unearthed that Loudon was not only well known to Darwin and his closest influencers and friends, he also edited two of Blyth's most influential papers on evolution that were read by Darwin and Wallace Here
+
+We learn the lesson @HughDower that @RichardDawkins teaches us, whilst his silly nonsense that Matthew should have trumpeted his imprisonable heresy from the rooftops is ludicrous, we should ALL trumpet our own priority for discoveries of Darwin's plagiarism & glory thieving lies pic.twitter.com/1myhPF7F7Q— Dr Mike Sutton (@Dysology) January 8, 2019
On The Loudon Blyth Connection: Matthewian Knowledge Contamination Probability
We know that in 1832 Loudon reviewed Matthew's (1831) book and most significantly noted that Matthew had something original to say on what he called 'The Origin of Species' no less. Other writers, such as Eiseley and Dempster have noted that Loudon was founder and editor of the Journal that later published Blyth's important articles in the 1835 and 1836 on natural selection. However, neither writer appears to have noted - because they most certainly never pointed it out - that Loudon (as editor) could have in some way provided a route for unique Matthewian knowledge contamination of Blyth's brain - and therefore of Darwin's and Wallace's brains, pre-1858. Because we know both Darwin and Wallace read those Blyth articles before they replicated Matthew's theory.
+
+
+Eureka Hugh! Page 52 of Dempster 1996 does state that Loudon founded and edited the Magazine of Natural History in which Blyth's papers appeared. But Dempster completely fails to make the link that Loudon could have influenced Blyth through some kind of knowledge contamination.— Dr Mike Sutton (@Dysology) January 9, 2019
+
=Thanks! Now found it pages 47+ of hardback copy Hugh. But Eisley failed again to note any knowledge contamination (re his 1832 review) probability— Dr Mike Sutton (@Dysology) January 9, 2019
Dempster = yes and I see elsewhere (thank you) However, see my reply. He also failed to note any knowledge contamination probability
=But Loudon DID read Matthew. He did understand it. And he did then edit journal publishing Blyth's paper. Darwin did read Blyth as did Wallace - as well as Darwin meeting Blyth - several subtypes of typology for knowledge contamination Hugh all outlined in my paper on very topic. pic.twitter.com/k0tJXNu3i1— Dr Mike Sutton (@Dysology) January 9, 2019
=As with any route for contamination of any kind (original ideas/examples and terminology, germs or cross contamination in a lab) the possibility (or not) for contamination is important to ascertain. An editor can edit Hugh - can insert knowledge one way or another into the paper https://t.co/YucW1SG5tz— Dr Mike Sutton (@Dysology) January 9, 2019
-Also, Robert Chambers, who x2 cited Matthew's books pre 1858, and "put evolution in the air in the 19th century with the heretical Vestiges of Creation, was elected a fellow in 1844. He met and corresponded with Darwin and was Wallace's greatest influencer https://t.co/VQQ6hyioMP
— Dr Mike Sutton (@Dysology) January 11, 2019
