Posts Tagged ‘evidences’

Se as evidencias e previsões da Teoria da Matrix/DNA não fossem cientificas, seriam ao menos filosóficas?

Monday, July 15th, 2019

xxxx

– ” Just as science is not a proving process, neither is philosophy. But what they both do is ask those that make extraordinary claims to provide extraordinary evidence to support their claim.”

– ” I would say science does ask for evidence but philosophy asks for arguments as many things just cannot be proven with evidence. Or maybe you talk about the philosophy of science but is again a bit different than just bringing evidence forward. When there is an evidence it stops being philosophy, it’s only science.”

– “Philosophy without evidence is religion.”

Ok…

Evidence = the available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid.

Scientific evidence consists of observations and experimental results that serve to support, refute, or modify a scientific hypothesis or theory, when collected and interpreted in accordance with the scientific method.

In philosophy, the study of evidence is closely tied to epistemology, which considers the nature of knowledge and how it can be acquired.

Qual a natureza do conhecimento sobre a Matrix/DNA?

Ela teria iniciado pelo método da anatomia comparada, comparando-se o primeiro ser vivo ( um sistema celular completo e funcionando) com a galaxia, o sistema natural existente antes, mais complexo conhecido. A razão da aplicação deste método entre estas duas estruturas naturais era apenas a intuição de que a primeira célula teria sido mero produto da evolução direta do sistema natural mais complexo que existia antes, que era a galaxia. Nesta comparação não se detectou que as sete organelas celulares mais seu código genético estariam presentes em formas menos evoluídas na estrutura física da galaxia. Esta correlação seria detectada se uma organela da célula tivesse a mesma função sistêmica de um tipo de astro na galaxia. E isso não foi encontrado na primeira pratica da anatomia comparada.

Pensou-se então que a falta em encontrar tal correlação podia ser devido ao pouco que se conhece da galaxia. Este pouco teria produzido um modelo teórico do sistema galáctico errado em relação ao real, ou então bastante incompleto.

Mas como detectar o modelo correto do sistema galáctico contando com as poucas informações existentes?

Passou-se a fazer vários exercícios tentando conectar os sete tipos de astros de todas diferentes maneiras, para ver se haveria um modelo em que todas as funções sistêmicas dos astros fossem similares a todas funções sistêmicas das organelas da célula.

Tais exercícios mostraram-se nulos.

Porem, a intuição e que a célula teria sido produto evolucionário da galaxia implicava que as propriedades dos seres vivos deveriam existir numa forma física simples e mecânica como propriedades da galaxia. Uma das propriedades dos seres vivos é o ciclo vital. O qual transforma a forma inicial de um corpo embrionário em múltiplas formas diferentes subsequentes ao logo de sua existência. Ao aplicar-se o processo do ciclo vital sobre os sete tipos de astros, descobriu-se que tudo o que se sabe sobre estes astros indicam uma figura de cada um e todos estes astros seriam originados por este processo. Ainda mais: o quadro final era um novo modelo teórico astronômico e funcionava como uma sistema, e mais, um sistema auto-reciclável.

Mas não posso omitir que outros fatores fora da pesquisa vieram a influenciar sobremaneira a intuição de aplicar o ciclo vital nos sistema galáctico.

Ocorreu neste ínterim na selva amazônica uma suposta informação nova, inédita, sobre o sistema galáctico, através da fala de um nativo amazônico com o cérebro alterado por alucinógenos. A fala descrevia um visionário corpo energético embutido nos corpos humanos semelhante ao que asiáticos visionários descrevem como “aura”. Porem a “aura” descrita pelo nativo pouco se referia aos “sete sois”, que seriam os “chacras” dos asiáticos, e focalizava-se num oitavo elemento, posicionado no local do neocortex cerebral, ao qual o nativo deu o nome de “buraco negro”. Mas a descrição relatava uma especie de simples tornado ou rodamoinho na forma cônica, destes existentes na Terra, apenas enriquecido com as informações de forças atuando como atracao e repulsao. esta atracao ou repulsao se dava em relacao a coisas vagantes no espaço aéreo logo acima da superficie terrestre e aqui o fato chamou a atencao do ouvinte: as descricao da anatomia fisica das coisas microscopiccas vagantes era semelhante a descricao das ciencias fisicas sobre particulas. Pareceu-nos que o estado mental alterado “via” algo de real, concreto, e se fosse assim, a informacao sobre o “buraco negro” precisava ser pensada. E o nome buraco negro nos lembrava astronomia, o modelo teorico cientifico sobre o que pode existir no nucleo galactico.  Porem o buraco negro aqui era diferente da teoria cientica e constatou-se que alem de buracos negros nunca terem sido observados como objetos existentes, tudo o que se dizia deles era fruto de calculos matematicos e observacoes do que acontecria nas suas redondezas como efeitos do buraco negro.

