Professional Darwinians Have Forgotten What They Once Knew

Today, Pseudoscholarship is the Dark Heart of Dysology, Characterized by Fact Denial, that is Essential for the Darwin Deification Industry's Survival.

 https://www.bestthinking.com/articles/science/biology_and_nature/biological_processes/the-de-facto-macdarwin-industry-and-it-s-member-s-pseudo-scholarly-corporate-denial-of-the-very-existence-of-uncomfortable-new-facts

"Science is not a major or a career. It is a commitment to a systematic way of thinking..." pic.twitter.com/tGmPamHdVp

— Timothy Caulfield (@CaulfieldTim) June 13, 2016

Proof Darwinite Historians of Science and Scientists are Misleading the Public via the Press about New Discoveries

Desperate Darwinites are writing fallacies to misinform the public via the press that I have discovered nothing new in my published research on the history of  discovery of natural selection (see the evidence of their fact denial behaviour here).


So what has, in reality, been newly discovered that eminent professional Darwin scholars apparently don't wish you to know about?

Here are the new, fully and independently verifiable, evidenced bombshell discoveries (Sutton 2014) that rewrite the history of discovery of natural selection. I originally discovered them by following the simplest rule of science "follow the data". Darwinites failed to find the New Data because they have a biased, Darwin deification habit, of ignoring any data that disconfirms their unevidenced belief that Darwin and Wallace discovered natural selection independently of Patrick Matthew's prior published conception of the entire thing.

1. Darwinites can no longer claim - as they did before my book was published - that Patrick Matthew's prior published conception of macroevolution by natural selection was unread by any naturalists before Darwin and Wallace replicated it. Because I originally discovered seven who cited the book that contains it in the pre-1859 literature. And Darwin and Wallace, and their influencers, knew four of them well. Hence it is most significantly newly discovered and 100 per cent proven that routes of potential knowledge contamination exist between Matthew's (1831) book to the pre-1858 minds of Darwin and Wallace. The date evidence of this newly discovered  publication record now debunks the old Darwinite claim that Darwin's notebooks and private essays prove he independently discovered natural selection.

2.  Darwinites can no longer claim, as they did before my book was published, that Darwin was an honest scientist. Because it is absolutely 100 per cent proven that from 1860 onward, following information provided by Matthew himself, that he lied about the prior readership of Matthew's book and the original ideas in it by other naturalists. Moreover, Darwin told at least seven additional lies in order to convince the scientific community that he independently conceived the idea of natural selection.

3. It can no longer be claimed that Wallace was an honest scientist. Because I originally discovered that he edited one of his letters in his autobiography to conceal his claim that he thought he was owed money and favours by Darwin and his associates for cooperating with the presentation of his replication of the concept of natural selection alongside that of Darwin in 1858.

4. Darwinites can no longer claim that Matthew's conception of natural selection was contained solely in the appendix of his book. I reveal exactly how much is actually contained in the main body of his book and that Darwin lied when he wrote that Matthew's ideas were solely contained in the appendix. Because Matthew referred him to just some of the relevant text from the main body of his book and Darwin wrote to admit the fact to Joseph Hooker.

5. Darwinites should no longer claim that Matthew never understood what he conceived on the grounds that he never shouted about it from the rooftops. Because I show how the first half of the 19th century was governed by laws and conventions that forbade anyone from doing such a thing, and others from discussing it. Moreover, Matthew told Darwin as much when he explained his book was banned from Perth public library in Scotland and that an eminent naturalist could not teach the original ideas in it for fear of pillory punishment.

6. Darwin, in 1859, originally four-word-shuffled Matthew's (1831) original term for his original conception from Matthew's (1831) 'natural process of selection' into 'process of natural selection', which is the only possible grammatically correct re-ordering of the four words Matthew used to name his discovery.

7.  Darwin, was the first to replicate Matthew's (1831) powerful artificial versus natural selection analogy of differences to explain Matthew's original hypothesis, whilst claiming it as his own independent discovery. Indeed, Darwin not only replicated Matthew's brilliant analogy in his private essay, he used it to open the first chapter of the Origin of Species.

