Don't forget (I'll have you know sir) 🤣🤣🤣 I am also the 103,551st most influential person in the world of all time. https://t.co/qKgiQDbqoZ pic.twitter.com/Qif6A67NdR
— Dr Mike Sutton (@Criminotweet) October 20, 2020
Please click the title above for the latest blog post
Thursday, 15 October 2020
Brian J. Ford on Plagiarism in Science and Holds up a copy of Nullius in Verba!
Tuesday, 13 October 2020
Emma Martin: Influential atheist evolutionist not even mentioned by Darwin the Plagiarist
More on the Wikipedia Editor, going by the name of "Dave Souza" of Wikipedia's Charles Darwin page. He is a moronic fact denial turd who deliberately and systematically deletes facts to protect the biased and corrupt Darwin Industry on Wikipedia see the facts of him trapped doing it in a sting operation Here. This is why Wikipedia is the worlds worse encyclopaedia - because it is run by totally biased hobby-horse losers in a suitable idiot-niche.
Try getting fact denier editors of Wikipedia to publish that fact. Dave Souza - their Darwin Industry fact denial turd -(censors facts on their Darwin page like a Nazi) will probably fraudulently pretend its not a fact to promote Darwin.
— Dr Mike Sutton (@Criminotweet) October 13, 2020
On Emma Martin
https://t.co/T8GVWDf9p6 https://t.co/nCkwgxXYoj pic.twitter.com/3cYvk45OrL
Artificial Intelligence Deems Mike Sutton 25th Most Influential Criminal Justice Expert in the World, of All Time!
Well that's rather a turn up for the book! I wonder why?
@Criminotweet Hi Mike. Hope all is well. I thought you might like to know you are the 24th most influential criminologist of all time... https://t.co/InHHOiZcMf https://t.co/6yTsfkME9A
— Paul Quinton (@pkquinton) October 12, 2020
Monday, 12 October 2020
Emma Martin: shared platforms with the Chartists and promoted evolition in the 1830s/40s
Patrick Matthew was a Scottish Chartist leader. Interestingly Emma Martin the socialist, materialist atheist, feminist often shared a platform with Chartists
This excellent book makes no mention of Patrick Matthew- but tells us about the feminist - bullied, beat up and arrested for promoting evolution over miraculous creation explanations for species. Ever heard of Emma Martin, a socialist atheist promoting evolution before Darwin? pic.twitter.com/0ItzHpC23V
— Dr Mike Sutton (@Criminotweet) October 12, 2020
This is a good book on Darwin's racism and more besides. Only the author seems to know nothing at all about Matthew. He quotes Chambers and Rafinesque many times however. And we know from my orignal F2B2 research (Sutton 2014) that Chambers cited Matthew twice pre 1858, was apparently first to be second in 1858/9 with Matthew's original term "natural process of selection" and Rafinesque was apparently first to be second with Matthew's phrase/terms "long continued selection" and "evinced in the genus".
Tuesday, 6 October 2020
Brian J. Ford is Inducted to the Patrick Matthew Website
Brian J. Ford is on PatrickMattew.com
Top scientist Brian J. Ford's science publications on Charles Darwin's Plagiarism of Patrick Matthew's Prior Published Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection [@CurtisPress_ @brianjford] on the Patrick Matthew website: https://t.co/MWtNWYo0eC
— Dr Mike Sutton (@Criminotweet) October 6, 2020
Brian J. Ford on Charles Darwin's Plagiarism of Patrick Matthew's Prior Published Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection
'Charles Darwin... writing his thesis at exactly its most fashionistic time , when everyone was discussing it. He wasn't the first to propose his particular interpretation, of course, but his use of fashionism and the clothing of the argument in detaied observations of animals in general made the whole project an obvious winner.'
Ford, B. J. (1971. p 142) Nonscience, Wolfe Publishing Ltd. London
Ford built upon this critical observation in 2011 in an article entitled Darwin: The Microscopist Who Didn't Discover Evolution. By Brian J. Ford. The Microscope. 59:3, 2011. pp 129-137.
In that article Ford wrote:
'Darwin neither discovered evolution as a general concept, nor did he discover evolution by natural selection.'
And:
'Darwin is set on a pedestal as though he were Einstein or Copernicus, and anyone doubting adherence to this conventional view risks ostracism. In science, as much as in religion, we can find extreme views that fly in the face of realities.' Click here to read that article.
