Perthshire Charles Darwin claims are ‘so silly’, claims leading international academic"You can read it here - note there is also a comments section.
Please note I have written the first comment in this Courier article
I would like to thank Mike Alexander of the Chronicle for writing this article. The facts that Dr John van Wyhe does not like are the newly discovered facts of who - as opposed to the old now punctured myth started as a proven lie by Charles Darwin that none whatsoever - read Patrick Matthew's 1831 full prior-published conception of macro evolution by natural selection. What the professional Darwin Historian van Wyhe wants you to dismiss as "very silly" is the new and 100 per cent proven fact that "Routes of knowledge contamination" have been newly discovered between those who read Matthew's ideas before 1858 and Darwin and Wallace. In fact, it is far from "very silly" that Darwin's and Wallace's friends, correspondents, associates and influencers, and their influencer's influencers are newly discovered to have cited Matthew's book in the literature before Darwin and Wallace replicated Matthew's original ideas inside the book and claimed them as their own independent conceptions. Please do take this opportunity to click the link in the Courier article to my peer reviewed science article that reveals the New Data facts and what they mean for the history of discovery of natural selection and Scottish science history.
In the Public Interest
In the public interest, I have been compelled to write a professionally reviewed essay in response to John van Wyhe's written claims, which he 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).
In his full statement to the press, where he effectively engages in fact denial regarding the new discovery of routes of knowledge contamination, Dr Van Wyhe wrote:
'Dr Sutton's allegations about a purported influence of Matthew on Darwin and Wallace are not new. This conspiracy theory is so silly and based on such forced and contorted imitations of historical method that no qualified historian could take it seriously.'
Why would Dr van Wyhe deny the existence of 100 per cent proven, independently verifiable, newly discovered facts that completely overturn prior-knowledge beliefs in his field? Why write such a thing for public consumption about someone else's peer reviewed work? Is he "insanely jealous" or "wilfully ignorant"? What on Earth is the reason for such behaviour? Why deny the existence of 100 per cent proven newly discovered facts? Does he not understand the serious social dangers of fact denial in our universities, in our telling of our history, in the sciences?
So are new facts really not new, silly & a conspiracy theory?— Dr Mike Sutton (@Criminotweet) June 3, 2016
2, Please Read & judge: https://t.co/E8QuuMzsSL