Not so much a "missing link" as a new one?

 

Not so much a "missing link" as a new one?

Might a perversion or paraphilia yet overturn the notion of species?

There is an interesting "link" (no pun intended) between the work I have published on Charles Darwin's plagiarism of theory of evolution by natural selection and the book I edited on perversions and paraphilias.

Although I have published books ( Curtis Press ), a book chapter and several peer reviewed academic articles on Darwin's science fraud by plagiarism, I am not qualified enough to know how good a theory natural selection is for explaining the origin of new species. I am, of course, aware of the argument that it takes so long to branch from a common ancestor that absence of evidence of it actually happening is not evidence of absence it happened and happens. But what of two species that were said to have branched from a common ancestor and (so being separate species) cannot mate with one another? You know like chimpanzees and humans.

Professor Mark Griffiths informed me of the recent claim that the first progeny of a fox and dog has been discovered: Shelter Rescues Injured Animal—Turns Out To Be World's First Dog-Fox Hybrid - See https://theconversation.com/the-first-dog-fox-hybrid-points-to-the-growing-risk-to-wild-animals-of-domestic-species-213616

As Editor of Professor Griffith's forthcoming book (1st Nov 2024) on Perversions and Paraphilias it made me think of this story in the news: (Perversions and Parahilias link here https://curtis-press.com/product/sexual-perversions-and-paraphilias-an-a-to-z/

Might humans then one day also possibly produce progeny with a chimpanzee?  From a perverted "love" relationship (see the news story)

What would the Darwin worshiping empirical fact denial zombie horde have to say about that one I wonder. Of course, the claimed fox-dog "discovery" might yet be debunked. And we do know that the fox in question was a pampas fox. Can a pampas fox breed with a red fox and the progeny from that breed with a dog? I don't know. Does anyone? Time will tell. Facts always burrow to the top in the end.

Google A.I. is not fact denying the empirical data like corrupt Wikipedia is

 As human biased members of the fanatical Darwin Industry on the Wikipedia cult-encyclopedia site continue to brute censor the verifiable empirical data on  Darwin's and Wallace's plagiarism of Patrick Matthew's theory it is interesting that Google's A.I. is now allowing people to see links to the evidence.

Just Google "did Darwin plagiarise Patrick Matthew's theory" to verify this.

You cannot keep empirical data buried forever

 This is a lecture on Charles's Darwin's science fraud by plagiary.

The Patrick Matthew stuff is HERE in the video

Why Darwinist's are unscientific when it comes to the story of Matthew v Darwin and Wallace

 In 1620 Francis Bacon wrote a great treatise on academic confirmation bias, cognitive dissonance, associated irrational reasoning and cherry-picking pseudo-scholarship:

‘The human understanding when it has once adopted an opinion (either as being the received opinion or as being agreeable to itself) draws all things else to support and agree with it. And though there be a greater number and weight of instances to be found on the other side, yet these it either neglects and despises, or else by some distinction sets aside and rejects, in order that by this great and pernicious predetermination the authority of its former conclusions may remain inviolate.’

1. In order to test potential truths, or hypotheses, Bacon devised a method whereby scientists set up experiments to manipulate nature and attempt to prove their hypotheses wrong. 

2. Bacon who was an English philosopher, used inductive reasoning in an attempt to improve the mistakes made by Aristotle, and is known to promote (scientific) method. In other words, Bacon believed that scientists should use inductive (not deductive) reasoning.

3. This new way of thinking was to stop the old way of simply coming up with a hypothesis or knowledge claim, simply out of your own head, or one based simply on what others in positions of authority said.

This is the approach taken in all my research on whether or not Darwin/ Wallace were influenced by Patrick Matthew's prior published theory of evolution by natural selection.

On the basis of empirical data observation we can now use inductive (scientific) reasoning to absolutely disprove the knowledge claims made by Charles Darwin and Alfred Wallace that what they were forced to admit (forced by Matthew laying claim to his theory in the press in 1860) Patrick Matthew had in 1831 published the full and complete theory of evolution by natural selection that Darwin and Wallace claimed as their own independent conceptions. 

To date the scientific community has simply accepted the deductive story told by Darwin out of his own head that Matthew's theory went unread until Matthew laid claim to it. Darwin made this story up in order to deny that Matthew could in any way have possibly influenced either he or Wallace in their replication of Matthew's prior published work.

In fact, not only has it now been discovered by my original inductive research that at least 30 people (including influencers and facilitators of Darwin and Wallace had read and cited Matthew's theory (see Sutton 2022), we also know Darwin knowingly lied when he wrote this excuse. 

The discovery of Darwin's lies and the 30 who we know read Matthew's book, and who they were, and the roles they played influencing Darwin and Wallace and their own influencers and their influencer's influencers is empirical evidence. Unlike Darwin's explanation for his replication it is not simply made up out of my own head. Unlike the Darwinists writing to support the lucrative Darwin Industry, I have actually tested Darwin's claim to see if it could be proven wrong. That is the scientific method. The scientific method proves Darwin's claim wrong. The scientific method proves knowledge contamination was possible. I argue on the basis of further detailed evidence of what Darwin replicated that knowledge contamination and deliberate plagiary is proven beyond all reasonable doubt, and is certainly proven on the basis of reasonable probability (Sutton 2015).

Chartles Darwin told 100% proven lies about Patrick Matthew

 Click the lying Darwin card below

"Liar liar pants on fire, see you squirm see you perspire...." Listen to the whole song on YouTube: https://youtu.be/FIh-g_kVvWo?t=6

Another song to be played on the Patrick Matthew Violin: Darwin is 100% proven liar

 

On Groupthink

 

 https://patrickmatthew.com/

Why an orchardist and pomologist was the real discoverer of the theory of evolution by natural selection

 Nature finds a way

In this official Press Association video of The Patrick Matthew Violin being played in Scotland by Thoren Fergusson you can see a crab apple tree sapling sprouting from the fallen tree. Part of that old fallen tree was used to make the violin.

For centuries orchardists have grafted artificially selected new apple varieties onto crab apple root stock. Why? Because crab apple trees have been naturally selected by nature in the wild as most circumstance suited to survive. No wonder the orchardist and pomologist Patrick Matthew (1831) discovered the theory apex science fraudster Darwin (not an orchardist - just a liar and plagiarist) stole and called his own. 

Click the image, or click HERE to see and hear the violin being played.

The Darwin Myth

 

Charles Darwin was not an honest genius originator. That is a completely debunked Victorian Establishment myth. Empirical, independently verifiable data proves #Darwin was a serial lying, manipulative nasty plagiarizing git who was a genius science fraudster by lies and plagiary pic.twitter.com/JAeWivWx8s

— Mike Sutton (@mike_sutto73122) June 27, 2024

THE ANSWER IS 30

 

And so we see that the science problem of Darwin's and Wallace's claim of miraculous virgin brained dual independent conception of a prior published theory, which both admitted was essentially the same as their own, and which Wallace wrote was even more complete, is solved by disproving the consensus that 0 people read Matthew's theory before they replicated it. Hence, any notion that mysterious forces govern the affairs of humans with otherwise amazing improbable coincidences is disproven in this case. The solution to this particular Virgin Conception problem is 30, which is the difference between 0 and 30. Hence there were 30 routes for knowledge contamination to impregnate the brains of Darwin and Wallace with Matthew's bombshell breakthrough.

From this example, we can learn how to solve the science problem of the Christian belief claim in the virgin conception of Mary with Jesus. All we need to find out is how many probably fertile human males were in a position to impregnate her.