In October 2020 Ford's Nonscience was updated and re-published by the science publisher Curtis Press
In this new edition Ford (2020, pp 72-73) goes much further to reveal that Darwin plagiarised the entire theory from Patrick Matthew's (1831) book:'Some 27 years earlier, the theory had been published by someone Darwin didn't know - Patrick Matthew. ... Darwin omitted mention of these earlier investigators when he wrote his book. ...Matthew on reading Darwin's words was was horrified and he complained. Charles Darwin wrote back: "I freely acknowledge that Mr Matthew has anticipated by many years the explanation which I have offered on the origin of species under the name of natural selection. If another edition of my book is called for, I will insert a notice to the foregoing effect." He didn't. Three editions of Darwin's book came out before Matthew's name crept in - and that is the secret of Darwin's success. His theory wasn't original, but he didn't say so. The earlier publications had caused growing interest in evolution, so that - by the time the Origin of Species appeared - everybody wanted to know more. That's the rule. Fashionism is what matters. Not originality. And certainly not integrity.'
In 2020 Ford purchase, read, and then reviewed Nullius in Verba: Darwin's greatest secret on Amazon. Here.
Darwin in his (1860) reply to Matthew in the Gardener's Chronicle fully admitted he had replicated Matthew's prior published theory: "" I have been much interested by Mr. Patrick Matthew’s communication in the Number of your Paper, dated April 7th. I freely acknowledge that Mr. Matthew has anticipated by many years the explanation which I have offered of the origin of species, under the name of natural selection." Darwin (1861) did the same from the third edition onwards of his book the Origin of Species: Darwin replicated and admitted it when he 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 in the Linnean Journal and as that enlarged on in the present volume." Moreover, as if that is not enough to show what utter tripe the Dagg and Derry Show is Darwin himself, being one of the world's three foremost experts of all time on natural selection (those three being Matthew. Darwin and Wallace), acknowledged this in a letter to Patrick Matthew dated 13th June 1862: “I presume I have the pleasure of addressing the author of the work on Naval Architecture and the first enunciator of the theory of Natural Selection.”
For his part, Wallace in (1879a) fully admitted that he knew Matthew got there first with the entire thing he and "To my mind your quotations from Mr. Patrick Matthew are the most remarkable things in your whole book, because he appears to have completely anticipated the main ideas both of the "Origin of Species" & of "Life & Habitat".Aso in 1879b Wallace wrote: "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, and in giving almost the whole of what Mr. Matthew has written on the subject Mr. Butler will have helped to call attention to one of the most original thinkers of the first half of the 19th century."
In their desperate fact denial smog-article Dagg and Derry - arguably - misrepresent what I wrote on page 6 of my book. They write:
"Sutton (2017: 6) asserted that Matthew’s theory only differed from Darwin’s and Wallace’s in the occurrence of global catastrophes"
What I actually write on page 6 of my 2017 book is (bold and underlined emphasis added here):
"Matthew, quite correctly allowed for geological and meteorological catastrophes in his model, but Darwin and Wallace never. Matthew's original theory of macroevolution by natural selection is, in every other relevant way, apart from that great superiority, virtually the same as Darwin's and Wallace's later versions."
And relevant here - in the context of my entire book and even the rest of the content of that page - is its relevance to the evidence that Darwin and Wallace plagiarised Matthew's 1831 original theory, his original terminology and his original and highly idiosyncratic explanatory analogies.
Leading Biologist Brian J Ford @brianjford read and then reviews my book "Nullius in Verba: Darwin's greatest secret" https://t.co/CLKiPRJoQT
— Dr Mike Sutton (@Criminotweet) October 4, 2020
Proper academics like Brian J. Ford know what plagiarism is. Fact denial Darwin fanatics don't want you to know the bombshell 💣facts. pic.twitter.com/r9frnv8O0U
The image of page 6 of my book below sets the record straight on what Dagg and Derry are up to in misrepresenting my research in their desperate 2020 article
Typical of Derry, he posts his savaging reviews of "The Golden Rule" - his supposed address - all over the Internet e.g. also on Trip Adviser (archived here for evidence).
The disgraced plagiarism facilitating @BiolJLinnSoc published by @OxUniPress is at it again. This time allowing a malicious, serially dishnobscene cyberstalker & his plagiarist associate to misrepresent my research in order to keep the Patrick Matthew Supermyth going: https://t.co/8xWt2ilXnV
— Dr Mike Sutton (@Criminotweet) October 4, 2020
.
