Plagiarising Science Fraud
Newly Discovered Facts, Published in Peer Reviewed Science Journals, Mean Charles Darwin is a 100 Per Cent Proven Lying, Plagiarising Science Fraudster by Glory Theft of Patrick Matthew's Prior-Published Conception of the Hypothesis of Macro Evolution by Natural Selection
Thursday 14 April 2016
Wednesday 13 April 2016
Science is a way to not get fooled
 |
| Dr Karl Kruszelnicki |
Dr Karl, as he is popularly known, was giving a talk on all things science. David Mann, a mathematician and computer science expert, wrote a letter to me to explain what happened next:
"What a coincidence" I thought, because not only am I a huge fan of Dr Karl, but I also happened to have a copy of one of his many books with me! Not just any book you understand, but the one that contains a chapter on Sutton's famous debunking of the Popeye myth!After an hour or so of being dazzled by Dr Karl's journey through the amazing world of science, I had a quick chat with him, and I mentioned you and he replied "Mike Sutton? Mike Sutton! I know that name!" At which point I produced the book, and luckily he had a pen to sign it with."
 |
| Many Great Scientists have Presented their work at the Royal Institution |
The "Popeye Myth" is classed as a supermyth - because it is a myth, created in good faith, about another myth.
 |
| Dr Karl Kruszelnicki 2015, personal note to Dr Mike Sutton |
Of course, Dr Karl is right "Science is a way to not get fooled." But where supermyths are concerned it was bad science, and lack of adherence to scientific rational skepticism, that led to their creation and deep entrenchment by scientists. However, it was strict adherence to scientific principles - particularly three favourites of mine: "Nullius in Verba", "Sutton's Law" and "Follow the Data", which enabled me to debunk those myths, You can see several examples of known supermyths on my website Supermyths.com .
The spinach supermyth is interesting, ironic and amusingly educational, but I believe the most important and the most serous Supermyth so far discovered is the Patrick Matthew Supermyth.
The spinach supermyth is interesting, ironic and amusingly educational, but I believe the most important and the most serous Supermyth so far discovered is the Patrick Matthew Supermyth.
Mike SuttonAttribution
Page Signed for Mike Sutton: with message "Science is a way to not get fooled",
Tuesday 12 April 2016
Marketing Darwin
— Supermythbuster (@supermyths) April 12, 2016
Read what the bastard has found out: Here.
On Darwin's Notebooks and Private Essays
Given that he never began them until 1837, and the appearance of the concept of natural selection does not even vaguely appear in them until 1842, Darwin’s private essays and notebooks do not – contrary to Bowler’s (2003, p. 158) assertion - “…confirm that he drew no inspiration from Matthew or any of the other alleged precursors”. All they actually can ‘confirm’ in that regard is that Darwin "claimed", by the dates written on them alone, that he started writing these notebooks six years after Matthew’s (1831) book was published, and then only after several influential naturalists, who he actually knew, cited it and the original ideas in it. What survives on the pages that not have been torn out of Darwin’s notebooks – and many pages in them have been so destroyed or removed, is that Matthew’s name is not found in any of them. What they further do confirm is that Darwin did read five publications that cited Matthew’s (1831) book (Sutton 2014a). In his 1844 private essay, Darwin replicated Matthew’s original natural versus artificial selection analogy of differences (Sutton 2014a) and demonstrated it by further replicating Matthew’s original trees grown in forests versus those grown in nurseries example (Eiseley (1979). Consequently, the newly discovered facts, and a rational interpretation of their significance, overturns mere biased beliefs to confirm that what we might term ‘Matthewian knowledge contamination’ can no longer be ruled out in the history of discovery of natural selection.
This issue is discussed in far greater depth-with reference to the facts and with full references to sources to arrive at a rather astounding conclusion in my peer reviewed article: (Sutton 2106) On Knowledge Contamination: New Data Challenges Claims of Darwin’s and Wallace’s Independent Conceptions of Matthew’s Prior-Published Hypothesis
From "On Knowledge Contamination" (Sutton 2106):
As an argument that reliable evidence exists to disconfirm evidence that
Matthew influenced Darwin, Bowler argues: “Darwin’s notebooks confirm that
he drew no inspiration from Matthew or any of the other alleged precursors”.
