Science Fraud: Darwin’s Plagiarism of Patrick Matthew’s Theory by Mike Sutton | Curtis Press

A while back we discussed the charges of Darwin plagiarizing Wallace, but now they are both accused of plagiarizing Patrick Matthews.
One must be careful not to trust anything here and the connection with Patrick Matthews has been around for a long time without the charge of plagiarism. The connection of Darwin with Wallace is also most suspicious, and I was ‘sort of’ aware of Wallace’s knowledge of Mathews. To interpret this situation as plagiarism is interesting to say the least. I will read the book.

These discussions sometimes have the effect of defending natural selection theory indirectly while exposing the priority issue.
Let’s not forget that the theory of natural selection is false, very clearly so on the simplest statistical grounds and the issue of priority while important is about a theory that isn’t science. Perhaps this situation exposes also the difficulty of finding a real theory and the while the mystery falls into oversimplification. But how is it that generations of biologists could not debried this theory? The answer is that an agenda, or set of agendas is at work. Secularists are determined to enforce Darwin’s theory to buttress atheism, while the capitalist mafia is downright ‘that’s groovy’ on the subject of vicious cruelty and competitive survival of the fittest. What a windfall in the process of brainwashing the public, with a nary a peep form the professional idiots at work here.
We must not forget that the fact of evolution is clear as an empirical finding but that the mechanism of evolution is way beyond us. Natural selection allowed scientists to bury their heads in the sand and produce a reductionist science. It is a complete fantasy. But evolution has to be hypercomplex, most probably teleological and with a hypercomplex design construction argument. Scientists sensing their plight: evolution as beyond current science, fall into a kind of hysterical mental derangement and pretend to have a theory when they don’t. We have explored a number of other approaches starting with the Kantian teleomechanists and most of all Lamarck who was the first with the best common sense about evolution: it was a rise of complexity over long eras on one level and an environmental interaction on a lower level: he was the first to see the distinction of macro and micro and deserves to be considered the first real theorist of evolution, even granting the inchoate nature of his thinking. Darwin, or Mathews, reduced evolution to one level and there the whole progress got stuck until now.

It is almost incredible that biologists en masse are stuck still after more than a century and a half with a completely idiotic theory like natural selection. Part of the problem is that no one has observed the mechanism of evolution in deep time and are confined to guesswork against a void: seeing evolution as a fact is simple enough from the fossil record but the mechanism behind the construction of animal plans and species change is going to be a real humdinger.
We can infer a few things: ‘evolution’ must operate over the (whole) surface of a planet, be able to recall its previous interactions and return in place to remorph given structures, be able to construct/induce self-construction of hypercomplex body plans. The process seems thus a form of ‘intelligent design’ but that is probably another trap and is favored by the ID groups on the religious right and the result is a stealth theistic argument. But the god hypothesis fails for evolution: ‘god’ doesn’t interact in time, and in fact ‘god’ as a term has been so corrupted by pop monotheism as to be unusable for science altogether. The ‘god’ explanation has to be false because ‘god’ is omnipotent and wouldn’t have to bootstrap evolution in stages. That leaves a sort of ‘smart mechanism’ of unknown character which shows design which looks like mind in nature but the latter is still another metaphysical trap. Evolution looks more like an strange AI process that learns as its goes along, and self-constructs complexity with a set of boosts that defy the role of chance.
The reason that design arguments seem to fail is that explanations must be constructive and show in detail how a higher process interacts with nature to produce complex body plans. We can’t just guess with another a ‘god’ paranym like mind in nature. What we must suspect is that evolution has a cosmological dimension applied to planets, which are ‘gardens’ for the evolution of life and that natural structures emerge in a bootstrapping process that learns as it goes along: AI in a natural form a better approach.
We have often discussed J.G. Bennett’s take which is too controversial but still interesting: evolution is ‘hyparchic’ in his terminology, which is like a writer with successive drafts: nature remorphing its emergent products as it goes along, draft after draft. His hyparxis is hyperdimensional in a set of six dimensions: space/time in three/four, eternity a fifth, and hyparxis a sixth: hyparxis interacts with a form process in eternity and space-time, and computes future alternates. The implies that evolution is related to spooky physics.

Well, Bennett had a kind of new-age extravagance but he faced the real issues.

The so-called eonic model has its own insights, with the idea of a form factor bootstrapping on the surface of a planet to generate a biofield that can bootstrap body plans and regulate speciation over a planet. The eonic model is about civilizations, but offers a hint about early evolution.

Well, all well and good, but the eonic effect gives us a real insight into how a complex structure (here a civilization) can evolve over ten millennia, with data actually only over about half that. But that glimpse is telling, and gives us a sense of the awesome scale of evolution, cosmological, biological, and socio-cultural.

Source: Science Fraud: Darwin’s Plagiarism of Patrick Matthew’s Theory by Mike Sutton | Curtis Press

Science Fraud: Darwin’s Plagiarism of Patrick Matthew’s Theory by Mike Sutton | Curtis Press

A while back we discussed the charges of Darwin plagiarizing Wallace, but now they are both accused of plagiarizing Patrick Matthews.
One must be careful not to trust anything here and the connection with Patrick Matthews has been around for a long time without the charge of plagiarism. The connection of Darwin with Wallace is also most suspicious, and I was ‘sort of’ aware of Wallace’s knowledge of Mathews. To interpret this situation as plagiarism is interesting to say the least. I will read the book.

