The correct scientific question to ask is:
— Dr Mike Sutton (@Criminotweet) September 20, 2020
How does this new data alter the probability Darwin and Wallace really did have dual virgin conceptions of a prior published theory?https://t.co/jXLyNhJXsf pic.twitter.com/dSleOmy6R5
Please click the title above for the latest blog post
Sunday 20 September 2020
How does this data alter the probability Darwin and Wallace really did have dual virgin conceptions of a prior published theory?
Wednesday 9 September 2020
Darwin The Racist's Statues are at Risk of Being Torn Down: Don't forget his plagiary may have caused the Holocaust too
Charles Darwin was a racist: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2672903/ . Like so many sly racists, he engaged on racist projects, yet strove to pretend to the world that he was not a racist white supremacist. But he gave himself away in his own words. Darwin worshippers - many part of the Darwin Industry - have tried to downplay and even deny the reality their hero was a nasty racist. All you need do is read the facts that flowed from Darwin's own pen - versus the tortured fact denial desperately dishonest interpretations of Darwinite superfanatics.
Darwin was a sly racist, who did a great deal of harm in his subtle racists writings.
Darwin thought he was superior to others - who he thought were lower "races" of humankind and he bragged gloatingly about that: https://www.darwinproject.ac.uk/letter/DCP-LETT-13230.xml
There are, seemingly, moves afoot to remove offensive statues of Charles Darwin this year. Darwin was essentially a racist who also thought genocide was a natural - and beneficial - phenomena of nature. Not only that, he probably caused the genocide of the Jews in the WW2. See my blog post on the evidence: https://patrickmathew.blogspot.com/2019/09/did-darwins-plagiarism-and-lies-cause.html Moreover, Darwin thought that White people are superior to people of colour and that the murderous rampages of his own kind was evidence of natural selection: https://www.darwinproject.ac.uk/letter/DCP-LETT-2503.xml
There are moves afoot to tear Down the Darwin worshipping statues of "Darwin the Racist". Those who agree with that might like to consider his role - by plagiarising science fraud - in the Holocaust: https://t.co/H24sKXShxz pic.twitter.com/OJJNtIBfq1
— Dr Mike Sutton (@Criminotweet) September 9, 2020
Why do we hate? When it comes to mass murder and genocide, behind that is always: "Someone who personifies a type of ideology for the masses, that convinces people there is an enemy out there"
White supremacist & plagiarist Darwin was such a person. https://t.co/VsvKOVdIgW pic.twitter.com/80y9Ez4qbF
.
Darwin did that by regularly calling other peoples "savages" "cannibals", even the "N" word. Today Darwinists use Darwin as their figurehead to portray anyone who writes truth about his plagiarism, associated serial lies & racism as "The enemy out there": https://t.co/6idOHPWGUw https://t.co/Gq6LAiAiG2 pic.twitter.com/AFLxMWLgJI
— Dr Mike Sutton (@Criminotweet) September 16, 2020
.Biologist just told me that my bombshell book "Nullius in Verba: Darwin's Greatest Secret" is reason Biological Journal of Linnean Society @BiolJLinnSoc & it's publisher @OxUniPress is repeat plagiarising my original research. Facts https://t.co/yVTTd42PB0 They're being malicious pic.twitter.com/hxhWmn0gNw
— Dr Mike Sutton (@Criminotweet) September 2, 2020
.
The taking of the lives of people who were not White Europeans, by White Europeans, was seen by Darwin as a process of natural selection of the most intelligent. Only because he was a White supremacist did it not occur to him that this was genocide by artificial selection. pic.twitter.com/7QZjdyrADP
— Dr Mike Sutton (@Criminotweet) September 21, 2020
Tuesday 8 September 2020
Faith in the honesty and supposed original genius of a proven liar and sly plagiarist is not science
Why do you believe in Charles Darwin? Why credulously believe in anything just because someone in authority says you should?
.Which scientific discovery/fact that you learned was most responsible for you turning away from religion and superstition towards science and reason?