Bowler’s seemingly compellingly plausible argument is worthy of further
examination in light of the independently verifiable facts. And, in light of the
New Data about who we newly know did read the ideas in Matthew’s book, and
most importantly when they read them, these actual facts confirm that Bowler’s
argument is rendered redundant.
To begin with, there is little on natural selection, beyond a mere hint at it, in
Darwin’s (1837) private “Zoonomia” notebook. Not until his private essays
(1842, 1844), do we see Darwin’s acknowledgement of evidence for the general
process of natural selection. By 1842, Loudon had cited Matthew’s book many
times following his 1832 review. And 1842 was the same year in which Selby
cited Matthew. But it was not until Darwin’s jointly presented paper with Wallace
that the full hypothesis, which Matthew had prior-published, was written
down by Darwin.
Following Matthew’s (1860) first priority claiming letter in The Gardeners’ |
| Darwin's "Zoonomia" Notebook B |
Chronicle, of 7th April, Darwin wrote on 10th April to his friend Lyell that he
had ordered a copy of Matthew’s book. This might be taken as strong confirmatory
evidence that Darwin had never read Matthew’s book or been influenced by
its original contents. Rationally, it is nothing of the sort. Darwin’s letter to Lyell
merely proves, and only then if the proven liar Darwin was then telling the truth,
that he did not have a copy of Matthew’s book in his possession in 1860. Darwin
could easily have prior-borrowed a copy from an associate and made extensive
notes. Or been supplied by others with such extensive notes. He could
just have easily borrowed a copy many years earlier from the London Library,
which was founded in 1841, the same year Darwin joined, and the year before
he penned his private 1842 essay on natural selection. Or Darwin might have
borrowed a copy of Matthew’s book years earlier from Mudie’s Library — founded
in 1842 — because he was a noted keen member of both lending libraries.
There is no mention of Matthew’s (1831) book in any of Darwin’s (1838)
handwritten Books to Read and Books Read private notebooks until Matthew’s
(1860) claim to priority letter was published in The Gardeners’ Chronicle.
However, the old adage that absence of evidence is not evidence of absence,
is particularly pertinent in this particular case in light of the new hard
evidence unearthed from the publication record of Darwin’s bad faith regarding
his account of the readership of Matthew’s book. Rationally, therefore, we should,
as objective scholars, no longer simply assume that Darwin did everything
in good faith. The fact of the matter is, and it is facts we must now focus on, that
there is no proof, other than the dates he wrote on them in the privacy of his own
home, that those dates on Darwin’s notebooks and private essays were honestly
written and are therefore accurate. Furthermore, it is a fact that Darwin’s notebooks
are devoid of many pages — due to them having been torn out — and
that much of the remaining text in them has been scribbled out so as to deliberately
render it completely illegible.
So what do the facts enable us to know for sure about the latest possible date
when Darwin’s private notebooks and essays were written? The following bullet-point
timeline of evidence provides the detailed answers:
•On 25th June 1858, Darwin wrote to Lyell that Wallace’s Ternate paper
had nothing in it that was not in his 1844 private essay, which he
claims Hooker read a dozen years earlier. Only if Darwin was telling
the truth in this particular case, that would mean Hooker could only
have read it as early as 1846.
• 29 June 1858 Darwin writes to Joseph Hooker: “But you are too generous
to sacrifice so much time & kindness. — It is most generous,
most kind. I send sketch of 1844 solely that you may see by your own
handwriting that you did read it”. This letter, however, is not proof of
the date Hooker read it and no proof of the date it was given to him, because
— as explained below — all we have is a letter of 1845, which is
a year after the publication of Chambers’s (1844) Vestiges, in which
Darwin is claiming he had earlier written some kind of private essay,
which he merely claims Hooker had earlier read. The Darwin Correspondence
Project tells us what Darwin had written on that essay, known
as the “sketch of 1844”: “CD refers to the extensive table of contents
prefixed to the fair copy of his essay of 1844 (DAR 113). On the third
(unnumbered) page, he wrote in ink: «This was sketched in 1839 & copied
out in full, as here written & read by you in 1844». CD probably
refers to an occasion in 1845 when he invited Hooker to read his manuscript
(Correspondence vol. 3, letter to J.D. Hooker, [5 or 12 November
1845]). See also n. 4, above”. Significantly, what the Darwin Correspondence
site does not emphasise is that Hooker could not have read
something written by Darwin in 1844 when he only first told Hooker
about its existence in 1845! He did so in a letter to Hooker of 5 or 12
November 1845: “I wish I could get you sometime hence to look over
a rough sketch (well copied) on this subject, but it is too impudent a request”.