These discussions sometimes have the effect of defending natural selection theory indirectly while exposing the priority issue.
Let’s not forget that the theory of natural selection is false, very clearly so on the simplest statistical grounds and the issue of priority while important is about a theory that isn’t science. Perhaps this situation exposes also the difficulty of finding a real theory and the while the mystery falls into oversimplification. But how is it that generations of biologists could not debried this theory? The answer is that an agenda, or set of agendas is at work. Secularists are determined to enforce Darwin’s theory to buttress atheism, while the capitalist mafia is downright ‘that’s groovy’ on the subject of vicious cruelty and competitive survival of the fittest. What a windfall in the process of brainwashing the public, with a nary a peep form the professional idiots at work here.
We must not forget that the fact of evolution is clear as an empirical finding but that the mechanism of evolution is way beyond us. Natural selection allowed scientists to bury their heads in the sand and produce a reductionist science. It is a complete fantasy. But evolution has to be hypercomplex, most probably teleological and with a hypercomplex design construction argument. Scientists sensing their plight: evolution as beyond current science, fall into a kind of hysterical mental derangement and pretend to have a theory when they don’t. We have explored a number of other approaches starting with the Kantian teleomechanists and most of all Lamarck who was the first with the best common sense about evolution: it was a rise of complexity over long eras on one level and an environmental interaction on a lower level: he was the first to see the distinction of macro and micro and deserves to be considered the first real theorist of evolution, even granting the inchoate nature of his thinking. Darwin, or Mathews, reduced evolution to one level and there the whole progress got stuck until now.

It is almost incredible that biologists en masse are stuck still after more than a century and a half with a completely idiotic theory like natural selection. Part of the problem is that no one has observed the mechanism of evolution in deep time and are confined to guesswork against a void: seeing evolution as a fact is simple enough from the fossil record but the mechanism behind the construction of animal plans and species change is going to be a real humdinger.
We can infer a few things: ‘evolution’ must operate over the (whole) surface of a planet, be able to recall its previous interactions and return in place to remorph given structures, be able to construct/induce self-construction of hypercomplex body plans. The process seems thus a form of ‘intelligent design’ but that is probably another trap and is favored by the ID groups on the religious right and the result is a stealth theistic argument. But the god hypothesis fails for evolution: ‘god’ doesn’t interact in time, and in fact ‘god’ as a term has been so corrupted by pop monotheism as to be unusable for science altogether. The ‘god’ explanation has to be false because ‘god’ is omnipotent and wouldn’t have to bootstrap evolution in stages. That leaves a sort of ‘smart mechanism’ of unknown character which shows design which looks like mind in nature but the latter is still another metaphysical trap. Evolution looks more like an strange AI process that learns as its goes along, and self-constructs complexity with a set of boosts that defy the role of chance.
The reason that design arguments seem to fail is that explanations must be constructive and show in detail how a higher process interacts with nature to produce complex body plans. We can’t just guess with another a ‘god’ paranym like mind in nature. What we must suspect is that evolution has a cosmological dimension applied to planets, which are ‘gardens’ for the evolution of life and that natural structures emerge in a bootstrapping process that learns as it goes along: AI in a natural form a better approach.
We have often discussed J.G. Bennett’s take which is too controversial but still interesting: evolution is ‘hyparchic’ in his terminology, which is like a writer with successive drafts: nature remorphing its emergent products as it goes along, draft after draft. His hyparxis is hyperdimensional in a set of six dimensions: space/time in three/four, eternity a fifth, and hyparxis a sixth: hyparxis interacts with a form process in eternity and space-time, and computes future alternates. The implies that evolution is related to spooky physics.

Well, Bennett had a kind of new-age extravagance but he faced the real issues.

The so-called eonic model has its own insights, with the idea of a form factor bootstrapping on the surface of a planet to generate a biofield that can bootstrap body plans and regulate speciation over a planet. The eonic model is about civilizations, but offers a hint about early evolution.

Well, all well and good, but the eonic effect gives us a real insight into how a complex structure (here a civilization) can evolve over ten millennia, with data actually only over about half that. But that glimpse is telling, and gives us a sense of the awesome scale of evolution, cosmological, biological, and socio-cultural.

Source: Science Fraud: Darwin’s Plagiarism of Patrick Matthew’s Theory by Mike Sutton | Curtis Press

New evidence proves Charles Darwin stole Theory of Evolution from rival naturalist  

Darwin is a shady figure and this expose is needed, but (I haven’t read the book) there is in addition that Darwin plagiarized Wallace, and this should also be addressed.

A new book argues there are overwhelming similarities between Darwin’s seminal On The Origin Of Species and an earlier work by a naturalist called Patrick Matthew.

Source: New evidence proves Charles Darwin stole Theory of Evolution from rival naturalist | Daily Mail Online