GOTCHA! https://t.co/ICVRCeh01i— Dr Mike Sutton (@Dysology) July 9, 2016
Please click the title above for the latest blog post
Saturday 9 July 2016
Friday 8 July 2016
BELIEF IS THE ROOT OF DELUSION
"Extreme Skeptics" @TeessideSitP believe in absolutely NOTHING! Think & act on the principle of "Nullius in Verba"! pic.twitter.com/PpbaOFStpE
— Dr Mike Sutton (@Dysology) July 8, 2016
Thursday 7 July 2016
The Google Metal Detector Analogy
Try this out. Then happy treasure hunting with Google pic.twitter.com/NJUA0ylSDl
— Supermythbuster (@supermyths) July 7, 2016
Tuesday 5 July 2016
Myths about Darwin (No 3.) The 'Unique and Idiosyncratic Darwin Myth'
In three blog posts on Darwin myths found so far in Howard's book, I have not yet progressed beyond page 1. The third myth on page 1 is the myth that Darwin was an original thinker and his work was highly idiosyncratic.
'Man's interference, by preventing this natural process of selection among plants, independent of the wider range of circumstances to which he introduces them, has increased the differences in varieties particularly in the more domesticated kinds...'
New Data Demands Paradigm Shift: https://t.co/LMpbVPMAh6 pic.twitter.com/P5IDcp4ry4
— Dr Mike Sutton (@Dysology) July 10, 2016
Darwin wrote (1844 - private essa) wrote:
Taking out the trees example, Darwin (1859), in opening words of Chapter One of 'The Origin of Species' Darwin again used Matthew's powerful artificial selection versus natural selection explanatory analogy of differences - without citing Matthew.'In the case of forest trees raised in nurseries, which vary more than the same trees do in their aboriginal forests, the cause would seem to lie in their not having to struggle against other trees and weeds, which in their natural state doubtless would limit the conditions of their existence…"
probability of the latter theory.'
The Man's Interference Analogy:
What did Matthew, Wallace and Darwin understand about artificial selection versus natural selection that makes the Artificial selection versus Natural Selection Analogy the perfect device to explain the natural process of selection?
Test the hypothesis
Other Darwinist Myths
1. Myths about Darwin (No 1.) The Darwin Archive Myth
2, Myths about Darwin (No 2.) The 'Galapagos Conception Myth' and 'Notebooks Myth'
DARZILLA !
IT CAME FROM A WORLD CONTAMINATED WITH CRONIES.
— Supermythbuster (@supermyths) July 5, 2016
STOP the DARZILLA WITH NEWLY RESCUED FACTS https://t.co/SBIihYvf7E pic.twitter.com/ovPF72JyWy
Monday 4 July 2016
Mynah Bird Darwinites
'@AtheistRepublic Agreed. But many atheists also are mynah birds: https://t.co/BZTDgjpPml pic.twitter.com/WK5zad24UL— Dr Mike Sutton (@Criminotweet) July 5, 2016
How do we Stop Darwinists from Fact Denying?
.@LSEImpactBlog First - learn to stop 'fact denying' to the press when faced with paradigm changing new discoveries: https://t.co/nOpImotkf8
— Dr Mike Sutton (@Dysology) July 4, 2016
Sunday 3 July 2016
Evolution Road
Darwin & Wallace and Co Needed Matthew's original work to allow them to cross Evolution Road https://t.co/LCLOWcbqyF pic.twitter.com/rFrp4IrlOP
— Dr Mike Sutton (@Dysology) July 3, 2016
Saturday 2 July 2016
Don't be a Mynah Bird Brained Parroting Academic. Get the facts and act on them
Mynah Bird Brained Academics are a Plague in Universities:
— BlessedVirginDarwin (@OnNavalTimber) July 2, 2016
Don't be a bird of their featherhttps://t.co/6K7Wm5UvfI pic.twitter.com/OISr55WQfV
Myths about Darwin (No 2.) The 'Galapagos Conception Myth' and 'Notebooks Myth'
Howard
THE 'GALAPAGOS CONCEPTION' AND 'DARWIN'S NOTEBOOKS' MYTHS
On page 1 Howard writes "The theory of evolution started on the Beagle Voyage" and "Returning home, Darwin started a series of personal notebooks which reveals the earliest developments of the theory of the theory of evolution..."