•There is no evidence Hooker replied to confirm any of this. There is no
evidence at all that Darwin subsequently sent Hooker the sketch in the
1840’s. To reiterate: There is no direct evidence at all (other than Darwin’s
1858 letter telling Hooker he did read it a year before Darwin
even mentioned it to him!). There is no supporting letter of reply from
Hooker. So no evidence exists that Hooker saw the essay earlier than
1858! The earliest solid dated evidence we have that Darwin actually
had written any kind of essay is that he sent a mere abstract of one to
Gray in 1857!
• On 5th September 1857, Darwin wrote to Gray: “You will, perhaps,
think it paltry in me, when I ask you not to mention my doctrine; the
reason is, if anyone, like the Author of the Vestiges, were to hear of
them, he might easily work them in, & then I shd have to quote from
a work perhaps despised by naturalists & this would greatly injure any
chance of my views being received by those alone whose opinion I value”.
CONCLUSION
Outside of what was scribbled on paper in his private study, the earliest solid and independently verifiable, dated, hard evidence we have that Darwin actually had written any kind of private notes or essay on natural selection, at any particular ascertainable point in time, is that he sent a mere abstract of one to Gray in 1857!
Click here to read the above facts set in the context of my 2016 peer reviewed article on knowledge contamination.
Monday 11 April 2016
"On Knowledge Contamination" The Download Page Gets 500+ Visits Inside Four Weeks
Great News for me! Inside first month my heretical paper has 500+ download page visits: https://t.co/Ts5EQd4J1m pic.twitter.com/fnK9jn29bp
— Supermythbuster (@supermyths) April 11, 2016
On Sutton's Law: First consider the most obvious as the most likely cause
Sutton's Law:
"When diagnosing the cause of anything, one should first consider the obvious. Therefore, one should first conduct tests that could either confirm, or else dis-confirm, the most likely diagnosis."
"When diagnosing the cause of anything, one should first consider the obvious. Therefore, one should first conduct tests that could either confirm, or else dis-confirm, the most likely diagnosis."
Ironically, Sutton's Law - coined around 1960 by the eminent physician William Dock - comes from a fixed-false belief that the bank robber Willie Sutton explained why he robbed banks because "That's where the money is". In reality, Willie said he robbed banks for the fun of it and the money was just “chips” (Snopes.com).
Regardless of the ironically high and arguably always most obvious likelihood that the story behind it was bunkum, because no one at the time thought to verify by asking Sutton about the source of his mythical line, Sutton's Law is still logically and practicably useful in many fields - such as clinical medicine, computer program debugging and mechanical problem diagnosis.
In considering the obvious, I was most certainly unable to disconfirm the high likelihood of some kind of significant pre-1858 Matthewian knowledge contamination of the brains of both Darwin and Wallace. In fact, my research confirmed the most obvious - with newly discovered hard facts - that Darwin's and Wallace's friends, influencers and facilitators, and their influencer's influencers, read and cited Matthew's book and the ideas in it before Darwin and Wallace replicated them. Consequently, it is far more likely than not, that this fact explains their replications of Matthew's original ideas.
Regardless of the ironically high and arguably always most obvious likelihood that the story behind it was bunkum, because no one at the time thought to verify by asking Sutton about the source of his mythical line, Sutton's Law is still logically and practicably useful in many fields - such as clinical medicine, computer program debugging and mechanical problem diagnosis.
I applied Sutton's Law when studying Charles Darwin's and Alfred Wallace's (1858, 1859 and 1860) claims to have each discovered the complex theory of macroevolution by natural selection, and the original associated artificial versus natural selection explanatory analogy of differences, independently of one another and independently of Patrick Matthew's (1831) prior publication.
