There's also no debate about Darwin's contribution to promoting the evidence of evolution and descent with modification. He made a brilliant case for evolution in his books. Subsequent discoveries have demonstrated beyond a reasonable doubt that modern life is the product of billions of years of evolution. Descent with modification is a scientific fact. The fact that evolution has occurred is not a theory. It is not a "theory" that humans and the other apes have descended form a common ancestor ... it is a fact [Evolution Is a Fact and a Theory].
We perpetuate confusion in the minds of the general public if we don't make it abundantly clear that modern evolution theory is not about whether evolution occurred and it's not just about natural selection.
I was prompted to write this blog post by a recent article in New Scientist: Darwin’s discovery: The remarkable history of evolution.1 The author is John van Wyhe of the National University of Singapore. He is a historian of science with a special interest in Charles Darwin and Alfred Russel Wallace.
The article contains a box that says ...
Evolution in a nutshellThis is misleading in two ways. First, it states that common descent is part of the the theory of evolution. Second, it only talks about natural selection as a mechanism of evolution.
Darwin’s and Wallace’s theory of evolution maintains that new species are descended from earlier ones. This long-term process happens because all organisms vary. The tiny variations are naturally “selected” by virtue of whether or not they help an organism to survive the brutal struggle for existence in nature. Many are born, but few survive; fortuitous variations are preferentially passed on. This process of endless filtering works to adapt organisms to their environment.
We wish to question a deeply engrained habit of thinking among students of evolution. We call it the adaptationist programme, or the Panglossian paradigm.
S.J. Gould & R.C. Lewontin (1979) p. 584Fortunately, the main body of the article is quite a bit better. Here's what John van Wyhe actually says about evolution.
Despite its baptism of fire, On the Origin of Species almost single-handedly convinced the international scientific community that evolution was a fact. In his 1889 book Darwinism, Wallace wrote of the revolution Darwin effected: "this totally unprecedented change in public opinion has been the result of the work of one man, and was brought about in the short space of twenty years!"Darwin showed that evolution is a fact and it's good that van Wyhe made this point in a article aimed at the general public. It's not good when he says "the core of the modern theory remains Darwin’s idea of descent with modification."
The theory of evolution has come a long way since. Today we think of it in terms of genes and DNA, but Darwin and Wallace had no idea of their existence. It was only in the 1930s and 1940s that genetics was incorporated into evolutionary theory. Even now, new discoveries are shaking up our understanding, but at the core of the modern theory remains Darwin’s idea of descent with modification.
Today evolution has many critics outside the scientific community, especially in the US, where a significant percentage of the population are creationists. What is forgotten is that the scientific debate over evolution was over by the 1870s and has never again been a matter of serious dispute.
It's not good that he still refers to "THE" theory of evolution instead of "evolutionary theory," which encompasses all kinds of things other than natural selection.
1. The title in the print edition is: "The Evolution Revolution."
271 comments :
«Oldest ‹Older 201 – 271 of 271Once you admit survival of the fittest as a scientific theory, then the door is open to dishonesty.
So how do you see things working? Does everything survive? Does nothing survive? Is survival completely random? What?
We're not talking about "survival of the fittest", we're talking about natural selection. But if you deny NS, or say it doesn't exist, or is an oxymoron, then one wonders whether you have heard of mutation accumulation (MA) experiments. In MA experiments, natural selection can be turned off. The distribution of mutations is then very different.
If you deny there's any such thing as natural selection, then are you claiming that experiments with and without mutation accumulation produce the same distribution of mutations? Compare with Lenski's just-out paper on the tempo of genome evolution. Lenski compared genome evolution in E. coli against MA experiments. If there's no NS, are you saying the data and the control should have the same mutations?
Because they didn't. If there's no Natural Selection, why does weird stuff happen when we turn it off?
I know what comes next: word games. Hair splitting. Redefine words.
I am neither bitter nor trollish, just exposing the many mistakes of Mike Sutton so that other scholars know what they are talking about, when Sutton claims “facts.”
For example, here is a blog post (https://historiesofecology.blogspot.de/2014/08/patrick-matthews-1831-use-of-our-author.html) showing that Sutton misread Matthew (1831) and here is another (https://historiesofecology.blogspot.de/search?updated-max=2016-07-17T19:17:00%2B02:00&max-results=16). A highlight in the later is when Sutton does not even realize when Matthew is only quoting Steuart, in order to criticize and ridicule him, and re-quotes it as if it was the pure wisdom of Matthew.
Here is a blog post (https://historiesofecology.blogspot.de/2016/04/suttons-matthewisms-dismantled.html) showing that Sutton mis-identified authors as re-using phrases of Matthew without citing Matthew (1831). Some highlights are a foreign minister of the USA recounting a parlor game among British politicians and diplomats, in which the question was about the staff of the High Lord carrying it in order to “beat off intruders,” that Sutton mistook to be a re-use of Matthew’s phrase used when Matthew discussed trees that can, after having established themselves, beat off intruders, but will not establish themselves in certain soils in the first place, because of frost or other environmental conditions preventing their establishment.