Veracious knowledge is power. Get the New Data facts in my book (Nullius in Verba) and my latest peer reviewed science article (Sutton 2016)

Don't allow them to punterize you with propaganda. Wise-up and get the proven new facts: https://t.co/Z315DMEuaf pic.twitter.com/AShKpjuhBf

— Dr Mike Sutton (@Criminotweet) June 12, 2016

Poet Protests Revisionist History, Fact Denial and Other Abuse in History of Scientific Discovery

Writer Sude Dempster takes up her pen against the injustice of the persecution of my reputation and denial of the very existence of my research discoveries by those with a vested professional interest in fact denial.

(C) S. Dempster 2016Attribution

A verse from Targeting by Gaslighting, by Sude Dempster

You can read her poem here on Best Thinking. I think Dempster's poem "Targeting by Gaslighting" might be even more profound were it to be read out aloud and performed in the style of the great Dr John Cooper Clarke

A sample of the fully evidenced behaviour that so concerns the author that she took up her pen in protest, can be found here in an article published on Best Thinking.

Vote to Put an End to Disgraceful Fanatical Revisionist History by the Darwin Worship Industry

Brexit relief - Vote for historical facts over fanatical revisionism
1. Facts: https://t.co/E8QuuMzsSL

2. Vote: https://t.co/rDE9bSQxqb

— Dr Mike Sutton (@Criminotweet) June 9, 2016

Darwin is a 100 Per Cent Proven Premier League Liar

Read the science journal article that is driving Darwinites to extreme deviant behaviour: https://t.co/6K7Wm5UvfI pic.twitter.com/ADZbbjk5FM

— BlessedVirginDarwin (@OnNavalTimber) June 9, 2016

 Hierarchy of Credibility

The hierarchy of credibility is a concept that was coined by Howard S. Becker (1967)  in 'Whose Side are we on?', It explains social inequalities and the moral hierarchy of society. For Becker, those at the top of an organization or a society are seen to be more credible, those at the bottom less so.

Mythomania in the Darwin Industry

Mythomania permeates Darwin Industry. If it doesn't smell right its probably rotten:
1. https://t.co/6K7Wm5UvfI

2. https://t.co/ILPZ04BaXk

— BlessedVirginDarwin (@OnNavalTimber) June 8, 2016

Know the Difference Between "Differences of Opinion" and Proven "Fact Denial"

History teaches us the danger of allowing any "fact denial" behaviour to pass unchecked: https://t.co/BZTDgjpPml pic.twitter.com/NLwSnVzxtz

— Dr Mike Sutton (@Criminotweet) June 5, 2016

Fortune favours the bold! And fallacies favour the fearful.

They Dethroned Muhammad Ali of his World Champion Title and Imprisoned Him for Refusing to Kill People in the Vietnam War.

They did that because they wanted to disgrace him for telling the truth, for speaking out for justice against the "majority view" that was held by so many idiots in the USA at the time.

Ali's body died today but an immensely inspirational force will stay with us forever. And that is how people become legends. Today a legend was born.

On The "Rubbishing" of My Peer Reviewed Science Journal Article. So Are the New Data Facts Really "Not New"? "Very Silly" and a "Conspiracy Theory?" As Esteemed Darwinite Dr John van Wyhe Informs the Scottish Press? Is There a Single Word of Truth in His Completely Unevidenced Fact-Denying "Rubbishing" of My Scholarship? Find Out for Yourself. You Can Decide the Truth of It. Simply Read My Fully Evidenced New Discoveries

 Trashing my peer reviewed and science journal published research and scholarship by effectively denying the existence of Darwin's and Wallace's independent discovery paradigm changing newly discovered facts that are 100 per cent proven to exist - because they are in print in the newly discovered literature that Darwinist experts failed to find - Dr John van Wyhe's totally unevidenced (and therefore pseudo scholarly) accusations were reported in the Scottish press on May 17th::

'Dr John van Wyhe, a senior lecturer at the Department of Biological Sciences, at the National University of Singapore, said the recent claims by Dr Mike Sutton of Nottingham Trent University were “so silly” and “based on such forced and contorted imitations of historical method that no qualified historian could take it seriously.'

