Wainwright, Weale & Sutton

Are we on the cusp of a new scientific and social revolution in understanding organic evolution on Earth?

Readers of my blog posts will be well aware that I am a confirmed atheist and that I like to consider myself to be an optimistic rational skeptic, concerned with pursuing veracity and busting myths and fallacies.

 

Inside my own private hype, I like to imagine that I am 'the skeptics skeptic' - a fantasy "super-skeptic". And if I am going to continue to believe in my own ego-boosting self-serving hype then it is necessary for me to continue to nurture and keep as open and as rationally skeptical a mind as I believe I am able.

 

Part of my personal philosophy of seeking to nurture my own brand of optimistic super-skepticism, is to keep an eye out for when events and discoveries appear to converge - but to be aware that the apparent convergence might be nothing more than common-or-garden selective cherry-picking bias on the part of me - the pattern recognizer.

 

So, with my caveats and corollaries safely stated, let me proceed to suggest the possibility of something seemingly outrageously beyond the expert 'majority view' as a clue for how life evolved on Earth. But first please note: I do not at all "believe" the current majority view of organic evolution is wrong. What I am doing in this blog post is presenting some new evidence that it might be about to undergo a revolutionary revision.

 

In considering the new evidence, it is important to exercise an open mind by creating a research environment, physically, socially and mentally, in which things can happen and where significant data can be detected and then appreciated.

 

In the words of Alexander Fleming (1959), in order to first make game changing discoveries, one should:

 

'Work hard, work well, do not clutter up the mind too much with precedents, and be prepared to accept such good fortune as the gods offer...'

 

To appreciate the 'bombshell' significance of your newly discovered hard facts is, at the very outset at least, an altogether more subjective and intuitive matter. I don't think such appreciation is something that can be taught to everyone. To argue for and promote the significance of your discovery, in the face of a powerful, hostile, and self-interested 'expert' 'majority view', requires personal and intellectual mettle and integrity for fact-led progress that is often lacking in the world.

 

A "Subjectively Constructed' Triangulation of Recent Hard Data-Driven Discoveries in the field of Organic Macro Evolution by Natural Selection

 

1. My personal research suggests Patrick Matthew (1831) not only was first to prior-publish the full theory of natural selection (See my Rational Wiki Essay), but the New Data (Sutton 2014) 100 per cent proves Darwin lied about Matthew's influence and significantly increases the probability of some kind of Matthewian 'knowledge contamination' and that Darwin and Wallace (1858) in their Linnean Society papers, and Darwin (1859) in The Origin of Species, committed plagiarizing science fraud when they replicated Matthew's ideas and then claimed no prior-knowledge of them. Some of my findings that confirm my First to be Second (F2b2) Hypothesis are quite amazingly independently confirmed by prior research conducted by Professor Milton Wainwright (Professor of microbiology at Sheffield University, England). Wainwright and I are, to my knowledge, the only ones in the World to have written peer reviewed (refereed) scholarly academic journal articles to conclude that the hard and independently verifiable data to be found in the published literature record supports the probability of both knowledge contamination and plagiarizing science fraud in the story of Matthew, Darwin and Wallace (here).

 

2. Dr Mike Weale, Reader in Statistical Genetics at Kings College, London, recently concluded, on the balance of available published evidence in the publication record of Matthew's work, that Patrick Matthew - the true Originator of the theory of macro organic evolution by natural selection - believed as early as 1831 in a non-christian 'benevolent intelligent and purposeful designer' of all organic life on Earth. Weale's (2015) unique synthesis of the literature goes further than my own (Sutton 2014), which revealed Matthew felt, much later in his life that there was a benevolence and objective beauty in nature, which natural selection alone could not explain.

 

3. Milton Wainwright has uniquely discovered what he believes all the hard evidence suggests to be intelligently designed alien particles in the stratosphere (see my blog posts here and here). To date, the wider scientific community is unable to dis-confirm this alien particles hypothesis. Incredibly, the data, to date, in absence of further independent research, provides, seemingly at least, tentative confirmatory evidence for the hypothesis that life on Earth was seeded by an intelligent alien life form.

