In the public interest, I have been compelled to write a professionally reviewed essay in response to online obscene and misogynistic abuse, other abuse and claims, which have been submitted to the Scottish press, about my expert and independently peer-reviewed scholarly science journal publication of my original research findings. You can read it here (Sutton 2016).
On Knowledge Contamination: New Data Challenges Claims of Darwin’s and Wallace’s Independent Conceptions of Matthew’s Prior-Published Hypothesis
My latest peer reviewed paper on the the New Data can be read by clicking this link: Here
The 100 per cent proven facts in this peer reviewed paper, are published in a Polish philosophy journal Filozoficzne Aspekty Genezy, Philosophical Aspects of Origin. Moreover, the esteemed Darwinist Senior Lecturer on the history of science, Dr John van Wyhe, was on the journal's academic expert advisory board before, at the time this paper was submitted, during its peer review process, and also immediately after it was published. Soon after, for some reason unknown to me, he resigned that position. Notably, van Wyhe had been on the Advisory Board of the journal since at least 2014, as evidenced by his name in it here.
(1) 100 per cent proves that the world's leading Darwin Scholars - and others - were 100 per cent wrong to write that the original ideas in Matthew's book went uread by biologists and anyone else before Darwin and Wallace replicated them. Because it is newly 100 per cent proven that - as opposed to the prior-Darwinist myth that none - seven other naturalists in fact did cite, in the published 19th century literature, Matthew's book and the original ideas in it pre-1858.
(2) 100 per cent proves that after 1860 Darwin lied by writing the very opposite to what Matthew had already informed him about the readership of his book.
Illogical and irrational pseudo scholars might think that it is unscientific for me to write that it is 100 proven that something is true. But any making such a claim as to the unscientific nature of my claims are confusing two very distinctly different things. Quite rightly, it is not the language of scientists to write that a hypothesis is 100 per cent proven or not. However, no rational scientist would deny that it is 100 proven that the New Data - which is the published words inside newly re-discovered published 19th century books and journals - is 100 per cent proven to exist.
In the Carse of Gowrie ScotlandLast week I delivered the results of my latest research paper at the James Hutton Institute in Scotland. The Dundee Courier reported on the event.
English academic says Scots farmer could be true origin of Charles Darwin’s most famous theory
A Mr Derry, who claims to represent Edinburgh University, wrote what he calls an "open letter" to several of my associates in Scotland and to the Dundee Courier. Abstracts from his letter, a jumble of unsubstantiated rantings about me, were published in the Courier. One of his many weird criticisms of what I have written is that it is not the language of scientists to say that something is 100 proven. Here he weirdly mistakes the fact that one would not ordinarily say that evidence for a hypothesis 100 per cent proves or disproves it with the way anyone would say that the words they are reading in any publication - historic or brand new - are 100 per cent proven to exist on the page they are reading. My original new discoveries 100 per cent prove that - as opposed the old Darwin scholar story that none read Matthew's ideas before 1859 - in fact seven cited his book in the literature, four were known to Darwin and three played major roles at the epicentre of influence and facilitation of the pre-1859 work of Darwin and Wallace on organic evolution. Mr Derry’s letter also complained very specifically that the new facts were discovered with Google. By analogy, his weird logic in that regard appears to be that the Staffordshire Hoard is somehow less of a valuable archaeological discovery because it was found with a high-tech metal detector rather than a toothbrush.
Darwin academic accused of ‘poor and lazy research’
I responded to Derry's rabid and totally unevidenced rantings with a letter to the courier that included a link to the page on this blog where Mr Derry's use of the foulest of foul language in published social media communications can be read. The Courier responded appropriately
Academic accused of ‘weirdly closed mind’ as Perthshire Charles Darwin row continues
The existence of Mr Derry's rabid frustration in the teeth of the evidence - when asked to put his name to his angry social media rants against the hard evidence - is 100 per cent proven - something he believes cannot be a scientific statement. I suggest he try an experiment. The experiment involves putting his hand over the tweet below and removing it 100 times. The experimenter should record when the tweet exists and when it ceases to exist. If it ever ceases to exist when the hand covering it is removed then rational people would surely agree that is disconfirming evidence for my claim that it is 100 per cent proven to exist. In that regard, Mr Derry's use of the misogynistic "C" word exists as much as the newly discovered published proof in the literature that naturalists known to Darwin cited Matthew's book before Darwin replicated Matthew's ideas and explanatory examples without citing their source.
