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

Darwin Famously Wrote: "I think", But We Now Know it Was Not His Thought!

Nov. 29, 2014 7:19 am
image

Stolen from Matthew by Darwin!Public Domain

Even Darwin's famous tree was stolen from Matthew's (1831) unique explanatory concept of ramifying branches to explain how species are descended form a common ancestor.

Figure 2 from Nullius in Verba: Darwin's Greatest Secret.

image

Dr Mike Sutton and Thinker Media IncUsed only with express written permission

The Converging Ramifications of Matthew's (1831) prior published theory provides independently verifiable dis-confirming evidence for the Darwinist myth that Darwin and Wallace immaculately conceived the exact same complex theory, its name, and the same unique examples to explain it.

Charles Darwin had about as much originality as a trailer park!

Hopping-mad pseudo-scholarly Darwinists, apparently, do not wish you to know that the newly discovered story of the world's greatest science fraud is available on Kindle, all e-reading devices and PC's: here.

For the past 154 years, ignoring the fundamental principle of nullius in verba, credulous Darwin worshipers have meekly swallowed a host of Darwin's un-evidenced fallacious rhetoric and downright lies about Patrick Matthew - the true originator of the full hypothesis of natural selection.

image

Thinker Media IncUsed only with express written permission

Nullius in Verba

The explanation for the figure (Figure 2) in this blog is on Kindle: here, and is taken from the book that establishes with new - independently verifiable hard evidence - that it is now more likely than not that Darwin and Wallace plagiarized Matthew's prior published hypothesis and that each lied when they claimed no prior knowledge of it.

Contrary to the myth, started by Darwin that no one read Matthew's book, newly conducted BigData analysis reveals that 25 people cited it. Seven of those 25 were naturalists. Four of those naturalists were known to Darwin/Wallace. Three of those naturalists known to Darwin/Wallace played major roles at the epicenter of influence and facilitation on the pre-1858 work of Darwin and Wallace. A plagiarism analysis reveals Darwin and Wallace used the same phrases as Matthew, replicated his unique ideas and even copied his highly idiosyncratic explanatory examples. Darwin even uniquely four word shuffled Matthew's unique name for his discovery!

In sum, Nullius in Verba: Darwin's Greatest Secret reveals - in my opinion - that both Darwin and Wallace, more likely than not, committed the world's greatest science fraud and then both lied to conceal it. The shame of it! And shame on the pseudo-scholarly, daft-as-a-brush, fanatical, Darwin-worship Industry, and the credulous eminent Darwinists who it run it for vainglorious profit, for carelessly hoodwinking us all for so long!

 
Bob Butler
December 6, 2014 at 9:32 am
Joachim's Comments Suspended

We have had to step in and suspend "Joachim's" comments because he is using a non-working or blocked email address. Using your real identity is a requirement to Participate on BT. If we could contact him, we would also ask him to review the Participation Policy regarding getting too personal... we endeavor to keep the conversation civil and productive and want participants to focus on the message, not the messenger. Similar reminders have gone to other participants in this discussion.

We hate to intervene because there are some important issues underlying the rancor, including what is the threshold of proof required to establish a new truth in science, and is that threshold different to dislodge a now-suspected established truth. Is it appropriate, and/or perhaps even required, to discuss the motives of proponents and detractors, and to use superlatives like "greatest" and "lies," in science discussions?

We hope Joachim will provide his true identity and a working email, review the Participation Policy and rejoin the discussion.

Thinker Media

Author's Favorite
Vince Gutschick
December 3, 2014 at 2:25 pm
This does not dilute in the least Darwin's monumental achievement

This is like armchair quarterbacking, and it's also ignoring the facts. Darwin did not see Matthews' diagram until 1860, after he published the Origin of Species. Far more importantly, in science we don't give the real credit to the first person to have an idea but to the first person who takes it seriously, and Darwin did so, in extraordinary detail, with a mass of supporting evidence and a presaging of many discoveries to come. Mr. Sutton (Dr. of ??), you need to read Darwin in detail - and, for that matter, Wallace's Malay Archipelago - as some of the greatest achievements of the human mind, not to overlook the enormous amount of field work behind these ideas (yes, plural - there's far more to evolution than a tree diagram).

