Patrick Matthew Supermyth

The concept of the supermyth originated in research into the story of the comic strip and cartoon character Popeye, iron spinach and a supposed scientific decimal point error. The full story of the spinach and Popeye mythbust is covered in the following publcations. 


Mythbusting Articles on Spinach


Spinach, Iron and Popeye: Ironic lessons from biochemistry and history on the importance of healthy eating, healthy scepticism and adequate citation (Sutton 2010) (here and here and also here)

The Spinach, Popeye, Iron, Decimal Error Myth is Finally Busted (Sutton, M. 2010) (here)


Did Popeye Really Increase Spinach Consumption and Production by 33 percent in 1936? (here) (Original Best Thinking blog post archived in full here


SPIN@GE USA Beware of the Bull: The United States Department of Agriculture is Spreading Bull about Spinach, Iron and Vitamin C (Sutton 2011) (Here)


Spin@ge II: Does the United States Department of Agriculture’s Publication of Spuriofacts Have its Origins in a Perverse Scientific Paper Written in 1937? (Sutton, M. June 2012) (here and archived here)

How the spinach, Popeye and iron decimal point error myth was finally bust (Sutton 2010) (Here and also here)

The Matthew, Darwin and Wallace Supermyth further reveals that the scientific community is heavily influenced by a number of supposed experts who have a credulous desire to conform with current orthodoxy and other related ‘appeals to authority’ rather than the tenet of Nullius in Verba. I am writing these words in 2020 at the hight of the COVID19 pandemic, in the year when the UK Prime Minister Boris Johnson and his top scientific advisers and US President Donald Trump (who also promoted the vaccines cause autism myth, see Sutton, Henn and Gibson 2017) have spread the ludicrous yet lethal Masks Supermyth that facemasks do not reduce the spread of COVID19 and actually spread it (Masks Suprmyth here).


Such unscientific behaviour by influential scientists and their credulous acolytes is a disgrace to science and it undermines public confidence in science, which can have dreadful social consequences and even lead to hundreds of thousands of deaths.



The Matthew, Darwin, and Wallace (MDW) supermyth has its basis in a number of connected falsehoods that have been created by Darwin, Wallace and obediently conformist members of the scientific community. These falsehood, the actual disconfirming verifiable facts and related links are outlined below:



  1. That Darwin alone originated the theory of evolution by natural selection, using the analogue of artificial selection to explain it and that he brilliantly originated the term “process of natural selection”. That Darwin came up with what he called “my theory” whilst on the voyages of the Beagle and that he did so by observing the adaptations of different variety of finch beaks on the Galapagos Islands. (Fully evidenced and detailed debunked by others story: here)

  2. That Wallace came up with the same theory independently of Matthew or Darwin, but that he never used the explanatory analogue of artificial selection in his version. That myth is bust, because Wallace did just that in his 1858 Ternate paper.

  3. That Patrick Matthew’s (1831) hypothesis, which he uniquely coined the “natural process of selection”, is so fundamentally different from Darwin’s and Wallace’s versions that they could not have plagiarised it, even though Darwin, Wallace and Matthew (the three foremost experts on the matter) all went into print admitting Matthew went into published print with the full theory, and more besides, first. 

  4. That no one / no naturalist known to, and no one who could have influenced, Darwin and Wallace read Matthew’s (1831) book containing his prior published hypothesis / theory. This myth is bust Sutton 2014.

  5. That even though it is a little-known fact that the highly influential naturalist Loudon (who was well known to Darwin and Wallace and their circle of friends and influencers) cited Matthew’s theory in 1832 and said he had “something original to say on the origin of species” that no naturalist read it and certainly no naturalist known to Darwin or Wallace.

        That Wallace was an original thinker and scientific genius. In reality he was a great fool who believed in ghosts                    and was credulously hoodwinked by the charlatans of spiritualism. Worse still, he was a rampant antivaxxer!

     7. 