— Dr Mark D'Arcy (@markoftheD) September 8, 2020
Like understanding difference between being told by scientists such as @RichardDawkins to simply believe in the proven liar and plagiarist Darwin and to ignore the verifiable evidence of his guilt versus the evidence of his great science fraud by plagiary: https://t.co/E8QuuMzsSL
— Dr Mike Sutton (@Criminotweet) September 8, 2020
Sunday 6 September 2020
We don't need a smoking gun with so much gun smoke evidence always hovering around Darwin and his influencers
The more routes for knowledge contamination, reason has it, the greater the probability that one was taken.
Can we rationally ruminate on the likelihood of Darwin's guilt as a plagiarist from what remains of the lost, stolen or deliberately destroyed by Darwin, correspondence we have from him and his friends and associates? Well, we certainly can in light of the proven lies Darwin wrote in his letters and his book "The Origin of Species", including his confession to Joseph Hooker that he lied by claiming Patrick Matthew's theory was buried in only the Appendix of his book. Other than that, no one has any real idea what scandal or gossip Victorian men of science involved themselves in outside the world of their formal letters. Looking at the worst side of Victorian life and values, how many - for example - might have availed themselves of the plight of child prostitutes during their trips to London? We have zero idea on that one. Maybe some did. Maybe none did.
One thing is for sure however, and that is that Darwin and his associates and his influencers and his influencer's influencers were not exactly what they pretend to be in their correspondence. Who is? Writing that is no more speculative - in my mere opinion - than the reasoned opinion of anyone else that it is unlikely any of those who cited Matthew's 1831 book shared the ideas they read in it with Darwin or one of Darwin's friends or contemporaries, who could then have passed Matthew's ideas, or the title of the book containing them, on to Darwin. Why is it unlikely such a thing would happen? Unlikely based on what knowledge, as opposed to mere wishful thinking, is it unlikely?
Speculating, for example as some have, that the Vestiges would have been better had Chambers read Matthew is based on no more than a mere presumption that Chambers was a plagiarist - or else a presumption that he did not despise the Chartist Matthew (Chambers was famously very much against the vote for the working classes) - or that Chambers agreed fully with Matthew's theory. But the fact Chambers cited both of Matthew's books and famously loved reading and was supposed to have had a photographic memory is evidence his brain may well have been influenced by Matthew. We know, from admissions of it in their own correspondence and publications, that Chambers influenced both Darwin and Wallace. So Chambers is just one more newly unearthed route for knowledge contamination - via Chambers's The Vestiges of Creation book.
One major point here is the fact we know humans are very bad at keeping secrets. That acknowledgement of human behaviour is the exact same reasoning against conspiracy theories such as the daft idea of NASA's faked moon landing. Namely, too many people at NASA would have had to be in on it to keep it a secret. Correspondingly, the more people who knew about Matthew's ideas the more likely they shared them - or the title of the book containing them - directly with Darwin and/or via his other friends, associates and correspondents (so many of Darwin's letter are lost or else he destroyed them). Moreover, the list of those we newly know did read Matthew's ideas is growing.
Also, we know Matthew (at least if we believe him - and unlike Darwin he has never shown himself to be a liar) did discuss his ideas with that professor of a renowned Scottish University who feared to teach or write about them; as Matthew told us all in the Gardeners' Chronicle in 1860. And we know that in 1831 the United Services Journal told its readers - in writing - not to even contemplate Matthew's ideas on the laws of nature. So those then heretical ideas surely were spoken and written about pre 1858.
