Tuesday, 30 May 2017
Monday, 29 May 2017
Sunday, 28 May 2017
John Loudon, the famous botanist naturalist, reviewed Patrick Matthew’s (1831) book ‘On Naval Timber and Arboriculture’, which is now acknowledged by the world’s leading Darwinists to contain the first publication of the full conception of macro evolution by natural selection. See: Gardener’s Magazine 1832, vol. VIII, p. 703.
Patrick Matthew (1860): 1st open letter to Charles Darwin in the Gardener's Chronicle and Agricultural Gazette 7 April 1860, pp. 312-313 Reveals that the famous naturalist botanist John Loudon Reviewed Matthew's book.
Patrick Matthew (1860): 2nd open letter. Reply to Charles Darwin in the Gardener's Chronicle and Agricultural Gazette 12 May 1860, p. 433
Charles Darwin (1861) , Letter to Quatrefages de Bréau, J. L. A. De. 25 April :
Charles Darwin, (1861) ‘On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection: Or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life’, 3rd ed:
DARWIN'S LIES HAVE BEEN CREDULOUSLY PARROTED AS "TRUE" EVER SINCE
Gavin de Beer (1962), “The Wilkins Lecture: The Origins of Darwin’s Ideas on Evolution and Natural Selection”, Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences. vol. 155, no. 960, pp. 321-338.
Ernst Mayr (1982), The Growth of Biological Thought: Diversity, Evolution and Inheritance, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts, p. 499
Friday, 26 May 2017
+Right that's done. My "leading expert" Oxford Bibliography on Fencing and Stolen Goods is published: https://t.co/AobmmR3L8G pic.twitter.com/IuiPXv3zq5— Dr Mike Sutton (@Dysology) May 25, 2017
@BiologiaPensamt Intellectual copyright .as close as I get in this one. But there is a market for plagiarism = The Darwin Industry: https://t.co/LMpbVPMAh6 pic.twitter.com/YGdS4wFYfC— Dr Mike Sutton (@Dysology) May 26, 2017
Saturday, 20 May 2017
Tuesday, 16 May 2017
Saturday, 13 May 2017
Thursday, 11 May 2017
Anyone wishing to disseminate the truth is welcome to take and use the following information:Latest newspaper story in Scotland on Darwin's plagiarism. Note this: Desperate fact denials can't stop the truth: https://t.co/ju9da16LKC pic.twitter.com/4Ov992Ttum— Dr Mike Sutton (@Criminotweet) May 11, 2017
It is essential that we use the veracious power of independently verifiable facts only in tackling those who wish to keep Matthew buried in oblivion with mere unevidenced rhetoric, cherry picking dysology, fallacies, myths and outright, and de facto, fact denial behaviour. And that we make it clear that is how we will argue for a veracious history of scientific discovery and influence of the unifying theory of biology. Otherwise - in my experience with them to date - Darwinians will seek to confuse the world further with mere unevidenced opinions to support their newly punctured paradigm of tri-independent discovery of macro evolution by natural selection by Matthew, Darwin and Wallace.
Please do feel free to use the bullet points below anywhere in any way you see fit.
What follows are bulletproof, independently verifiable, facts.
Sunday, 7 May 2017
Friday, 5 May 2017
Thursday, 4 May 2017
Wednesday, 3 May 2017
Tuesday, 2 May 2017
Monday, 1 May 2017
@BiologiaPensamt @faydra_deon @Dysology @BestThinking @DarwinsWeasel @PlagiarismBad Good point. From your inspiration - how about Darwinite reasoning. Supporting Rampino's and others observations?: https://t.co/WKHhbYLOU8 pic.twitter.com/u2ZxpFqwlY— Dr Mike Sutton (@Criminotweet) May 1, 2017
Saturday, 22 April 2017
Thursday, 20 April 2017
Tuesday, 18 April 2017
Saturday, 15 April 2017
Saturday, 8 April 2017
Tuesday, 4 April 2017
Claimed Multiple Coincidence conundrum: Criminology, science statistics - All have no answer to this big problem: https://t.co/4l0O1CAxiQ— Dr Mike Sutton (@Criminotweet) April 4, 2017
Monday, 3 April 2017
Thursday, 23 March 2017
Friday, 17 March 2017
Wednesday, 15 March 2017
Saturday, 11 March 2017
Thursday, 9 March 2017
Wednesday, 8 March 2017
What about the rules of Darwin worship in science. I broke those with cold hard newly discovered facts that bust the paradigm of Darwin and Wallace as independent discoverers of an unread prior-published theory see: Sutton 2014 and Sutton 2016.