        That Wallace was an honest and kind steady scientist and kindly nature lover. In reality, he used his engineering                  knowledge to win an unfair bet with an even greater flat earther idiot and then to lose a fortune suing the loser to                try to make him pay. The frequently impecunious Wallace delighted in his own greed in killing great apes to have                then stuffed and sold and bragging about orphaning their human-like offspring and in killing many endangered                  species for sale. He depended on money from Darwin and his Linnean Society debacle cronies and a state pension            they contrived for him. On his death, Wallace's widow was forced to sell their house in order to survive. She died                within the year.

     8.

       That Darwin was a great scientific genius and honest gentleman nature loving naturalist. In reality, he was an                        incredibly nasty unscientific racist. He beat a puppy for the fun of it, gorged on animal flesh as a member of the                  Glutton Club, including an owl and killed a fox and also killed many trusting seabirds with his geological hammer              and wild rabbits with stones. He loved to slaughter thousands of tame pheasants by shotgun competitions                          with  other members of the landed gentry. Darwin compared women to dogs in deciding whether not to marry his                cousin, no less! Darwin got his geological facts wrong on the topic of geology, but another scientists who cited                  Matthew's (1831) book and his later 1839 book 'Emigration Fields', Robert Chambers got it right and Darwin                          corresponded and met with him pre 1858.  Darwin tried to have the rules of priority changed so that he could have              priority for the discoveries of others and was a serial liar about who he knew really did read Mathew's prior                          published theory. After emotionally manipulating his friends Hooker and Lyell - in 1858 in the week his baby son                  died -  to help himself and Wallace steal Matthew's theory, Darwin wrote to Hooker the following year on Christmas            Day, 1859, to say that he has always strongly felt that no one should defend their priority. You have to wonder                      whether Darwin was some kind of psychopathic narcissist as well as being the world's greatest science fraudster by          plagiarism, serial lies and glory theft.

    9.

       Finally, now considering the shockingly upsetting original Big Data method unearthing by Sutton (e.g., 2014,                       2015 and 2017) to reveal that several naturalists who influenced and facilitated Darwin and Wallace - pre- their 1858           papers on the theory of evolution by natural selection in the journal of Linnean Society - and their influencer’s                     influencers did read and then cite Matthew's hypothesis / theory and the 1831 book containing it, that those                         naturalists did not understand the theory and so (as Darwin lobbyists ludicrously argue) could not have told Darwin          or Wallace  about it, or influenced them with their citations of it. That additional misinformation is newly compounded        by the fact that Dagg, in the Biological Journal of the Linnean Society and Weale in an earlier article the very same              journal have each plagiarised Sutton’s (e.g. 2014, 2015 discovery that the naturalist Selby cited Matthew’s 1831 book          and mentioned his original ideas on natural selection in 1842. The editor of the journal and Oxford University Press            that publish it have disgracefully, to date, refused to address this serious repeat original research findings plagiarism        (details here).

Desperate Darwin worshippers try to convince the scientific community that Matthew's theory is essentially different from Darwin's in order to try to divert attention from the new data that proves Darwin and Wallace plagiarised Matthew's theory. As though they know more than Matthew, Darwin and Wallace did on this very topic. Here is one example of such desperate fact denial nonsense.


Amazing fact denial desperate codswallop published in 2020 is in the same journal, by descent, that, back in 1858, published Darwin's and Wallace's plagiarism of Matthew's original theory. This is the latest of several ludicrous attempts in that journal to divert attention from the verfiable facts of the newly discovered data (e.g. Sutton 2015) that proves Darwin and Wallace plagiarised Matthew's (1831) prior published theory. Darwin worshipping malicious idiots Derry and Dagg are arguing that  Matthew's theory was not essentially the same as Darwin's even though both Darwin (1860) and Wallace (1879) said it was. As though Dagg the plagiarist of my research and Derry the obscene harasser and cyberstalker (facts of their disgraceful behaviour are here ) know more than Darwin and Wallace did about their own (replicating) work. The Biological Journal of the Linnean Society is now a total joke. Birds of a feather certainty do flock together. The facts of Dagg's plagiarism of my research in that journal are here.


Darwin in his (1860) reply to Matthew in the Gardener's Chronicle fully admitted he had replicated Matthew's prior published theory: "I have been much interested by Mr. Patrick Matthew’s communication in the Number of your Paper, dated April 7th. I freely acknowledge that Mr. Matthew has anticipated by many years the explanation which I have offered of the origin of species, under the name of natural selection." Darwin (1861) did the same from the third edition onwards of his book the Origin of Species: Darwin replicated and admitted it when he 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."