On learning that the proven evidence of his grossy offensive misogynist use of obscene language in the published public arena of the Internet had been forensically captured, sent to the Dundee Courier as hard evidence of his personality and actual misconduct, and then published in the Courier - to the immense public shame of himself and Edinburgh University- Mr Derry - who sent his irrational ranting "open letter" to the Courier via an Edinburgh University email account had the following to say on Twitter:@Dysology Look here you supercilious cunt, I told you who I was immediately. Stuff ur haughty "Wasn't that hard for you was it?" up ur arse— Jafe (@JFDerry) February 1, 2016
Perhaps Mr Derry does not think that publishing anything - unprofessional and obscene language or lies, or what will later be discovered in the publication record - has consequences? Perhaps he really does believe that what is published does not 100 per cent prove that it really does exist? I wonder if his department at Edinburgh University would agree? And when they find out, I wonder what kind of apology they will think he deserves and for what exactly?.@Criminotweet Last word on this because a grown man complaining about name calling is pathetic: my c-tweet ... https://t.co/GaPbTKMmQC— Jafe (@JFDerry) March 22, 2016
Perhaps Mr Derry, of Edinburgh University, weirdly thinks that I should apologise for originally discovering, recording and then disseminating the painfully disconcerting bombshell proof of Darwin's lies, and the truth of the poor scholarship of the world's leading Darwin scholars, and having it all peer-reviewed and then published in a scholarly journal?.@Criminotweet You're resorting to attacking me because you don't have anything else. I will expect a public apology. @C_MAlexander— Jafe (@JFDerry) March 22, 2016
You can see the context of more of Mr Derry's immortally embedded tweets here..@C_MAlexander @DarwinMonkey @JFDerry Scientists can, and do, 100% prove that published words & their meaning exist: https://t.co/yfoB890Goh— Dr Mike Sutton (@Criminotweet) March 22, 2016
POSTSCRIPT 27th March 2016
In its online page only, the Dundee Courier published the opinions of a Dr Neil Peterson (Botanist) that my 2104 book Nullius was "self published". In fact, the devastating new facts are neither self nor vanity published, they are published by the professional publisher Thinker Books. Had Dr Peterson bothered himself to read so much as the first page of my book - on which he deems himself expert enough to write to the papers about its bomshel contents - he would have known that fact. He would have known also that - contrary to the nonsense he has written - I do not claim to have any kind of theory. Moreover, Dr Neil Peterson would know that I claim the new facts about who they knew who cited Matthew's ideas pre 1858 - do not prove Darwin and Wallace copied Matthew's ideas directly, but that they do (along with a host of other newly discovered facts) establish beyond reasonable doubt that Darwin's and Wallace's indirect and direct knowledge of those ideas, is now - rationally - more likely than not.
I respectfully suggest that Dr Peterson's time would be better spent reading the New Facts rather than writing in total ignorance to the press to start new Darwinist myths about me. Following my complaint to the Editor, the Courier deleted the words "self published" from their online article. You can read it:
Clearly, the devastating absolute enormity of the New Data will bring more desperate Darwin worshipping fact deniers into the public gaze. But these new facts will out, no matter how desperately Darwinists seek to bury them under lies and fallacies.
Summary and Conclusions
Surpassing the failure of traditional Darwin scholar rubber thimble paper turning in the libraries of the world, the cutting edge high technology of the Google library project, of some 35 million searchable publications, enabled me to originally discover facts that 100 per cent prove Charles Darwin and Alfred Wallace fallaciously claimed that no one read Matthew's prior-published discovery and explanatory examples of natural selection before they replicated both. And the "New Facts" 100 per cent prove it, because the proof 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 them and their 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 100 per cent proven to have lied in that regard, because he wrote that 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 ideas, by Perth Public Library in Scotland.
As the 100 per cent proven newly discovered facts of Darwin's lies and the newly discovered fact that - as opposed to none at all - several naturalists actually cited Matthew's original ideas before 1858 receive more publicity we should expect more weirdly closed minded and irrational ranting Darwin scholars to seek to deny the facts that prove they have bet their entire careers on a newly proven lying plagiarist, whose friends, influencers and influencers influencers in fact did read and then cite, in the newly re-discovered 19th century published literature, the original bombshell ideas in Matthew's (1831) book. And it is a 100 proven fact that they did so years before Darwin replicated them without citing their originator Patrick Matthew.
POSTSCRIPT 20/April 2016
More on this issue on my Best Thinking blog here: https://www.bestthinking.com/thinkers/science/social_sciences/sociology/mike-sutton?tab=blog&blogpostid=23758