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 / Social Sciences / Sociology

100 Per Cent Proven Facts Do Exist

Mar. 22, 2016 5:52 am

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:


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, he had been on the journal's Expert Advisory Board since at least 2014 (see here).

My peer-reviewed paper

(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 Scotland

Last 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 clickable link to his tweet below and removing it 100 times. The experimenter should record when the tweet link exists and when it ceases to exist. If it ever ceases to exist then that is disconfirming evidence for my claim that it is 100 per cent proven to exist. In that regard I think rational people will agree that 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.

You can see the context of more of Mr Derry's immortal tweet here.

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.

Please note : A more detailed version of this blogpost - including the 100 per cent forensic proof that Derry's published abusive and obscene twitter comments do exist - can be read on the Patrick Matthew Blog - Here

Author's Favorite
Sude Dempster
March 22, 2016 at 12:47 pm
The Truth Will Out

Erasmus Darwin is reported by Charles Darwin himself in one of his letters to have said that he, Charles Darwin, would one day be found out. So that is today.

Wikipedia Darwinist administrators have sought to remove easy access to these letters that were on the Darwin Correspondence page. They are now effectively buried. Why?

My father, W J Dempster FRCS, fought long and hard to be heard. Mike Sutton has done this remarkably well in a shorter time and is to be congratulated for the exposure given to Patrick Matthew. The more talk there is about it, and the more people request a photocopy of the book, On Naval Timber and Arboriculture (1831) by Patrick Matthew from the National Library of Scotland, they could read it and evaluate it for themselves.

The Darwinists display total ignorance where the book On Naval Timber and Arboriculture is concerned. So blinded are they by some allegiance to a quasi atheist deity, they may not have even read the words therein nor properly digested them. If they do not read this initial book outlining the theory of macroevolution by natural selection, then how can they construct a logical and truthful argument against it? The Darwinists show they haven't a hope of a decent argument to go up against the proof that Mike Sutton has amassed in support of Patrick Matthew's claim to priority of discovery.

Thinker's Post
Mike Sutton
March 22, 2016 at 3:12 pm

Dear Soula

Than you for your kind comments.

Your father, Jim Dempster, is a great science hero of mine (as you well know). He was very badly treated by Darwin scholars. Only after his death do we find them finally admitting that Matthew was the first to publish the full and complex hypothesis of macro evolution by natural selection. Only after Matthew's death did the head of the British Association for Advancement of Science admit (in Matthew's obituary) what a great and original thinker he was. Only in a private letter did Wallace admit that Matthew was one of the greatest original thinkers of the nineteenth century!

The enormity of what Darwin and Wallace - and Darwin scholars - did by way of their sly Patrick Matthew Burial Project is perhaps simply to great for Darwin scholars to comprehend. But in that regard they should beware the Frozen Donkey Hypothesis - Adapt or die! 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 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!

Latest Thinking in Science
Latest Ebooks