This sort of misleading storytelling has led to the "Finches Supermyth" that Darwin understood finch beak evolutionary adaptation - in fact he never did any such thing. Darwin returned home from the Beagle voyage in 1836 still believing that species were completely immutable
Darwin supposedly began his Zoonomia notebook in 1837 (although we have no external evidence for this - other than the dates Darwin wrote on his private essays and notebooks - and Darwin is a proven prolific liar). The examples in that notebook on natural slection relate to fruit trees - Patrick Matthew's area of expertise. By 1837 two naturalists had already cited Matthew's book in the literature: the famous and influential naturalist John Loudon - who was a major influence on Darwin and his friends and and closely connected to his inner circle and the naturalist Robert Chambers - who went on the write the hugely influential "Vestiges of Creation" (SEE SUTTON 2014 FOR THE NEWLY DISCOVERED FACTS)
The Tri Independent Discovery Paradigm is in Crisis
Kuhn said this happens. He was right: https://t.co/4cZIJZij8D pic.twitter.com/95NQaWd7ST
— Dr Mike Sutton (@Criminotweet) July 2, 2016
Friday 1 July 2016
100 per cent proof that what is published can be100% proven to be there in print
.@religulous I can 100% prove you wrong. Place your hand over my tweet and remove it 100 times. The word "wrong" is 100% proven to be there
— Dr Mike Sutton (@Dysology) July 1, 2016
Wednesday 29 June 2016
Careerism Leading to Intellectual Corruption at the Heart of the Scientific Community
CAREERISM = the policy or practice of advancing one's career at the cost of one's integrity https://t.co/A2T1JS5ezH pic.twitter.com/YcNAFokLpi
— Dr Mike Sutton (@Criminotweet) June 29, 2016
Right of Reply to Misleading Book Review
The science Journal Philosophical Aspects of Origin kindly allowed me a right of reply to Grzegorz Malec's review of my book You can read my reply here.
Excerpt from:
Darwin’s Greatest Secret Exposed:Response to Grzegorz Malec’s De Facto Fact Denying Review of My Book - By Mike Sutton
To necessarily repeat the point already made, Darwin’s greatest secret is that he and Alfred Wallace fallaciously claimed alternately that no naturalist and no one at all read Matthew’s prior-published discovery and explanatory examples of natural selection before they replicated both. The “New Data”, originally presented in my book, conclusively proves that is a fallacy. The proof of the fallacy is in the previously undiscovered 19th century printed words in publications that absolutely prove Matthew’s book, and the original ideas in it, were cited by influential naturalists, known both to Darwin and Wallace and their influencers, and their influencers’ influencers, before they replicated those same ideas — claiming they alighted upon them independently of Matthew’s prior publication of the same. Darwin would later fallaciously excuse himself from 1860 onward by claiming those ideas were unread before he and Wallace replicated them. Darwin is proven to have lied in writing that excuse, because he wrote that as an absolute self-serving lie after Matthew had informed him of two influential naturalists who read and understood his original ideas, and their significance, and that his book had been banned, because of those same bombshell heretical ideas, by Perth Public Library in Scotland. Credulous Darwin scholars have been parroting their namesakes’ lies about the supposed lack of pre-1858 readership of Matthew’s original ideas ever since. They have done so in order to necessarily construct and maintain the now newly busted myths that support the Darwinist paradigm of tri-independent discovery of Matthew’s prior-published conception of macro evolution by natural selection.
Conclusions and the Way Forward
Alarmingly, there are scientists and historians of science working in our universities today who are prepared to deny that facts exist, or else — for whatever reason — to misrepresent work through cherry picking, de facto fact denial behaviour and other gross distortions of published evidence, that effectively misleads the public about their existence and what they mean for the history of scientific discovery.
Darwinists, named for their much deified hero, have traditionally worshipped Darwin for his honesty, integrity and originality. The “real facts”, newly discovered and originally presented in my book, originally prove they have been worshipping nothing more than a lying, replicating glory thief. In other words, they have credulously bet their careers on the wrong scientist. We should not expect an admission of this inevitability to be forthcoming anytime soon. Because esteemed research teaches us that paradigm changes in science take time and are at first met with fierce resistance.
