This website is owned by Dr Mike Sutton
The Darwin— Dr Mike Sutton (@Dysology) March 11, 2019
Sitting on the door mat
is out of the bag.
And no amount of far more childish shenanigans from the @LinneanSociety in facilitating jealous little fact denial plagiarisers of my discoveries can put it back in https://t.co/KTIBFjIIEK pic.twitter.com/n7agDPLden
(From the original Best Thinking archive)
The System of Nature, Or, Laws of the Moral and Physical World, Volumes 1-2 By Paul Henri Thiry Holbach (baron d’), Denis Diderot (1835) pp. 33-34:
On one harsh 19th century winter night, an honest donkey froze where it stood on a Parisian boulevard. At daybreak, the people seeing it so lifelike, tried to shoo and beat it out of the way, not realizing it could not move on because it was dead!
If one encounters a frozen donkey in the road, standing, for all the world as though alive, no amount of reasoning, patience, impatient berating or rational cajoling will entice it to shift its position. The donkey is not merely being stubborn. Why not? Because it is bereft of life. The donkey can think no more, all mental faculties have ceased to be. The only solution is to go around it. Darwinist historians of science are behaving like frozen donkeys. Unable to adapt to a sudden change in their circumstances, they succumb to those circumstances. If they continue to do so they will be circumvented by scholars better able to adapt to the New Data. Once significantly circumvented, Darwinist historians of science will lose their power of occupancy in the literature on the topic of the discovery of natural selection. Once that happens they will shortly become intellectually extinct.
The Frozen Donkey Hypothesis is born of the implications of the obvious catastrophic extinction event impact of the New Data (Sutton 2014, 2017) on Darwinist professional and amateur historians of science, who reveal by their plainly biased responses to it, that they are necessarily concerned – if they are to remain so named Darwinists and not be re-born Matthewists – with ignoring the rational implications of the new disconfirming hard evidence for their prior soft knowledge beliefs in their namesake’s “independent” discovery of a prior published hypothesis that was read, and the book containing it cited, by naturalists who were Darwin’s admitted influencers and associates and correspondents- even though Darwin himself fallaciously wrote in 1860 that no naturalist known to him had read it.
We must now go around Darwin's, soon to be, intellectually extinct Discovery Donkeys because their minds, remaining frozen, are incapable of grasping what happened to them and their disconfirmed unevidenced beliefs about their namesake.
Confirming the theory of natural selection, those most fit to survive after the impact of the New Data will enjoy a power of occupancy in the intellectual niche once occupied by the now extinct, unadaptable, herds of Darwinist Discovery Donkeys.
Brodie, A. (2007):
'The enlightened person accepts the word of authority not as something to which he has to say ‘yes’, but as something to which it is appropriate to subject to critical analysis. The question for the enlightened person therefore is whether the word of authority can stand up to cross-examination before the tribunal of reason. If it can then it is accepted because it is sanctioned not by authority but by reason. If on the other hand it cannot withstand the cross-examination then it has to be discarded, however exalted the source.'
Brodie, A. (2007) The Scottish Enlightenment: The Historical Age of the Historical Nation. Edinburgh. Birlinn Ltd.
“It is therefore in his imagination alone man finds the model of that which he terms order, or confusion, which like all his abstract metaphysical ideas, supposes nothing beyond his reach. Order, however is never more than the faculty of conforming himself with the beings by whom he is environed or with the whole of he forms a part.”
And this pertinent observation on how blind we may be to our own 'institutional bias' leads us to the Frozen Donkey Hypothesis – which applies by the hard facts that are the premise upon which it stands - as much to Alfred Wallace's (1855; 1858) replication of Patrick Matthew's (1831) prior published hypothesis of the natural process of selection as it does to Charles Darwin's (1842; 1844; 1858; 1859).
That is true & that fact does not make what is repeated 1000x invalid either. What is valid is what is independently verifiable to be in existence. Like these words in this Tweet or Darwin's own published words that prove he lied by writing the opposite to what he knew was fact😎 pic.twitter.com/O8BmWOtQWN— Dr Mike Sutton (@Criminotweet) January 8, 2019
Natural selection aids species in fraud. Darwin was a plagiarising science fraudster by glory theft of that theory. His abilities in deception aided him enormously. Only now, is new technology unweaving his tangled web of lies & science fraud by plagiarismhttps://t.co/yMLRSHW8Vc pic.twitter.com/DKQ2uZoi7k— Dr Mike Sutton (@Dysology) January 18, 2019
Regarding the 2014 BigData discovery of numerous previously "hidden books", which 100% refute the 155-year-old Darwinist myth that no naturalist known to Darwin or Wallace had read Patrick Matthew's prior published hypothesis of natural selection before 1858, Darwinists believing that their namesake and Wallace "independently" discovered Matthew's prior-published theory, whilst surrounded and influenced by associates who had read and cited the book containing it, are in the same credulous miracle believer category as those who believe in the immaculate conception of the Christian Beloved St Mary of Nazareth.