Then add to all of the above reasoning and evidence the proven fact that Darwin did not discover the theory of evolution by natural selection while on the voyages of the Beagle observing finch beaks in the Galapagos islands (see Sulloway 1983) but, by his own admission, got it from reading books, originally four-word-shuffled Matthew's earlier original "natural process of selection" name for his theory to its only grammatically possible equivalent "process of natural selection" (see Sutton 2017). Then, add to that fact the fact that earlier in his 1844 private essay (as Eiseley (1981) so importantly discovered) replicated Matthew's (1831) highly idiosyncratic foresters trees selected by mankind to be raised in nurseries versus those selected in the wild by nature - surely establishes on a balance of reasonable probabilities that the proven serial liar Darwin was at least influenced by Matthew pre-1858 and more likely than not read and deliberately plagiarized his book. Don't you think dear reader? And if that is not enough to convince you then consider that fact that as opposed to Darwin's proven lie (see Sutton 2014) that no naturalist read Matthew's (1831) bombshell breakthrough pre-1858 that several known to have influenced Darwin and Wallace and their influencers did so (see Sutton 2015). And to cap it all, add to that other lies Darwin told about his influencers not influencing him (see Dower 2009). Then, as if that is not enough to convince the most obstinate Darwin worshipper to rethink, on top of that cap we must consider the great weight of circumstantial evidence that the Big Data IDD method (Sutton and Griffiths 2018) unearthed on who was apparently first to be second in print with what the IDD method revealed are apparently original terms and phrases ('Matthewisms') coined by Matthew in his 1831 book. At which, point I must direct you to the current nonsense that the obscene and obsessed malicious cyber-stalker and Darwin fanatic Derry has added to the Patrick Matthew page on Wikipedia from the idiotic blog site of Dishonest Dagg The Plagiarist that I have mistaken books containing these Matthewisms for something other than what they so obviously are. The point is not what the publications that were apparently first to be second are about, but the possibility that those who wrote them might have been knowledge contaminated from reading directly or from someone else who read Matthew's book. Clearly, some of those who were first to be second with 'Matthewisms' were closely associated with Darwin (evidence here). A further discussion on the first to be second (F2B2) hypothesis can be found in this article, that is a response to a desperately disingenuous and essentially dishonest review of this area of my research.
Who edited the journal that published Blyths' influential articles on species and varities, articles that Darwin scholars know influenced Darwin, and some of Blyth's articles Darwin admitted influenced him? It was Loudon. What did Loudon read and review in 1832? It was Matthew's (1831) book. What did Loudon say it contained? Something seemingly original on the question of "origin of species", no less! That is evidence for a route of knowledge contamination from Matthew to Loudon to Blyth. But when it comes to the F2B2 question, my research (Sutton 2014) further uniquely unearthed the fact that Blyth's friend and twice co-author Rober Mudie (Mudie was born in Forfarshire - same Scottish county as Matthew) was apparently first to be second with Matthew's apparently unique term "rectangular branching".
So the routes for Matthewian knowledge contamination of Blyth are proven and should not be ignored. Blyth did not get the theory of evolution by natural selection into any of his papers - he thought species were immutable, but his very likely influencer Matthew (1831) did originate the theory. Not mentioning these facts - or seeking to bury them under lies - as Wikipedia does - would be cherry picking the data to suit the conclusion you wish to reach. Would it not?
Now we know the above facts do we not have a scientific duty to consider and weigh them?
And there is so much more evidence than this in my books (Sutton 2014 and 2017).
Just how many otherwise stunningly miraculous multiple "coincidences" are needed to sum the the probability they are not all a coincidence?
Darwin, by his own proven lying behaviour, has lost the right to be accorded the benefit of the doubt when it comes to any question of his honesty about his influencers.
I do think it is 100% proven on a balance of reasonable probabilities (the civil law) test of guilt - as opposed to 100% proven beyond reasonable doubt (the criminal test of guilt) that Patrick Matthew's (1831) theory influenced both Darwin and Wallace to plagiarise his theory in their paper of 1858 and in Darwin's (1859) Origin of Species.
A conversation via email with another Darwin, Wallace and Matthew scholar influenced me to write this section to this blog post Patrick Matthew. But who would know he influenced me to write this unless I wrote here that he did so and named him accordingly? For that reason, I have not attributed him as my influencer. That failure is not done out of meanness, but to prove my point that absence of evidence is not evidence of absence in a case such as this.
A smoking gun confession from Darwin or one of his cronies may well exist for those who insist upon it. And I know several places to go digging for it. But I'd need a large grant to fund that particular excavation project.
.Good grief. The Darwin Trusts wants young people to be inspired by the Worlds's greatest plagiarist and serial liar.
— Dr Mike Sutton (@Criminotweet) September 6, 2020
Why ask people to trust in lies? :https://t.co/MlIFMuEwAV pic.twitter.com/OsQtllPSPN
.
.
Good grief. The Darwin Trusts wants young people to be inspired by the Worlds's greatest plagiarist and serial liar.