To highlight these mistakes on Sutton’s part is neither bitter nor trollish but scientific, because the discussion right here is conducted as if everything that Sutton has written in his book was absolutely true and “facts” to be taken note of by deluded Darwinians. Other highlights are his mistaking a theater critique with a scientific writing, his mistaking a judges verdict with a scientific writing etc. etc. This post is extremely long, but it is well worth reading to get a gist of Sutton’s scholarship.
Here is one blog post (https://historiesofecology.blogspot.de/2014/08/patrick-matthews-1831-use-of-our-author.html) and here is another (https://historiesofecology.blogspot.de/search?updated-max=2016-07-17T19:17:00%2B02:00&max-results=16) showing that even when authors did actually cite Matthew (1831), they usually did so in relation to practical matters of pruning trees, transplanting them, manuring them, but not in relation to the idea of natural selection (survival of the fittest) and never in relation to the idea that natural selection might transform species. The only exception is an anonymous review in the "Gardener’s Chronicle and Agricultural Gazette" in 1832 said to be of John Loudon.
Selby, in particular, completely misunderstood Matthew’s point about competitive exclusion and dismissed it. If anything, Selby is evidence of the opposite of what Sutton claims. He put on record that he did not understand Matthew’s idea about natural selection and species transformation as clear as possible (same goes for Chambers).
The blog post showing that Hutton used strikingly similar phrases as both Matthew and Darwin has already been mentioned by George Beccaloni (P.S. everybody knows that Megaloblatta is Beccaloni, no conspiracy there).
Here is a blog post (https://historiesofecology.blogspot.de/2016/06/part-6-debunking-claims-about-matthew.html) showing that the application of pure logic leads to the conclusion that Darwin did NOT regard Loudon as a naturalist. Admittedly, when you ask ten scholars with credentials in history of the meaning of the term naturalist to Victorians, you get 20 different opinions. But that is irrelevant. The question is whether Darwin did or did not regard Loudon as a naturalist. There’s no clear external evidence that he did. He never called him one in any of the preserved letters. It may be interesting to note that Walther May, in 1912, translated the term naturalist with “Naturforscher.” This means “natural scientist” or “natural researcher” or “natural explorer” rather than simply “Naturalist.”
And by the way, here is a translation of Waltehr May's review from 1912 of Matthew's book from 1831:
https://historiesofecology.blogspot.de/2016/07/walther-may-1912-darwin-und-patrick.html
Mike Sutton
I have watched the video by the professor and read Matthews stuff and I know Darwins stuff.
The case of hypothesis robbery has no been made well here. in fact its as badly made as evolutionary biology by all of them.
Odd thing there if you think about it.
To attack someone on a claim of deception by the strange linking of friends and lovers vague understanding of obscure paragraphs by unknown authors is just raising suspicion to a level that is unreasonable to a just world.
The fact is darwin said he never knew of this guy. His process for discovery is laid out clearly. No proof for the accusation some folks he knew told him about this Matthew.
Its a false accusation. so that means a investigation built on sinking sand.
You had a hunch but it was wrong.
You were not there and the dots don't match.
Actually a common problem in old time evolutionism.
Robert READ THE actual FACTS MAN and stop writing wishful thinking gibberish. Then come back. Until you do I will henceforth ignore your evidence-free biased belief chantings: http://www.nauka-a-religia.uz.zgora.pl/index.php/pl/czasopismo/46-fag-2015/921-fag-2015-art-05
Good grief. What is wrong with you? Is it not Sunday yet?
Diogenes - if those experiments on gene mutation are conducted by humans is that actually "natural slection" - i.e. selection in a state of nature outside of human culture? Because that's how Matthew, Wallace and Darwin thought of NS. Indeed, Darwin even opened the first paragraph of the Origin of Species with Matthew's original and unique Natural v artificial selection explanatory analogy of differences. Wallace replicated Matthew's analogy in his Ternate paper as well.
Being experiments are they not more akin to "artificial slection"?
The only possible selection is artificial. There is not anything that may be called natural selection. It is oxymoron. Nature does not select.
For some reason my reply has vanished. Maybe it contained too many links. So I try once more giving just one link leading to an identical post at my blog that has all the links (https://historiesofecology.blogspot.de/2016/08/sandwalk.html):
---
I am just exposing the many mistakes of Mike Sutton so that other scholars know what they are talking about, when Sutton claims “facts.” To highlight these mistakes on Sutton’s part is neither bitter nor trollish (as he claims above) but scientific, because the discussion right here is conducted as if everything that Sutton has written in his book was absolutely true and “facts” to be taken note of by deluded Darwinians.
For example, Part 1 is a blog post showing that Sutton misread Matthew (1831) and Part 7 is another. A highlight in the later is when Sutton does not even realize when Matthew is only quoting Steuart, in order to criticize and ridicule him, and re-quotes it as if it was the pure wisdom of Matthew.
Part 2 is a blog post showing that Sutton misidentified authors as re-using phrases of Matthew without citing Matthew (1831). Some highlights are a foreign minister of the USA recounting a parlor game among British politicians and diplomats, in which the question was about the staff of the High Lord carrying it in order to “beat off intruders,” that Sutton mistook to be a re-use of Matthew’s phrase used when Matthew discussed trees that can, after having established themselves, beat off intruders, but will not establish themselves in certain soils in the first place, because of frost or other environmental conditions preventing their establishment.
