Identity Verified Thinker in Science / Social Sciences / Sociology
Mike Sutton
Mike Sutton
Dr Mike Sutton is the author of 'Nullius in Verba: Darwin's greatest secret'.
 
Posted in Science / Biology & Nature / Biology

Why Darwinism is now a very silly cult

Oct. 4, 2015 5:19 am
“It doesn't matter how beautiful the theory of natural selection is. It doesn't matter how smart Charles Darwin, attributed with its independent discovery was. It doesn't matter how famous Darwin is. It doesn't matter what the majority view is. If it doesn't agree with the independently verifiable facts, the Darwinist story of Darwin's independent discovery of Patrick Matthew's full prior-published hypothesis of natural selection, based on the premise that Matthew could not have had any possible influence on Darwin, is wrong.”

DARWINISTS REALLY BELIEVE THE SILLY STORY THAT FOLLOWS:

image

Thinker Media IncUsed only with express written permission

Nullius in Verba

Charles Darwin (between 1837 and 1858) and Alfred Wallace (between 1855 and 1858) had dual immaculate conceptions of Patrick Matthew's (1831) complex prior published hypothesis of the 'natural process of selection'.

Darwin's conception came from a slow realisation from reading books and Wallace's came during a bout of malarial fever. They miraculously replicated Matthew's unique explanatory examples and Darwin used the same four words Matthew uniquely used to name it, which he four-word-shuffled to 'process of natural selection'. Both Darwin and Wallace did this whilst influenced and surrounded by naturalists they knew who read and then cited Matthew's book in the literature before influencing and facilitating their own work on the same topic. One was Selby who was the editor of Wallace's 1855 Sarawak paper. Another was Chambers who met and corresponded with Darwin. Darwin and Wallace admitted the great influence Chambers had in the field.

image

(c) Dr Mike Sutton - All Rights ReservedAttribution Non-commercial

Immaculate Conception by Gabe Woods Oil on Canvas 2015 (Painting AKA: "The Virgin Darwin)

Wallace said Chambers was his greatest influence. Yet, when Matthew confronted Darwin in 1860, Darwin wrote on three occasions that no naturalists had read Matthew's ideas, even after Matthew informed him that the famous naturalist Loudon reviewed his book, as had a naturalist professor who feared pillory punishment were he to teach Matthew's heretical ideas on evolution. And Darwin knew Loudon was an important naturalist because his private notebooks and correspondence showed he read Loudon's work on botany, heavily annotated it and was influenced by it. In his 1832 review, Loudon wrote that he was far from certain Matthew had not written something original on "the origin of species", no less!. Loudon then went on to edit two of Blyth's articles, which greatly influenced Darwin on organic evolution.

Darwinists believe both Wallace and their deified namesake were miraculously gifted with some kind of 'cognitive contraceptives', enabling their immaculate conceptions despite being influenced by men whose brains were fertile with Matthew's prior-published original bombshell discovery of the full hypothesis of natural selection.

The Darwinist cult wants you to believe the same absurdity.

image

Public Domain

Voltaire and Hate Crimes

Pierre Bourdieu famously wrote 'The function of sociology, as of every science, is to reveal that which is hidden'. This book reveals that which was once hidden.

image

Public Domain

The Duty of all Scientists

'Nullius in Verba: Darwin's greatest secret' is based on new discoveries that I made using hi-tech Big Data research methods.

Long neglected publications, now re-discovered, re-write the history of the discovery of natural selection. In light of what has been unearthed in these publications, the orthodox Darwinist account for why we should believe Charles Darwin's and Alfred Wallace's stories of their independent discoveries of Patrick Matthew's prior published hypothesis is newly proven to be completely wrong. The Darwinist account is wrong simply because the premises upon which it rests are newly punctured myths.

It doesn't matter how beautiful the theory of natural selection is. It doesn't matter how smart Charles Darwin, attributed with its independent discovery was. It doesn't matter what the majority view is. If it doesn't agree with the independently verifiable facts about who really did read Patrick Matthew's prior published discovery and hypothesis of natural selection, and when, the Darwinist story that no such people read it is wrong. And that means the story of Darwin's independent discovery of natural selection is wrong. And it is wrong because it is based on the newly disproven premise that no one Darwin knew or was influenced by, or who his influencers were influenced by, read Matthew's original ideas and explanatory examples before he replicated them.

Prior to the publication of the original findings in my book, the history of the discovery of natural selection was founded upon the fixed-false-belief that no one known to Darwin or Wallace had read Patrick Matthew's (1831) full prior published theory of natural selection before Darwin's and Wallace's (1858) and Darwin's (1859) claimed independent discoveries of the same explanation for all life on Earth.

In fact, prior to their replication of Matthew's 'natural process of selection', along with many of his confirmatory examples and his unique explanatory analogy, Darwin/Wallace corresponded with, were editorially assisted by, admitted to being influenced by and met with other naturalists who - it is newly discovered - had read and cited Matthew's book long before 1858. Of that number, several mentioned Matthew's original ideas on natural selection and one who cited the book, Robert Chambers, went on to write the best-selling book on evolution - the Vestiges of Creation (1844), which influenced Darwin and Wallace on the topic and put evolution 'in the air' in the mid 19th century. Hence, probable Matthewian knowledge contamination of the minds of Darwin and Wallace creates a new paradigm in the history of scientific discovery,

Further newly discovered evidence, including a detailed plagiarism check, six lies Darwin told, and Wallace's doctoring of a letter in his autobiography, strongly suggests that Darwin and Wallace more likely than not plagiarised Matthew's ideas and so committed the World's greatest science fraud.

To find out about the new hi-tech, BigData research method that discovered the New Data, which debunks, with independently verifiable hard facts, the old unevidenced 'expert' majority view of Darwin's and Wallace's supposed dual, vexatiously anomalous and paradoxical immaculate conceptions of Matthew's prior published hypothesis of natural selection, please visit the website: PatrickMatthew.com for the independently verifiable hard facts from 'Nullius in Verba: Darwin's greatest secret.

On why scientists have a responsibility to find that which is hidden. Visit the Patrick Matthew Blog (here).

Please feel free to copy and share absolutely wherever you like the informatic images for this blog below:

image

PatrickMatthew.comAttribution

Why Darwinists are wrong about Matthew

image

Public Domain

Matthew (1831)

image

(C) Dysology.com. Dr Mike Sutton.Attribution

The Dysology Hypothesis

image

Public Domain

When the majority view is wrong, it's wrong.


image

Please share this image and trumpet from the rooftopsAttribution

The Silly Cult of Darwin

 
There are currently no comments.
 

BestThinking.com to Shut Down Permanently on December 31, 2017

If you want to save a copy of your content, you must do so before the website shuts down on December 31, 2017. We will NOT be able to provide any assistance after the website shuts down. We are available at support@thinkermedia.com only until the shutdown to provide more information and assistance.

It was a noble 10-year experiment, but it turns out that the writers with the best content are the least adept at the tech required to publish under our model, which in hindsight, makes perfect sense. If you are dedicating your life to becoming an expert in your specialty, you don’t have a lot of time left for figuring out publishing tech.

It hasn't helped that we have entered an age of unprecedented polarization and antagonism which doesn't foster demand for a website dedicated to the respectful engagement of diverse views.

Thank you, everyone!

Close
 
Latest Thinking in Science
corner
corner
 
 
Latest Ebooks