Wallace in (1879a) fully admitted in a letter to Samuel Butler that he knew Matthew got there first with the entire thing he and  "To my mind your quotations from Mr. Patrick Matthew are the most remarkable things in your whole book, because he appears to have completely anticipated the main ideas both of the "Origin of Species" & of "Life & Habitat". Aso in 1879b, in a review of Butler's book,  Wallace wrote: "Mr. Matthew apprehended the theory of natural selection, as well as the existence of more obscure laws of evolution, many years in advance of Mr. Darwin and myself, and in giving almost the whole of what Mr. Matthew has written on the subject Mr. Butler will have helped to call  attention to one of the most original thinkers of the first half of the 19th century."


In their desperate smog-article Dagg and Derry  arguably - misrepresent what I wrote on page 6 of my book. They write:  


"Sutton (2017: 6) asserted that Matthew’s theory only differed from Darwin’s and Wallace’s in the occurrence of global catastrophes."


What I actually write on page 6 of my 2017 book is (underlined emphasis added here): 


"Matthew, quite correctly allowed for geological and meteorological catastrophes in his model, but Darwin and Wallace never. Matthew's original theory of macroevolution by natural selection is, in every other relevant way, apart from that great superiority, virtually the same as Darwin's and Wallace's later versions."


And relevant here - in the context of my entire book and even the rest of the content of that page - is its relevance to the evidence that Darwin and Wallace plagiarised Matthew's 1831 original theory, his original terminology and his original and highly idiosyncratic explanatory analogies.


I suppose the disgraced Biological Journal of the Linnean Society and its shameful publisher Oxford University Press will have no problem at all with the fact Derry provides what certainly appears to me to be a fake personal address for his serial dishonest self on the ludicrous Dagg & Derry Show 2020 article as 30 Yeaman Place Edinburgh, EH11, which is actually the very precise address of a pub called The Golden Rule (archived for evidence here) for which Derry wrote a scathing review in 2020? Here and archived her. Incidentally, the proven serial liar Darwin reckoned he had a famous "Golden Rule" (here). 


In his scathing reviews of the pub at 30 Yeaman Place, Derry calls it his local since 2012. Really? How local? So local he lives in or above it? 


The Patrick Matthew Supermyth


Nullius in Verba: Darwin's greatest secret 600-page Kindle e-book. Currently unavailable due to ongoing investigations into criminal book piracy, copyright fraud, cyberstalking, criminal malicious communications, malware dissemination and ID fraud by cybercriminals who have hacked it and those who are disseminating the pirated hacked files.


From November 2017, you are advised not to download any version of this e-book, because the hacked file is likely to be infected with hacker malware by those sharing and disseminating it. Moreover, the content of the illegal file is likely to have been altered by the criminals involved.


Please purchase the official paperback abridged version from Amazon here. Paperback volumes 2 and 3 are forthcoming

Reader: beware of desperate fact denial malicious Supermyth promoting and serially dishonest smog-apes like Dagg the Plagiarist and Derry the Obscene Harasser, who represent their own falsehoods by misrepresentation of precise facts written by others and the context in which they are published.


The image of page 6 of my book below sets the record straight on what Dagg and Derry are up to in misrepresenting my research in their desperate 2020 article.

The Patrick Matthew Supermyth

A supermyth is a myth about a myth where the second myth is created in an apparent atmosphere of concern to veraciously bust the first myth. What makes supermyths so powerful is that they appear all the more plausible because they are stories about why the first myth came into being and how it was bust. 


The discovery of the phenomenon of the Supermyth was first published on the Best Thinking website.  The Spinach Popeye Iron Decimal Error Point Error Myht (SPIDES) was fully bust in two articles The first here and the second here.


Supermyths have very specific components:

 

1. The creation of a fallacy, myth or error by an orthodox expert.


2. Being used by another expert who in turn promotes it as being ‘true, and whilst still thinking that it is true either promotes it as a good example of the need to be healthily skeptical of bad scholarship, or else:


3. compounds the myth by using it as a premise upon which to build one or more supporting myths.