Other highlights are his mistaking a theater critique with a scientific writing, his mistaking a judges verdict with a scientific writing etc. etc. This post is extremely long, but it is well worth reading to get a gist of Sutton’s scholarship.
Part 3 and Part 4 are blog posts showing that even when authors did actually cite Matthew (1831), they usually did so in relation to practical matters of pruning trees, transplanting them, manuring them, but not in relation to the idea of natural selection (survival of the fittest) and never in relation to the idea that natural selection might transform species. The only exception is an anonymous review in the "Gardener’s Chronicle and Agricultural Gazette" in 1832 said to be of John Loudon.
Selby, in particular, completely misunderstood Matthew’s point about competitive exclusion and dismissed it. If anything, Selby is evidence of the opposite of what Sutton claims. He put on record that he did not understand Matthew’s idea about natural selection and species transformation as clear as possible (same goes for Chambers).
The blog post (Part 5) showing that Hutton used strikingly similar phrases as both Matthew and Darwin has already been mentioned by George Beccaloni (P.S. most people know that Megaloblatta is Beccaloni, no conspiracy there).
Part 6 is a blog post showing that the application of pure logic leads to the conclusion that Darwin did NOT regard Loudon as a naturalist. Admittedly, when you ask ten scholars with credentials in history of the meaning of the term naturalist to Victorians, you get 20 different opinions. But that is irrelevant. The question is whether Darwin did or did not regard Loudon as a naturalist. There’s no clear external evidence that he did. He never called him one in any of the preserved letters. It may be interesting to note that Walther May, in 1912, translated the term naturalist with “Naturforscher.” This means “natural scientist” or “natural researcher” or “natural explorer” rather than simply “Naturalist.”
And by the way, here is a translation of Walther May's review from 1912 of Matthew's book from 1831.
Well Mike, no one apart from you has ever accused me of being dishonest. I think YOU are being dishonest by making this statement! If you are a typical example of a criminologist then society should be very worried. Seems to me that criminology must be the practice of criminalizing innocent people. Perhaps you should get a job in North Korea Mike - they are looking for people with your skills.
You are even dishonest about your proven dishonesty George. You really are a superstar of dysological data for study this field. Once again, here is the proof of your absolute "multiple "self-victimizing" dishonesty: http://patrickmathew.blogspot.co.uk/2016/08/george-beccaloni-caught-reviewing-book.html
Would you like to speak with a psychologist about your dishonesty?
@Mike Sutton - do you think the fundamental 'theory of transformation' whose correct priority is being debated is broadly correct?
Thanks for reminding me about my 'review'. I had forgotten about it and on re-reading it thought it was very good indeed. I stand by every word of it! One does not need to read your whole boring book to know the main points you make since you have recounted these endless times on your many websites on Matthew and elsewhere. I was thus not specifically reviewing your book, but assessing your ludicrous ideas, which you have expounded at length ad nauseam on the Web! Here is a nice example from my 'review' of your work: "Mike's speculations are sometimes rather odd - for example he says that Robert Chambers read Matthew's book (OK, fair enough), was influenced by Matthew's evolutionary arguments (where's the evidence?), and that this then prompted Chambers to write a book about evolution (i.e. Vestiges) several years later (wild speculation!). Yes, Chambers did write a book about evolution (then known as transmutation), but why did he not mention natural selection if he had understood the idea when he read Matthew's book? After all natural selection provides a mechanism for how evolution works - and the fact he didn't present a mechanism is the main weak point about Vestiges that led others to dismiss the book as idle speculation. Chamber's clearly missed an excellent opportunity to plagiarise Matthew's ideas... Note that although it is a fact that Wallace was inspired to become an evolutionist on reading Vestiges in 1845, he obviously didn't get the idea for natural selection from this book (as it isn't mentioned), and since evolution itself is a very old idea (dating back to ancient Greek times), Wallace (and Chambers for that matter) could just as easily have been inspired by evolutionary works published long before either Vestiges or Matthew's book - e.g. those by Erasmus Darwin (Charles' grandfather) from the 18th century." For more see http://wallacefund.info/content/nullius-verba-darwin%E2%80%99s-greatest-secret-published
The only possible selection is artificial. There is not anything that may be called natural selection. It is oxymoron. Nature does not select.
So that would suggest that whether an organism survives and successfully reproduces is entirely a matter of chance, that its physical attributes and environment in which it lives plays no role. Is that really what you believe?
Diogenes - if those experiments on gene mutation are conducted by humans is that actually "natural slection" - i.e. selection in a state of nature outside of human culture
What an odd question. Do you have the same concern about experiments that are conducted in physics and chemistry? Since these experiments are conducted by humans, does that mean they tell us nothing about what occurs in the natural world?
If you mean do I think there is compelling evidence that some form of branching from a common ancestor leading to a new species is the best scientific evidence we have for the origin and extinction of species then yes.
And if you are probing to determine whether I believe in miraculous supernatural creation of species then no - I see no evidence for that and I do not merely believe in anything. I think macroevoution by natural selection is the brilliant unifying theory of biology.
Does that answer your question Allan?
Well we do know from so many examples that what goes on in the petri dish - by way of one example -is no sound determinant of what goes on inside the human body. Consider the research on antioxidants for example.