Resolveu-se entao trocar no modelo teorico galactico cientifico o buraco negro cientifico pelo buraco negro descrito pelo nativo. E trocar o horizonte de eventos calculado matematicamente pelo horizonte de eventos do nativo povoado com particulas sendo atraidas ou repelidas pelo buraco negro de acordo com suas especies. desta troca observou-se no quadro resultante que o nucleo galactico produziria “sementes ou embrioes de astros”, na forma de estrelas anas. Todos os processos nas movimentacoes do objeto ni nucleo galactico se asselhavam a todos os movimentos na evolucao da embriogenese de um corpo humano ou antes, de uma planta. Transplantou-se entao este elemento funcionando dessa maneira como o nucleo e o horizonte de eventos do modelo teorico cientifico e calculou-se qual seria o desenvolvimento desta semente ou embriao. neste desenvolvimento observou-se que o embriao se transformava em mais seis formas diferentes, selelhantes as formas dos outros seis tipos de astros conhecidos, e notou-se que o alinhamento destes astros neste desenvolvimento revelava um processo genuino de ciclo vital.

Mas este evento fora da pesquisa pode ser todo ignorado e considerar-se apenas que houve a intuição de aplicar o processo do ciclo vital sobre o sistema galáctico.

O composto de todos estes elementos formam um sistema completo e funcional. As funções de cada tipo de astro no sistema astronômico se assemelham as funções de cada uma das sete organelas da célula vital. Então notou-se que a constituição geral do novo modelo teórico astronômico era exatamente igual ao composto por um par lateral de nucleotídeos no DNA, com suas correspondentes sete tipos de moléculas. Percebemos então que erramos no inicio ao aplicar anatomia comparada entre galaxia e célula, pois entre elas havia um elo evolucionário, que foi a primeira unidade de informação do DNA. A qual se revelou agora como um sistema completo e funcional. Mas como teria sido o processo de transformação da galaxia astronômica para a célula microscópica? Sendo que o sistema galáctico inteiro teria que se auto-projetar a frente carregando e transmitindo todos seus detalhes fisiologísticos? Isto foi resolvido quando se intuiu que este processo teria sido exatamente como o processo da transmissão genética.

Mais tarde se descobriu que também o sistêmico atômico se sobrepõe perfeitamente ao design da formula. E mais recentemente se encontrou serias evidencias de que a mesma funcionalidade anatomia da formula também corresponde a funcionalidade e anatomia de uma onda de luz natural composta pelos sete tipos de radiações eletromagnéticas, o o dito “espectro eletromagnético”. Surge então a  teoria geral de que todos os sistemas naturais no Universo são montados em cima de uma formula que uma onda de luz funcionamento como uma especie de software que cria seus próprios hardwares materiais, os quais são estes sistemas naturais conhecidos.

Teríamos então uma teoria geral a qual seria imputado a definição de ser um “extraordinary claim”. Para nos esta imputação seria equivocada porque a teoria foi mero produto da mais pura logica racional. De onde mais teria vindo o primeiro sistema celular senão do mero desenvolvimento evolutivo de outro sistema natural pre-existente? As outras teorias existentes sim, são “extraordinary claims”, pois todas sugerem que existem eventos que não são produzidos pelo livre fluir da avalancha naturalista de causas e efeitos que teve inicio no Big Bang. Isto implicaria que algo fora dessa cadeia de causas e efeitos teria vindo de outro lugar e interferido no seu deslanchar natural. Então são apelos aos supernaturais e magicismos.

Mas agora vamos as provas e ou evidencias. Penso que evidencias aqui seria todo fenômeno e evento natural existente aqui e agora se encaixando como sendo produzidos pela formula encontrada, ou seja, o template que teria produzido galaxias, átomos e células. Quando percebemos que todos se encaixam, teríamos que arrolar uma unica evidencia: o Universo inteiro.