With apologies to the Monty Python team, from whose famous Dead Parrot Sketch this very heavily plagiarizes
A criminologist enters the Darwinist end of the field of the history of scientific discovery.
Criminologist: ‘Ello, I wish to register a complaint.
( Darwinist does not respond.)
C: ‘Ello, Dysologist?
Darwinist: What do you mean “Dysologist”?
C: I’m sorry, I have a cold. I wish to make a complaint!
D: We’re closin’ for lunch.
C: Never mind that, my lad. I wish to complain about this Darwin book what I purchased not half an hour ago from this very boutique.
D: Oh yes, the, uh, the Origin of Species…What’s,uh…What’s wrong with it?
C: I’ll tell you what’s wrong with it, my lad. ‘E’s dead, that’s what’s wrong with it!
D: No, no, ‘e’s uh,…he’s resting.
C: Look, matey, I know a dead donkey when I see one, and I’m looking at one right now.
D: No no he’s not dead, he’s, he’s restin’! Remarkable book, the Origin of Species, idn’it, ay? Beautiful theory!
C: The theory don’t enter into it. Darwin’s discovery story is a donkey and its stone dead.
D: Nononono, no, no! ‘E’s resting!
C: All right then, if he’s restin’, I’ll wake him up!
(shouting at the book)
‘Ello, Mister Darwin! I’ve got a lovely fresh bunch of New Data for you …(Darwinist hits the book)
D: There, he moved!
C: No, he didn’t, that was you hitting the book!
D: I never!!
C: Yes, you did!
D: I never, never did anything…
C: (yelling and hitting the book repeatedly) ‘ELLO Donkey DARWIN!!!!!
Testing! Testing! Testing! Testing! This is your nine o’clock alarm call!
(Tears sheath of pages out of the book and thumps them on the counter. Throws them up in the air and watches them flutter to the floor.)
C: Now that’s what I call a dead Darwin Donkey.
D: No, no…..No, ‘e’s stunned!
D: Yeah! You stunned him, just as he was wakin’ up! Darwinists stun easily, major.
C: Um…now look…now look, mate, I’ve definitely ‘ad enough of this. That Donkey is definitely deceased, and when I purchased it not ‘alf an hour ago, you assured me that its total lack of movement was due to it bein’ tired and shagged out following a prolonged braying.
D: Well, he’s…he’s, ah…probably pining for the Galapagos Islands.
C: PININ’ for the Galapogos?!?!?!? What kind of talk is that?, look, why did he fall flat on his back the moment I started checkin the facts on Google?
D: The Darwinist donkey prefers kippin’ on it’s back! Remarkable scientist, id’nit, squire? Lovely theory!
C: Look, I took the liberty of examining that story of independent discovery when I got it home, and I discovered the only reason that it had been braying about it for so long was that nobody had bothered to Google it.
D: Well, o’course it was braying about it! If I had checked the facts myself , it would have nuzzled up to the spine of that book, bent ‘it apart with its hooves, and VOOM! Feeweeweewee!
C: “VOOM”?!? Mate, this Donkey wouldn’t “voom” if you put four million volts through it! ‘E’s bleedin’ demised!
D: No no! ‘E’s pining!
C: ‘E’s not pinin’! ‘E’s passed on! This Donkey is no more! He has ceased to be! ‘E’s expired and gone to meet ‘is maker!
‘E’s a stiff! Bereft of life, ‘e rests in peace! If you hadn’t been so bloody credulous ‘e’d be pushing up the daisies 155 years ago!
‘Is metabolic processes are now ‘istory! ‘E’s off the paddock!
‘E’s kicked the bucket, ‘e’s shuffled off ‘is mortal coil, run down the curtain and joined the bleedin’ choir invisibile!!
THIS IS AN EX-DONKEY!!
Darwinist: Well, I’d better replace it, then.
Interpretation and Conclusions
Many 19th century European winters were particularly harsh. In London there were winters when the Thames froze solid. There came reports that two sentries froze to death whilst standing to attention in Paris one year. Perhaps they reasoned it better to die of cold, rather than face execution for abandoning their posts? Or perhaps the "frozen frog principle" was confirmed and the cold crept slowly upon them until it was mind-numbingly too late to realize the danger? If the tale is true, whatever was in the minds of the dead soldiers cannot be known. But they were unlikely to have remained standing unless slumped against something. Tales of people dying and staying on their feet are as rare as hens teeth. The only one I know of involved a kitchen unit aiding post-mortem support.
From the same source as the frozen sentries story, we learn that on the same night that those obedient order following guards met their maker, each with their musket at their shoulder, an honest donkey froze where it stood on a Parisian boulevard. At daybreak, the people seeing it so lifelike, tried to shoo and beat it out of the way, not realizing it could not move on because it was dead!