— Dr Mike Sutton (@Criminotweet) September 6, 2020
Why ask people to trust in lies? :https://t.co/MlIFMuEwAV pic.twitter.com/OsQtllPSPN
Saturday 5 September 2020
Contemplating Charles Darwin's 'Naval'
Although others explain that Darwin returned from the voyages of the Beagle still believing species to be immutable (see Sulloway 1982) and only came to think about evolution by natural selection by reading books years later, according to his son, Francis Darwin (see Oldroyd 1984) [archived: https://archive.is/WGVww], Charles Darwin perhaps began to think and write in his private notebooks the first tiny germ of his thoughts about evolution (that would eventually led him to write about macroevolution by natural selection) in 1832 whilst on the voyages of the Beagle. That was the year following publication of Matthew's (1831) book, which contains the first publication of the theory. However, despite mentioning Eiseley several times, Oldroyd's article most conveniently completely ignores the evidence Eiseley found that Darwin plagiarised Matthew’s theory, by way of the discovery that Darwin, in his private essay of 1844, replicated Matthew's highly idiosyncratic forester's explanatory analogy of differences between trees selected by mankind in nurseries versus those selected by nature. Indeed, Oldroyd conveniently fails to mention Matthew at all, despite the fact Darwin and Wallace each admitted Matthew got and had published the whole theory before they replicated it - supposedly miraculously independently of one another and completely co-incidentally.
Although it is only a rational possibility that Darwin knew about Matthew's (1831) book, poignantly entitled 'On Naval Timber and Arboriculture' whilst on the voyages of the Beagle - incidentally a a Royal Navy naval ship, the possibility should be considered a probability. Darwin is a proven serial liar about Matthew and his other influencers (e.g. see Sutton 2015 on his proven lies about Matthew, and see Hugh Dower on his proven lies about von Buch), so Darwin has lost all rights to be given benefit of the doubt on any of his stories about how he came to think and write about the theory of evolution by natural selection.
Notably, 1832 was the year in which Loudon (a naturalist well known to Darwin and his closest associates) published a review of Matthew's bombshell book and wrote that Matthew appeared to have something to say on what he termed the 'origin of species'. That was the phrase Darwin would later adopt for the title of his book of 1859, which replicated Matthew's theory, originally four word shuffled Matthew's original name for it from 'natural process of selection' to 'process of natural selection', replicated Matthew’s artificial v natural selection analogy of differences and stole many more of Matthew's highly idiosyncratic explanatory examples. And we know Darwin was receiving publications, via correspondence sent by friends, when the Beagle was at various ports from as early as 1832 (e.g. here).
Darwin would later claim – as a direct lie after Matthew wrote to him in 1860 explaining that Loudon reviewed his book and another naturalist professor of an eminent university read but feared to teach the theory in it – alternately that no naturalist / no one whatsoever read Matthew’s book and the original ideas in it before 1860.
The fact remains that, whatever possibilities are determined to be rational probabilities by different writers on Darwin Wallace and Matthew, Charles Darwin is a proven serial liar and plagiarising glory thief.#
To conclude, readers of this blog post might wish to contemplate the fact that if Darwin did not plagiarise Matthew's (1831) complete theory of evolution by natural selection in 1858/59, Matthew's four word name for it (natural process of selection - shuffled by Darwin to process of natural selection) and highly idiosyncratic analogies and examples to explain it, in a book read and then cited pre-1858 by Darwin's and Wallace's key influencers and influencer's influencers and Wallace's Sarawak paper General editor, Selby, then the fact Darwin first found fame by writing about his voyages on a naval ship and the theory that made him most famous was fully published, years before he put pen to private paper on the topic, in a book entitled 'On Naval Timber and Arboriculture' is just one more of a multitude of incredible, miraculous, multiple coincidences in the story of Matthew, Darwin and Wallace (see Sutton 2017 for the others).
.Contemplating [@HughDower ] Charles Darwin's "Naval" ...(cough): https://t.co/M2HR5oY9uN pic.twitter.com/t2ayG2BBPl
— Dr Mike Sutton (@Criminotweet) September 5, 2020
What kind of person sends porn spam to a blogsite on Charles Darwin's plagiarism of the Scot Patrick Matthew? Well, I have a mere unevidenced conspiracy theory that it's the Darwin Foundation at work. I suspect they might be behind the nonsense on Wikipedia's Patrick Matthew page pic.twitter.com/UqSux8d06h
— Dr Mike Sutton (@Criminotweet) September 6, 2020
Wednesday 2 September 2020
So the Editor of the Biological Journal of the Linnean Society and Oxford University Press are Being Childishly Malicious?