As we were discussing @DrMarkGriffiths Just one example of fact denial behaviour exposed: https://t.co/3iHuQ1yjdq pic.twitter.com/SYjDacaISD— Dr Mike Sutton (@Dysology) June 29, 2016
Sunday 26 June 2016
Why Darwinists Need to Face the New Facts Rather then Deny they Exist
It is a 100 percent certain (because what he wrote is actually in print in the publication record ) fact that three times after Matthew had informed him that the very opposite was true that Darwin claimed Matthew's original ideas had not been read pre-1860. That proven deliberately misleading lie deflected attention away from the fact - discoverable at the time - because Matthew in 1860 informed Darwin about Loudon having read and reviewed his book in 1832. This is important because Loudon was a most famous and influential naturalist who then went on to edit two of Blyth's highly influential articles on organic evolution. And Darwin - from 1861 onward admitted Blyth had been a prior-greal informant for his work on natural selection. Hence, here we see that another factiod - the Darwinist myth (based on Darwin's lies) that Matthew's original (1831) ideas were unread pre-1858) is burst. This new information reveals one route of knowledge contamination from Matthew's pre-1858 conception to Darwin's replication. Hence, the facts prove that the premise underpinning the paradigm of Darwin's independent discovery of Matthew's prior-published conception of macroevolution by natural selection is now a punctured myth. Am I a crank for discovering that - as opposed the old factoid - published by the world's leading Darwinists that no naturalist had read Matthew's ideas that in fact Loudon was a naturalist who edited the articles of Darwin's great influencer? Am I a crank for busting the myth that no naturalist had read Matthew's ideas before 1858? Moreover Darwin knew Loudon. He heavily annotated his work and he spoke highly of it in correspondence.
On Knowledge Contamination
PARADIGM CHANGING ARTICLE ON KNOWLEDGE CONTAMINATION HAS KNOWLEDGE CONTAMINATED WELL OVER 4000 BRAINS
(Click for free inoculation against the dreaded pseudo scholarship virus)
Article on knowledge contamination has now knowledge contaminated well over 4000 people! https://t.co/LMpbVPMAh6 pic.twitter.com/BjteqsVwz3— Dr Mike Sutton (@Dysology) June 26, 2016
Saturday 25 June 2016
The Academic Abuse Continues: This time its from Associate Professor Jason Rosenhouse
My email was sent in response to his abusive blog about my research.
On his blog, Jason Rosenhouse is engaging in abusive criticism based upon de-facto fact denial in the published public domain regarding fact that Darwin's and Wallace's known influencers read Matthew's original ideas pre-1858. Indeed, based on what I have discovered, and what he is not aware has been discovered, according to Jason has published his opinion that I am a "big time crackpot". He writes:
' Apparently a big-time crackpot named Mike Sutton has made the astonishing discovery that Patrick Matthew, a Scottish farmer, anticipated Darwin in an appendix to an obscure book called Naval Timber and Arboriculture, published in 1831.'
I wrote the polite email to him to inform Jason Rosenhouse where he could find the facts about my research of which he is so apparently ignorant, and to thank Jason for so kindly being such an apparently ignorant doofus to enter the data of his de facto fact denial into the public domain so that he can be quoted and cited for the historical record in my forthcoming scholarly work and that of other scholars on the topic of de facto fact denial in academia.
What AssProf Rosenhouse ignores in his unevidenced (and therefore apparently pseudo-scholarly) criticism of my peer reviewed, published original research findings (see Sutton 2016) is the brand new original and independently verifiable discovery that overturns all prior Darwinist knowledge claims that Matthew could not have influenced Darwin with the bombshell ideas in his (1831) because it was believed (fallaciously it now turns out) that the ideas in his book went unread by any naturalists until Matthew told Darwin about them in 1860. Jason is also, seemingly, completely ignorant of the fact that Darwin deliberately lied when he wrote that Matthew's ideas went completely unnoticed until 1860. Because Matthew had prior informed him of two naturalists who had read it, one who feared pillory punishment were he to teach Matthew's ideas and the fact Matthew's book had been banned by Perth public library in Scotland for it heretical ideas on natural selection.
I let Jason know that I will pay a visit to his university when I am next in the USA so that he can have the manly and scholarly chance to call me an apparent crackpot to my face. Meanwhile, Jason is now data in the story of desperate, and fiercely ignorant resistance to the new data facts that completely punctures the myth upon which stands the old paradigm of tri-independent discovery of macro evolution by natural selection. I thanked him for that in my email and do so again here.
For use by scholars in the future, I have archived Rosenhouse's apparent abusive blogpost in case it ever disappears. Meanwhile, you can read it here- if its not yet deleted or heavily edited.
My Email to AssProf Jason Rosenhouse (sent 26th June 2016)
Friday 24 June 2016
Debate the Facts
Answer:Did Patrick Matthew came up with the theory of natural selection before Charles Darwin? https://t.co/ZezsLR5lbs
— Dr Mike Sutton (@Dysology) June 24, 2016
Thursday 23 June 2016
The Ad Populum Fallacy
AD POPULUM FALLACY @TeessideSitP
— BlessedVirginDarwin (@OnNavalTimber) June 23, 2016
1, https://t.co/tTzWn7zqS1
2.https://t.co/EEQRXGvTPw
3.https://t.co/6K7Wm5UvfI pic.twitter.com/QLQAl9MH7X