Tuesday, 27 December 2016
Friday, 23 December 2016
'Subsequent to his successful manipulation of Hooker and Lyell in 1858, to ensure that Wallace did not get his priority over him, the following year, and just weeks before defending his priority to Baden Powell in 1859, Darwin writes to Hooker on Christmas Day, 1859, to say that he has always strongly felt that no one should defend their priority (Darwin 1859b). Seemingly, this most weird letter is meant to be both appreciative and self-flattering that he manipulated Hooker and Lyell to do so on his behalf, even if that meant unethical conduct on their respective parts. We know that Darwin had a weirdly unethical mindset when it came to scientific priority, but in this case, one might wonder whether perhaps he had started just a tad too early on the mince pies, rum source, sherry and port, or perhaps he was using something stronger? Or perhaps there was simply something far more profoundly wrong with the moral wiring of his mind.'
Darwin was a serial liar who was in fact obsessed with slyly stealing priority from others for his own glorification. Years earlier he started a prolific letter campaign to try to get Royal Society and British Association for Advancement of Science tore-write the rules on priority for discovery changed so that mere replicators like he could claim priority for the prior-published discoveries of lesser known scientists. Those independently verifiable facts are here.
Below, you can see the facts of how Darwin blatantly and clearly lied in order to plagiarise by glory theft Patrick Matthew's original ans prior published conception of macroevolution natural selection.
The peer reviewed facts of Charles Darwin's lies and independently verifiable evidence he committed plagiarism, to effectively claim independent discovery of Matthew's prior-published hypotheses of the process of macro evolution by natural slection, can now be read in learned journals:
3. Far more details, evidence and context can be found in 'Nullius in Verba': Here
Thursday, 22 December 2016
Wednesday, 21 December 2016
Monday, 19 December 2016
++Santa has a very special video message indeed, from the North Pole. He made it specifically for Mr Charles Darwin: https://t.co/LYpPdcgQ57 pic.twitter.com/ff6tdvpeYo— Dr Mike Sutton (@Criminotweet) December 19, 2016
@Criminotweet @DISSENTOFMAN @TakeThatDarwin @royalsociety @DarwinsWeasel @ARWallace @DawkinsDog @RichardDawkins Good luck Mike. Greetings.— Teesside SitP (@TeessideSitP) December 20, 2016
The words you are reading here are 100% proven to exist. Look 100 times - count the number of times they disappear.: https://t.co/WOiVuLvCho— Dr Mike Sutton (@Criminotweet) December 20, 2016
Sunday, 18 December 2016
My resolution for 2017? I'm simply blaming everything that is bad on the credulous & incurious zombie horde & their pseudo-skeptical leaders pic.twitter.com/nH2Eo1e1Oa— Supermythbuster (@supermyths) December 18, 2016
++Attention @sherlockmichael @DISSENTOFMAN @TakeThatDarwin @Lorienen @Jackthelad1947 @SamHarrisOrg https://t.co/JEaSsXeRwy— HUMANIST (@interUNFAO) December 18, 2016
++Calculating improbable multiple coincidence in independent discovery replication. Science problem requires solution https://t.co/tjS3g9kZ25 pic.twitter.com/xuwGIgk5N2— Supermythbuster (@supermyths) December 18, 2016
Nullius in Verba': On sale HERE. The ideal present for the genuine scientist, skeptic, historian or sociologist.
Saturday, 17 December 2016
++He is not the Messiah! He's a very naughty plagiarist! :— Dr Mike Sutton (@Dysology) December 17, 2016
2. https://t.co/JIdFnrcCVZ pic.twitter.com/R9WAS2HO62
How Many Coincidences Sum to the Point Where They Render the Defence of Multiple Coincidence Totally Implausible?