When it comes to NS we know it takes a long time to create new species (a very very long time) so long in fact any human conducted experiments may need to run for many many tens of thousands of years to come slightly close to resembling it.
And now as you dog yourself in even deeper with outright dishonesty "George" we can all see that you are a proven serial spreader of dishonest flasehoods : https://patrickmathew.blogspot.co.uk/2016/08/george-beccaloni-caught-reviewing-book.html?showComment=1470829865604#c8888418569003646948
Of course, a speciation event is not necessary to demonstrate that natural selection occurs. But you know that, right?
Yes, thanks. It's not so much that I suspect you of closet Creationism, but when commentators knock Darwin for theft of an idea they don't even subscribe to, it elevates my eyebrows a tad.
I'm sure Mike Sutton doesn't know his anagenesis from his cladogenesis...
So Mike: How exactly did Chambers pass on his supposed knowledge of Matthew's idea of natural selection to Wallace? Was it perhaps by "Sutton's Magical Knowledge Transmission Theory"? Please answer the question clearly and without your usual tangential ranting.
Mike Sutton asks: 'if those experiments on gene mutation are conducted by humans is that actually "natural selection"'
Yes. It certainly isn't artificial selection. Artificial selection is when you pick out *individuals* and decide who gets to mate. e.g. "I will make the fast horse mate with the strong horse." With bacteria, you can't do that by individual. No one can pick out individual bacteria. You throw them in an environment and they compete. If you turn off competition, the distribution of alleles is very different.
I disagree with your definition of NS, "selection in a state of nature outside of human culture." There is no state of nature. Humans have changed the planet. The type of environment or location is not what distinguishes NS from AS. The question is whether humans make a choice which individual gets to mate or treat all individuals equally.
If humans give all the individual an equal shot at mating, no preference, then any shift in alleles is due either to NS or random drift, no matter whether the environment is a forest or a petri dish.
Emilio shows us the genius of creationism: "The only possible selection is artificial. There is not anything that may be called natural selection. It is oxymoron. Nature does not select."
Riiight. So when a lion attacks some elephants, or water buffalo, or something, they don't select the young or the weak? All the elephants have an equal shot at getting eaten?
But go ahead, invent a new creationist definition of "selection" and then another definition after that. Word games never cured cancer.
Mike Sutton: No doubt your theory of 'Magical Knowledge Transmission' also applies to the two other people you think passed the idea of natural selection on to Wallace i.e. John Selby and John Loudon? As in the case of Chambers there is no known route for the transmission of this knowledge to have occurred. I can find no evidence that Wallace ever met or corresponded with either Selby or Loudon. He did correspond with Chambers, but it is clear that their first communication was in 1867. So, given these three people never met or corresponded with Wallace at least pre-1859 - there is NO way that they could have passed the idea of natural selection on to Wallace (even supposing they had absorbed the idea from Matthew's book). I am a scientist Mike and need hard evidence before I believe things. My null hypothesis is that the three people you think passed on information to Wallace (Chambers, Selby and Loudon) never did so as they had no communication with Wallace at least pre-1859. And don't forget that Wallace was out of the UK for a large proportion of his early adulthood - he spent 4 years in the Amazon and had been in the Malay Archipelago for 4 years before he independently discovered natural selection.
Megaloblatta (AKA "George Beccaloni")- Your toll-self (in typical troll spoor fashion) asked me these exact same questions on my own blog today. And it there that you may find your unoriginal, ignorant and silly questions fully answered with reference to the facts of which you are - to your shame - ignorant: Those answers already given to you are here http://patrickmathew.blogspot.co.uk/2016/08/george-beccaloni-caught-reviewing-book.html#comment-form
Never heard of a virgin (unaffected by direct human intervention) wilderness Digenes. Think not one existed in the 19th century? And please note; I wrote "akin" to I did not write "exactly the same as". Akin to in terms of deliberately manipulating under conditions of deliberate human cultural interference to bring about human induced breeding outcomes.
I have no truck with intelligent design nor creationists Allan. Ad an atheist what seriously concerns me is that fact that Darwinites are seriously biased and cognitively blindsighted to Darwin's lies about Matthew and have been directly fact denying to the press about what has been newly discovered in this field. THEY are behaving like a religious totalitarian cult. Just a fraction of the evidence for this dreadful behaviour is cited with links to the press articles etc Here: http://patrickmathew.blogspot.co.uk/2016/08/george-beccaloni-caught-reviewing-book.html
Well, as far as I am concerned Darwin could have been a wife-beating horse thief who never had an original idea in his life. Origin remains a great piece of work, even if it were purely synthetic in its ideas. The history is of mild interest; I am much more interested in the ideas.
Which is perfectly acceptable. I am interested in great and original ideas also.
And as Professor Forsdyke and Dr Dr Arlin Stoltzfus (AKA Arlin) in the comments above (first page of comments) have made clear, it is essential that we have a veracious history of how such conceptions are brought into being.
If we are seduced by fallacies, myths, lies and science fraud then we miss understanding the true process that leads to great discoveries. Understanding that process is likely to help us understand how to make others in the future and to know when not to give up. Moreover, a developing society requires a veracious historical record - not bent-agenda driven, cult worship, propaganda nonsense.
The de facto fact denial behaviour actions of Darwinites - and trolling and mythmongering of the Darwinian Zombie-Parroting Horde is pseudo-scholarly behaviour that shames science and the individuals involved.
