Darwinism has a heart of glass when it comes to their namesake's proven plagiarism
— Dr Mike Sutton (@Dysology) August 21, 2017
1. https://t.co/nx7NOk13yD
2. https://t.co/lS8DprNLlx pic.twitter.com/JsEzTUCsEc
Please click the title above for the latest blog post
Monday 21 August 2017
In Case of Myths Break Glass
Sunday 20 August 2017
Royal Society and Linnean Society Promote Belief in Dual Immaculate Miraculous Conception
#LOL Each miraculously immaculately conceived Matthew's prior published theory, Their influencers prior-cited it! https://t.co/2WQGnEqk3X pic.twitter.com/4UuEsyBMqa
— Supermythbuster (@supermyths) August 20, 2017
Saturday 19 August 2017
Not Killing Kittens: Only debunking myths
++Twitter kittens have found a niche where they have a power of occupancy over more serious things. Alternatively : https://t.co/pPTDsi20CE pic.twitter.com/MFizzUCRrN
— Dr Mike Sutton (@Dysology) August 19, 2017
Get ahead, get the facts: https://t.co/WSHCuYYrBE pic.twitter.com/REjiWq16m1
— Dr Mike Sutton (@Dysology) August 19, 2017
Thursday 17 August 2017
Nullius in Burger: Bullshit Kills!
Despite their initial laughing-out-loud and angry fact-denial protests, I was right to tell them that not only are pink burgers unsafe (unless you first sear the outside of the steak before grinding it up), they are particularly unsafe for children and should never be served to them. Why is this a fact? Because the carcass of a slaughtered bull is often covered in its faeces, or that of other bulls (literally bullshit), and so it can get onto the meat. Bullshit contains E. coli, which is a lethal bacteria if ingested by humans.
I hope my hosts come to realise that the importance of knowing how to distinguish bullshit from truth has lifesaving consequences. I don't think they will be serving their own or anyone else's children pink burgers ever again. I hope not anyway. Where the truth is concerned it is important not to try to win any popularity contests, leave that to the bulshitters, because fear of being uncouth, deemed obnoxious or impolite might cost you your own life or that of a loved one.
The newly discovered facts in my book are as unwelcome as the socially impolite guest who questions the food hygiene of the dish served them by a beloved and proud host. And so I don't expect any thanks for conveying veracious information about dangerous bullshit in "trusted" burgers from renowned sources, and none have been forthcoming.
- · http:
//community.seattletimes.nwsource.com /archive /?date=19930122&slug=1681248 - · http:
//www.mcspotlight.org /media /press /times_15sep96.html - · http:
//www.nbcwashington.com /news /health /DC-Va-Child-Dies-From-E-Coli-Infection-123358208.html - · https:
//www.upi.com /Health_News /2015 /12 /31 /10-notable-E-coli-outbreaks-at-US-fast-food-restaurants /5781451489618/ - · http:
//www.foodsafetynews.com /2015 /10 /undercooked-burgers-likely-caused-vt-e-coli-outbreak-yet-ground-beef-so-far-escapes-recall /#.WZhshih97IU - · http:
//www.mirror.co.uk /news /uk-news /you-shouldnt-order-medium-rare-7124070 - · https:
//www.food.gov.uk /science /microbiology /cooking-burgers-at-home
Tuesday 15 August 2017
Darwin Cult Marketeers
Type 1 thinking is what all sly marketers prey upon to hook you in. Only the cognitively fit will survive them: https://t.co/9zJg9SLG0H pic.twitter.com/hKqGOFm23g
— Dr Mike Sutton (@Criminotweet) August 15, 2017
Monday 14 August 2017
Darwin Emoji
They have even have an Emoji for plagiarizing liars. Excellent: https://t.co/ewBvj7xLVc pic.twitter.com/FIYZ8GDyvK
— Dr Mike Sutton (@Criminotweet) August 14, 2017
Scholarly Journal Cites a Best Thinking Article as Busting the Cohen Coined Moral Panic Myth
Sunday 13 August 2017
Steve Hall on Knowledge Suppression
The suppression of knowledge reproduces power more efficiently than knowledge itself.