Were you to nominate my paradigm changing orignal research discoveries for any prize in science what outcome should we expect? Why?
++Evolution trial: Darwin vs Sutton. Please make your bets... https://t.co/Yqsn8nm9gH— Emilio Cervantes (@BiologiaPensamt) March 7, 2017
Sunday, 5 March 2017
+.@JohnParker1988 They could be on the rise. Only now visualized in the mind of credulous and biased pseudo-skeptics? https://t.co/98unybjgbO pic.twitter.com/VTWprCl8nW— Dr Mike Sutton (@Criminotweet) March 5, 2017
Saturday, 4 March 2017
Monday, 27 February 2017
Wednesday, 22 February 2017
Tuesday, 21 February 2017
Monday, 20 February 2017
Ignoring completely the accepted Arago Ruling on first and foremost priority for a discovery going to whoever had their original discovery published first, the Royal Society awarded the Darwin medal, and its most prestigious Copley medal, to Wallace. Why? For replicating Matthew's (1831) prior-published theory in 1858 and for claiming it as his own. If that was not a corrupt act by the Royal Society then what is?
No one is ever going to win the Royal Society's Copley Medal now - never mind one of its Darwin Medals - for originally proving Matthew's book, containing the full theory of natural selection, was read and cited by Darwin's and Wallace's friends, influencers and editors and their influencer's influencers before Darwin and Wallace replicated Matthew's original conception and claimed to have done so independently of it. Just Google "On Knowledge Contamination" (put it in those speech quotes - its a simple Big Data trick) to find the peer reviewed truth of what has been discovered on this topic.
How can we ask the scientific community to stand up to Trump's anti-vaccination and anti-global warming claptrap when its most esteemed institution is corrupt?
In 1860, 157 years ago, Matthew wrote two letters - both published in the Gardener's Chronicle of that year - claiming his priority.
Darwin wrote to admit Matthew got the entire thing first - 27 years in published print (in 1831) before he and Wallace replicated the theory in their papers presented before the Linnean Society n 1858. Yet Darwin continued to call it "my theory" and lied by claiming no naturalist/no one at all had read Matthew's original ideas. Darwin wrote those falsehoods even though Matthew had prior- informed him of two naturists who did read his ideas pre-1858.
We know knewly know (Google 'Nullius in verba Darwin's greatest secret' to get the facts) that many of Darwin's and Wallace's friends, associates and influencers cited Matthew's book and mentioned his orignal ideas pre-1858 in published print. Selby - the editor of Wallace's 1855 Sarawak paper cited Matthew's 1831 book in 1842. Chambers' - Wallace's greatest influencer and Darwin's associate and Correspondent pre-1858 (he authored the Vestiges of Creation in 1844) cited Matthew's book in 1832. there are many more I could mention.
Nevertheless - even despite what has been newly discovered about Matthew's prior-influence- the Arago Ruling was ignored by The Royal Society.
Before we can take on the likes of Donald Trump's tweets that vaccinations cause autism and global warming is a Chinese conspiracy (here), our esteemed institutions of science must first put themselves in order. We need an inquiry into the corruption that is the so-called Darwin Industry.
Sunday, 19 February 2017
@Criminotweet Looks like the v small book was a publisher's compression of other stuff. Not so much corrupt as lazy and dumb, I suspect— Brian Deer (@deerbrian) February 19, 2017
Saturday, 18 February 2017
Friday, 17 February 2017
Sunday, 12 February 2017
++Happy Darwin Day SUCKERS!— BlessedVirginDarwin (@OnNavalTimber) February 12, 2017
2: https://t.co/DotiWqaMkbhttps://t.co/xBGGof5eY7#Darwin #PatrickMatthew pic.twitter.com/lj7s35Dwc4
And to raise questions about research integrity. https://t.co/yksOVd2tEX— Robert Dingwall (@rwjdingwall) February 12, 2017