Immaculate Conception: An Analogy in Oils by Gabriel Woods

This oil painting, by the Nottingham based British portrait artist Gabriel Woods, showing Darwin holding Patrick Matthew as his own child. 

Paying satirical homage to religious pictures of the Virgin Mary and child, this is a mesmerizing pictorial analogy of Darwin's and Wallace's claims to have each conceived the theory of natural selection independently of Patrick Matthew's (1831) prior published book, which expert Darwinists agree    contained the full theory 27 years before Darwin's and Wallace's papers were read before the Linnean Society in 1858.

In the words of the artist Gabriel Woods (May 2015) in his explanation for his portrait "Immaculate Deception":

"The picture represents Charles Robert Darwin and Alfred Russel Wallace who both claimed, they each independently discovered the theory of natural selection with no prior knowledge of Patrick Matthew's earlier work. Patrick Matthew is represented in the allegorical painting as the infant "

The picture was commissioned, in light of new data (Sutton 2014) that proves naturalists well known to Darwin and Wallace read and then cited Matthew's book before going on to play roles at the very epicenter of influence on the pre-1858 work of Darwin and Wallace on natural selection.

 The Blessed Virgin St Mary's conception of Jesus of Nazareth, is a miracle because she became pregnant with the child of "God" whilst surrounded by men who were fertile to some unknown degree. The analogy is perfect because so too were Darwin and Wallace surrounded by man whose brains were fertile - to some unknown degree - with Matthew's unique ideas. Therefore, in the final analysis, if Darwin and Wallace did not conceive Matthew's unique discovery, name for it, examples of it in nature, and his artificial versus natural slection analogy of differences to explain it, by some kind of 'knowledge contamination,' then they must surely have each been mysteriously endowed with a miraculous and divine cognitive contraceptive device (MAD CCD).

"Immaculate Deception" is a painting after "The Holy Family" by Francesco Francia, 1510.

Find out more on the story behind Woods paiinting here

Darwin's Disgrace!

First three chapters are free. See how I did it! Detect plagiarizing science fraudsters: http://t.co/53W5vCliKL … pic.twitter.com/3fHMnwNnwN

— Dr Mike Sutton (@Criminotweet) March 27, 2015

Ironically, Professor Nathaniel Comfort Blurts Abuse about New Hard-fact Uncomfortable Discovery

@darwinsbulldog Do you know this guy? The paper's an ignorant piece of crap.
— Nathaniel Comfort (@nccomfort) December 30, 2014

The British Society of Criminology peer reviewed journal article that so upset Darwinist Professor Comfort - a science historian - of John Hopkins University can be read here. It's my paper. I invite all readers of this blog to deploy their gumption and judge its veracity and importance for themselves. After all, the newly discovered facts do dis-confirm Darwin's claim that no naturalists known to him had pre-1858 knowledge of Matthew's published discovery of the full hypothesis of natural selection.

The paper is based on my unique BigData facilitated discovery about who cited Matthew's (1831) book 'On Naval Timber and Arboriculture, which the leading Darwinist Richard Dawkins (2010) admits is the only publication to contain the full hypothesis of natural selection before the work of Darwin and Wallace. Until my unique discoveries it was believed that no naturalist had read Matthew's work prior to his bringing it to Darwin's attention in 1860. I uniquely discovered that 25 people had cited it - seven of whom were naturalists and that three of those naturalists played major roles at the very epicenter of influence on the pre-1860 writings of  Darwin and Wallace on natural selection. If an associate Professor of the history of science believes my unique discovery  that thousands of top Darwinists have been publishing claptrap about the history of the discovery of natural selection is a "piece of crap" then one has to wonder why he wrote what he did. I wonder if perhaps he has been writing and teaching  the same embarrassing Darwinist fallacious 'knowledge belief' claptrap?

When I challenged Comfort  to defend his blurting juvenile Tweet comment, unsurprisingly he fled by cowardly blocking me on Twitter.  I'd rather like to look him up one day and see what he has to say about my unique discoveries - face to face. Meanwhile, I have directly, warmly, and forgivingly, invited him to rationally and politely debate his views on my work on my publisher's moderated website here .