The Patrick Matthew Supermyth was created by faux-skeptical Darwinists and other equally credulous members of the scientific community who neglected to apply the scientific principle of nullius in verba to Darwin's and Wallace's incredible claims to have independently discovered natural selection with no prior knowledge of Matthew's prominent publication of it 27 years earlier.


The myth is a supermyth because Darwinists, using natural selection as a mythbusting device for the myth that a God created all species of plants and animals, created the secondary myth that Darwin first discovered the natural process of selection, and that he was first to use artificial selection as an explanatory analogy for the process of natural selection. In fact, Matthew was first to do both.


The myth of Darwin's and Wallace's supposed exclusive duel 'independent' discoveries of Matthew's prior published discovery of the 'natural process of selection' was bust when it was 100% proven (Sutton 2014, 2017) that, contrary to the myth started by Darwin in 1860 and 1861, other naturalists known to Darwin and Wallace - who in fact played key roles in influencing and facilitating their pre-1858 work on natural selection - had read and cited Matthew's (1831) book in the literature. That book - On Naval Timber and Arboriculture - is widely acknowledged to contain the full theory of natural selection. The mythbust is best explained to sceptical Darwinists by way of analogy. The Darwin and Wallace Duel Miraculous Immaculate Conception Analaogy can be read in Nullius.


The Patrick Matthew Supermyth is underpinned by two deliberate lies that Darwin in order to corrupt the history of discovery of natural selection {here} and by the fallacious Loudon-Naturalist-Blinding toxic super-meme that the unique ideas on natural selection in Matthew's 1831 book were, variously, unread by any naturalists, biologists, anyone known to Darwin or Wallace, or indeed anyone, before Matthew brought them to Darwin's attention in 1860.

 

'If your values are rigid, you can't really learn new facts.'


               Robert, M. Pirsig (1974, p. 304) Zen and the Art of Motorcyle Maintenance: 

               An inquiry into values.


 PROOF DARWIN LIED IN ORDER TO STEAL MATTHEW'S RIGHTFUL PRIORITY



What follows is the pertinent timeline of what was written by Matthew and Darwin about who read Matthew's prior published discovery of natural selection.


1. In 1860 in his first letter to the Gardener's Chronicle, to claim his rightful priority(see Sutto 2014 and 2017) for his prior published (Matthew 1831) full and detailed hypothesis of natural selection, which Darwin replicated without citing him, Matthew wrote that his book had been reviewed by the famous naturalist botanist John Loudon.


It is notable that Loudon’s  review (1832): of Matthew's (1831) book contained the following sentence:


‘One of the subjects discussed in this appendix is the puzzling one, of the origin of species and varieties; and if the author has hereon originated no original views (and of this we are far from certain), he has certainly exhibited his own in an original manner.’


Matthew (1860) in his first letter to the Gardener's Chronicle ( Matthew, P. 1860a. Letter to the Gardeners Chronicle. Nature's law of selection. Gardeners' Chronicle and Agricultural Gazette (7 April): 312-13. Darwin Online: ) wrote:


'In your Number of March 3d I observe a long quotation from the Times, stating that Mr. Darwin "professes to have discovered the existence and modus operandi of the natural law of selection," that is, "the power in nature which takes the place of man and performs a selection, sua sponte," in organic life. This discovery recently published as "the results of 20 years' investigation and reflection" by Mr. Darwin turns out to be what I published very fully and brought to apply practically to forestry in my work "Naval Timber and Arboriculture," published as far back as January 1, 1831, by Adam & Charles Black, Edinburgh, and Longman & Co., London, and reviewed in numerous periodicals, so as to have full publicity in the "Metropolitan Magazine," the "Quarterly Review," the "Gardeners' Magazine," by Loudon, who spoke of it as the book, and repeatedly in the "United Service Magazine" for 1831, &c. The following is an extract from this volume, which clearly proves a prior claim.  ...'