 

I wonder what Patrick Matthew, the man with unique and brilliant brain enough to first discover the most important scientific explanation for life on Earth - who more likely than not seeded the brains of Darwin and Wallace with it - would have made of Wainwright's apparent revolutionary discovery of intelligently designed alien particles raining alien biological matter down on the Earth? I expect he would have loved it.

 

If Wainwright is right, and of that it must be stressed that both we and he are quite rightly currently far from certain, then the natural law of natural selection is likely to undergo some modification in order to accommodate the new evidence that, in the evolution of organic life on Earth, bombarding alien biological matter is more likely than not involved - and perhaps has been for a very long time.

 

Conclusions and the way forward

 

These are interesting times. We must keep rationally skeptical, but, as part of that cognitive process, our minds should be kept open. Most importantly, we must seek to determine exactly what Wainwright and his team have uniquely discovered, Whatever his particles are, they are a new and unique discovery. Are they intelligently designed alien particles? We are going to find out one way or the other. Of that there can now be no rational doubt.

 

I think that my triangulation of my own unique discoveries with those of Wainwright and Weale is obviously more indicative of the biased cherry-picking workings of my own brain than the existence of any kind of objective existence of a particularly important fusion of knowledge that is greater than the sum of its parts. Nevertheless, if Wainwright is right about his particles then his discovery raises further the need to address the dysological Darwin eclipse - outlined by my work, Wainwright's and Jim Dempster's (among others) - of the un-trumpeted brilliance of Patrick Matthew as an immortal great thinker in science.

 

It's all appearing to my biased brain to be rather serendipitous, which I have to admit greatly disturbs me, but it also excites me a little - because of the incredible possibilities. The problem is (and its probably just something hard-wired into my brain that's doing it) I can't now help wondering about the theory that this work of Matthew, Darwin, Wainwright, Weale and me all happened at the very beginning of our notion of time. The thinking behind such a seemingly daft notion is that time is the fourth dimension and is not sequential - as we initially perceive it to be with our naturally selected senses. Did all of this happen already? Did we have no choice but to make these discoveries - for you to read this blog and have the thoughts you have about it? You can view that counter-intuitive (at least above the subatomic level) weird "timelessness" theory here. And if it is right, then you, dear reader, had no choice to click that link or not - just as the case may be and has always been and always will be in this universe, or in this part of the possible multiverse.

 

Such weirdness there is in science!

 

Imagine what it will mean for us - for religion and science - for all of human society - if Wainwright lives up to his name and is proven right. The consequences for all of science and society will be of unimaginable magnitude. Is this the beginning of what will come to be called The Alien Revolution?

The Darwinist pseudo scholarly version of the history of the discovery of natural selection is about turning fallacious statements, made by their namesake, into unshakable truths through the power of institutions and the passage of time. Here.

A Wainright "alien" particle from Earth's stratosphere

 

 

Nullius is the book that re-wrote the history of Charles Darwin

 

Available for all reading devices here

 

Patrick Matthew: the only true originator of the theory of macro evolution by natural selection

BOMBSHELL!

Patrick Matthew (1831) was the first to fully explain natural selection as new species branching from a common ancestor by way of nature selecting varieties that were best circumstance suited. He even uniquely called it: 'the natural process of selection'. A term Darwin (1859) would uniquely four word shuffle into 'process of natural selection'.

 

 

Read more about the mythbusting work of the criminologist Dr Mike Sutton on the Best Thinking website

 

Dr Mike Sutton (criminologist)

Prior to the publication of this book, it was universally believed that Charles Darwin told the truth when he wrote in 1860 that apparently no naturalist had read Patrick Matthew's 1831 book, which contained the full theory of natural selection.