 So are new facts really not new, so silly & a conspiracy theory as van Whyhe claimed, with zero evidence to support those serious allegations, in his full statement to the press, where he effectively engages in fact denial: 

      'Dr Sutton's allegations about a purported influence of Matthew on Darwin and Wallace are not new. This conspiracy theory is so silly and based on such forced and contorted imitations of historical method that no qualified historian could take it seriously.'

Why would Dr van Wyhe deny the existence of 100 per cent proven, independently verifiable, newly discovered facts that completely overturn prior-knowledge beliefs in his field? Why write such a thing for public consumption about someone else's peer reviewed work? Is he "insanely jealous" or "wilfully ignorant"? What on Earth is the reason for such behaviour? Why deny the existence of 100 per cent proven newly discovered facts?

"Conspiracy theory" "Not new" "very silly" ? Really?  By "rubbishing" my peer reviewed science journal published new discoveries in this way, with zero evidence to back up his public allegations, Van Wyhe is engaging in pseudo scholarly (completely unevidenced) propagandising fact denial about the new discovery of routes of knowledge contamination between Matthew and Darwin and Wallace. 

Please read the newly discovered and fully evidenced paradigm changing facts in my article to decide for yourself: (Sutton 2016).

1. https://t.co/y6D1rl1NIy
2, Please Read & judge: https://t.co/E8QuuMzsSL

— Dr Mike Sutton (@Criminotweet) June 3, 2016

The Criminology of Science

Lots of theft & science fraud criminological interest surrounding Darwin's letters
1. : https://t.co/uUTDe11lnu
2. https://t.co/E8QuuMzsSL

— Dr Mike Sutton (@Criminotweet) June 3, 2016

Patrick Matthew and the "New Data" facts

English academic says Scots farmer could be true origin of Charles Darwin’s most famous theory -... https://t.co/Cqb60SfXGb via @supermyths

— Perth Top News (@PerthTopNews) May 20, 2016

Don't be Punterized by Career Darwinites who Failed to Find the Facts

Behind the Mask of Respectability, Get the Fully Evidenced Facts Behind Blatant Darwin, Darwinist and Darwinite Fact Denial Behaviour - Here

The World's Top Evolutionary Biologists, Including Richard Dawkins, Admit that Patrick Matthew (1831) Conceived the Full Hypothesis of Macroevolution By Natural Selection Years Before Darwin and Wallace. But, Like Darwin, they Claim Matthew's Bombshell Ideas Went Unread Until After the Publication of Darwin's Origin of Species.  Today the "New Data" facts Prove Them Totally Wrong. They Were Read! And they Were Read By Darwin's and Wallace's Influencers and their Influencers Influencers - Loudon, Selby and Chambers - and by their other Associates and their Associates friends. Routes of Matthewian Knowledge Contamination are thus, Newly, 100 per cent Proven.

The Only Reason we Now Newly know Matthew's ideas were Read by Darwin's and Wallace's Influencers, Years Before Darwin and Wallace Replicated them, Each Claiming them as their Own, and Failing to Cite Matthew, is Because I Originally Discovered That - As opposed to the Old Knowledge Belief of None - Seven Naturalists Did In fact Cite Matthew's Book in the Literature Years Before 1858.

Don't be punterized by those who have built their academic careers out of ignorantly denying the importance of Patrick Matthew. Get the New Data facts, about those naturalists known to Darwin and Wallace, who read and cited Matthew's 1831 book in the literature pre 1858. Naturalists who Darwin scholars failed to find. Decide for yourself. Darwin's proven lies about the prior readership of Matthews ideas, and the newly proven routes of Matthewian knowledge contamination can be read in my latest peer reviewed science journal paper Here.

The full details and explanations, further lieas Darwin told about Matthew and others, Wallace's dishonest editing of one of his letters for his autobiography, a plagiarism text analysis and much more can be found in my book Here.

