ChatGPT AI Versus The Darwin Myth

 I spent some time with an AI expert last night. We opened Chat GPT and found that it wants to present the consensus that Matthew did not influence Darwin. But the key word it uses is "consensus". Under direction from the AI expert, (someone who works with it in a major merchant bank in London. I asked the AI to decide for itself based on all the data sources it has searched and to reach a decision based on the now known evidence (which will include the New Big Data findings). It concluded for itself - against the consensus which claims that Matthew did not influence Darwin - that in fact Matthew did indirectly influence Darwin. And that is one of the reachable conclusions in my book on indirect "knowledge contamination". I think this is something that is newsworthy somewhere and is at the very least a trumping argument against the consensus that is "The Darwin Industry" spin that Darwin was in no way influenced by Matthew. see the images below and click them to be able to better read the words.

A.I. reasons that Darwin might have lied about what he knew about the prior readership (prior to his and Wallace's\1858 papers read before the Linnean society that each replicated Matthew's (1831) prior published theory and claimed they arrived at it independently of one another or of anyone else). See the image below.

However, there is a problem with some of this response and it is unclear why ChatGPT made the mistake about Wells. It seems to have confused Well's pre 1831 publication about human skin pigmentation with Matthew's later theory of evolution by natural selection. Well's paper merely reasoned that human skin tone would evolve in a population according to certain climates.

When asked where it got the Well's story from it corrected itself. The A.I. appears sloppy in some areas for some reason. But when asked to verify a claim it can correct itself. See the image below. Note the A.I. has "reasoned", if that is close to what an A.I. algorithm does with the patterns it sees and interprets in text, on the empirical data evidence that Darwin lied about Patrick Matthew. Therefore we can see that when biased human Darwin worship is taken out of the process that A.I. identifies that there is clear evidence Darwin was a liar about Matthew according to all logical definitions of what a lie is. Otherwise it would have said "no" Darwin did not lie because there is no evidence for such a claim. But there is evidence and the A.I. takes it into account. The corrupt biased Darwin Industry censors such direct questions and data. Whereas ChatGPT will never accept the argument that black is white (try it and see) but the corrupt Darwin Industry will make just such a daft argument on the question of the empirical evidence Darwin lied and plagiarized. In la la Darwin Land a lie is not a lie if it came from Darwin's pen and clear evidence of plagiarism is not plagiarism if it came from Darwin's pen. Clearly, ChatGPT A.I. is not part of the demented anti-empirical data Darwin Industry.

Below we see in the image that asking the best question in a certain way that the AI has reached a conclusion by itself that is opposite to the consensus in the Matthew v Darwin story. I think this is a major finding. See the images screen shot below.

When the AI is told very specifically about the editions of the books to ensure we are not talking about post 1859 editions of the origin of Species (because Darwin did write to deny Matthew's influence in later editions) we get the same result. see first image below. To be clear, however if the word arboriculture is solely dropped from the question it answers "Minimally".  So the AI is, arguably, far from perfect in weighing things sensibly from a human academic perspective. Nevertheless, this is interesting as a challenge to the current bone headed highly biased and unscientific orthodox consensus that Matthew's 1831 published theory in no way influenced Darwin's 1859 Origin of Species.

Click the images in order to best read the text.

ChatGPT was asked to think about the empirical data on his issue, and what it means even further a day later. See the response below

Chat GPT reasons that the question of Matthew's influence on Darwin is important

Click the images in order to better read the text.

When we ask another AI called MyAI (given the handle Lorax) on Snapchat  the question the answer is even more definitive that Darwin was influenced by Matthew. See the image below:

But it can also be more reserved;

The Big Question on whether A.I. thinks - on the basis of all the empirical evidence - the scientific community will come to recognize that Patrick Matthew influenced Darwin before 1858. The answer is yes!

The next day 31 August 2023 ChatGPT has broken its promise to answer another exact same question the exact same way. And it admits it and corrects its mistake/or lie?