Re taking an idea seriously: Max Planck's formulation of the quantum as a real explanation of the conundrum of the ultraviolet catastrophe in the spectra of blackbodies is an example. It took immense physical insight and intellectual courage to place this new stone in the foundation of physics. The same is true of Darwin in the foundation of biology. Maybe evolution would have been formulated later (much later?) by someone else, but Darwin and Wallace did it when it was an incredible intellectual exercise to do so. Don't take credit for (erroneously) debunking one little chip in an edifice.

Thinker's Post
Mike Sutton
December 3, 2014 at 4:16 pm

There is a Professor Vince Gutschick who apparently knows something about climate change and is a professor of biology.He even has a blog on Best Thinking (here). I doubt, however, that you are he. Surely he would not so embarrassingly peahen his palpable ignorance about the discovery of natural selection - would he? Are you a Darwinist troll pretending to be him?

Before we begin might I direct you to an excellent philosophical essay by Professor H Frankfurt on the difference between lies and 'bull' . That essay is published in book form too, by the prestigious Princeton University Press.

Getting on with responding to your un-evidenced and rude diatribe with some hard and independently verifiable evidence:

(1) For example - on the topic of bull**** - what diagram of Matthew's are you referring to exactly? Darwin never wrote about any of the diagrams in Matthew's book. What "facts" then are you imagining (bull****** about) from your commode armchair? The diagrams in Matthew's book have nothing at all to do with natural selection, or even with wider concept of organic evolution. If you had read his book then you would have known that.

Moreover, you appear - weirdly - to confuse evolution as a broad concept with the evolutionary theory of 'natural selection'. As several leading expert Darwinists (including Richard Dawkins in 2010) have written, the full theory of natural selection was first and uniquely published in 1831 by Matthew, 28 years before the Origin of Species (Darwin 1859). Darwin admitted that in 1860, but he claimed that neither he nor any naturalist known to him read it before 1860, I proved that Darwin excuse to be 100% wrong (see here). And three naturalists who cited Matthew (1831) pre-1858 were known to Darwin and Wallace and went on to play major roles influencing and facilitating the work of Darwin and Wallace on natural selection pre-1858!

Clearly, you - whoever you really are - have no knowledge of the newly discovered hard dis-confirming facts - that overturn prior mere un-evidenced 'knowledge beliefs' that all stem from fallacies self-servingly written by Darwin about Matthew and willingly swallowed by credulous pseudo-scholarly Darwinists, such as yourself, for the past 154 years. So much for nullius in verba

Your premise that I am not thoroughly read in this field is fallacious I'm afraid. I suggest YOU sir read Matthew (1831) - and not just the Appendix.. I suggest YOU also read Darwin's Zoonomia notebook of 1837-38 for Darwin's ramifying tree diagram! You might wish also to read Wallace's (1855) Sarawak paper - then pay attention to who edited and published it. It's editor was Selby - who had in 1842 cited Matthew's (1831) book many times - and mentioned his inability to understand Matthew's complex explanation of most circumstance suited powers of occupancy in nature. Then might I suggest you next pay attention to both Loudon and Chambers with regard to Darwin (see here) - both of whom cited Matthew's book pre 1858 before going on to play a huge role in influencing Darwin - who knew both of these naturalists and their work. Moreover, Loudon edited Blyth's two major early papers on natural selection (which greatly influenced Darwin) and even wrote in his 1832 review of Matthew's book that Matthew had something original to say on "the origin of species" - no less! Chambers - of course - wrote the book that put general evolution (the development theory version) in the air in the mid 19th century. He was a friend and correspondent of Darwin and it is well known that Darwin knew that Chambers was its heretical anonymous author - his correspondence reveals as much.