@BiologiaPensamt Your accusation raises rational questions. Q.1: "Why did no historian of science spot these lies?" pic.twitter.com/4l7d4HaJUI

— Dr Mike Sutton (@Criminotweet) May 19, 2016

@C_MAlexander The Courier is a paper that is not afraid to cover uncomfortable facts objectively. That's rare today. https://t.co/jeLxlm9Shz

— Supermythbuster (@supermyths) May 20, 2016

Beware of Hacked-Book Sites: Payload More Likely to be Malware

Back onto the subject of "atrotrufing" - which is systematically orchestrated fake grass roots responses to facts, of the kind currently being perpetrated by Wikipedia editors - I think I've spotted another example.

The new case in question is a website that claims to be offering a free (hacked) copy of my e-book "Nullius in Verba: Darwin's greatest secret"

I think the gleeful "look what I got for free" reviewer's pictures and language fails to match-up  to the type of folks who would want to read my book. Moreover pictures of men have girls names and vice versa.

POSTSCRIPT - 1645 GMT 18th May 2016 On second thoughts -  link to the hacked e-book site deleted, as the very link properties (being a php file) might just possibly contain malware. Better to be safe than sorry, I'm told. 

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

Of course for just a few Pounds/Dollars/Euro etc,  it's available on Amazon - and also on my publisher's website (here), both of which are a much safer bet, I'd say. 

Read the Story, Read the Facts, Weigh the Evidence: Spread the News

Read full story https://t.co/y6D1rl1NIy

Read the New Data facts

https://t.co/E8QuuMzsSL

Then weigh the evidence pic.twitter.com/WxZYtiVSDR

— Dr Mike Sutton (@Criminotweet) May 18, 2016

Possibly the Most Ironic Thing in the History of the World

Public Domain

This very can of spinach is used as a paperweight in my colleague, Roger Hopkins Burke's office at Nottingham Trent University, England

Possibly the most #ironic    thing in the history of the world is also about iron. Just how ironic is that?

Dr Mike Sutton (2016) Supermyths.comAttribution

The Popeye & Spinach Iron Myth is Possibly the Most Ironic thing of All Time

I wonder, what is the most ironic thing of all time?

What about the "Spinach Popeye Iron Decimal Point Error Myth" (SPIDES)? 

The myth was used inadvertently by expert sceptics who credulously believed it to be veracious, because they failed to check its provenance, as a most popular example of the need to check the accuracy of data before presenting it in order to prevent the creation and dissemination of fallacies and myths.

I suppose this is classed as "situational irony". However, now that you know about it, if you see someone using the myth as though it is veracious, is that not also a type of "dramatic irony"?

HealthWatch

I am most delighted that the esteemed HealthWatch    organisation, which is an independent charity for science and integrity in medicine, invited me to write an article on the myth that was first bust here on BestThinking, and has since been read by over 50,000 people.

My HealthWatch article can be read here (Sutton 2016)   .

I am hoping now to spread the word further about the SPIDES supermyth, in the hope - and it is only hope - because we can only hope without further research into what works in nutritional attitude change that my attempts will not back-fire and make things worse - that the humour and the irony of it all will help people make informed nutritional choices about iron.

Public Domain

The World Health Organisation (WHO) on Iron

I wonder, Will Professor Steve Jones (FRS) now be "knowledge contaminated" about Supermyths   ?

There has been a "state of denial" canny indifference amongst most of the World's top Darwin scholars to the Supermyth busting "New Data" facts (e.g.Sutton 2016   ), which puncture the premise underpinning the old Darwinist paradigm of tri-independent discovery of Matthew's prior-published original conception of macroevolution by natural selection. 

I wonder, now, will the most esteemed and leading Darwinist Professor Steve Jones    (FRS) be "knowledge contaminated" on the topic of Supermyths and Charles Darwin - given that he is a notable patron of HealthWatch, which introduces the supermyth concept in its quarterly newsletter (newsletter 101) this month and given that he was on Radio 4   ,along with Dr Mike Weale, last year revealing - most unfortunately for the veracious history of scientific discovery - just how little he and Weale apparently understood - or else perhaps cared to share with the public - about the newly discovered and 100 per cent proven prior-readership of Patrick Matthew's original conception of macroevolution by natural selection by Darwin's and Wallace's associates, influencers and their influencer's influencers and Darwin's 100 per cent proven lies on that very topic (see Sutton 2014    for the Darwin and Wallace Immaculate Conception Supermyth bust). 