So to be clear the A.I. ChatGPT is also asked next:

The blog post is partly archived HERE https://archive.ph/4clln

The Truth of Darwin's Lies and How his Pals Helped Him Plagiarise the Full, Complete and Appreciable Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection from Patrick Matthew

Read just a tiny fraction of the archived empirical data of Darwin's science fraud by plagiary lies and the role of his friends in helping him to do it. Here. https://archive.is/wYNT5

Darwin Industry Will Publish Any Old Desperate Silly Book Review Of Science Fraud. Why?

 Anyone who has actually read the book "Science Fraud: Darwin's Plagiarism of Patrick Matthew's Theory" will know exactly how desperately pseudo scholarly some fake book reviews of it are. These fake reviews side-step (do not mention at all) the most important explanations about the data in the book and in so doing they deliberately set out to mischievously misrepresent what is written to explain the context of the data. Moreover, they purposely fail to mention the most important new data discovered in order to misrepresent the book in a most seemingly deliberate attempt that people will not read the book and learn the truth about Darwin's and Wallace's deliberate plagiarism of Patrick Matthew. 

Should we expect more of  dysological Darwin Super-fans and their facilitators and enablers?

Science and the history of science will judge such desperation and hold the perpetrators up for eternal ridicule as a warning to others not to deny facts in order to promote a weird agenda driven pseudo history of science and discovery.

You have to laugh.

Patrick Matthew v Charles Darwin

 Get the truth on the story of Patrick Matthew, Charles Darwin and the stooge Alfred Wallace at PatrickMatthew.com the definitive website on the world's greatest science fraud by plagiary and lies.

What does the First Flight Documentary have to do with the Darwin and Wallace Myth?

 The "Museum Industry" is incredibly corrupt. They employ pseudo-scientific curators to missell completely fact-debunked stories to the public in order to pay for their erroneous exhibits.

We all know the Museum of Natural History, London is still promoting the myth of Darwin and Wallace at the expense of the empirical data facts of their proven plagiarism and Darwin's serial lies to cover it up. 

The Smithsonian is just one other culprit. They are fact denying to keep alive the Wright Brothers story that is in fact completely demolished by empirical data they refuse to deal with. Check it all out in this superb documentary "First Flight" HERE .

Watch the video then read the silly delusional fact denial nonsense written by so many Wright Brother outraged superfans on the YouTube comments on it.

We see this empirical fact denial behaviour all the time when it busts beloved myths,

Why is the Darwin Industry like the Diesel car Industry?

 For years the car industry (including big makers such as Mercedes and Volkswagen and many more) misled the world by telling them misinformation (deliberate sly falsehoods/lies) that the cars were cleaner in terms of emissions than they actually are (e.g. here and archived here).

Similarly, by way of  explanatory analogy, the "Darwin Industry" has missold the story of Darwin and Matthew to the world and at the time of writing, in the teeth of empirical data that completely disproves it they continue to do so  - even completely taking over the Darwin and Matthew pages of Wikipedia with official editors of the Darwin Industry publishing absolute lies and falsehoods and deleting the proven and fully evidenced empirical data led facts about Darwin's plagiarism and 100% proven serial lying about it in an attempt to rebury it back into oblivion (see the evidence of Wikipedia fraud here).

A brief video on just some of the data that proves the Darwin Indusry is misselling Darwin here

View another video of the book on Amazon.com (here).

Volkswagen (VW) were major perpetrators of the clean diesel dysology. I love this old VW advert . 

The Anti-Depressant SSRI Story and the Darwin Story v the Patrick Matthew Facts

When millions of depressed people were told by the "expert" medical profession to take selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) they were told they had an inbalance in their brain and the drug would restore the balance here (archived page). In reality, that was just an intuitive hypothesis and there is no empirical evidence to support it.