Mas isto seria inaceitável cientificamente e talvez também filosoficamente, porem ninguém se disporia a ler ou ouvir um relato abordando todos os fenômenos e eventos naturais do Universo, o qual demoraria talvez os 13,8 bilhões de anos do Universo.

Então percebemos que existe uma outra maneira para tornar a teoria a ser considerada ao menos filosoficamente: apontando todas as descobertas empíricas ou cientificas ocorridas apos a formulação da teoria a 30 anos atras como perfeitamente encaixável na formula da teoria, o que significa”previsões corretas”. Ja reunimos uma enorme coleção delas. Outra maneira de tratar esta teoria seria apontar ao menos uma lei natural ou fato real devidamente comprovado que nao se encaixe como produzido por esta formula, ou que derrube o edifício todo da teoria. Nunca foi encontrado nenhum fato.

Portanto o estado atual desta teoria seria a uma visão do mundo perfeitamente logica e racional para um homem só e incompressível e desconhecida por todos os outros seres humanos.

 

Evidence for Evolution: Good Video and Debate with Matrix/DNA

Wednesday, August 23rd, 2017

xxxxx

Whatch the video, see my comments posted at the debate and copied below, and more curious evidences also copied below. Good learning!

What’s the evidence for evolution?

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lIEoO5KdPvg

xxxxx

Our debate:

Syed Firdaus Syed Omar Syed Firdaus Syed Omar – 14 hours ago

explain the ability of reasoning from natural selection perspective, their origin?

When you are talking about why you have a trait, you simply need to ask if it helps you survive. The ability for complex thought is the sole reason that Humanity conquered the earth, if you look at our ancestors, you can see our skulls getting bigger over time. Complex thought helped us survive and thrive so natural selection kept it.
Louis Charles Morelli  Louis Charles Morelli – 8/22/2017
Good question, Syed, and as the Viktor answers, they insists to repeat the effects of natural selection, never mind how and why this phenomenon exists. Their thoughts reasonate that ” once time established a mechanism, like a piece well adjusted to a machine, it goes on and on…” If you think about that, this argument is against evolution itself: natural selection does not permit another effect of such machine, so, stopping evolution. Their most important target is to keep clearly that there is no purpose in Nature, evolution is a blind process, each evolutionary step begins with a random mutation coming from error at replication – which means that randomness is the ruler in this Universe, they believe in it. I am suspecting because 2 topics: 1) There is no absolute answer for everything in a world changing under evolution. Random mutation are the answers for everything like God was the answer for everything… 2) I search my own way and after hard work I found my own world view, which is not the right one, but it seems more reasonable. Comparative anatomy between living and non-living systems reveals the existence of a universal matrix formula which Nature has applied by 13,8 billion years for organizing matter (mass+energy) into natural systems. Or, saying it better: a unique formula creating a initial system at 13’8 billion years and this system is coming under evolution. Atoms, galaxies, plants, human bodies, are merely evolutionary shapes of a unique universal system. If this theory ( The Matrix/DNA Theory), is more complete, one difference is that there is a perfect formula which pulls this universal system into its direction – in the way that one day it will be perfect like the formula. So, this would be the cause and the reason for natural selection: it is the pushes towards the perfect final shape. So, if my theory is better than “the machine going on and on”, the normal is purposeful mutations not random: there are random mutations but it can be discarded or kept if it is anticipating what Nature is supposed to do, by any way…
xxxxxxxxx
Chris Mohrbacher Chris Mohrbacher 2 days ago