— Steve Hall (@SteveHall5582) August 13, 2017
Saturday 12 August 2017
Top Psychologist Backs Book on Darwin's Plagiarism
Distinguished Professor of Psychology Backs Book on Charles Darwin’s and Alfred Wallace’s Plagiarising Science Fraud https://t.co/5Huqb8jQiM pic.twitter.com/7ciOKB4s51
— Dr Mike Sutton (@Dysology) August 12, 2017
Monday 7 August 2017
#CharlesDarwinHahaha
+It kind of does exist in spirit (in the Orign of Species) 😎 https://t.co/sDjZDFC33k pic.twitter.com/FUFXwrMwAd
— Dr Mike Sutton (@Criminotweet) August 8, 2017
Or the plunder of prior published conceptions: https://t.co/2WQGnEqk3X pic.twitter.com/w3U0Of28pV
— Supermythbuster (@supermyths) August 8, 2017
Poem for a plagiarist
Darwin sits on the book to hide
— Dr Mike Sutton (@Dysology) August 7, 2017
that it contains the breakthrough
he plagiarized,
which makes him bigger
than the thieving liar he was! pic.twitter.com/5Xb1WLN5y7
Saturday 5 August 2017
On A.N. Wilson's Evening Standard Article on Darwin
Dysology commented on A.N. Wilson: It’s time Charles Darwin was exposed for the fraud he was London Evning Standard https://t.co/hvwNEaTW2O
— Dr Mike Sutton (@Dysology) August 5, 2017
A Sign For Intellectual Lemmings
Are Darwinists Intellectual lemmings? @DarwinAwards - No? So get the verifiable New Data facts about their namesake https://t.co/BuLfnl1iEc— Dr Mike Sutton (@Criminotweet) August 5, 2017
Knowledge Contamination
Inside first month, my paper "On Knowledge Contamination" had over 500 download page visits: https://t.co/LMpbVPMAh6 pic.twitter.com/NkXR3yoQFl
— Dr Mike Sutton (@Dysology) April 11, 2016
Thursday 3 August 2017
Royal Society has Long History of Rewarding Sly Plagiarists who Toady to the "Establishment"
+Milton Wainwright on unscientifc fact denial paper-blocking by the Darwinite-cult Establishment https://t.co/aTL4q8Pzxs
— Dr Mike Sutton (@Criminotweet) August 3, 2017
What Royal Society did to Patrick Matthew closely linked to Roget's early plagiarism & he stars in Matthew's story: https://t.co/7m1bz5jpO3
— Dr Mike Sutton (@Dysology) August 2, 2017
Vae Victus
Vae Victus: https://t.co/hkt5pFpvWH pic.twitter.com/nVPtx2n0RQ
— Dr Mike Sutton (@Criminotweet) August 2, 2017
Wednesday 2 August 2017
The Egregious Role of the Royal Society in Rewarding Sly Plagiarists!
"Royal Society""kick-back" for plagiarising work of Grant & Nottingham's Marshall Hall
— Dr Mike Sutton (@Criminotweet) August 2, 2017
1, https://t.co/yITp2wjq7L
2 .https://t.co/TvnEyJa4sB pic.twitter.com/iVb8SswZXa
Tuesday 25 July 2017
The Slaying of the Beautiful Myth of an Honourable and Original Thinker
+Huxley: ....T.H.Huxley On "...the great tragedy of science – the slaying of a beautiful hypothesis by an ugly fact”: https://t.co/LQaK9g1CrW pic.twitter.com/dGBRazzaa9
— Dr Mike Sutton (@Criminotweet) July 25, 2017
The Slaying of the Beautiful Myth of an Honourable and Original Thinker:https://t.co/TWw4bnLTyl pic.twitter.com/c4nawl5wk5
— Dr Mike Sutton (@Dysology) July 31, 2017
Monday 24 July 2017
1st Copy of Second Edition of Nullius Arrives
Andy @faceblindandy @philwane @DrMarkGriffiths gets the very first copy of the second edition of Nullius today. https://t.co/PjYWekkFQj pic.twitter.com/W4OqoDDA1s
— Dr Mike Sutton (@Criminotweet) July 24, 2017
Thursday 20 July 2017
A Paperback Bombshell for the History of the History of Science
The hard and independently verifiable facts 100 per cent prove that Robert Chambers cited Matthew (1831) in 1832.The independently verifiable hard-print evidence in the publication record 100 per cent proves it. If you doubt that audacious statement is true, then try the following experiment: cover the published text with your hand and remove it 100 times. You will note it never changes. What is published in the publication record is as proven to exist as fossils in the geological fossil record. Explaining them is another matter, of course
In detail, the various possible reasons for why Chambers most likely despised Matthew, and other possible reasons for why he did not cite him anywhere on the topic of his breakthrough conception are discussed in my new paperback abridged edition of Nullius in Verba (Sutton 2017).
Is it a mere coincidence, as part of a snowball, or else unconnected collection, of nothing more than mere multiple coincidences perhaps, that Chambers was fascinated by trees and arboriculture, that within a decade of 1832 he had written his own guide on arboriculture and cited Matthew's (1839) second book, that in the next decade he wrote his own best selling book on evolution - the Vestiges of Creation, that he both met with and corresponded several times with Darwin in the 1840's? Of course coincidences happen, which is exactly why we have a word for the phenomenon, but how many coincidences of this kind in the history of the publication of a bombshell breakthrough in science, and the citation of its published source by other influential scientists, I wonder, are required to sum to a probability that they are not merely coincidental, not unconnected?
As if that is not enough, in his 1859 review of Darwin's Origin of Species, Chambers was apparently "first to be second" in published print (at least out of the 35 million books and other publications scanned by Google to date) with Matthew's apparently original term "natural process of selection". That is highly significant, because Darwin was apparently first to re-shuffle those exact same four absolutely essential words to "process of natural selection." Matthew's original term containing the exact same three most crucial words that are in that Darwin-shuffled term are crucial. They are crucial to the theory of macroevolution by natural selection because natural selection occurs as an unthinking "process", and because it is "natural" as opposed to artificial "selection". Arguably, that is most likely why Darwin was compelled to replicate them in his four-word shuffle of Matthew's (1831) original published useage, along with replicating Matthew's superb origination of his natural versus artificial selection analogy of differences to explain the process.
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, but wrote that it would be "splitting hairs" to admit the truth of the matter!
— Dr Mike Sutton (@Criminotweet) July 21, 2017+
.Well, that's that settled then. Mind you, one should always treasure and explain the "outlier" exceptions https://t.co/65x5bX6WYw pic.twitter.com/U0qKTtTDjj
— Dr Mike Sutton (@Criminotweet) July 31, 2017