Loudon was a famous naturalist, botanist, polymath and fellow of the Linnean Society, known very well to Darwin (from his correspondence and his notebook of books read) and to his best friend Joseph Hooker (who, from his book review of Loudon's work and correspondence revealled that he much admired Loudon) - who approved Darwiin's letter of reply before sending it on to the Gardener's Choronicle on Darwin's behalf at Darwin's request, whilst complying with Darwin's odd request that he re-date the letter to prove he had approved it. Yet in that 1860 letter of reply to Matthew's 1860 letter, Darwin wrote the exact opposite to what Matthew had just told him. See point 2, immediately below, for the hard evidence.


2. In his 1860 letter in the Gardener's Chronicle (Darwin, C. R. 1860b. Natural selection. Gardeners' Chronicle and Agricultural Gazette no. 16 (21 April): 362-363.) Darwin's first lie on this specific matter was written by his own hand:


" I think that no one will feel surprised that neither I, nor apparently any other naturalist, had heard of Mr Matthew's views, "


To necessarily repeat the point already made, Darwin wrote the exact self-serving opposite to what Matthew had just informed him, and his best friend, the influential Hooker, backed him up in the great lie.


3. Naturally concerned that Darwin was denying the truth about the fact that his book had been read by other naturalists, and its unique ideas understood,  Matthew (Matthew, P. 1860b. Letter to the Gardeners Chronicle. Nature's law of selection. Gardeners' Chronicle and Agricultural Gazette (12 May) p. 433.)  then very clearly, in his second letter in the Gardener's Chronicle - by way of reply to Darwin's blatant self-serving lie  - wrote:


'I notice in your Number of April 21 Mr. Darwin’s letter honourably acknowledging my prior claim relative to the origin of species. I have not the least doubt that, in publishing his late work, he believed he was the first discoverer of this law of Nature. He is however wrong in thinking that no naturalist was aware of the previous discovery. I had occasion some 15 years ago to be conversing with a naturalist, a professor of a celebrated university, and he told me he had been reading my work “Naval Timber,” but that he could not bring such views before his class or uphold them publicly from fear of the cutty-stool, a sort of pillory punishment, not in the market-place and not devised for this offence, but generally practised a little more than half a century ago. It was at least in part this spirit of resistance to scientific doctrine that caused my work to be voted unfit for the public library of the fair city itself. The age was not ripe for such ideas, nor do I believe is the present one,..'


4. Despite being initially informed that the naturalist Loudon had read and reviewed his book Darwin lied in his letter of reply in the Gardener's Chronicle by writing that no naturalist had read Matthew's ideas. As can be seen in point 3, above, Matthew then corrected Darwin by informing him in detail of yet another naturalist who had read his original ideas on natural selection but was afraid t teach them for fear of pillory punishment. So what did Darwin do next?  He wrote to a famous and influential naturalist with the self serving lie that no one at all had ever read Matthew's book! To the famous French naturalist Quatrefages de Bréau in his letter of April 25, 1861 Darwin wrote::


 "I have lately read M. Naudin's paper; but it does not seem to me to anticipate me, as he does not shew how Selection could be applied under nature; but an obscure writer on Forest Trees, in 1830, in Scotland, most expressly & clearly anticipated my views—though he put the case so briefly, that no single person ever noticed the scattered passages in his book."?


5. Then in 1861 in the Third Edition of the Origin of Species - and in every edition thereafter, Darwin continued that exact same great self serving lie about Matthew's book,  and who read the ideas in it. That lie  corrupted - for 155 years - the history of the discovery of natural selection. Darwin (1861) wrote in the third edition of The Origin of Species -despite being informed of the exact opposite by Matthew only the year before:


' 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.'


Small wonder then that Darwin's Darwinist's - being named for their lying hero - failed to check the truth of the matter. By way of example, Sir Gavin de Beer - Royal Society Darwin Medal winner - wrote in his Wilkins Lecture for the Royal Society (de Beer 1962 on page 333): Darwin's great lie as the "gospel according to Darwin" truth. Until I personally put the record fully straight not a single person corrected his credulous Darwin deification claptrap:


 "...William Charles Wells and Patrick Matthew were predecessors who had actually published the principle of natural selection in obscure places where their works remained completely unnoticed until Darwin and Wallace reawakened interest in the subject.'