You can read the latest peer reviewed evidence to support the conclusion that Darwin and Wallace did not discover natural selection independently of its originator: Here.
The full details of my bombshell discovery are in my Thinker Media Book: Here.
Sunday 10 April 2016
Wikipedia has a written policy that "Experts are Scum"
@TinkNEvolv Because of @thewikipedian Wikipedia and the clown idiots who run it: Have an "experts are scum" policy: https://t.co/LnjID1kmwU— Supermythbuster (@supermyths) April 10, 2016
Friday 8 April 2016
Wikipedia Editors Are Systematically Deleting Significant Facts About Charles Darwin and Patrick Matthew
Remember: An objective and curious scholar @WeAreWikipedia should always "Follow the Data" https://t.co/eWYoMeVmAt pic.twitter.com/3W60pMnDei— Dr Mike Sutton (@Criminotweet) April 8, 2016
For the full details, read my Best Thinking blog post (with its further links): Here
Wednesday 6 April 2016
Junior Carsonians share their research findings with Mike Sutton
On Thursday 17th March 2016, as part of my Patrick Matthew lecture tour of the Carse of Gowrie, I was most deeply honoured to be the the guest of honour of the Junior Carsonians. Children from six primary schools in the Carse of Gowrie gathered at Invergowrie Primary School to share their research findings on their famous Carse of Gowrie science hero Patrick Matthew.
Children from all the primary schools in the Carse of Gowrie were extremely well informed about the work and life of Matthew. We asked many questions of one another and shared some interesting answers.
One of the teachers discovered a number of long-forgotten letters from Matthew to his neighbour Lord Kinnard. The letters are held at Perth Public Library, along with a copy of Matthew's (1831) book, donated by his granddaughter. The children particularly liked two of the newly discovered Matthew letters: one asking that Lord Kinnard supply his own (Kinnard's) tenant with free manure each year and another asking for a school to be built for the children of the poor of the Carse of Gowrie.
Kinnard saw to it that the school was built and that it adopted the enlightened design principles recommended by Matthew for the teaching of sensitive children, Both of these Matthew & Kinnard stories are addressed by the children in their book: "The Life of Patrick Matthew".
At the end of our delightfully informative meeting, the children of Abernyte Primary School presented me with a small token of the suburb work undertaken by all the children present. The images of their interpretation, conveyed in words and pictures - of the life of Patrick Matthew:
Children from all the primary schools in the Carse of Gowrie were extremely well informed about the work and life of Matthew. We asked many questions of one another and shared some interesting answers.
One of the teachers discovered a number of long-forgotten letters from Matthew to his neighbour Lord Kinnard. The letters are held at Perth Public Library, along with a copy of Matthew's (1831) book, donated by his granddaughter. The children particularly liked two of the newly discovered Matthew letters: one asking that Lord Kinnard supply his own (Kinnard's) tenant with free manure each year and another asking for a school to be built for the children of the poor of the Carse of Gowrie.
Kinnard saw to it that the school was built and that it adopted the enlightened design principles recommended by Matthew for the teaching of sensitive children, Both of these Matthew & Kinnard stories are addressed by the children in their book: "The Life of Patrick Matthew".
At the end of our delightfully informative meeting, the children of Abernyte Primary School presented me with a small token of the suburb work undertaken by all the children present. The images of their interpretation, conveyed in words and pictures - of the life of Patrick Matthew:
Could the New Data be True? Or is it all just a bad dream for Darwinists?
.@evolutionraad Always been possible.The questions should be is it now probable? Weigh the new & peer reviewed facts https://t.co/E8QuuMzsSL
— Dr Mike Sutton (@Criminotweet) April 6, 2016
Show Me The Evidence!
In a "Dog" we should trust: all others must bring data: https://t.co/Ts5EQd4J1m pic.twitter.com/hR05OYmNeI
— Supermythbuster (@supermyths) April 6, 2016
Monday 4 April 2016
Joseph Hooker and Charles Lyell Lied to the Linnean Society: Jim Dempster's Private Correspondence with Ian Hardie
 |
| Jim Dempster |
In this letter, Dempster writes to inform Hardie of the difficulties of conducting sound research outside of a university environment, and of his discovery that Hooker and Lyell lied to the Linnean Society that Wallace had given his consent to have his paper read alongside Darwin's.