If you found my peer reviewed journal paper interesting, you might like to read my e-book 'Nullius in Verba:  Darwin's greatest secret', which contains an embarrassing (for Darwinists such as Comfort) uncomfortable wealth of further uniquely discovered new facts that I believe prove beyond all reasonable doubt that both Darwin and Wallace plagiarized Matthew, lied by saying they had no prior-knowledge of it, and in so doing committed the worlds greatest science fraud.

POSTSCRIPT 2018 - THE E-BOOK IS CURRENTLY UNAVAILABLE DUE TO BOOK PIRACY OF ALL KINDLE BOOKS. BEWARE OF DOWNLOADING PIRATED COPIES AND PDF FILES THEY MAY CONTAIN HACKING MALWARE.

Vol 1 of  Nullius (Sutton 2107) is available in paperback from all good bookshops, libraries and Amazon sites e,g,  Here

https://www.amazon.co.uk/Nullius-Verba-Darwins-greatest-secret/dp/1541343964

Supermyths: Science Fraud in Criminology

Supermyths: Science Fraud in Criminology: British Society of Criminology Publishes  Peer Reviewed Paper on Darwin's and Wallace's Science Fraud ( here ) Charles Darwin&#39...

Science Fraud in Criminology

British Society of Criminology Publishes  Peer Reviewed Paper on Darwin's and Wallace's Science Fraud (here)

Charles Darwin's and Alfred Wallace's plagiarism of Patrick Matthew's prior publication of the full hypothesis of natural selection seems more likely than not following the BigData discovery that Darwin and Wallace were hugely influenced by those who actually read and cited Matthew's book in the literature. Moreover, a host of other new discoveries about Darwin's palpable lies that he told to achieve priority over Matthew and the discovery Wallace's patent dishonesty in doctoring a letter in his autobiography, the positive findings of a plagiarism check, the proof that Matthew's book was far form obscure in the fist half of the 19th century (for example it was prominently advertised and then cited in the 1842 edition of the Encyclopedia Britannica). Moreover - though more controversially - new research methods reveal that many in Darwin's and Wallace's circles were apparently first to be second with unique terms apparently coined by Matthew.

Papers from the British Criminology Conference
© 2014 the authors and
the British Society of Criminology
www.britsoccrim.org
ISSN 1759-0043; Vol. 14: 49-64
Panel Paper

The hi-tech detection of Darwin’s and  Wallace’s possible science fraud:  Big data criminology re-writes the history of contested  discovery

Mike Sutton, Nottingham Trent University

Click here to read the paper

Accidental Knowledge Contamination Versus Science Fraud: The Mysterious case of Wallace & Darwin v Matthew

Listen to the interview asking what we should make of "The New Data" on Darwin v Matthew; Here

The Last Sunday Lecture at Conway Hall was on Darwin's and Wallace's Great Science Fraud

An article on my 2014 Sunday Lecture is published in the Ethical Record

The article is open access. 

Reference

Sutton, M. (2014) A Dreadful Discovery: Big Data Proves Wallace and Darwin Counterfeit Discoverers. Journal Ethical Record. Volume 119 Issue 8 .Pages 7-14 Publisher Conway Hall Ethical Society Full issue available here: http://ethicalrecord.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2014/09/Ethical-Record-August-September-2014.pdf   

Science Fraud: What now after the big data bombshell fell on the history of the discovery of natural selection?

Arguably, all that remains to defend Darwin's and Wallace's claims to have independently discovered the theory of natural selection and to deny they committed science fraud is an irrational trinity of faith. Click here to read my open access article that informs natural scientists of the newly discovered data and it implications.

Mike Sutton

SCIENCE FRAUD

In 2104 BigData technology revealed that Darwin and Wallace plagiarized Patrick Matthew's (1831) prior-published discovery of the 'natural process of selection' and then committed science fraud by claiming to have 'immaculately conceived it' by each discovering it independently of Matthew and of each other.

