Were the Originator Matthew & Darwin the replicator atheists? On Natural Selection theory and the so called "God" https://t.co/kPWNqPdccf pic.twitter.com/pAkC4RNb6W
— Dr Mike Sutton (@Dysology) November 7, 2017
Please click the title above for the latest blog post
Tuesday 7 November 2017
Darwin Played Hokey-Cokey with his "God"
Matthew, Chambers and Darwin on Natural Selection and "God"
What we do know is that in his 1831 book Matthew mocked superstitious priests:
Moreover, in the same (1831) book, (NTA) he clearly mocked the notion of a supernatural deity miraculously creating evolved new species.
Robert Chamber's, who cited Matthew's (1831) book 'On Naval Timber and Arboriculture' in 1832, and then cited Matthew's (1839) book 'Emigration Fields' before going on to write his own guide on arboriculture (1842), followed by his own hugely influential book on evolution 'The Vestiges' (1844), always kept the notion of a supernatural "Creator" in The 'Vestiges'. He went on from there, in his book review of Darwin's (1859) 'Origin of Species' to be apparently first to be second, (in 1859) with Matthew's (1831) original four word term for his discovery: the 'natural process of selection' - the same four words were originally shuffled by Darwin the Replicator (1859) into their only possible other grammatically correct equivalent: the 'process of natural selection'.
For his part in replicating Matthew's orignal ideas and then calling them "my theory", Darwin played hokey-cokey with the notion of a "Creator" in various editions of the Origin of Species. For example, in the first edition (1859) he makes no mention of the idea, but he wrote that the "Creator" set nature up to evolve in various subsequent editions from the third edition (1860) onward: see here .
Matthew's correspondence published in a German book - Hallier, E. (1866) Die sogenannte Darwin'sche Lehre und die Botanik Botanische Zeitung 24: 381-383 (Here), - which reveals why we know he did believe in later life that a 'creator' set things up to evolve: because he wrote that "creation must preclude selection" Although in 1871 there is a letter in the Darwin archive proving Matthew wrote to Darwin that: 'That there is a principle of beneficence operating here the dual parentage and family affection pervading all the higher animal kingdom affords proof. A sentiment of beauty pervading Nature, with only some few exceptions affords evidence of intellect & benevolence in the scheme of Nature. This principle of beauty is clearly from design & cannot be accounted for by natural selection.'
Earlier, in 1866, we see in his Botanische Zeitung communication that he writes that he has had prior correspondence to that with Darwin about what Matthew deems to be the limitations of selective power:
Saturday 4 November 2017
Why the topic of Darwin's and Wallace's Plagiarism is now "owned" by the social sciences
Jameson's nephew William Jameson – a correspondent of William Hooker the father of Darwin’s best friend Joseph Hooker - later cited Matthew's (1831) ideas on natural selection pre-1858. William Jameson did so in 1853 (see Nullius 2017).
The 1831 German translation of Matthew's correspondence to Robert Jameson's journal and the fact Matthew's earlier and rather cranky experiment, which found no evidence to support earlier observations of others that lightning conductors improved the growth of trees or other plants in their immediate vicinity, is in Jameson's Edinburgh New Philosophical journal, which is just one more item amongst many of Matthew's prominently published work that proves Matthew was far from an obscure Scottish writer on forest trees. Matthew, reasoned in his observations that the reason for more luxuriant plant growth near lightning conductors might be because the soil had been particularly well turned near where they were sited. Professor William Jameson's journal reproduced a lengthy communication by Matthew on this rather weird and wonderful lightning rod experiment and then noted his 1831 authorship of On Naval Timber and Arboriculture. As early as 1831, Matthew had, therefore, on the basis of this one independently verifiable fact alone, an international reputation as an experimental gentleman agricultural naturalist science author, in an esteemed journal, edited by a most esteemed biologist.
Moreover, it is Robert Jameson who is widely believed to be the anonymous author who was first to use the word "evolved" in 1826 in a biological evolutionary sense (see Dempster 1996.p. 143) for an analysis of competing ideas about who was the author). As I explain my 600 page Kindle e-book (first edition) of Nullius in Verba:Darwin's greatest secret, the undergraduate Darwin offended Robert Jameson by capering off and presenting his own evidences in Jameson's field of interest ater Jameson introduced him and tutored him in his unpublished pioneering work on sea sponges.
The german translation effectively cites The Edinburgh New Philosophical journal v.11 (1831). Matthew's experiment can be found on pages 386 to 388. And in this article in the journal edited by Robert Jameson we see the journal records that Matthew is the author of NTA.
This adds one more citation to the list of 24 pre-1858 citations of Matthew's book that is contained in Nullius in Verba: Darwin's greatest secret. Read the abridged paperback (vol 1) Nullius in Verba for more of the newly discovered facts.