I doubt that you care, but it's sentences like your last that make you appear to come from the 'crank' end of the spectrum.
Perhaps it's the crank end of the spectrum - namely, the lying and fact denying Darwinites that are my motivation for writing like that Allan?
But you are right. If people are not interested in facts, prefer to deny they exist and care to label me a crank, then I find that very interesting and worthy of study.
"I'm not the crank, *you* are!"
Very persuasive "reasoning."
Judmarc: How would you know what "reason" is? There is no evidence here you're anything other than a silly snivelling neerdowell pseudonym-hiding-behind bitter little troll.
Darwin worshipping troll spoor on this blog and elsewhere aside, the facts of the matter, which - on the published evidence - any rational person would accept, is that particular interest groups - e.g. homeopaths, chiropractors, Christians, creationists, Darwinites etc ignore - even deny - the uncomfortable disconfirming independently verifiable evidence for their mere beliefs.
The fact - evidenced on this site and elsewhere - that Darwinites seek to portray me as a crank because I discovered the facts that puncture their comfy 155 year old myth (started as a deliberate lie by their namesake Charles Darwin in 1860) that no one at all/ no naturalists read Matthew's prior published conception of natural selection makes those desperate Darwinites cranks by any definition of what a fact denying crank is.
Anyone who cannot see that is a crank. Anyone calling me a crank for stating it is a crank. Studying such cranks is fascinating. And psychologists - included among them are my colleagues - have now focused in on such Darwinite cranks. So this is a ripe field for study of scientific and public group-conformist behaviour and deviance.
No amount of silly childish troll spoor name calling can change the facts. You are all data here.
Many calling me a crank for discovering and publishing mythbusting new facts in the history of discovery of natural slection are - with painful irony - hypocritically behaving just like those they mock and despise for behaving exactly the same way. Such individuals - many to be found on this blog site - are a gift to psychology, sociology and the study of Dysology.
Congratulations are hardly in order. But mockery is growing. Try Googling "Frozen Donkey Hypothesis" (use speech quotes as indicated) - the facts are confirming it already.
You can of course write in a way that you think best gets your message across. I am merely offering my view from the consumer's end.
NEWS FLASH: Matthew a "Knowledge Contaminated" Plagiarist and Liar!
Using "Big Data" research methods (i.e. Google Books) I have proved (sensu Mike Sutton) that Patrick Mathew stole the idea of natural selection from fellow Scott, James Hutton. Matthew was "knowledge contaminated" by one of "Hutton's greatest supporters" Matthew’s lecturer at Edinburgh University, Thomas Charles Hope, who taught Matthew in 1808. So Matthew can no longer be credited as an independent originator of the concept of evolution by natural selection and Sutton should change the name of his website from "Patrick Matthew: Originator, Immortal Great Thinker and Proven Influencer on Natural Selection" (http://patrickmathew.blogspot.co.uk/) to "Patrick Matthew: Plagiarist and Liar".
For the full sordid details of my "independently verifiable, evidenced" "bombshell discovery" see http://wallacefund.info/content/did-patrick-matthew-independently-discover-natural-selection
I independently falsified about 90% of your "facts." To have a sensible discussion about the remainder would be interesting. Alas, it is impossible, for you completely burned the ground with you ad hominem attacks.
silly snivelling neerdowell pseudonym-hiding-behind bitter little troll.
This is your extra-special persuasive mode, isn't it?
Hint: Insulting the very people you might be persuading by a calm reasoned setting forth of the evidence (certainly if it is half as persuasive as you claim) is not a terrific strategy.
Has it ever occurred to you that people are not eager to accept your evidence, not because they are "Darwin Zombies," but precisely *because* if they do not immediately accept your evidence, you descend to this sort of name-calling?
Oh, and next time you want to get into extra-special persuasive mode, it's spelled "ne'er-do-well."
I do wonder at anyone who wishes to persuade others by resorting to insult and dichotomising readership into Those Who Agree and Morons With Agendas. Like it or not, that is the mark of a crank, even if not conclusive in itself.
On an unrelated topic, I have in preparation an excellent monograph on the Origin Of Life, answering every question ever asked by anybody. You are all too much of a bunch of blinkered dumbasses to understand it, but have a go anyway, you thick bastards. Shall I email you a copy?
Excellent. My first belly laugh in a few days. Bravo! :-)
My Dear Joachim D (AKA Dr Joachim Dagg)
My work has been independently peer reviewed - and one was a Darwin scholar (I have the reviews and one day I will be able to publish them). The Darwin scholar who reviewed my article "On Knowledge Contamination" was actually corrected by the facts in their first peer review of my work (by way of my reply) and I was allowed a further 1,300 words, which convinced them so [the point raised and refuted was that Darwin's private essays and notebooks prove he arrived at the idea of natural selection independently of Matthew's prior published work)- and my article was then published in a science journal. Just Google "On Knowledge Contamination" and you can read the newly discovered facts of what I discovered to be in the publication record in that very article of the same name. And none of that can be refuted, by you or anyone else. Unless, that is, you have evidence of a massive "invasion of the book snatchers" alien conspiracy whereby the newly discovered (by me) 19th century books and science journal papers, which newly prove Matthew's (1831) book and the original ideas in it were read by other naturalists pre 1858, because they cited the book in the published literature, were substituted by fraudulent versions throughout the entire world to add those newly discovered citations of Matthew's book into them.