Interestingly, Dr Mike Weale - Professor Stephen Jones's Radio 4 Patrick Matthew and Charles Darwin programme associate - is well aware of my work on supermyths. When Dr Weale publically accused me on his website of creating my own supermyth on the story of Darwin, Wallace, and Matthew and the history of discovery of natural selection    I sent him a challenge, as a comment for consideration on his completely unevidenced disparaging accusation about my work, via the first approved and moderated (by Weale) comments section of his website. Weale then personally published my challenge to him to debate the issue with me in any prestigious university setting of his choice, time and place, with as many supporters as he needed, before an academic audience and on camera. Despite several attempts to get him to change his mind, Weale refused on the stated grounds that he feared I would mock him and "sling mud" at him for the world to see. See my recent article on the de facto "MacDarwin Industry" regarding how Dr Mike Weale's unevidenced accusation, and refusal to defend it in public, on camera, can be understood in context of wider pseudo scholarly Darwin scholar uncomfortable "New data" fact denial behaviour. Moreover, even Wikipedia editors are systematically deleting the facts of the published historical record on this topic and pretending to the public that they do not exist. See how I caught them in an online public encyclopedia fraud sting operation - here.

"Life has a funny, funny way of sneaking up, up on you...and everything blows up in your face!    "

Might Professor Steve Jones (FRS) perhaps become "knowledge contaminated" about Supermyths?

There has been a "state of denial" canny indifference amongst most of the World's top Darwin scholars to the  Supermyth busting "New Data" facts (e.g. Sutton 2016), which puncture the premise underpinning the old Darwinist paradigm of tri-independent discovery of Matthew's prior-published original conception of macroevolution by natural selection.

I wonder, now, will the esteemed leading Darwinist Steve Jones (FRS) be "knowledge contaminated" on the topic of Supermyths - given that he is a noted patron of HealthWatch, which introduces the supermyth concept this month?

You can read my article in HealthWatch here

What makes the Spinach, Popeye, and Iron Decimal Point error Supermyth (SPIDES), possibly, the most exquisitely ironic myth in the history of the world is the fact that, whilst believing it to be true, so many experts used it as an example of the need to check your data before publishing it.

The "New Data" facts are getting in the news

Some will remember Mike Sutton at Teesside SitP last year. He's still working hard for Patrick Matthew. https://t.co/aHSpoGn1aO

— Teesside SitP (@TeessideSitP) May 16, 2016

Why Natural Selection is the Unifying Theory of Biology

@BiologiaPensamt Well here it is: In a nutshell: The unifying theory of biology. Stolen by Darwin from Matthew pic.twitter.com/PiXcbC4N94

— Supermythbuster (@supermyths) May 16, 2016

A Good Explanation in Science

Good scientific explanations have these two main characteristics. Macro-Evolution by natural selection has both. pic.twitter.com/br8OPilU71

— Dr Mike Sutton (@Dysology) May 15, 2016

Darwin Scholar Donkeys Stop Braying Your Newly Debunked Claptrap and Get the "New Data" Facts

Mythbusting is rather like playing the card game "Donkey".

You take a main claim and then match every single one of the supporting "evidences" and "arguments" for it with relevant 100 per cent proven and independently verifiable facts. Sometimes the facts support the "evidences" and "arguments", sometimes they perfectly refute them.

When you are done, if the facts refute the main claim , then all that is left is a braying donkey insisting that the claim is still valid. Today, the facts reveal that Darwin scholars are nought but braying donkeys.

The "New Data" facts, which the powerful "Dawin Deification Lobby" are seeking to suppress by engaging in classic "fact denial tactics" to mislead the public, have made it into a peer reviewed science journal. Read the latest peer reviewed science paper that proves Darwin lied, plagiarised and was most likely highly influenced by Patrick Matthew.  Here

For your courage @RichardDawkins & honesty retweeting link to criticism of your scholarship: https://t.co/pkRXFf97kk pic.twitter.com/12Ns9zNmnf

— Dr Mike Sutton (@Criminotweet) February 17, 2015