.
Indeed, we know plagiarism from (ahem) personal experience. Plagiarists unwittingly admit two key facts: first, they can't think of anything to do by themselves, and secondly, they know your ideas are far better than theirs. Backhanded it may be, but it's a compliment!
— brianjford (@brianjford) October 4, 2020
Fake news is one thing, what about fake history?
What kind of society, what kind of organisation, what kind of person, wants a fake history of science?
In a world increasingly influenced by lethal fake news, we do not need a fake history of science. Do we? https://t.co/yS7U9fXQa7 pic.twitter.com/CK7hdampZQ
— Dr Mike Sutton (@Criminotweet) October 6, 2020
Saturday, 3 October 2020
Biological Journal of the Linnean Society publishes more Absolute Claptrap
Everyone knows Charles Darwin’s idea of ‘survival of the fittest', but Brian J Ford says the theory was never Darwin’s.
— Curtis Press (@CurtisPress_) September 28, 2020
Read more in Nonscience Returns. Preorder now: https://t.co/aj6UPOoVTD #nonscience #brianjford #sciencepublisher #nonfiction #mustread pic.twitter.com/ES4k3mTpMb
More amazing fact denial desperate codswallop published in 2020 in the same journal, by descent, that, back in 1858, published Darwin's and Wallace's plagiarism of Matthew's original theory. This is a ludicrous attempt to divert attention from the verfiable facts of the newly discovered data (e.g. Sutton 2015) that proves Darwin and Wallace plagiarised Matthew's (1831) prior published theory. Darwin worshipping malicious idiots Derry and Dagg are arguing - in a ludicrous attempt to divert attention from Darwin's newly proven plagiarism of Matthew - Matthew's theory was not essentially the same as Darwin's even though both Darwin (1860) and Wallace (1879) said it was. As though Dagg the plagiarist of my research and Derry the obscene harasser and cyberstalker (facts of their disgraceful behaviour are here) know more than Darwin and Wallace did about their own (replicating) work. The Biological Journal of the Linnean Society is now total joke. Birds of a feather certainty flock together. The facts of Dagg's plagiarism of my research in that journal are here.
Darwin in his (1860) reply to Matthew in the Gardener's Chronicle fully admitted he had replicated Matthew's prior published theory: "" I have been much interested by Mr. Patrick Matthew’s communication in the Number of your Paper, dated April 7th. I freely acknowledge that Mr. Matthew has anticipated by many years the explanation which I have offered of the origin of species, under the name of natural selection." Darwin (1861) did the same from the third edition onwards of his book the Origin of Species: Darwin replicated and admitted it when he 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 in the Linnean Journal and as that enlarged on in the present volume." Moreover, as if that is not enough to show what utter tripe the Dagg and Derry Show is Darwin himself, being one of the world's three foremost experts of all time on natural selection (those three being Matthew. Darwin and Wallace), acknowledged this in a letter to Patrick Matthew dated 13th June 1862: “I presume I have the pleasure of addressing the author of the work on Naval Architecture and the first enunciator of the theory of Natural Selection.”
For his part, Wallace in (1879a) fully admitted that he knew Matthew got there first with the entire thing he and "To my mind your quotations from Mr. Patrick Matthew are the most remarkable things in your whole book, because he appears to have completely anticipated the main ideas both of the "Origin of Species" & of "Life & Habitat".Aso in 1879b Wallace wrote: "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, and in giving almost the whole of what Mr. Matthew has written on the subject Mr. Butler will have helped to call attention to one of the most original thinkers of the first half of the 19th century."
In their desperate fact denial smog-article Dagg and Derry - arguably - misrepresent what I wrote on page 6 of my book. They write:
"Sutton (2017: 6) asserted that Matthew’s theory only differed from Darwin’s and Wallace’s in the occurrence of global catastrophes"
What I actually write on page 6 of my 2017 book is (bold and underlined emphasis added here):
"Matthew, quite correctly allowed for geological and meteorological catastrophes in his model, but Darwin and Wallace never. Matthew's original theory of macroevolution by natural selection is, in every other relevant way, apart from that great superiority, virtually the same as Darwin's and Wallace's later versions."
And relevant here - in the context of my entire book and even the rest of the content of that page - is its relevance to the evidence that Darwin and Wallace plagiarised Matthew's 1831 original theory, his original terminology and his original and highly idiosyncratic explanatory analogies.