Read the findings in the book that dropped the bombshell on the history of scientific discovery. This is the book that some within the ranks of career academic Darwinists, fanatical pseudo-scholarly obsessive Darwinist trolls, and the related Darwin industry of publishers, editorial boards and 'expert' peer reviewers, documentary makers, museum curators do not want you to read. Some in those ranks would rather you not read it because it proves that for the past 154 years Darwinists have been disseminating a multitude of myths, fallacies and lies - all started by Charles Darwin - about the discovery of natural selection. Why does it prove it more likely than not that Darwin commited science fraud? Because Darwin wrote that no naturalist known to him had read Matthew's (1831) prior-published full and complete discovery and creation of the natural selection hypothesis. But Nullius in Verba reveals how big data analysis newly proves Darwin was wrong about that. Because three naturalists known to him and Wallace actually cited Matthew's (1831) book pre-1858 in the published literature! And those three - Loudon, Selby and Chamber's played key roles at the very epicenter of influence and facilitation of the work of Darwin and Wallace on natural selection pre-1858. 1858 being the year Darwin's and Wallace's papers, on their supposedly mutually independent discoveries of the natural process of selection, were read before the Linnean Society and the year before the Origin of Species was first published.

For the record, by way of reply to weird accusations currently circling on the Internet, I am a staunch atheist and have been of that position for the past 40 years. I do not believe in intelligent design and have no motive or interest whatsoever in supporting the aquatic ape theory ape, morphic resonance or any other contrarianist theory etc. I am motivated on this topic by nothing more than a desire to see veracity underpin the history of scientific discovery, I wrote 'Nullius' to reveal, with a multitude of newly discovered hard data, that 'natural selection', the greatest scientific theory of all time, was clearly plagiarized - in my opinion - by Darwin and Wallace, who then lied when they claimed no prior-knowledge of it.

This book exposes all the myths and lies started by Darwin that continue to be parroted by adoring desperate Darwinists to this very day. Nullius in Verba proves that there is only one independent discoverer of  natural selection and he is Patrick Matthew.

[ - 2018 Update - ]

Originally published in 2014 by Thinker Books of Thinker Media USA. 

This 600 page e-book is currently withdrawn from publication due to the fact all Kindle books

 have been hacked and are being pirated by book pirates. Vol 1 (Sutton 2016) of  three planned volumes is available on Amazon and from all good bookshops and libraries.

Internet Dating with Darwin July 27th London

 

Patrick Matthew is generally acknowledged as the originator of the theory of natural selection.  He published his discovery of  ‘the natural process of selection’ in a book entitled  ‘On Naval and Timber and Arboriculture’ in 1831, which is 27 years before Charles Darwin’s and Alfred Wallace’s papers were read before the Linnean Society in 1858.

The current consensus is that Darwin and Wallace each discovered natural selection independently of Matthew and independently of one another. Moreover, Darwin is hailed as the immortal great thinker on the subject of evolution, because he alone is recognised as first to take his own discovery of the theory of natural selection forward, with many confirmatory evidences, convincing others of its veracity and importance.

In this talk, Mike Sutton will challenge this view with new evidence that proves that, pre-1858, Matthew’s book was read by at least seven naturalists. Three of the seven were at the epicentre of influence on Darwin’s and Wallace’s researches and two of those three were personal associates and correspondents of Darwin and Wallace. He will show that Matthew, not Darwin, should be celebrated as solver of the problem of species.

Dr Michael "Mike" Sutton is Reader in Criminology at Nottingham Trent University (UK), where he teaches Hi Tech Crime and also Crime Reduction and Community Safety. Before that he worked for 14 years as a senior researcher in the Policing and reducing Crime Unit in the Home Office in London. Mike is the originator of the Market Reduction Approach (MRA) to theft and co-founder and Chief Editor of the open access Internet Journal of Criminology. He is a winner of the British Journal of Criminology Prize for virtual ethnographic research into a pan-European hacking group.