Dempster and Matthew scholars (perhaps even curious Darwinists) will be interested that one of the illustrious John Hunter's descendants was, apparently, interested in Dempster's work on the topic of that great original thinker. Curiouser and curiouser!
Note, in 2005, Dempster was compelled to vanity published his third important book on the history of the discovery of natural selection "The Illustrious Hunter and the Darwins".
Over a decade before this letter was written, in 1983, Dempster published Patrick Matthew and Natural Selection. But soon after the publisher went bankrupt. The Patrick Matthew Trust helped the widely published scientist Dempster to promote and fund in part his second hugely important book on the history of discovery of natural selection (compelled to be vanity published with the Pentland Press): Dempster, W.J. (1996) Natural Selection and Patrick Matthew. Edinburgh. The Pentland Press. (for more details and full references see my blog article on Dempster: here). See also a November 1993 press article on the topic here and another here.
This letter is the first evidence that I can recall seeing where Dempster writes about that sly lie, which Hooker and Lyell used to deceive the Linnean Society. I nail it myself in Nullius (Sutton 2014) - but I thought I arrived at it independently of Dempster. Perhaps not - perhaps my brain was "knowledge contaminated" from one of Dempster's three books on the topic of Matthew and discovery of natural selection? I am most interested to find out. Indeed the evidence for subconscious/forgotten 'Dempsterian knowledge contamination' of my brain - one way or the other - will be fascinating in light of my most recent peer reviewed article on the very topic of the phenomenon of the notion of 'knowledge contamination' (Sutton 2016). Now I must go back with great curiosity and read all three of Dempster's superb books on Matthew with a fine toothcomb for the fourth time! When I find my answer I shall write about it.
Most importantly, in this letter, Dempster informs Hardie that his research reveals that both Darwin and Wallace lifted much from the articles on organic evolution that were written by Edward Blyth. Had only Dempster - and other Darwin and Matthew scholars before him done what all good scientists should do and - "followed the data" from the botanist and polymath John Loudon's 1832 review of Matthew's (1831) book, where he wrote that Matthew apparently had something original to say on "the origin of species", my science hero, Dempster, would have discovered what I was first to discover in 2014 (Sutton 2014). Namely, that Loudon went on to be Editor of the journal that published two of those important and influential Blyth articles! Potential Matthewian 'knowledge contamination' via Loudon -> Byth -> Darwin & Wallace is thus uniquely now proven!
I see that, as Dempster informed Hardie, Longman and Co of London, and Black of Edinburgh - the original publishing houses of Matthew's (1831) On Naval Timber - were not interested in publishing a book about Matthew, written by a scientist of Dempster's calibre and proven abilities. I wonder why not? Had either "House" published Dempster's work they would have added to their catalogue the brilliantly objective scalpel-like scholarship of one who removed the cognitive cataracts from his own "eyes" to see the facts beyond the Victorian smog of Darwin's deceptions. Consider, for example, what he shows us here in his private red-inked assessment of the lies about Matthew's book that Darwin slyly wove into the Origin of Species from 1861 (3rd edition) onwards. The context and precise significance of the red-ink notes Dempster wrote on his copy of Darwin's "Historical Sketch" is examined, in-depth, here ):
 |
| His textbook on surgery that Dempster mentions to Ian Hardie |
Sunday 3 April 2016
Treasure Your Exceptions: So Let's Face the Facts: Charles Darwin was an Exceptional Liar and a Hypocrite of the Highest Order
In their excellent book: 'Treasure Your Exceptions': Professor Donald Forsdyke and Professor Alan Cock (Cock and Forsdyke 2008, p. 644) note that in 1874 Darwin wrote in The Descent of Man:
Of course, false views are often built on a premise comprising false facts. And when that happens an entire paradigm can be constructed. For example, Darwin (1861), in the Origin, wrote false facts (indeed proven deliberate lies, because he had been prior-informed - with hard evidence - that the opposite was true) regarding the prior-readership of the original ideas on natural selection in Matthew's (1831) book On Naval Timber and Arboriculture. From the subsequent mindless Darwinist parroting of Darwin's lies by many - including the world's leading Royal Society Darwin Medal winning Darwinists Sir Gavin de Beer (FRS) and Ernst Mayr (FRS) (see Sutton 2016) - Darwin scholars constructed a tri-independent discovery paradigm of dual immaculate conception, by Darwin and Wallace (1858) of the prior-published original ideas of Matthew (1831).