Leading Biologist Brian J Ford @brianjford read and then reviews my book "Nullius in Verba: Darwin's greatest secret" https://t.co/CLKiPRJoQT
The image of page 6 of my book below sets the record straight on what Dagg and Derry are up to in misrepresenting my research in their desperate 2020 article
Typical of Derry, he posts his savaging reviews of "The Golden Rule" - his supposed address - all over the Internet e.g. also on Trip Adviser (archived here for evidence).
Brute Censorship of Verifiable Facts about Darwin and Patrick Matthew
Amazon has not quite managed to completely brute censorship facts of my original review of Darwin's Racism'. I expect it will soon, although I have archived it for scholars interested in censorship of facts.
— Dr Mike Sutton (@Criminotweet) October 3, 2020
Please try adding a comment to it folks.
https://t.co/cysDMhw8Zd
.
The original review that Amazon deleted on Leon Zitzer's book Darwin's Racismis archived HERE for those interested in studying brute censorship of independently verifiable facts.
Friday, 2 October 2020
Darwin did plagiarise Matthew's prior published theory, name for it and highly idiosyncratic explanatory examples
We know there is an overwhelming abundance of evidence that Darwin plagiarised Patrick Matthew's prominently prior published (1831) theory of macroevolution by natural selection. The images below, regarding this inconvertible fact (hated by wilfully ignorant, fact denial, Darwin fanatics everywhere), are from my book Nullius in Verba: Darwin's greatest secret
"… in an investigation of this kind, in the absence of Darwin’s fingerprints on a copy of Matthew’s book, a circumstantial case has to be built which appeals to concepts such as ‘preponderance of evidence’ or ‘reasonable doubt’. This is not to say the case is imagined – the case is built on verifiable evidence.I would ask readers to imagine themselves as a juror. Suppose Emma in village A invents the wheel. Several people in villages B, C, D and E see the wheel and know about it. There are paths from all those villages to village F that are known to be in use. Daniel in village F later, apparently independently, invents the wheel. Not only that but Daniel’s wheel, which is of course the same concept, is made of the same materials and has similar features to Emma’s wheel. Daniel has been friends with, and talked to, some of the people in those other villages, who we know have seen the wheel. They know he is working on a wheel concept. When challenged by Emma, Daniel claims nobody in his sphere knew about her wheel, but this can be shown to be false, ie they did know. Daniel is then credited with inventing the wheel. Members of the jury …The wheel analogy isn’t perfect, but that is in essence the case that Dr Sutton builds, and he isn’t saying “might have read Matthew” or “might have known Darwin”, he is showing us irrefutable proof that you can see for yourself if you have internet access. There are other aspects to the argument which give further support, which you will find in the book.So, I find the argument completely persuasive."
And so we can be confident that the plagiarism happened. We can say that and back it up with the overwhelming evidence above, and even more besides, but without a smoking gun we cannot know exactly when or how the knowledge contamination happened. Irrational Darwin fanatics who insist that proper scholars must supply them with the evidence for exactly how and when the contamination occurred - for the other evidence it did happen be taken seriously by them - ignore the logic of their own hero when it comes to such questions of evidence:
Seven years after the publication of Matthew's (1831) book On Naval Timber and Arboriculture, in his Notebook E, (1838-1839) Darwin wrote:
"It is one thing to prove that a thing has been so, & another to show how it came to be so."
Leon Zitzer (2017) explains how members of the scientific establishment (excluding Darwin's understanding cited above) stupidly failed to understand that you do not have to prove how a thing happened to prove, beyond reasonable doubt, or prove on a balance of reasonable probabilities that a thing did happen:
"Mainstream scientists of the time deployed a phony outrage at the anonymous author of Vestiges of the Natural History of Creation, ridiculing him as an amateur scientist who did not understand science—a tactic that was so effective, it clings to him to this day. I call their outrage phony because what truly annoyed them about his work, which they dared not openly admit, was that in fact he had done a great job at assembling the evidence to prove that development or evolution was happening, meaning it was more probable than special creation. He put them to shame and they could not bear to admit it. The one aspect of their outrage that was not phony was how incensed they were that he would not go away. This truly upset them. Despite their attacks and intense loathing of him, his book went through ten editions by 1853 and kept getting better and better. Scientists were fuming."
(from "A Short but Full Book on Darwin’s Racism" by Leon Zitzer)