Are some facts simply too sad for science or some scientists too simple for sad facts?

Truth is an absolute thing. The fact that those calling themselves scientists can't deal with the independently verifiable truth - facts that newly overturn all they thought was true - is a very sad thing indeed. Are some facts just too sad for science? https://t.co/CLKiPRJoQT pic.twitter.com/3nXdZEnBBv

— Dr Mike Sutton (@Criminotweet) August 10, 2019

Bin the Claptrap

(Q) Who is the scientific crossing warden for Darwin, Wallace and their cronies?
(A) Patrick Matthew (The Scot robbed by the English Scientific establishment and its treacherous Edinburgh toadies) Bin the claptrap & get the independently verifiable facts: https://t.co/RKbJV7ogAU pic.twitter.com/TS0YatbjrR

— Dr Mike Sutton (@Criminotweet) June 17, 2019

Proud Scots: Please Retweet This Tweet

No wonder the #Scots want and deserve independence from England. We English are a nation of cheats, liars, fraudsters, thieves, plagiarists and fact deniers: https://t.co/tbyN3vHEHl

— Dr Mike Sutton (@Criminotweet) June 16, 2019

The Scots are Writing about Darwin's & Wallace's Plagiarism

It is good to see that Scots are tuning into the facts on Darwin's and Wallace's plagiarism and the English scientific establishment's cover up

Good to see the Scots are writing about how their great nation has been ripped off by the English stealing the most important theory ever originated. Come up to speed #Scotland & beware of nutjob lying crazy English Darwinite Cult trolls and cyber stalkers https://t.co/Q5l4B4vshD

— Dr Mike Sutton (@Dysology) June 15, 2019

People have trouble accepting facts

That explains why scientists simply cannot cope with the New #BigData discovery that Darwin and Wallace were lying plagiarizers of a prior published theory that their major influencers/friends had prior read and cited: https://t.co/CLKiPRJoQT

— Dr Mike Sutton (@Criminotweet) June 14, 2019

Let's all play "Truth or dare to lie" Who will always win in the end?

Do you really want the truth or the lies? pic.twitter.com/d0vYjgHeF2

— Dr Mike Sutton (@Criminotweet) June 4, 2019

Scotland has been ripped-off by the English

Don't be misled by the scientific establishment to accept tall tales, lies, idiocy and fake news regarding where the theory of evolution by natural selection really came from and who stole it from the Scots. pic.twitter.com/hazSANc93L

— Dr Mike Sutton (@Criminotweet) June 2, 2019

National Library of Scotland: Nullius in Verba

Take that fact deniers.

I actually am #delighted to learn today that a proud Scot (he donated 3 priceless letters - from Charles Darwin to Patrick Matthew - to the Scottish nation) donated a copy of my book on Darwin's plagiarizing science fraud to the National Library of Scotland. They accepted it. pic.twitter.com/A2wQXWVWtC

— Dr Mike Sutton (@Criminotweet) May 3, 2019

Watch out stalkers and malicious poison pen authors

I will be submitting a proposal based on all the emails. tweets, blog post nonsense and even Dagg's abuse and then disgraceful plagiarism of my original discoveries in the Linnean Journal

Pleased to announce a call for chapters for an international edited collected on #technologyfacilitatedviolence with @eQuality_ca’s Jane Bailey, myself & @n_henry -practitioners, academics, PhD/ECRs working in this area (all disciplines) pls get in touch @MonashCrim @Monash_Arts pic.twitter.com/hyI6JtGEpK

— Assoc/Prof Asher Flynn (@AsherFlynn) May 1, 2019

Should it be called natural SELECTION?

I have no problem with the term "natural process of selection" coined by Patrick Matthew (1831) and plagiarised into "process of natural selection" by science fraudster Charles Darwin (who stole Matthew's theory). But @BiologiaPensamt this is one for you: https://t.co/0EHAyDtOVZ

— Dr Mike Sutton (@Criminotweet) May 1, 2019

.

Dover's argument same as yours (I disagree) that "selection" is a confusing term. Page 9 writes: "There is no Great Selector in the sky". But Matthew NEVER once implied there was. Made it clear there was NOT. But Darwin kept the notion of what he called a "Creator" in his work.

— Dr Mike Sutton (@Criminotweet) May 1, 2019

.

Yes as discussed so many times. The analogous selection hypothesis is analogous to artificial selection in tree nurseries, which is Matthew's 1831 highly idiosyncratic arboriculturalist analogy, slyly plagiarised by Darwin in his private essay = Explanatory analogy for the theory pic.twitter.com/f6Rs5FLKgY

— Dr Mike Sutton (@Criminotweet) May 1, 2019

.

I agree on Matthew's merit, novelty and solid work, of which natural selection is a useless metaphor.

— Emilio Cervantes (@BiologiaPensamt) May 1, 2019