Doors 10.30, £5 in advance, £2 concs./Free to Ethical Society members
Tea & Coffee will be available. Click here to buy tickets from the London Ethical Society

Science Fraud: The Patrick Matthew Supermyth is Bust

Abstract

Darwin and Alfred Wallace claimed to have discovered natural selection independently of Patrick Matthew. Matthew's discovery of the 'natural process of selection' was published 27 years before Darwin's and Wallace's papers were read before the Linnean Society in 1858. In 1861, in the third edition of the Origin of Species, Darwin wrote: 'In 1831 Mr Patrick Matthew published his work on 'Naval Timber and Arboriculture,' in which he gives precisely the same view on the origin of species as that (presently to be alluded to) propounded by Mr Wallace and myself in the 'Linnean Journal,' and as that enlarged on in the present volume. Unfortunately the view was given by Mr Matthew very briefly in scattered passages in an Appendix to a work on a different subject, so that it remained unnoticed until Mr Matthew himself drew attention to it in the 'Gardener's Chronicle,' on April 7th, 1860.' To date, there has been no hard evidence suggesting that Darwin’s or Wallace’s work was influenced by Matthew. However, newly discovered literature reveals seven naturalists cited Matthew's book before 1858. Three played key pre-1858 roles facilitating and influencing Darwin’s and Wallace’s published ideas on natural selection. They are: Loudon – who edited and published Blyth’s acknowledged influential articles on evolution; Chambers, author of the 'Vestiges of Creation' – which both Darwin and Wallace also acknowledged influenced their work; and Selby – who, in 1855, edited and published Wallace's Sarawak paper. These new discoveries mean that Matthew now has full scientific priority for the theory natural selection.

To read the full story - click here: http://www.bestthinking.com/articles/science/biology_and_nature/genetics_and_molecular_biology/internet-dating-with-darwin-new-discovery-that-darwin-and-wallace-were-influenced-by-matthew-s-prior-discovery

The latest peer-reviewed science journal article busting of the Patrick Matthew Supermyth is here.

Darwin's Finches are Another Supermyth

The long-busted, yet pervasive, myth that Charles Darwin's Eureka! Moment realisation of the ability of natural selection to explain the problem of species, came by way of his observation of variation in the beaks of Galapagos Islands finches is a supermyth. Darwin did no such thing. He failed to understand the significance of the variation in those finch beaks, he never collected the finches, he misclassified 7 of the 13 finches collected. He never even collected them, they were collected by another crew member. The real natural selection significance of adaptation of Galapagos Islands finches was a 20th century discovery. The myth is a supermyth because it is deployed to this day by Darwinists arguing against the myth of divine creation of new species. It is used by the uninformed, including some Darwinists, in an attempt to disprove the overwhelming evidence that Darwin’s real Eureka! Moment came around 1837 within the pages of Patrick Matthew’s (1831) full and prominently published and reviewed articulation of the theory of the ‘natural process of selection.’ Darwin claimed never to have read the book despite the newly discovered fact that other famous naturalists read and cited it - including three of Darwin's scientific associates.

Read the mythbust here https://archive.ph/TYVUX

Science Fraud

PatrickMatthew.com

Alfred Wallace Was a Science Swindler, Liar and Plagiarist

Read a preview of the forthcoming story here

Discovery of the World's Greatest Science Fraud

Darwin's and Wallace's Great Science Fraud  

In 1831 a Scottish laird, botanist, orchardist, farmer, grain dealer and Chartist named Patrick Matthew published his discovery of the ‘natural process of selection’ in his book entitled ‘On Naval Timber and Arboriculture’.

Amazingly, 27 years later, in 1858, Charles Darwin and Alfred Russel Wallace each claimed to have independently discovered the exact same theory. Both Darwin and Wallace admitted Matthew had fully enunciated natural selection, but claimed no prior knowledge of Matthew’s book, and to this day Darwinists and other scientists have simply taken their word for it that they were not lying plagiarizers and science swindlers.

A bombshell for the history of scientific discovery

Read my blog on the BestThinking site, which uniquely reveals the newly discovered facts about who Darwin and Wallace knew who had both read and cited Matthew's book and its unique ideas.