Another citation - bringing List 1 to 26, is added by The Quarterly Review citation of it in 1833 on pages 125 and 126. The author of the piece referred to Matthew's 'Critical Notes' in NTA as pert nonsense Click Here.
As further evidence he was not an obscure Scottish writer on Forest Trees, as Darwin (1861) sought to portray him in order to downplay Matthew's right to both first and foremost priority for the theory Darwin replicated and referred to fallaciously thereafter as "my theory", Matthew's (1831) NTA was listed among the few new scientific books published in 1831 (here).
The list of those discovered to have cited Matthew's (1831) book pre 1858 is growing. The Quarterly Review cited it in 1833 on pages 125 and 126. The author of the piece referred to Matthew's 'Critical Notes' in NTA as pert nonsense Click Here
+Arguably, due to weak scholarship of historians & biologists, criminology now owns the topic of Darwin's replication https://t.co/kMxeW8hTUN pic.twitter.com/9AvVwW5FUS— Dr Mike Sutton (@Criminotweet) November 4, 2017
On von Matthew Esquire the Scot: https://t.co/KxK5iS96F2 pic.twitter.com/KTDJbTuS6I— Dr Mike Sutton (@Dysology) November 6, 2017
Thursday 26 October 2017
Four Star Book Review of Nullius
+Latest Amazon review of #Nullius @DrMarkGriffiths @a8drewson @Silverwriter @RogerHBurke @NTU_staff @NTUPublicSoc https://t.co/APmJ0ILQWQ pic.twitter.com/4iIGCntYsD— Dr Mike Sutton (@Criminotweet) October 26, 2017
Supermyth of Darwin's legendary honesty, integrity and originality is bust. He was a plagiarist, liar & glory thief https://t.co/zdJmCNKNvu
— Supermythbuster (@supermyths) November 2, 2017
Saturday 21 October 2017
Book Review Copies Now Available
Free copies of "Nullius in Verba: Darwin's greatest secret" which I would like social scientists to book review. Interested? 👍 Message me pic.twitter.com/dl9U5X68Aa
— Dr Mike Sutton (@Criminotweet) October 21, 2017
Newly Discovered and Independently Verifiable Facts are PR Disaster for the Scientific Establishment
Intersection of criminology of science fraud by plagiarism, biology, history of science, heritage & sustainability: https://t.co/Msat1abadf pic.twitter.com/qjfRhGvkIG
— Dr Mike Sutton (@Criminotweet) October 21, 2017
Thursday 19 October 2017
Social Scientists do Science!
Just a little note to support my science research kindly scrawled at The @Ri_Science Royal Institution of Science https://t.co/tlutLE9oU0 pic.twitter.com/TzP4lV7JiM
— Dr Mike Sutton (@Criminotweet) October 19, 2017
Dear Royal Society, about you breaking your own Arago ruling convention
The thumbs up still beating the thumbs down on my open letter to the Royal Society @royalsociety https://t.co/SLmOLiS8Eo
— Dr Mike Sutton (@Criminotweet) October 19, 2017
Wednesday 18 October 2017
5 Star Book Reviews of Nullius
I am honured that fellow criminologists are giving 5 Star reviews for my book on the World's greatest science fraud https://t.co/qas6Kru7VA pic.twitter.com/IHItmgeBnH
— Dr Mike Sutton (@Dysology) October 18, 2017
Gonzo Style
On doing it Gonzo Style @a8drewson = Gonzo is that you don't cover the story, you become the story. https://t.co/KIZmMczrms pic.twitter.com/IjhhPyMxHe
— Dr Mike Sutton (@Criminotweet) October 18, 2017
Tuesday 17 October 2017
Bombshell Discovered in the Publication Record
Just some Scottish news stories on my orignal bombshell New Data discovery of Darwin's plagiarizing science fraud: https://t.co/iVXcXv2azf pic.twitter.com/Qs5WVPgXyi
— Dr Mike Sutton (@Dysology) October 17, 2017
Monday 16 October 2017
Amazon Review of Nullius
'Dr Sutton provides an excellent account to draw people's attention to one of the most insidious cases of plagiarism in scientific history. The genealogical unearthing of Darwin's' secret' is robust and well documented. I find it very interesting how such an account can bring into question the harmful dichotomy so prevalent within our culture that if you do not believe in Darwin then you are a fundamentalist christian. Dr Sutton's exploration allows for a useful debate into how knowledge is constructed sociologically and how challenging prominent perspectives is likely to provide 'heresy' and the ruffling of hierarchical feathers. Enjoyable and informative read..'Facts are facts.
