There is a nasty underside to Darwinism. That's not a conspiracy theory. It's fact. Prof Brian J Ford has written about it. I'm showing the world verifiable details of what Darwin fanatics do without a word criticism from the scientific establishment. e.g. https://t.co/Ko6Z7GCth2 https://t.co/vRys8CXPbR— Dr Mike Sutton (@Criminotweet) January 5, 2020
Monday, 6 January 2020
Thursday, 2 January 2020
In the #RoaringTwenties In addition to Boris & Trump, I nominate Charles Darwin for the 2020 #SpaffingTwatties award. He spaffed his immortal reputation up the wall in the 19th century.— Dr Mike Sutton (@Dysology) January 2, 2020
Don't get their #spaff on your face! Get verifiable facts! https://t.co/T6Iw1oBjkV pic.twitter.com/6Ckxmj4gjn
Facts always burrow to the top in the end. Darwin worshipers are worse than religious nutters in their hatred of facts that prove they are a demented belief cult.— Dr Mike Sutton (@Criminotweet) January 2, 2020
Check out the words of a proper critical thinking scientist on Darwin's proven plagiarism: https://t.co/6HDmlQBoDf pic.twitter.com/cWe5evRrvS
Friday, 27 December 2019
Watched 3 episodes of BBC series Robin Hood. So @bbceducation people in middle ages had amalgam fillings in their teeth, machine sewed artificial fiber clothes, factory made leather boots & rainbow trout were already introduced into England. Whatever next?https://t.co/wU1vvCDDzx— Dr Mike Sutton (@Dysology) December 27, 2019
Saturday, 21 December 2019
Sunday, 10 November 2019
Poor scholarship by pretending secondary sources are primary and associated brute censorship by failure to cite original sources
My further research after being tipped off by Ian Hardie found the source of what we might call the "striking error" that others have copied without due citation to him is W. T. Calman (1912, pp. 451- 457) who was shown the three letters on or before 1912 by Matthew's daughter Euphemia. Claman (1912 p. 451) wrote that the letters had never before been published. Matthew and Darwin scholars should note that the above letter is one of the three later originally found by Ian Hardie and Min Hunter at the home of John Matthew after his death. They set up the Patrick Matthew Trust, which employed Jim Dempster to research and write on this topic.
Using a secondary transcribed source such as Calman's published transcription of 1912 yet citing the material as though it is the primary source whist ignorantly replicating a transcription error unique to the secondary source is one of the most simple forms of poor scholarship counting as academic misconduct by plagiarism. This mistranscription and wrong attribution issue on the Darwin Correspondence website and elsewhere in the literature on Darwin and Matthew is just one more ironic example of the many issues of dreadful scholarship plagiarism that that run through the so called "Darwin industry" like hidden woodworm in an antique.
Note: For the historical record, I have a copy of van Wyhe's Sutton's research on Darwin and Matthew is a "conspiracy theory' email that he sent to a Scottish journalist. But for reasons of his copyright, I cannot legally publish it.
Wednesday, 6 November 2019
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)