Perhaps you would now like to embarrassingly claim - as other daft-as-a-brush Darwin worshippers are doing on the net - that the newly discovered influential roles, at the epicentre of influence on Darwin and Wallace pre-1858, of the three naturalists who cited Matthew (pre-1858), is no more than a unique tri-coincidence, albeit one that is unique in the history of scientific discovery and seemingly implausible beyond rational belief?

(2) You are wrong again. Because we give priority in science to those who are first to publish - (see Merton 1957)

(3) Are you saying (believing?) that writing and publishing a bombshell discovery in 1831 with a major Edinburgh publisher - Blacks, and a major London publisher - Longman and Co is evidence of failing to take your discovery seriously? Please note also some further dis-confirming hard evidence for your un-evidenced mere bull-rhetoric - that neither Alexander Fleming nor Gregor Mendel took their great discoveries further than one obscure publication each. That Fleming only ever wrote a footnote about the discovery of penicillin suggests that he never took it seriously - according to such dysological thinking on your part.

Other, honest scientists have admitted the influence of originators - where those originators did not trumpet their discovery from the rooftops. Take, for example, the case of Howard Florey and Ernst Chain. Both of these scientists discovered that Alexander Fleming wrote one comment on his discovery of penicillin and wrote no more on it. Fleming merely thought that it might be worth someone else's while to look at. Yet Florey and Chain admitted it was that one obscure paper that was their major influence , even though it was 12 years after Fleming's discovery that Florey and Chain did something worthwhile with Fleming's passing comment. The difference is that Wallace and Darwin claimed not to have read Matthew's (1831) book and have been newly proven 100% wrong (by me) in their claim that no naturalists known to them read it!

(4) PhD stands for Doctor of Philosophy. I am a criminologist. Science fraud in the history of discovery is a sub-type of white collar crime.

I am considering setting up a religious order for desperate pseudo-scholarly Darwinists. Perhaps you could help me with some market research issues?

(Q) What do you think of the name: "Church of St Darwin and St Wallace of the Immaculate Conception of a Prior Published Theory." ?


Jachim
December 4, 2014 at 8:32 am

No matter how foolish some comments on your diatribes may be and how correct you may be on many facts, you are dishonest on your part, because you systematically slide from "more likely than not" to "100% proven." Above, for example, you start with: "...that it is now more likely than not that Darwin and Wallace plagiarized Matthew's prior published hypothesis and that each lied when they claimed no prior knowledge of it." And you end in the comment section with: "The difference is that Wallace and Darwin claimed not to have read Matthew's (1831) book and have been newly proven 100% wrong (by me) in their claim that no naturalists known to them read it!"

Who is supposed to discern the sophisticated difference between the last quote and the claim that the fraud has been 100% proven? These are strategies of advocacy of the lowest sort and when anybody tries to pin you down on it, you will openly revert to claiming standards of litigation rather than scientific proof.

Thinker's Post
Mike Sutton
December 4, 2014 at 9:03 am

Jachim

You confound two different statements I have made about (1) hard evidence and (2) my personal and subjective conclusions based on that evidence. I do not.

Let me explain:

  1. It is 100% proven that Darwin and Wallace were wrong when they claimed no naturist known to them had read Matthew's (1831) book. Why? - Because naturalists known to them cited it pre-1858!
  2. The judgement of whether or not it is proven that Darwin and Wallace committed science fraud (as you well know I have explained to you before on you blogsite) is a subjective assessment. As - of course - is all weighing of such evidence. I claim that it is more likely than not that Darwin and Wallace committed science fraud because I personally believe that it is proven beyond reasonable doubt - but as I fully explain in my book - that is a subjective assessment and I invite readers to make their own judgement by similarly - subjectively weighing the evidence in a mere approximation of what a jury member would do in a trial.
  3. Why is it that you so weirdly and so stubbornly cannot understand that the 19th-century literature - containing newly discovered citations (pre 1858) of Matthew (1831) by naturalists known to Darwin and Wallace is 100% independently verifiable proof that naturalists known to Darwin and Wallace DID read Matthew pre 1858?