++.@interUNFAO Presenting new & independently verifiable evidence that leads to ask just how many coincidences sum to a likelihood they never? pic.twitter.com/uAjKyoIwN5— Supermythbuster (@supermyths) December 17, 2016
Friday, 16 December 2016
Thursday, 15 December 2016
Wednesday, 14 December 2016
Monday, 12 December 2016
Sunday, 11 December 2016
The "No Naturalists Read It" Premesis Underpinning the Darwinite Paradigm of Darwin's and Wallace's Independent Conceptions of Matthew's Prior Publshed Theory is 100 per cent Disconfirmed with Indpendently Verifiable Hard Evidence: Here.@ThinkAtheist Good explanations are capable of easy refutation. If ever we find a dinosaur above a human skeleton that disproves evolution. pic.twitter.com/wgAd7rMeZ3— Dr Mike Sutton (@Criminotweet) December 11, 2016
Saturday, 10 December 2016
Friday, 9 December 2016
Monday, 5 December 2016
Sunday, 4 December 2016
Saturday, 3 December 2016
Friday, 2 December 2016
One small step at a time: Driving the Corrupt Darwin-Lobby into the Gutter of the History of Science Fraudsters along with their Plagiarising Namesake
On this topic the Wikipedia page now (currently) reads:
The United Service Journal and Naval and Military Magazine published an extended review in the 1831 Part II and 1831 Part III numbers of the magazine; it praised Matthew's book in around 13,000 words, highlighting that "The British Navy has such urgent claims on the vigilance of every person as the bulwark of his independence and happiness, that any effort for supporting and improving its strength, lustre, and dignity, must meet with unqualified attention." It approved of Mathew "strictly in his capacity as a forest-ranger, where he is original, bold and evidently experienced in all the arcana of the parentage, birth and education of trees. But, we disclaim participation in his ruminations on the law of Nature, or on the outrages committed upon reason and justice by our burthens of hereditary nobility, entailed property, and insane enactments." The review did not mention the appendix to the book.
Of course, Matthew's orignal conception was not limited to the book's appendix. That is a lie written by Darwin and parroted by his followers ever since as though it is the gospel truth. We know it is a lie, rather than a mistake, because he admitted to his mentor Charles Lyell that it would be "splitting hairs" to admit the truth on that particular issue. Get the peer reviewed facts - with full references to the independently verifiable historic publication record, which the weird pseudo-scholarly fact denial cult of corrupt Darwinities are trying to keep buried HERE.
Tuesday, 29 November 2016
Monday, 28 November 2016
Thursday, 24 November 2016
++Good. There you are on debunking the spinach myth. Now... let's see your work on debunking the Darwin myth.. https://t.co/JY3gwIx2JQ— Emilio Cervantes (@BiologiaPensamt) November 24, 2016
NTU's @Criminotweet was on @bbcworldservice discussing extremists in relation to the #JoCox murder trial https://t.co/tfWmwZwEyv (10.25 in)— NTU Press Office (@NTUNews) November 24, 2016
There is an alternative vision for the future. It's one based upon veracity not fact-denial, pseudo scholarship and political claptrap.
Wednesday, 23 November 2016
Tuesday, 22 November 2016
Saturday, 19 November 2016
Great to see @Dysology great research getting recognition. Did Darwin lie and 'steal' theory of natural selection? https://t.co/5rMplv9zQU— Dr James Treadwell (@James_Treadwell) November 2, 2016
Friday, 18 November 2016
Those Who Harass and Facilitate the Harassment of Paradigm Changing Discoverers and Immortal Great Thinkers will be Exposed and Shamed for All Eternity
"A leading psychologist whose research on human memory exposed her to death threats, lawsuits, personal abuse and a campaign to have her sacked has won a prestigious prize for her courage in standing up for science."
Read her story: Here
What we do in this life echoes through eternity
++Having been professionally harassed & abused due to my discoveries I see Loftus's story of criminological imprtance: https://t.co/bpgUyVmZXz pic.twitter.com/rZh6hLKx2N— Dr Mike Sutton (@Criminotweet) November 18, 2016
My own story so far - well just some of it. The rest is far worse and, rest assured, it will be published in the future.