We have yet to see your attempts at refutational thinking in a peer reviewed science Journal Dr Dagg. If ever they get into one, come back with something more than falsehoods, dishonest and cherry-stepping away from all the facts you cannot bear to deal with, which you pretend do not exist.
You write "I independently falsified about 90% of your "facts." - then you produce zero evidence for your outlandish claim. Just like a pseudo scholar.
No, but a "Thick Bastard" T-shirt, size XXL, would be much appreciated.
You should try the Salmonella Diet judmarc
More self destructive and apparently desperately jealous attempts to make an original discovery in your own field of self-proclaimed expertise George. But you are wrong once again.
My Dear My Dear Megaloblatta - AKA George Becalloni
Apart from many other problems with your thinking, one big problem you have with your latest attempt to make any argument - in this particular latest incompetent effort of yours - is that only Matthew was first with the full prior published idea of macroevolution by natural selection.
Everyone - apart from you it seems is well aware that we use the term "natural selection" to mean the more precise term "macro evolution by natural slection" unless we specifically state otherwise. I have explained the well know fact to you several times before. But you keep forgetting it.
Sadly, in your continued obsessively seemingly jealous desperation to discover something in this field, you keep overlooking the facts that make you look so silly for being so fundamentally wrong in the field in which you claim to be expert. For what you miss in your biased cherry picking is this: I cite one Thomas Hope in my book "Nullius in Verba: Darwin's greatest secret" (which you have read - but this is a different Thomas Hope) - fully explaining that in 1831 - the same year that Matthew published his book on 1st Jan 1831 (what day and month was Hope's published on George?) it seems fair to say (from an analysis of 35 million books) that both Matthew and this particular Hope were first with the phrase that year "diverging ramifications". Hope (this other Hope's) used it in hs essay 'The Origins and Prospects of Man'. Now please do try to keep up George because, as I explain in my book:
"...Hope's explanations for the observable differences between Black Africans, White Europeans and Malay peoples is that each different [so called by Hope] "original type" of human was created separately as [he believed] were all species - serves to reveal how much further and uniquely advanced were Matthew's original ideas than those of his Regency contemporaries, who were trying also to understand the problem and variety of species in organic lifeforms.'
And as you know George - also in my book "Nullius" I reveal that Matthew, like Darwin - was taught by Thomas Charles Hope at Edinburgh University.
Everyone knows Matthew - and with great and profound heretical mockery - clearly rejected the other Thomas Hope's idea of individual miraculous creation of species George. That's why he (not either of the Thomas Hope's) is attributed the originator of natural selection by the world's leading Darwin scholars.
I "hope" this helps you understand that you failed again George. But this latest record of your further failed attempts, due to ignorance and apparent cognitive blindsight, is excellent data. Thank you for that.
ReplyDelete
What exactly would psychologists diagnose as the behaviour of a "crank scholar"? Here are some symptoms displayed on this blogsite and others: https://www.bestthinking.com/thinkers/science/social_sciences/sociology/mike-sutton?tab=blog&blogpostid=24005
You're talking claptrap again Mike - time to take a biology degree. In the interim I suggest you do one of your "Big Data" analyses - use Google to search for the terms "natural selection microevolution"... You will see that a lot of statements you have so confidently and aggressively made are crap Mike..
Darwin, Wallace and modern biologists realise that evolution is a continuum from micro- to macro- evolution. So natural selection might lead to evolutionary change within a species (e.g. a population of mice with pale fur living amongst dark rocks might evolve dark fur to better camouflage them against predators), and the same mechanism may lead to two parapatric populations evolving into new species. It's the same mechanism Mike. Mathew did not discover natural selection.
Here is a hypothetical analogous example to help you better understand the argument I am making Mike:
Jim Hutton was a clock maker in the 17th century who invented a new mechanism to drive the mechanism of a clock - the hairspring. He believed that clocks couldn't be made any smaller than the one-foot tall examples he produced - and the idea of a tiny device which could be slipped into a pocket was scoffed at by him and his fellow clock makers. A few years later a farmer named Pat Matthew speculated that a tiny hairspring-driven timepiece was possible, but he didn't make one. Technological developments in the following decades led to partners Alf Wallace and Chas Darwin actually designing and constructing the first pocket watch, which was driven by the same design of hairspring that Jim Hutton had invented. So Pat had a nice idea which he never followed through, whilst Chas and Alf actually created the device which Jim couldn't conceive of using the mechanism that Jim had actually invented!
I think things are going a little off track here. Dr. Sutton does not seem to question the validity of evolutionary theory, just the provenance of the specific concept of natural selection. The discussion of the priority of the idea of NS I have found quite interesting here. There are obviously conflicting views here but Sutton's scholarship on the subject should be respected.
Of course, the issue of who first published the idea of NS and the behavior of all other scientists involved in the provenance of the idea is separate from the fact that evolution happens, and the power of evolutionary theory and the many years of empirical data supporting it and guided by it remains undiminished.
George. Thank you. I may reply here. that is if ever I can stop laughing at your hairspring silliness. You are dangerous George. You may have have munitions level hilarity. Thank you.