A biologist just emailed today to tell me why they think my research is being repeat plagiarised by the Linnean Society.
Biologist just told me that my bombshell book "Nullius in Verba: Darwin's Greatest Secret" is reason Biological Journal of Linnean Society @BiolJLinnSoc & it's publisher @OxUniPress is repeat plagiarising my original research. Facts https://t.co/yVTTd42PB0 They're being malicious pic.twitter.com/hxhWmn0gNw
— Dr Mike Sutton (@Criminotweet) September 2, 2020
Monday 31 August 2020
Roy Davies on Darwin the Plagiarist Misses New Evidence he is Now Surely Aware of
.Just listened to the YouTube interview with Roy Davies @skeptiko on the sly Darwin worshipper John Van Wyhe desperately calling facts he can't argue against a conspiracy theory. He did that in an email to a journalist about my research too. Happy to talk: https://t.co/y6D1rl1NIy
— Dr Mike Sutton (@Criminotweet) August 31, 2020
Roy Davis fails to mention the new (2014) knowledge contamination evidence that Matthew influenced both Wallace and Darwin. The new data he weirdly ignores on Wallace being a plagiarist of Matthew's theory and explanatory examples : http://www.nauka-a-religia.uz.zgora.pl/index.php/pl/czasopismo/46-fag-2015/921-fag-2015-art-05
.
Although I know you know about this, Mike, some of your followers might not be aware of my 2010 review of "The Darwin Conspiracy". https://t.co/bOeJtx10tW
— Hugh Dower (@HughDower) September 1, 2020
Saturday 29 August 2020
More Evidence of pre-1858 Matthewian Knowledge Contamination of the Brain of Charles Darwin
Moreover the @BiolJLinnSoc Biological Journal of the Linnean Society, published by @OxUniPress , a department of @UniofOxford is at the centre of facilitating disgraceful "nonscience" [@brianjford ] plagiarism of research.
— Dr Mike Sutton (@Criminotweet) August 30, 2020
Fully referenced facts here: https://t.co/yoUZnO2iZW pic.twitter.com/fmMRkdZ9Zb
Tuesday 18 August 2020
An Open Letter to the Royal Society and Linnean Society on Priority in Science and the Arago Rule
Do You Really Believe You Can Magically Change the Rules on Scientific Priority?
Charles Darwin (FRS), Alfred Russel Wallace, and Richard Dawkins (FRS) and many others, deceased or alive, amongst whom I include myself, such as Samuel Butler, Raphael Zon, James Dempster, Brian J. Ford, Michael Rampino, Milton Wainwright, Hugh Dower, Loren Eiseley, Ton Munnich, and the Royal Society Darwin Medal Winners Sir Gavin de Beer and Ernst Mayr, have published our full acknowledgement, and the independently verifiable evidence to support it, that Patrick Matthew (1831) - in his book On Naval Timber and Arboriculture - published the full theory of natural selection many years before Darwin and Wallace put pen to private notepaper on the topic and 28 years before Darwin and Wallace (1858) had their papers read before the Linnean Society.
Matthew uniquely coined his discovery the 'natural process of selection' and 29 years later Darwin uniquely shuffled Matthew's term into his own unique re-coinage the 'process of natural selection'. Darwin and Wallace each claimed to have arrived at the same theory, used the same terminology and the same unique explanatory examples, independently of Matthew and independently of one another.
The purpose of my open letter, therefore, is to request the Royal Society publish an official statement to explain whether the Royal Society will affirm that Patrick Matthew, by dint of his achievement at publishing first one of the greatest discoveries in science, should be officially awarded full priority over both Darwin and Wallace for his great unique breakthrough?
In this regard, I presume the Royal Society has not unofficially changed its views on the rules of priority? Perhaps it is necessary to remind the Royal Society of the Arago Effect to which it has adhered in all other disputes over priority for discovery in science - which is that being first into published print with a discovery is everything.