Read just some of the facts of the professional harassment and abuse I have been on the receiving end of here
Here are the published facts some really don't like:
1. Nullius in Verba: Darwin's Greatest Secret
2. On Knowledge Contamination
Thursday, 17 November 2016
Wednesday, 16 November 2016
Tuesday, 15 November 2016
Monday, 14 November 2016
Sunday, 13 November 2016
Saturday, 12 November 2016
The Frozen Donkey Hypothesis is born of the implications of the obvious catastrophic extinction event impact of the New Data on Darwinist professional and amateur historians of science, who reveal by their plainly biased response to it, that they are necessarily concerned – if they are to remain so named Darwinists and not be re-born Matthewists – with ignoring the rational implications of the new disconfirming hard evidence for their prior soft knowledge beliefs in their namesake’s “independent” discovery of a prior published hypothesis that was read, and the book containing it cited, by naturalists who were Darwin’s admitted influencers and associates and correspondents- even though Darwin himself fallaciously wrote in 1860 that no naturalist known to him had read it.
See more on the hypothesis here.
See more on the New Data - here.
.@risengrisha @Yestoitok @DiscoveryCSC Thanks. Darwinites were warned of sadly inevitable Frozen Donkey Hypothesis: https://t.co/TnMtwezQbo pic.twitter.com/rmCPKtUvE9— Dr Mike Sutton (@Dysology) November 12, 2016
Tuesday, 8 November 2016
A truly excellent resource!
Monday, 7 November 2016
Friday, 4 November 2016
In my book "Nullius in Verba: Darwin's greatest secret" I originally
revealed the New Data that bust the 155 year old expert 'knowledge claim' that no naturalist and no one known to Darwin read Matthew's (1831) prior-published original hypothesis of macroevolution by natural selection before Darwin and Wallace replicated it and failed to cite Matthew. Darwin excused that failure by claiming he independently conceived it and that no naturalist, and no one at all read Matthew's original ideas before 1860.
Darwin lied, because Matthew had informed him in 1860 that two naturalists had read his ideas and that his book was banned by Perth Library for its heresy on the origin of species. In reality, Nullius reveals 25 people cited Matthew pre-Darwin's and Wallace's replications of 1858, four were known to Darwin, he was influenced by three of them and one was the editor of Wallace's famous 1855 Sarawak paper on evolution. One was Robert Loudon - who edited two of Blyth's influential pre-1858 papers on natural selection. Blyth was Darwin's most prolific correspondent and informant. Loudon was a close friend of William Hooker - the father of Darwin's best friend, the highly influential botanist Joseph Hooker. Loudon had written in 1832 that Matthew appeared to have something orignal to say "on the origin of species" no less! Another naturalist who read and cited Matthew's book pre-1858 was Robert Chambers. He did so in 1832, and in the following decade went on to write The Vestiges of Creation - the book that "put evolution in the air" in the mid 19th century, and greatly influenced both Darwin and Wallace and paved the way for public acceptance of Darwin's (1859) book entitled the Origin of Species.
The disconfirmed fact believers of the Branch Darwinians can run but not hide. Nullius ranked 11 on Amazon: https://t.co/JIdFnrcCVZ … pic.twitter.com/WG6jsT1v5P— Dr Mike Sutton (@Dysology) November 5, 2016
Thursday, 3 November 2016
Creationists fear Matthew and are fact denying about his origination of macroevolution by natural selection
.@BiologiaPensamt @ShareThis Proof article completely wrong & why a creationist has motive to fact deny Matthew's origination pre Darwin pic.twitter.com/v6rPeVmjq9— BlessedVirginDarwin (@OnNavalTimber) November 3, 2016
Wednesday, 2 November 2016
Tuesday, 1 November 2016
Sunday, 23 October 2016
Saturday, 22 October 2016
As the psychologist Patrizio E. Tressold (2011) reminds us
' “Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence” was a phrase made popular by Carl Sagan who reworded Laplace's principle, which says that “the weight of evidence for an extraordinary claim must be proportioned to its strangeness” (Gillispie et al., 1999). This statement is at the heart of the scientific method, and a model for critical thinking, rational thought and skepticism everywhere.'