Many billions of people for the last 160+ years were told by so called "expert" biologists and science historians that although Patrick Matthew was first into published print with the full theory of evolution by natural selection that no one had read it and certainly not anyone connected to Darwin and Wallace (1858/59). This zero evidenced claim is used to claim in turn that Darwin and Wallace each replicated it independently of one another and of  Patrick Matthew. These "experts" also told the world that Darwin was extraordinarily honest and did not lie when he claimed he had not seen Matthew's theory before replicating it. In reality many people, read and cited Matthew's (1831) book containing his theory years before 1858. Some were key influencer's of Darwin and Wallace and others were their influencer's influencers. Moreover Darwin is absolutely 100% proven to have lied that no one read Matthew's book and the theory in it before he and Wallace replicated it, because before he told that lie Darwin was very clearly informed directly that naturalists he and Wallace knew had read it and one even reviewed it and mentioned the theory in print in 1832.

It is not scientific to make an unevidenced claim to seek to get people to believe it, without admitting you have zero empirical evidence for your claim.

We know it can take years for those duped into taking SSRI to get themselves off the drugs that have very bad side effects. Similarly, it will perhaps take years for many Darwin addicts to be able to get themselves off their mad Darwin dysology habit. 

Dysolgy of this unevidenced kind can be absolutely lethal. Just check out the Masks Supermyth to see.

The empirical evidence of the real Patrick Matthew story can be found in the Curtis Press book "Science Fraud". HERE.

Facts are driving Darwin worshipers raving bonkers

Busting of the myth of The Stradivarius upsets people as much as the busting of the myth of Darwin

In one experiment, modern violins and old Stradivarius violins and a Giuseppe del Gesù Guarneri violin were played behind a curtain for experts to judge which sounded the best. And guess what: they voted a Stradivarius the worst of the bunch! Moreover in a large blind testing experiment audiences preferred certain modern violins over the certain Stradivarius violins played at the time (here). Archived here.

Watch the documentary from this relevant point (but the whole documentary is well worth a watch).

The findings outraged the so-called "expert" violin industry, just like the busting of the Darwin myth has so upset blind faith pseudo-scientific Darwin fans everywhere.

Does the truth sometimes do more harm than a lie? Is that what these short sighted credulous idiots think? Do they actually think that it does? If so, why are they not on the side of truth? Maybe it's just the malevolent corrupt Darwin Industry that is engaging in post-truth misinformation on this topic to save face and make more money?

Delusional USA Republicans are the same as Delusional Darwin Fans

 Today a CNN poll reveals "Overall, 61% of Americans say Biden did legitimately win enough votes to win the presidency, and 38% believe that he did not. Among registered voters who say they cast a ballot for Trump in 2020, 75% say they have doubts about Biden’s legitimacy."

In face of the empirical data, 75% of those who voted for Trump today think he actually won the election. 

Today, the corrupt Darwin industry and independent delusional Darwin super-fans lacking even the most basic critical thinking abilities is working the same as Trump's Republican party to convince gullible believers in their hero that he is innocent of fraud, lies and corruption. 

The proven empirical facts Darwin fans will not deal honestly with regarding Charles Darwin's proven plagiarism and serial lies about it are all in "Science Fraud" the book, and in a forthcoming science end ethics book published by one of the worlds top academic publishers (watch this space for its release in the Autumn of 2023).

Linnean Society Facilitates a Sly Plagiarist Who Claims Darwin Was Not a Plagiarist

 The article by "Dagg the Plagiarist" that slyly plagiarizes Sutton's  Selby cited Matthew discovery, deliberately sidesteps all the main New Data findings to try to argue Darwin was not a plagiarist. Disgrace to science, but it's not science anyway, because its post-truth fact denial Putinesque, Trumpesque, Borisesque utter delusional claptrap.

Read the propaganda nonsense here and decide for yourself if you are in possession of the New Data Dagg slyly ignores HERE

You can get all the new data HERE - and also read more about Dagg's plagiarism and the dysology of the Linnean Society Darwin worship cult.