 

Nullius in Verba: Darwin's greatest secret is the hard-fact-led mythbusting book that re-wrote the history of the discovery of natural selection with new BigData made discoveries of the once hidden books that reveal who Darwin and Wallace knew who really did read Patrick Matthew's prior publication of the full theory of natural selection before Darwin and Wallace supposedly 'independently' replicated it in 1858 with, supposedly, no knowledge of what Matthew had discovered that their friends and influencers had read and actually cited in the literature before influencing them on the same topic!

 

Nullius is available on Amazon

 

The Myth of Darwin's Honesty is Bust by the Facts

 

Cast iron proof that Charles Darwin, in collusion with his best friend and botanical mentor Joseph Hooker, lied in the Gardener's Chronicle when he wrote in 1860 that apparently no naturalist had read Matthew's (1831) prior-published ideas, and further lied when he wrote in the third edition of the Origin of Species (1861), and every edition thereafter, that Matthew's unique ideas had passed unnoticed until 1860.

 

Read the hard facts here.

Charles Darwin

Joseph Hooker

Rational Wiki

 

Leading experts agree that only Patrick Matthew discovered and had published the full theory of natural selection befre Darwin's and Wallace's replication of it 27 years later.

Hard Facts and Rational Argument

Every Darwinist argument against the importance of the New Data in Nulius in Verba: Darwin's greatest secret can be rebutted with facts and reason. Here.

Read why biased Darwinists, named for Charles Darwin, are unsurprisingly found-out by their poor scholarship, to be unfit to tell the veracious story of the discovery of natural selection. Here.

Why was the New Data detected in 2014 by a social scientist and not an expert Darwinist biologist?

For 155 years, following the publication of Darwin's (1859) Origin of Species, until Sutton's (2014) Nullius in Verba, Darwinists were unobservant of the damning evidence in the literature. They had seen only what they were taught to expect about their deified namesake. The totaly unexpected evidence, that they are named for a plagiarizing science fraudster, evaded them like an optical illusion.

 

One needs to retain the unblinking observancy of a curious child, whilst exercising an open mind. To succeed, it is necessary to create a physical, social and personally cognitive research environment in which things can happen and where significant new data can be searched for, detected, followed-up with intuitive instinct and appreciated. In such an environment, it is important to know and fully exploit the potential of the tools that facilitate your research and to use them in search for the unusual.

 

You should be inspired, tenaciously powered and moderated by the joyful application of your diligent and acute, unbiased, curiosity and observation skills.

 

In the words of Alexander Fleming (1959), in order to first make game changing discoveries, one should:

 

'Work hard, work well, do not clutter up the mind too much with precedents, and be prepared to accept such good fortune as the gods offer...'

 

If it happens that you find something big, to intuitively appreciate the 'bombshell' significance of your newly discovered hard facts is, at the very outset at least, an altogether more subjective matter. I don't think such appreciation is something that can be taught to everyone. One, essentially, needs the gift of an eye to notice and a mind to grasp what it means.

 

To argue for and disseminate the significance of your discovery, in the face of an entrenched, powerful, hostile, and self-interested 'expert' 'majority view', requires personal and intellectual mettle and sense of moral integrity for promoting fact-led progress that is too often lacking in the world.

 

For the social scientist, indeed, for any scientist, it is a moral duty to reveal myths and fallacies and to share as widely as possible the newly discovered facts that disconfirm them.

 

I know exactly what I have uniquely discovered with my carefully planned and executed research design and innovative ID research method. Therefore, I know its originality and great importance in the history of scientific discovery.

 

The New Data of Wallace's sly correspondence record tampering dishonesty and Darwin's 100 per cent proven audacious self-serving lies, when added to the newly discovered fact that highly influential naturalists, who Darwin and Wallace knew, read and then cited Matthew's (1831) book before Darwin and Wallace replicated the bombshell ideas in it - followed by their own fallacious defence that before 1860 no naturalist had read those prior-published ideas - re-writes, significantly, the history of the discovery of natural selection.

 

Macro evolution by natural selection is, arguably, the most important scientific discovery of all time. The great importance of this theory underpins the significance of the New Data for veracious scientific progress in our knowledge of how such great scientific discoveries are made.

 

 

 

 

Patrick Matthew