The original discovery of disconfirming facts for this paradigm (Sutton 2014) - that as opposed to none at all - seven naturalists actually cited Matthew's (1831) book and the ideas in it pre-1858, that four of those seven were well known to Darwin, and three played major roles influencing and facilitating the pre-1858 work of Darwin and Wallace on organic evolution, punctures the myth-based old paradigm and replaces it with a new one of highly probable "Matthewian knowledge contamination" of the pre-1858 brains of Darwin and Wallace, of the brains of their influencers and of the brains of their influencer's influencers.
In 2016 - after over 155 years of credulous parroting of Darwin's lies, as though they are truths, of failing to follow the data, and of obvious and of significant fact denial in the field of the history of discovery of natural selection and its influence, it is time for Darwin scholars to face the independently verifiable facts.
Saturday 2 April 2016
The Scotsman Cover's Sutton's Hutton Institute Lecture
Darwin may have stolen evolution theory from Perthshire farmer
Reference Stenson, J. (2016) March 17. Darwin may have stolen evolution theory from Perthshire farmer. The Scotsman http://www.scotsman.com/heritage/people-places/darwin-may-have-stolen-evolution-theory-from-perthshire-farmer-1-4074755
Read The Story Here
Please refer to the comments section in The Scotsman where I fill in the crucial knowledge gaps in the coverage of this story by The Scotsman.
I wrote in the comments section on 2 April 2016:
I was only today made aware of the coverage of this story by the Scotsman.
My presentation at the Hutton Institute was followed by a most stimulating debate. Essentially, what has been newly discovered is that - as opposed to the old Darwin-myth story that none read it - the new technology of the internet has worked rather in the same way a metal detector can find things like the Staffordshire Hoard - that could never have been found with a toothbrush - seven naturalists actually cited Matthew's book and the ideas in it before Darwin replicated those ideas and then excused that poor scholarship conduct by claiming none had read them before he did so. Moreover, four of those naturalists were very well known to Darwin, and three played major roles influencing the work of Darwin and Wallace before they replicated those same ideas.
In fact, Darwin is newly proven to have lied about the readership of Matthew's book because he wrote that no naturalists had read it after Matthew informed him in writing that the opposite was true.
Matthew complained bitterly (in his letters to the press) to his dying day about the treatment he received by Darwin's Darwinists in denying him full credit over Darwin.
Matthew to Darwin and Wallace probable "knowledge contamination" is what is newly proven by the New Data. As yet, there is no hard evidence that Darwin or Wallace actually read Matthew's book before 1860. But lies both told in this story mean it would be irrational to continue to assume good faith regarding anything they wrote about Matthew.
Rationally, the newly discovered facts disconfirm the old Darwinist paradigm of Darwin's and Wallace's supposed miraculous immaculate conceptions of Matthew's prior-published hypothesis.
My book 'Nullius in Verba: Darwin's greatest secret' contains fully referenced evidence to all of the above facts and a great deal more besides.
Friday 1 April 2016
Edinburgh Evening News 1993
Reference: Thorpe, N. (1993) Back to Basics: New evidence reveals Scot's part in evolution theory: Origin of the thesis. The Edinburgh Evening News. November 6th. 1993.
Alastair Robertson on Patrick Matthew in the Daily Mail in 1996
Reference: Robertson, A. (1996) Obscure farmer is missing link in Darwin's theory of evolution. Daily Mail. April 15th p.25.
Ivor Smullen on Patrick Matthew, Jim Dempster and Ian Hardie
The Image Below is from the Dempster Private Family Archive
Reference: Smullen, I. (1994). The First Evolutionist. Country Life. October 6. p. 68.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)