comparative anatomy (and DNA similarities) only demonstrates similarity, not causality. Nested Hierarchies also prove nothing as this is just people categorizing things based on the above similarities. They could be categorized in a completely different order and be equally logical. (I’m looking at you Hyena and Mongoose, classified as “cat-like…. things” ) Embryology has been debunked for decades. Species distribution doesn’t really “support” evolution… most kinds of creature has some version spread around the world. The fossil record demonstrates what has lived… not necessarily what came from what. Finding amphibian bones doesn’t suggest that it’s OUR ancestor, or the ancestor of any other non-amphibian. Which brings us down to observable evolution… and yea… that’s science. Selectively breeding dogs to generate a breed of dog with preferable traits is repeatable (science). No matter how many generations we breed, we can not take any number of dogs and breed them into a non-dog. Actual science supports specialization within a species… the idea of universal common ancestry is no less religious faith than the idea that any given pantheon of Gods used magic. Not testable, falsifiable, repeatable…. not science.
Louis Charles Morelli  Louis Charles Morelli – 8/22/2017
To: Chris
Besides the long lists of reasonable evidences, I think that when observing embryogenesis – one shape transforming into other, facing my eyes, here and now – it means that Nature alone can do it, there is a natural mechanism for doing it. The individual nature express the population nature and vice-versa. Meanwhile, there is a observable fact in embryogenesis that Darwinists are ignoring: beyond the field where individual evolution occurs ( inside the egg or the womb), there is a species that triggered the process and is the guide for the process building itself. Why not this phenomena would be projected to the whole biological evolution, or even, the cosmological evolution? Reason suggests this is the case, there is no observable process of evolution without a “shape-from-outside”. This observation could be wrong in relation to cosmological evolution, but, if it is not, a kind of creationists god ( natural and not magical), and a kind of astronomical creator like suggested by Matrix/DNA world view, could be safe. Just comparative anatomy between living and non-living natural systems leads us to calculations of causality where the final results suggests that the building block of DNA is the exactly miniaturized copy of the galactic building blocks. In this case, the species that was outside the womb that nurtured abiogenesis, was just the Milk Way. It seems that each region of this galaxy builds a component of biological system, then, transit of meteorites, comets, etc., makes that all components meets at some places…and… voila’,… we have a DNA… But, then, every process of evolution is really, an inside process of a bigger one: reproduction. It means that there was no origins of life, merely the continuation of a natural genetic process coming from cosmological evolution. And so on…
eeeaten  eeeaten 1 hour ago 

sorry louis, as a biologist this made zero sense to me
No sorry, it is natural. I am a naturalist, my world view was built in the field – the Amazon jungle, yours, in the lab. I applied the systemic method, you applies the reductionist method. And so on, two investigations where all methods are different, it results into two different world views. The difference is that you don’t know mine and I know yours. It doesn’t matter here if one makes sense to the other or not. I think that yours does not make sense since that you have broken universal evolution into two blocks – cosmological and biological evolution – with no evolutionary link between them. So, one need to fit the abyss between the two blocks with magical thinking, like magical gods or magical randomness. Then, one will believe that there was an event of life’s origins at Earth due action of some force coming outside the long chain of causes and effects since the Big Bang. This is the prejudice for academic sciences today. Since I didn’t break universal natural history and found the link which shows that there are no non-living systems before biological ones, I am satisfied with the sense that my world view expresses to me. But, common sense or not is not a good scientific tool. If we want to debate our theories we must be attained at the common known proved facts. So my first question: the transformations of a body under embryogenesis, from the simplest to most complex, is not evolution?
xxxxxxxxxx

Curious evidences for Evolucao:

( Useful information from our friend, Randall Wilks ) Randall Wilks  Randall Wilks – 8/22/2017