It is extraordinary to claim that Darwin and Wallace independently conceived Matthew's prior published hypothesis of macro evolution by natural selection, because new evidence proves that Darwin's and Wallace's friends and influencers and their influencer's influencers read Matthew's prior publication containing that orignal hypothesis and then cited the book containing it before either of those replicators put so much as a pen to private notebook on the topic. If. under such conditions for knowledge contamination, Darwin and Wallace conceived Matthew's prior published and cited hypothesis independently of that publication, then that is something remarkably unlikely, because it is completely without the remotest parallel in the history of scientific discovery.
Get the independently verifiable facts. HERE
@mpigliucci @stefanako71 @DrMarkGriffiths Serious scientists take it seriously: https://t.co/Ea0I736oEk pic.twitter.com/VZsUjpojQq— BlessedVirginDarwin (@OnNavalTimber) October 22, 2016
Friday, 21 October 2016
Friday, 14 October 2016
Thursday, 13 October 2016
On Richard III and Patrick Matthew: The Age of Scientific History Versus The Last Bastions of Childish Improbabilities
Rationally skeptical fact-led historians have revealed that the long-told history of Richard III is based for the most part on fabricated and otherwise un-evidenced storytelling (see for example Potter 1983; Ashdown-Hill 2015).
After the Tudor usurpation of the throne it was necessary to justify to the populace, who believed in the divine sovereign right of the "Crown" to demand absolute loyalty and obedience, that Henry VII's army's slaughter of their monarch King Richard III at the Battle of Bosworth was justified homicide of a ruler who was less, not more, than a normal human being.
Bit by bit, a few 19th, and many 20th and 21st century historians have peeled away at the layers of mythology about Richard III, revealing them to be baseless fictions, written as Tudor propaganda by supporters of Henry.
Bit by bit, one 20th century anthropologist (Eiseley 1979) and a few 20th and 21st century scientists (Dempster, 1995 ; Wainwright, 2010) and one sociologist (Sutton 2014 and 2016) have peeled away at the layers of mythology about Patrick Matthew, the originator of the concept of macroevolution by natural selection, revealing them to be unevidenced stories, deliberate lies written by Darwin and disproven fallacies written by his supporters as Darwinite propaganda.
What Jeremey Potter (1983. p. 6) cites as Horace Walpole's so eloquent dismissal of the last bastions of Richard III liars, mythmongers and their mynah-birding dupes can equally be said of those who currently cling to the ludicrous and now newly completely evidence-led debunked notion that Darwin and Wallace had virgin cognitive conceptions of Patrick Matthew's prior published theory, and orignal explanatory examples and analogies to explain it, after their friends, correspondents and influencers and influencer's influencers and facilitators cited it in the literature:
'Horace Walpole is the spokesman in this pithy summary of their case: "The Reign of Richard III has so degraded our annals by an intrusion of childish improbabilities that it places that reign at a level with the story of Jack-the Giant Killer."
And so, with apologies to Walpole (1798) , similarities between the cases of the treatment of Richard III and Patrick Matthew suggest to me that something similar should be written about the treatment of the latter:
The first and foremost priority that has been awarded to Darwin and Wallace, the replicators of Matthew's prior-published and prior-cited orignal conception of macroevolution by natural selection, has so degraded our annals of the history of scientific discovery by an intrusion of childish improbabilities, that it places the claimed historical fact of Darwin's and Wallace's dual independent conceptions at a level with the story of The Virgin Mary.
Incidentally, the same IDD research method that originally disproved the expert knowledge claim that no naturalists / no biologists read Matthew's (1831) orignal conception before Darwin and Wallace (1858) and Darwin (1859) replicated it without citing him, has unearthed something else orignal and intriguing about a Sheriff of Nottingham, the Mayor of Nottingham and Richard III's alabaster tomb memorial at Greyfriars Abbey in Leicester: Click Here to Read the Story.