by Richard James Gee on 17 October 2017 Here:
https://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/customer-reviews/R8HG6CV6TUAJ4/ref=cm_cr_dp_d_rvw_ttl?ie=UTF8&ASIN=1541343964
Another 5 Star review of Nullius and the bombshell verifiable facts of Darwin;'s proven plagiarism https://t.co/xqKWSi4tRB pic.twitter.com/vzq8fGMzae— Dr Mike Sutton (@Criminotweet) October 16, 2017
Friday 13 October 2017
On obsession as a necessary state of mind for paradigm change
+Is there a blog post on why obsession is a potent force for new paradigm shifting breakthroughs in academia? https://t.co/f1lQowLQ22 https://t.co/Vq30z8K1Wj
— BlessedVirginDarwin (@OnNavalTimber) October 13, 2017
Who are the ones on the stage, pulling the strings, behind the dusty curtains? pic.twitter.com/qjsDVLObMs
— Dr Mike Sutton (@Dysology) October 13, 2017
Wikipedia is just brimming with lies and nonsense added by silly billy trolls and jealous neerdowell academic failures
Wikipedia Patrick Matthew page edited by academic failures who claim my article not peer reviewed. Proof it is: https://t.co/EEi880uDa7 pic.twitter.com/SvDYdXHRXZ
— Supermythbuster (@supermyths) October 13, 2017
Thursday 12 October 2017
Multiple Coincidence?
On Herbert Spencer, Darwin & Matthew. How many multiple coincidences sum to a probability they are not coincidences? https://t.co/EMXM0J4N1H pic.twitter.com/9UnxYReuHA
— Dr Mike Sutton (@Criminotweet) October 12, 2017
Scottish Currency & Bias
Wait untill the Scots put Patrick Matthew on their currency. The English "establishment" certainly won't like that: https://t.co/aTw8A1y80H pic.twitter.com/c45529YtQf
— BlessedVirginDarwin (@OnNavalTimber) October 12, 2017
On Digital Forensics
+Yes indeed. Except Google's AI deep learning program may well have reduced the power of the Big Data IDD method. See https://t.co/HZJeRws2G7 https://t.co/hwZ1d1qTqb
— Dr Mike Sutton (@Criminotweet) October 12, 2017
AI & Digital Forensics. A growing field in criminology & psychology @DrMarkGriffiths
— Dr Mike Sutton (@Criminotweet) October 12, 2017
1. https://t.co/hwZ1d1qTqb
2. https://t.co/HZJeRws2G7 pic.twitter.com/yOkc27wMRW
Wednesday 11 October 2017
On Imagination based on evidence
Darwinists lack the imagination to see that the New Data means that have something new - at last - to write about https://t.co/sspYngpHfY pic.twitter.com/7TPz6jbMQi
— Dr Mike Sutton (@Dysology) October 11, 2017
Blyth is simply a red herring in the true story of Darwin's plagiarism
Editor of 2 of Blyth's 3 articles on natural selection was Loudon who wrote in 1832 that Matthew had published on "the origin of species" pic.twitter.com/KIpVUH0bNn
— Dr Mike Sutton (@Dysology) October 10, 2017
Tuesday 10 October 2017
AN EDUCATIONAL WARNING TO CRIMINAL CYBER STALKERS AND THEIR CRIMINAL ASSOCIATES USING WEBSITES, SOCIAL MEDIA AND EMAIL TO ABUSE
+This is a useful tool for employers and police to understand how to profile the risk of a stalker. https://t.co/BPDwsb5Js0 pic.twitter.com/W0sCO70TJ2
— Dr Mike Sutton (@Criminotweet) October 9, 2017
+On the Criminal Law and the Malicious Communications Act and Cyber Harassment https://t.co/b5QoA4ePty
— Dr Mike Sutton (@Criminotweet) October 9, 2017
+Criminal use of Email @NortonOnline On criminal cyberstalkers using emails to email colleagues of their victim: https://t.co/EgD3yPPBTa pic.twitter.com/Z8bRhUllCP
— Dr Mike Sutton (@Criminotweet) October 9, 2017
+On CYBERSTALKERS Useful Government advice https://t.co/qkeUGOCqdu
— Dr Mike Sutton (@Criminotweet) October 9, 2017
+Aiding and Abetting a Stalker can Lead to a Prison Sentence: https://t.co/MFMFQnjDks pic.twitter.com/tY7hfvMabe
— Dr Mike Sutton (@Criminotweet) October 9, 2017
Today, I lecture on the Hi-Tech crime of cyber stalking. Notably, it was a problem years ago. See 2003 crime survey: https://t.co/5WGI3da5DF pic.twitter.com/BZAhAvDicZ
— Dr Mike Sutton (@Criminotweet) October 9, 2017