EVIDENCE FOR EVOLUTION – Vestigial Human Traits
Just as humans inherit characteristics of their nearest relatives, each of us has characteristics inherited from more distant relatives. In the inner corners of your eyes you have what is called a semilunar fold or plica semilunaris. There is a muscle attached to it, but it doesn’t do anything in humans. In many other animals (sharks, frogs birds, your cat), however, that muscle controls a transparent incitating membrane or “third eyelid” that can be drawn over the eye. Proponents of ‘intelligent design’ have no explanation as to why humans have those muscles. They are perfectly consistent with evolutionary theory as vestigial remnants of an ancestral characteristic.
You also have three sets of muscles attached to your ears. In other animals, those muscles turn the ears to focus on the direction of a sound. This ability is found in monkeys, most of which cannot turn their head horizontally. Humans and the other apes can turn their heads vertically and the ability to move the ears is largely lost in those species. Using sensitive electronic devices, researches find that the human brain is sending nerve impulses to those muscles in response to sounds, but the most any human can do is a bit of a wiggle. Proponents of ‘intelligent design’ have no explanation as to why humans have those muscles. They are perfectly consistent with evolutionary theory as vestigial remnants of an ancestral characteristic. Then there is the Plantaris Muscle, which in other primates facilitates arboreal lifestyle, allowing the feet to function much the same as hands in gripping branches. The human foot has lost this ability, rather early on it seems, in the process of becoming bipedal. The muscle, however, is still there. It is a long pencil thin muscle and tendons running down the back of the calf, that are extremely painful when ruptured and often misdiagnosed as a more serious injury. This injury, often called “Tennis Leg” occurs most frequently in athletes over 40 due to the tendon and attachments becoming more brittle. With or without treatment, the two ends of the rupture will shrivel and disappear within weeks with no loss of function in the leg. It is indeed one of evolution’s leftovers. It is often harvested for reconstructive surgery elsewhere in the body. That these muscles are still present in the human body indicates that the genetic instructions for them are still present in the human genome and active to some extent.
At some point the genes for these traits may be silenced by a mutation that disables a gene (such as a premature STOP codon or frame shift) making them a pseudo gene; one which no longer produces a protein. There is evidence that is already happening as this muscle is absent in one leg or both in about 10% of the population. The same seems to be happening with wisdom teeth. In the wild, primate infants are capable of grasping and holding on to the mother’s fur shortly after birth, allowing the mother to pursue other activities. Human infants, because of the limited birth canal and large human brain must enter this world at a much earlier stage of physical and neuronal development. Despite that, the developing human embryo exhibits a grasping reflex in the uterus as early as 16 weeks. Even at birth, that reflex, the Palmar Grip Reflex, is incredibly strong as most parents of newborns will attest. While it is capable of supporting the child’s weight, one must exercise caution as the child may suddenly let go. This reflex may persist up to 6 months after birth. As this is of no benefit to a human child, it is vestigial.
We see vestigial structures all through nature. They remain in some cases because they have been adapted for other purposes, in others they remain simply because there has been no evolutionary advantage to eliminating them. Similarly, pseudo-genes are vestiges of previously active genes that have been disabled by some mutation and no longer produce a protein. There are some 20,000 of them n the human genome, many of them remnants of Olfactory Receptor (scent receptor) genes. While humans have lost an additional 30 of these genes since our ancestral lineage separated from that of chimps, most of those pseudo-genes are hand-me-downs from even more remote relatives, but disabled by exactly the same mutations, again evidence of common ancestry. They certainly do not support the idea of “intelligent design”. They are however, completely consistent with the Theory of Evolution.
Geographic Distribution of Species
As one travels from one isolated landmass, to another, one sees patterns that fit with evolutionary theory. The mammals populating the Australasian landmass (including New Guinea) prior to man’s arrival were virtually all Marsupials; kangaroos, wombats, koalas, quolls, thylacenes, et al; found nowhere else in the world, and egg laying Monotremes (Platypus and Echidnas) also found nowhere else in the world. Indeed, prior to the coming of man who brought the dingo, the only placental mammals were those that could swim there (seal) and those that could fly there (bats). It is very obvious that mammalian evolution took a quite different turn in that isolated landmass.
New Zealand as well tells of a different evolutionary history. With no native mammals, except again for those able to fly (bats) or swim (seals) there, birds assumed the ecological roles filled by mammals elsewhere. In the absence of ground dwelling predators, many birds abandoned energy consuming flight, the Kakapo, Kiwi and Moa among them. The wing of the kiwi is a mere vestige, no bigger than your little finger, with an equally useless claw at its end. Other isolated islands, Mauritania and Madagascar, also had their own unique flora and fauna, as did geologically recent islands such as the Hawaiian Archipelago. There, the science of comparative genomics shows that another species of finch underwent adaptive radiation into the at one time 55 species of Honey creepers of which only 18 survive. The same is true of many plants whose ancestral seeds found their way to these islands. The many species of the beautiful Hawaiian Silver Sword and their relatives, collectively known as the Hawaiian Silver Sword Alliance, are an example of adaptive radiation in plants over millions of years from an ancestral pacific coast tarweed. We have Polar Bears in the Arctic and Penguins in the Antarctic similar environments totally different biota. Charles Darwin made remarkable observations 150 years ago and since then biologists, geneticists, geologists, biochemists and other related fields have continued to do so and in every case further evidence is accumulated in support of what is now called the Modern Synthesis of Evolution.