Mike: Go away, study and understand the writings of Darwin, Wallace and modern evolutionary biologists. To start you off, here is lesson on how natural selection drives MICROevolutionary change: https://www.pearsonhighered.com/campbell10einfo/assets/pdf/Campbell_Biology_10e_Chapter_23.pdf As one of my colleagues famously said Mike "macroevolution is the product of microevolution writ large".
You should try the Salmonella Diet
You have such a way of winning friends and influencing people, it's a real puzzle why everyone doesn't instantly believe you.
Must be the Vast Darwinist Conspiracy.
Perhaps in the rest of your life your behavior is rather normal. If so, try to take a lesson from that.
Mike: Your writings about Matthew, Hutton and Hope above are deceptive as ever. It was Dempster, not you, who 'revealed' "that Matthew, like Darwin - was taught by Thomas Charles Hope at Edinburgh University." However, neither you nor Dempster pointed out the 'inconvenient truth' that Hope was one of “Hutton’s strongest supporters”... So using your own logic, Matthew must have been "knowledge contaminated" by Hope i.e. Matthew stole Hutton's theory of natural selection from information which 'must' have been passed on to him by Hope. It was I who first made this astonishing discovery Mike - and I trust you will credit me with it. For more details see my blog post here: http://wallacefund.info/content/did-patrick-matthew-independently-discover-natural-selection
For a summary of my arguments against Sutton's fallacious allegations see my article here: http://wallacefund.info/content/did-patrick-matthew-independently-discover-natural-selection AND my answer to the question "Were Darwin and Wallace the first to discover natural selection?" here: http://wallacefund.info/faqs-myths-misconceptions
I have improved my hypothetical analogy to explain how natural selection was discovered: "Jim Hutton was a clock maker in the 15th century who invented a new mechanism to drive the mechanism of a clock - the spring (existing clocks were powered by hanging weights). He believed that clocks couldn't be made any smaller than the one-foot tall examples he produced - and the idea of a tiny device which could be slipped into a pocket was scoffed at by him and his fellow clock makers. Many years later a farmer named Pat Matthew speculated that a tiny spring-driven timepiece was possible, but he didn't make one. Technological developments in the following decades led partners Alf Wallace and Chas Darwin to actually designi and build the first pocket watch, which was driven by the same design of spring that Jim Hutton had invented. Curiously, it was the invention of the spring drive which had made the pocket watch possible in the first place, since the hanging weight drive of earlier times would not have functioned in a pocket watch. So Pat had a nice idea which he never followed through, whilst Chas and Alf actually created a device which Jim didn't believe was possible, using the mechanism that Jim had invented."
Beware the Frozen Donkey Hypothesis George:
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.
https://www.bestthinking.com/thinkers/science/social_sciences/sociology/mike-sutton?tab=blog&blogpostid=22748
Dearest Mike. IMHO you are a ranting, aggressive, abusive, dishonest, uninformed troll. I do strongly suggest you follow my earlier suggestions and take a biology degree so that you become sufficiently knowledgeable to argue in an *informed* way about the biological issues you clearly do not currently understand. Although you witter on about natural selection and how Matthew discovered it, you clearly do not understand what natural selection actually is - or the fact that Matthew DID NOT discover it. You are no different to historian John van Wyhe who writes how Darwin and Wallace discovered evolution! Evolution AND natural selection are ancient concepts Mike. The only positive outcome of my attempts to correct your countless errors is that I have decided to write a non-technical article which clearly explains who discovered what with respect to natural selection. You are welcome to comment on the article when published, but until then I will not waste my time trying to educate you. As a last attempt to make you understand the situation re. natural selection, here is another analogy: From ancient times people noticed that when apples fell off trees they moved downwards in a straight line towards the Earth and a few even noted this observation in print. In the 18th century Jim Hutton suggested there was an invisible force of attraction between objects and that the larger one pulls the smaller one towards it (he didn't name the force). A few decades later farmer Pat Matthew described the force as "gravitational attraction" and speculated that the orbiting of the planets around the Sun might be due to it, but he didn't explain how this might work. His speculations appeared in the appendix to his book on growing turnips, and no one noticed them... Another few decades went by until collaborators Chas Darwin and Alf Wallace explained in detail how the orbiting of the planets was explainable by the operation of this force (which Darwin named "gravity") plus other factors. Later workers worked out the fine mathematical details of how the force works. So Hutton might be regarded as the discoverer of gravity, Matthews was the first person who speculated that celestial mechanics might be explainable by it, Darwin and Wallace were the first people to attempt to actually explain it, and later workers were those who worked out the nitty-gritty details of how the force functions.
Oh, as a start to your understanding of the history of natural selection I recommend you read Zirkle, C. 1941. Natural Selection before the "Origin of Species". Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society, Vol. 84 (1): 71-123
Adiós Mike.
EVOLUTION
THEORY FALLEN SHORT
Latest thinking comfirm Evolution is invalid or false .SOMETHING over writes Time. (Destiny)
“I am in your individuality but you do not observe” ( sura dahriyat.Quran 51:21) EVOLUTION is An attempt to change humen thinking in wrong direction based on Time. Humen or Water (h2o) is not product of Time, Time will not change water (h2o). Atomic and molecular weight of all elements or compounds will remain same on earth or distant planets in universe. There is SOMETHING permanent in universe.