Now tell me, why on Earth is it that you still fail to see the difference between:

(1) what is (subjectively) more likely than not (guilt of science fraud) and

(2) Hard and independently verifiable 100% proof that naturalists known to Darwin and Wallace did read Matthew's (1831) book before 1858. Because they cited it before 1858?

Is it that for some very odd and idiosyncratic reason you do not know - or simply cannot fathom - the obvious difference between an author's subjective opinion - arrived at by their subjective weighing of hard (objective) evidence - and the objective hard evidence itself? How much obvious flagging do you need for heavens sake?

Joachim
December 4, 2014 at 9:53 am

I do see the difference. I just find it disingenuous how you concatenate these different claims and fool inattentive readers into concluding that you have 100% proof of the fraud of Darwin and Wallace.

Thinker's Post
Mike Sutton
December 5, 2014 at 3:38 am

I see. Let's examine you statement logically shall we.

According to your most interesting hypothesis there are "inattentive readers" out there. And these are the very beings that I wrote my book for and who are I deliberately aim all my blogs and articles at. That means your premise is that - to be disingenuous - I must be aware of them.

OK so, I have just one telling question: Have you found a single one of these mysterious "inattentive-readers" in nature rather than inside your own mind? Because I've not. Moreover, given that I am clearly aiming my blog, articles and book at professional Darwinists - because I am purposefully targeting them with information about it on my Twitter accounts and websites - do you presume that I think they are more likely then not inattentive people?

And, if you can't find a single such "inattentive reader" of my work (apart perhaps from yourself) are you prepared/able to personally weigh the lack of hard evidence and conclude that it is more likely than not that you are wrong, rude and a desperately biased daft as a brush fanatical Darwin worshiper?

Joachim
December 5, 2014 at 5:20 am

Easy,

Vince Gutschick didn't even spot the difference between you making claims about Darwin's diagram, you producing a diagram yourself, and a diagram of Matthew which he imagined to be the bone of contention.

That's because of the tone of your writing. It's so ballyhoo that nobody gets the subtler notes at first reading.

If you do not believe me, check it yourself. Give your book to someone you trust and whose opinion you value and ask him/her to give you feedback about what they gathered to be the take-home message.

I bet they will say that the take-home message is that you've proven the fraud of Darwin and Wallace full-stop. And they will be right, because that is how you advertise it all over the place. The niceties about "more likely than not," "beyond a reasonable doubt" and "100% proven" are just your loophole to get out, if someone catches your legerdemain.

Thinker's Post
Mike Sutton
December 5, 2014 at 9:33 am

Come off it Joachim - Your "reasoning" is plain daft for two obvious reasons

(1) Vince Gutschick is a professor of biology. That can't be him writing that "Darwin did not see Matthews' diagram until 1860." Because - surely - a real professor of biology - daring to challenge someone else in a public forum (seen by tens of thousands of readers) about what they have written about the history of the discovery of natural selection - would know that none of those two diagrams were penned by Matthew. Moreover, a Professor of Biology would know that Darwin never once mentioned any Matthew diagram. Clearly, therefore, that person posting as "Professor Gutschick" must most surely be just another among thousands of pseudo-scholarly daft-as-a-brush and bull******g Darwin worshipping trolls. Perhaps a regular contributor to your own blogsite?

(2) So when I plainly write in my book:

" My own verdict and conclusions on the Matthew matter are immaterial, because it is your judgement of the facts presented in this book that is going to be amongst those that actually count. If you disagree with my arguments and conclusions, I think you should most definitely write a bad review of this book. I sincerely and warmly welcome any criticism of it, so long as it is fact-based."