Conclusion


Darwin was a self-serving deliberate liar. The record is independently verifiable. Darwin wrote the very opposite to what he had twice been informed was the truth by the very trustworthy originator whose ideas he replicated without citing their originator's prior publication of them. And Darwin wrote those falsehoods - because  - just as de Beer's ludicrously acclaimed text goes to prove- they were needed to wrestle priority away form the true biological father of natural selection.


A more detailed account of Darwin's proven science fraud by glory theft can be read here

DARWIN'S PROVEN LIES

Darwin wrote a total of ten lies to steal priority from Matthew. You can see the fully evidenced details and effects of three of them on the Patrick Matthew Blog.  The fact Darwin did lie about the prior readership of Matthew's book can be read in my 2016 peer reviewed science article.

GLORY THEFT

Of all crimes the worst


Is to steal the glory


From the great and brave,


Even more accursed


Than to rob the grave.


From 'Kitty Hawk' by Robert Frost (1953)


The Terraforming and Darwin Supermyth


Based on the Supermyth that Darwin and Wallace uniquely and independently discovered the natural process of selection, there is a related, daughter, myth that Charles Darwin, together with his botanical mentor and best friend Joseph Hooker uniquely invented terraforming by way of what they did on Ascension Island (e.g. that story here).

In reality it is Patrick Matthew, the plagiarized and cheated 1831 originator of the theory of natural selection, whose research and observations of nature provided the factual and theoretical base for terraforming.

When, in 1831, Matthew published his theory in his book On Naval Timber and Arboriculture, it contained, amongst other religious heresy at the time, the heresy that trees could grow better in other than their "natural" habitats when transplanted there by humans. This heresy was heretical because it went against then Christian doctrine that "God", as designer and creator, placed every living thing in its ideal location. Matthew's heresy probably just one of those that led his book to banned by Perth public Library in Scotland and for reviewers to demand readers not even think about his ruminations on the laws of nature. Indeed, Selby (a regular church-going Christian naturalist, who I, in 20142014a2015 see my later 2016 paperback uniquely discovered cited Matthew's book in 1842 and wrote that he could not understand this idea before going on to be chief editor of the journal that published Wallace's 1855 Sarawak paper. NOTE: My Selby discovery was later plagiarized in the Linnean Journal by Dagg The Jealous and Sly Plagiarist - facts here).

In 1843, a year after Selby (1842) noted what Matthew had written abut some trees doing well outside their natural habitat, Joseph Hooker landed on Ascension Island (see here and here) and arranged for an abundance of different species of tree to be planted there.

Selby wrote that he could not understand how it could be so that Matthew said trees could do better when grown outside their natural habitat. See Prideaux John Selby, A History of British Forest-Trees: Indigenous and Introduced, Van Voorst, London 1842. In this way, whether he really could understand it (but pretended otherwise to appease the powerful church) or not, Selby drew attention to Matthew's heresy. Later it was picked up upon as no more than an important fact for economic botany and cited prominently by William Hooker's (William being Joseph Hooker's father and also a friend of the Darwin and his wife) correspondent William Jameson in 1853 (facts here).

The United Service Journal and Naval and Military Magazine published an extended review in the 1831 Part II and 1831 Part III numbers of the magazine:


"But we disclaim participation in his ruminations on the law of Nature, or on the outrages committed upon reason and justice by our burthens of hereditary nobility, entailed property, and insane enactments."

Darwin and his cronies capitalized upon the opportunistic fact Matthew had been earlier silenced in the first half of the 19th century when the church was still in its ascendancy to steal his ideas. Indeed, while Matthew mocked the church and priests, in many editions of the Origin of Species Darwin kept the notion of "The Creator" in as a supernatural deity that created evolution by natural selection. 

Visit the Supermyths website to discover what supermyths have so far been discovered. {Here}.

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 and all good bookshops.


Available only from all Amazon sites, good Bricks and Mortar Bookshops and Libraries World Wide. Bogus fake versions are being sold on various other websites online by criminal book pirates and identity fraudsters

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.

Further reading on this Supermyth can be found on Supermyths.com HERE