Evolution Theory succumb in concept of Time. Time is relative standard.....(Einstein). In reality Time does not Exist. Time is illusion or 4th Dimension. What will be definite proof that Evolution Theory is invalid or False....?? It is water H2O ... In billion years Water H2O remained unaffected by Time...... Water H2O is not a product of Time..Whooooo created water ??No Water, no life, No evolution, No natural selection..Water is a phenomena out of time, a rule over nature. When Time fails Evolution fails. An instant knock out of whole Evolution theory, so called Darwinism.
If life is an accident Then every incident happening in this world will demand an accident. Even existance of a piece of Bullshit cannot be confirmed without a Bull...So from where two cars will come to cause an Accident. What will be definite proof that life is not an accident, Just throw a bag of rice mixed with vinegar in a dark warm place, within 48 hours you will see bag of rice turned into full of life, ( worms) Throw it again if it happens again then this incident ( life ) is not an accident, example is silly but it points out a big mistake in evolution history. ..life is not an Accident but conditional (Confirmed)
H20 ( water) is a permanent condition in nature which caused diversity of life on earth. Scriptures says life is created not evolved from water" And God created every animal from water " ( Quran 24:45 ) . What will be definite proof that life is created and not evolved ?? It is water H2O. Water suffered no evolution from another source as a product of time thus Water lack co ordination and stability with time to aid a billion years evolutionery process . If water is found in another planet, still water cannot be designated as product of Time, H2O is A permanent law or command written by PEN in nature (destiny) which will contnue to display any where in universe where oxygen and hydrogen is available. If life is an Accident then Life may be found in another planet even that planet is made of copper. For An accident cannot be dependent on another factor like water..if a Pre-condition like water is a requirement for an accident (life) to happen,then this life must be A divine plan.
Time is not a cause Time is not a real entity or quantity. Time is nooothing.. Null...00.. Nada (void of self). To validate evolution theory you must establish A definition of Time, it is not possible. Did you ever think or ask yourself a question WHAT IS TIME ??? your mind will go blank, Time will create a delusion in your psyco, beacuse Time itself is illusion, In mathematical term time is variable,Relative and unstable .To understand Einstiens space time theory you need to grow wrinkles on your forhead likeEinstein.
1 Kg, 1 Lbs, 1 Km, 1 Mile, 1 Minute, 1 Hour, 1 Year ,100 Years, Million years, Billion years, Time is a relative standard (Einstein) Water is not a product of time, Atomic and Molecular weight of all elements and componds will remain same unaffected and unchanged by Time until eternity. Even number of smallest praticle electrons and protons, will remain same on this earth or another planet. . TIME FAILED HERE AS ETERNAL CAUSE.......... Evolution is invalid or false (confirmed).
Has anyone else noticed that Byers is no longer even close to being the least coherent commentator on this blog? And does anyone else find that as frightening as I do?
Well, this is an interesting change. I feel like leaping in to object -- but there's so much to object to! I'd never be done, and I'd never make any difference, either.
Ye gods, I'd never have expected to see Aristoles 'law of Spontaneous generation' return in the 21st century, when it was already refuted in the 17th century by Redi and Pasteur in the 19th.
" Just throw a bag of rice mixed with vinegar in a dark warm place, within 48 hours you will see bag of rice turned into full of life, ( worms) "
...
Here's an article that illustrates just how asinine Darwin's attempt was to trivialize not only Patrick Matthew and his 1831 publication "On Naval Timber and Arboriculture' but also the very subject of Naval Timber to begin with. I'll have to split it up into pieces because this site only allows the use of 4000 characters per post...but it does in deed illustrate the point of why Darwin's attempt to trivialize was an effort fully intended to deceive.
Mike you might want to mention the duplicity of the double analogies on artificial verses natural selection pertaining to the subject of apples which so happens was Matthew's forte and by no means was one of Darwin's... but for some strange reason which seems as well as appears 28 years later, more than coincidental that Darwin opens with in "Origins of the Species"... again rehashing much of what Matthew wrote in the text of his "On Naval Timber and Arboriculture." The clue to this being an obvious Darwin reformation of context is that he replicates the double analogies which are rare and which Matthew apparently was the first scientific mind to have used for his comparisons of not only similarities but also the dissimilarities of Artificial verses Natural Selection.
Georgie...I'm back...and you might want to narrow down the "proverbial" a wee bit. I can imagine all types of possibilities. Don't be afraid to expose your inner true self there Georgie. I don't understand why you feel the need to hide so much.
Oh but I do Georgie
Laurence
Have you shut down comments to your website? I have tried to post several times and nothing of my comments has been posted.
Howard L. Minnick
Major, Corps of Engineers
Botanist, Range Conservationist
& 3rd Great Grandson of Patrick Matthew
Actually 100 per cent proven facts (e.g. that certain text exists in the 19th century publication record) are better than mere smoking gun evidence. We now have such facts that bust the premise underpinning the old paradigm of Darwin's and Wallace's independent conceptions of Matthew's prior published hypothesis: http://patrickmathew.blogspot.co.uk/2016/08/smoking-gun-evidence-what-is-it-exactly.html
Post a Comment