Maybe you have uniquely re-written the rules on priority for scientific discovery, but are keeping that a secret whilst facilitating plagiarism? If so, does that explain why the Royal Society has now plagiarised the unique scientific discoveries of Brian J. Ford? Here are the fully evidenced and independently verifiable toe-curlingly guilty facts on that new debacle. It is called “Watching Integrity Die” and the Royal Society plays a shameless leading role in doing just that: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VWA1tLKQ2L4&feature=youtu.be
Ignoring the convention of priority - specifically ignoring the Arago Effect - Richard Dawkins and others have created a new, unique in the history of scientific discovery - "Dawkins' Demand" that Matthew should not have priority over Darwin and Wallace because it was previously their 'knowledge belief' that Matthew's unique views went unnoticed. However, newly available Big Data research techniques reveal that Matthew's (1831) book was in fact (all pre 1858) cited by other naturalists known to Darwin/Wallace - including Loudon (who edited and published two of Blyth's influential papers), Robert Chambers (who wrote the highly influential book on evolution - the Vestiges of Creation) and Prideaux John Selby (who edited and published Wallace's Sarawak paper). (see: my peer reviewed papers for this new evidence: http://britsoccrim.org/new/volume14/pbcc_2014_sutton.pdf and https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/42392608.pdf).
As for Brian J. Ford, he has published hundreds of articles on the research the Royal Society plagiarised!
So, please explain, what is your excuse in his case? Surely the Royal Society is not plagiarising Brian J. Ford because he has acknowledged (here) your precious plagiarist Charles Darwin plagiarised Patrick Matthew are you? No, surely not!
In sum, would the Royal Society please make an official statement regarding whether it has abandoned its former acceptance of the Arago Ruling? Here is a reminder, just in case you have forgotten it: http://www.strevens.org/research/scistruc/Prioritas.pdf
If the Royal Society is making an exception to the rule of priority in the cases of Patrick Matthew and Brian J. Ford could it be so good to please explain why and make an official statement to the effect that this is not simply a biased Darwinist 'made for Matthew' and Royal Society ‘Made for Ford’ rule?
Now, perhaps also because I have published new bombshell research on the fully evidenced heresy that Darwin and Wallace knowingly plagiarised Matthew's theory, the Biological Journal of the Linnean Society is repeat victimising me by multiply plagiarising my original research and, whilst using it to fraudulently mislead its readership, refusing to do anything about that. The fully evidenced verifiable facts on that disgraceful nonscience behaviour, with proof that plagiarism is malicious, can be found here: https://patrickmathew.blogspot.com/2020/08/the-worlds-most-ironic-story-of.html
Yours sincerely
Dr Mike Sutton (Author of Nullius in Verba: Darwin’s greatest secret)
So am I right to conclude @MSWilliams62 @OxUniStudents @SociologyOxford that since @OxUniPress journals weirdly believe they can repeat plagiarise my research that Uni of Oxford now allows all staff and students to commit serious research plagiarism too? https://t.co/gditm4HETc pic.twitter.com/94AQkeS4Qn
— Supermythbuster (@supermyths) August 17, 2020
Not only that but the plagiarism is malicious. Weale wrote to my employer trying to have me sacked for defending my research. NTU enquiry found his complaint hypocritical, weird and disingenuous. No action to be taken. Dagg has a malicious stalker website dedicated to hating me. https://t.co/OA8siv4DVy
— Dr Mike Sutton (@Criminotweet) August 29, 2020
Friday 14 August 2020
Did the Two Idiots Dr Dagg and Dr Weale have Delusional Christian Virgin Conceptions of My Data Too?
Here's a dedication for 2 idiots: Dr Dagg & Dr Weale who seem to believe they miraculously had dual virgin Christian conceptions of data they plagiarised even though they wrote about it & slagged it off before plagiarising it. See https://t.co/nap34J7nkWhttps://t.co/C54Pq6TCnI
— BlessedVirginDarwin (@OnNavalTimber) August 14, 2020
.
.
Since @OUPHistory Oxford University Press (department of University of Oxford) thinks it's perfectly OK for their journals to plagiarise my research, surely that means @UniOfOxford now allows staff & students to commit such serious academic misconduct too? https://t.co/IN0LKsiHJz pic.twitter.com/84KTRdcApc
— Dr Mike Sutton (@Dysology) August 17, 2020