And also in my book (Sutton 2014)

'Therefore, despite the likelihood that I've been hugely biased, despite my best intentions, this book does at the very least introduce a huge amount of new and significant data to be weighed in the balance of Darwin's guilt or innocence. And, while it might well be confirmation bias on my part to say so, I think that the new evidence all weighs so heavily against Darwin and Wallace that I claim it is enough to conclude that both most definitely and deliberately plagiarized Matthew's discovery. However, in the end, it is you dear reader who must ultimately decide how far, if at all, the new evidence tips the scales of justice towards such a reputationally ruinous conclusion.'

and (Sutton 2014)

'After all, I am a criminologist researching science fraud, establishing Darwin's guilt is a moral enterprise that makes this book a subject worthy of the attention of my peers. If Darwin was in fact innocent, I wasted my time doing the research and writing this book. Therefore, in seeking to correctly assess the evidence that I present in this book, readers must be ultra skeptical of my conclusions and should ideally keep in mind the fact that a significant body of research proves we humans are biased, pattern recognizing creatures who tend to seek out and see evidence that supports our pet hypothesis, and yet avoid and disregard that which disconfirms it.'

Such published statements are pure ballyhoo are they? And when I regularly tweet that same message to Richard Dawkins and others - that's ballyhoo is it? That's odd. Perhaps ballyhoo is the wrong word. Did you mean to use another term? Such as "perfectly plain and very simple honesty" perhaps?

My word, the hard facts I have uniquely discovered - that 100% disprove Darwin's claim that no naturalist known to him read Matthew's ideas pre-1860 and my patent honesty about the likelihood of my own bias in interpreting them, Darwin's six lies and his plagiarism of Matthew's unique ideas, terms, and examples in favour of a judgment that Darwin committed science fraud seem to have got you - and other Darwin worshipers - in a lather of the weirdest self-delightful head-spun confusion - so much so that you appear no longer to understand what honesty and clarity actually means. Or perhaps you just cant stop being a pseudo-scholalry Darwinist cherry picker? Is it an addiction, and affliction or just a weird predilection?

Do I think I've proven Darwin's fraud? Yes I do - I think I've proven it "more likely than not", "on the balance or reasonable probability", and "beyond reasonable doubt", - and that is exactly what I write. And that's what I have written in my book and articles and blogs - and the meanings of those statements are perfectly clear to anyone but a complete moron!.

On which note, I've explained to you before on your blogsite that your desperate rhetoric cannot magically transmute:

(a) the words - and their clear meanings - that are published in my book, or

(b) the words and their obvious meanings (to all but one of your multiple imaginary friends that you call "inattentive readers") that I write in my blogs and articles - into:

(c) the words and meanings that you want them to be.

Now, if ever you manage to make a+b=c then you get the $1m James Randi Prize for proof of the paranormal!

  1. Have I uniquely 100% proven Darwin was wrong when he claimed that no naturalists known to him read Matthew's book before 1860 - yes I have!
  2. Have I uniquely 100% proven that Darwin told 6 lies to achieve primacy over Matthew - yes I have!

Now, if you or any other of your multiple imaginary 'inattentive readers' can't read or understand such plain and honestly stated English and assumes, weirdly, that I'm being dishonest by writing such things then that dishonesty is ALL entirely within your own head I'm afraid.

And therein, no dis-confirming facts must ever enter-in must they Joachim,

For such truth would be a sin against St Darwin.

minnichelmsdeep@yahoo.com
December 9, 2014 at 9:38 am
You probably should be directing that to Bishop Dawkins
Thinker's Post
Mike Sutton
December 9, 2014 at 11:02 am

Yes, you are right. I edited it especially for him:

Therein what pertains

as Bishop Dawkins' brains,

no dis-confirming fact refrains,

to sin against St Darwin.

With an accompanying picture of St Darwin and Bishop Dawkins

on Twitter

.

 
 
 
Latest Ebooks