Get the facts

Get the facts on Darwin's plagiarism. Visit the Patrick Matthew website: PatrickMatthew.com

On Hugh Dower, Darwin, Matthew and John Loudon: On Matthewian Knowledge Contamination of Blyth and from him to Darwin and Wallace pre-1858

Hugh Dower has published (online) two excellent essays on Patrick Matthew and Darwin's replication of his oignation.

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
Dempster = yes and I see elsewhere (thank you) However, see my reply. He also failed to note any knowledge contamination probability

— Dr Mike Sutton (@Dysology) January 9, 2019

=

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

-

Debating the facts with Darwin cultists

No. He lied. Because he knew Matthew's book was prior read & cited by naturalists. He lied about that and then called it "my theory". That is plagiarizing science fraud by glory theft. It is misconduct that would have an academic fired in his day and ours: https://t.co/E8QuuMzsSL pic.twitter.com/uDIXOrZQR6

— Dr Mike Sutton (@Criminotweet) January 5, 2019

Top Articles on Darwin's Science Fraud by Lies and Plagiary

Five years have passed the detection of the world's greatest science fraud in 2014. Today, in January 2019 the New Data is still here despite desperate malicious Darwinist attempts. Top publications on the topic, all expert peer reviewed articles, here: https://t.co/GrZRsx4CkH pic.twitter.com/NBHndduB7f

— Dr Mike Sutton (@Dysology) January 4, 2019

Would someone calling themselves a Darwinist be best qualified to investigate and evaluate their beloved and cherished namesake's involvement in plagiarism and science fraud by glory theft?

Experts in science fraud & lies told by scientists to steal the glory of others are the best equipped (not biased & silly, assumption making, 'Saint Darwin of the Immaculate Conception of a Prior Published Theory' worshipping cultists) to judge that topic https://t.co/uDWRdLPKJd pic.twitter.com/k4YLPE0yOX

— Dr Mike Sutton (@Criminotweet) January 4, 2019

+

Someone calling themsleves Trumpist is hardly best qualified to weigh evidence for his corruption. Similarly, someone calling themselves "Darwinist" or "Darwinite" is hardly best suited to investigate his science fraud. Leave it to expert social scientists https://t.co/uDWRdLPKJd pic.twitter.com/Y9FcSfpFOW

— Dr Mike Sutton (@Criminotweet) January 4, 2019

Getting it right

Actually it's Matthew's theory, not Darwin's. Darwin stole it. That image and the ideas you attach to it do not represent the theory. They represent the earlier "development theory" promoted by Robert Chambers (friend of Darwin who also prior cited Matthew and influenced Darwin) https://t.co/xnoXEJhESX

— Dr Mike Sutton (@Criminotweet) January 3, 2019

Darwin believed in "God" - unlike Matthew

Why not ask Charles Darwin who kept what he called "the creator" in his Origin of Species? Unlike Patrick Matthew (the true originator of the theory Darwin & Wallace plagiarised)
1. Darwin (God believer) : https://t.co/k5JUgW0NuF
2. Matthew (mocking God) https://t.co/g9nQOBNk0C

— Dr Mike Sutton (@Criminotweet) January 2, 2019

Just how dim can Darwin worshippers be?

#fun in #TwentyNineteen pic.twitter.com/or95CEdFey

— BlessedVirginDarwin (@OnNavalTimber) December 31, 2018

Wikipedia Prats Fish Hooked by a Sprat

Try telling that the to the cultish Darwin worshippers deleting facts on that to hide the fact Patrick Matthew's original theory of macroevolution was read, understood a& deemed highly heretical.
Trapped by a social scientist https://t.co/eQvI2LPmqc
Prats fishhooked by a sprat!

— Supermythbuster (@supermyths) December 22, 2018

+

Xmas 1859, Burglar Darwin stole Patrick Matthew's prior published theory (#BigData newly informs us Darwin's & Wallace's friends and influencers had read and cited it years earlier!) "That's a nice book with the full theory of Macroevolution by natural selection. I'll have that." pic.twitter.com/AUciIK1kOz

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

+

The @BiolJLinnSoc Linnean Journal published Darwin's & Wallace's 1858 plagiarising replication of Matthew's 1831 prior published discovery, with no reference to Matthew. Now it plagiarizes my discovery that Wallace's editor Selby prior cited Matthew's book https://t.co/ir8k9ANa5w pic.twitter.com/WHtc63C2pl

— Dr Mike Sutton (@Dysology) November 12, 2018

+

Try telling that to @RichardDawkins and his rapt cult. They dumbly believe Darwin and Wallace had dual miracle immaculate conceptions of Matthew's prior published theory even though we now know their friends, Wallace's editor and their major influencers cited it years earlier. pic.twitter.com/CIYeNNHNsH

— Supermythbuster (@supermyths) December 26, 2018

+

And when they don't get it they lie and go totally raving bonkers. It's as though the painful truth they so despise acts as an enema that makes them soil themselves in public & spread it all around like a malicious & obscene retard's dirty protest: https://t.co/icMMOyZIgT 💩💩💩 https://t.co/AgUqbWB9XJ

— Dr Mike Sutton (@Criminotweet) December 26, 2018

+

Each as ludicrously implausible as the other. Yes. In other words @RichardDawkins & others in his Darwin deification cult believe their "Darwinist" namesake & Wallace had dually independent miraculous conceptions of Matthew's theory. That might be even sillier than Christianity. pic.twitter.com/o80LQS8Df4

— Supermythbuster (@supermyths) December 27, 2018

On Knowledge Contamination

Thinking about the preponderance of evidence for Patrick Matthew's (1831) influence upon Darwin's and Wallace's replication of his prior-published theory of evolution by natural selection (see my expert peer reviewed science article on that issue here). I wonder if the BBC Colditz series influenced Stephen Fry, via some kind of direct or indirect (saw it himself or else via friends, influencers, associates etc) knowledge contamination to come up with the name Captain Darling in the Blackadder comedy series? See usage of an officer apparently calling Captain Tim Downing "Darling" e.g. in Series 1, Episode 9 "Bribery and Corruption" in the BBC series - available in Boxset from Amazon.

Moreover, Rowan Atkinson had the idea of setting a new series of Blackadder in Colditz: (here)  

Your prayers have been answered with a Darwin worshippers worst nightmare. Beloved beardy was a lying and plagiarising git who always kept his God in the equation. Unlike the heretical Chartist leader atheist he plagiarized:
1. https://t.co/6K7Wm5UvfI
2. https://t.co/qPsB49TRcE pic.twitter.com/sqHQrhNyQs

— BlessedVirginDarwin (@OnNavalTimber) December 13, 2018

+

Whilst disingenuous Dawkins @RichardDawkins @rdfrs mocks them, this Xmas it is hilarious to note that Christians, Muslims and his very own credulous and dishonest cult of Darwin Worshippers are all rather obsessed with blessed virgin conceptions: https://t.co/6K7Wm5UvfI 🤣🤣🤣 pic.twitter.com/awqJZHfDZs

— BlessedVirginDarwin (@OnNavalTimber) December 20, 2018

+

🤣 https://t.co/GRTjHQwBBE

— BlessedVirginDarwin (@OnNavalTimber) December 21, 2018

+

We should disinter several folk from Westminster Abbey now newly know more about their heinous activities. We should dig up Charles Darwin to re-bury him somewhere more fitting for a science fraudster by lies & plagiarism

1. https://t.co/E8QuuMzsSL
2. https://t.co/3XMQL72PHL pic.twitter.com/sQ3aWE977S

— Dr Mike Sutton (@Criminotweet) December 21, 2018