The Dead Sentry, Dead Donkey Analogy is, like all, analogies, a fallacy. Darwin and Darwinists are not actually donkeys or sentries. But what makes it a good explanatory device is showing, outside of the analogy, what relates to what and why it is an important explanation. So I do that in the following four paragraphs.
In the story of the discovery of natural selection, new data was discovered in 2014. That data 100 per cent disproves the Darwinist story that no naturalists known to Darwin and Wallace had read Patrick Matthew's prior published hypothesis of natural slection before 1858. So important and influential were those naturalists, who we now newly know read Matthew's (1831) book, Darwin's "independent discovery story" simply cannot stand up against the new data. My discussions and debates with Darwinists to date reveal why all of their excuses for Darwin can be demolished with reference to the facts and the rule of priority for scientific discovery.
The facts reasonably establish that it more likely than not that Matthew did influence Darwin and Wallace and so it was he who ultimately changed the world with his bombshell conception and explanation of what is arguably the most important idea in science.
The problem is that we are dealing with dead sentries of Darwinism and similarly dead donkeys! They have nothing left. Bereft of counter evidence their story is pushing up the daises!
The only solution is to walk around them and carry on. The true story of the discovery of natural selection cannot be told by dead donkey Darwinists.
Even before Darwin's Darwinist Discovery Donkeys became extinct following the 21st century catastrophe of the New Data impact, many had enjoyed an unwarranted power of occupancy in the literature. This was simply because no suitably equipped competitors wandered inside their ecological niche. The rudimentary habitats of so many Darwinists were just waiting to be swept aside by the first half-decent rival to sniff them out.
Unable to police ethically or objectively the history of the discovery of natural selection, unable to fight back veraciously or rationally, and unwilling to evolve when confronted by overpoweringly dis-confirming hard evidence for their unevidenced knowledge beliefs in Darwin's and Wallace's dual immaculate conceptions of Matthew's prior published hypothesis, the Darwinist Discovery Donkeys became intellectually extinct.
Confirming the theory of natural selection, the history of its discovery was taken over by those intellectually fittest to survive. Namely, social scientists.
Plagiarism of Original Findings from Research on Plagiarism
In the journal of the Linnean Society, which is the very same journal that published Darwin's and Wallace's (1858) replication of Matthew's breakthrough with no reference to Matthew, Joachim Dagg (2018) - who earlier penned attacking and laughably pseudo-scholarly factually wrong poorly researched hatchet job reviews of my book (Sutton 2014 and 2017) - jealously plagiarises my discovery that Selby cited Matthew. He is a plagiarist in this regard because he used my newly discovered Selby cited Matthew data without referencing my prior publications, which he knows full well to be the original published source of its discovery. Effectively passing my original discovery off as though it is his own, Dagg fails to acknowledge me for discovering it and so influencing him to use it (as Michael Weale 2015 rightly did in a preceding Linnean Journal article). Later on Wikipedia, Dagg discusses this failure to cite me on the talk page of the pseudo scholarly Wikipedia page about Patrick Matthew to the malicious, obscene and totally obsessed harassing Darwin superfan and cyberstalker Julian Derry (here). For good reason, Derry who has maliciously stalked one of my graduate students, other associates and esteemed colleagues, such as Professor Mark Griffiths, has been made to delete his sad weirdo, libellous malicious harassment blog about me and those others (see here) and the New Data by the legal department at Nottingham Trent University. None of these verifiable facts bode well for what genuine scholarly historians of science will have to write about the shabby Linnean Journal, in which Dagg thanks Derry, those who have committed plagiarism in it, and have also edited the silly Wikipedia pages about me, and also another about Matthew, in this regard.
Analogously, as we have seen throughout history, newly unearthed facts that are devastatingly unwelcome to fanatics act as an enema causing some to soil themselves in public. That would be a shame if it was not so funny.
For the historical record of laughable shameful behaviour of several biologists toward the New Data, that has crushed their cherished beliefs with independently verifiable disconfirming dreadfully unwelcome facts, fully cited evidence of Dagg's behaviour and that of others, seemingly desperate to side-step the preponderance of new evidence for Matthew’s knowledge contamination of the work of Darwin and Wallace, can be found on another page of this website. It is all recorded and archived (here) for others to use in their scholarship into plagiarism, cyberstalking, abuse, harassment, poison pen letters, science fraud and how paradigm shifts in science are first received by those with a stake in seeking to deny unwelcome facts and so cover them up. Comedians, please help yourselves.
In 1831, the Scottish laird, farmer, orchard owner, grain dealer and botanist, Patrick Matthew, authored 'On Naval Timber and Arboriculture.' Matthew's book is universally recognised as the first publication to contain the complete hypothesis of the theory of natural selection. New evidence proves that both Darwin and Wallace lied by pretending they had no prior-knowledge of it; both committed science fraud by plagiarising Matthew's discovery, his name for it, his examples of the process in nature compared to culture. They even ripped-off his unique creative perspective.