Posts Tagged ‘Evolution’

Debate with Matrix/DNA Theory in Science/AAAS

Thursday, February 23rd, 2017


Debate com a Matrix/DNA no Science/AAAS


Earliest mollusk probably looked like a spiky slug


A tree mimics exactly the shape of Milk Way because it was created by this galaxy. A cell system also has the same number of organelles as the number of different astronomic bodies. And there is more: each organelle performs same systemic function as each astronomic system.

But, we can see it only when we know the universal Matrix/DNA formula that built all natural systems. So, for a better understand about the first mollusc shape and functions we must have on the table the matrix formula and the exactly model of the building blocks of our creator, this astronomic system – both are at my website… but still it is a theory..



Correlations without causation

Endurance of stable shapes i.e celestial bodies are spherical due to their gravity, just like there is a limited number of shapes in organisms that provide practicality and durability. But this doesn’t connect the two systems in any way.



No, Kotsios, there is no apophenia here. It is perceiving meaningful patterns (the common at genetic inheritances) within not random data, but within data as evolutionary links. Yours scholar world view does not see these patterns because learned to be blind to the connection between cosmological and biological evolution. So, there is a big hole in their wiring of neurons.
You do not see the correlation because yours causation (origins of life) is not the first causation (origins of the universe).
If this astronomic system (Milk Way) does not connect with the first biological systems, what and who created biological systems?!  Some supernatural forces and elements coming from outside the materialistic realm of this galaxy?

And remember: such parent, such offspring, no matter the differences of environments and big mutations. By the way, if you do not know my theoretical astronomic model and the explanation how it fits exactly as the unit of information of the DNA, you never will accept that we were created by stellar system and not by dust of stars…


All you did, was to replace a supernatural creator with the Milky Way.
Celestial organisation is based on gravity.
Biological organisation is based on chemistry.

Gravity is very weak to act on the molecular level and chemistry requires much more proximity than the celestial distances allow.

There is no connection between the origins of the two systems, besides their existence in the same universe



No creators, it is all about our ancestrals. Galaxies,atoms, are our ancestrals.
The human body pressure and homeostasis acts over organs and flows, it is also to weak at atomic and molecular levels. But was not gravity neither body pressure that organized matter into systems. You are missing the essence, the code, which is the formula at my website.

Organic chemistry emerged with a new state of matter – the liquid – which was not existent at galaxies’ formation. But, chemistry alone, leads matter to eternal equilibrium, never to compose working systems.

Th new planetary surface environment, different from the space, and new state of matter caused the big mutations in biological systems. While our direct astronomic ancestor was a closed system, we happened to be opened systems.

If you believe there are no connections between the system you live inside and was here producing your past ancestors and the system you are, you need to appeal to a mystic agent, like a magical randomness.. or magical supernaturals. We do need such jumps of imaginations anymore..


You forgot about prions, viruses, RNA based life, etc.

You forgot that there are known reasons for the shapes of bodies in space, and, organ functions, etc…and that they do not share reasons.

Saying “Astronomic system” and “function” assumes things that are entirely unsupported by any evidence whatsoever.


You are seeing patterns that are not there.


You are also calling a “feeling” a “theory”.

In science, a theory is an explanation that has been tested, to falsify it, and passed the tests…and so forth,

…..not merely what a stoner says after seeing a Bohr Diagram and thinking…wow, that looks like our solar system!



No TJ, I did not forget these things, all them were hardly and perfect inserted in the same evolutionary lineage, from this astronomic system to complex biological organisms.

Nature has used a unique formula for all biological systems (DNA) because Nature has used a unique formula for “all” natural systems since the beginning of this Universe. I can’t believe you can not understand this obligatory evolutionary detail.

If all galaxies are similar like all biological systems, it is because all galaxies has a common essence like DNA. Same for all species of atoms systems. The evolutionary tree does not begins with archaea, fungus, but, with atoms. That’s why we can find all biological properties (metabolism,sexual reproduction,life’s cycles,etc) at atoms ( as electromagnetic fashion) and astronomic systems ( as mechanic fashion), expressed or not due evolutionary phases.

If you can’t see the evolutionary sequitur from a galaxy to a cell system you will need some mystical belief, like “spontaneous origins of life by chance”…

There is a universal evolution of a unique system in this 13,8 billion years, so, since it is a unique evolutionary lineage, must have repetitive universal patterns among all shapes of this universal natural system.

About theory:
Science took the name ” theory” from philosophy (the Greeks coined the word). I am using the word in its real meaning and science is not the owner of this word


The Evolution of Eyes:How was the Galaxy’s eyes,10 Billion Years Ago.

Thursday, June 30th, 2011

In the excellent website PANDA’S THUMB:

… there is an article today about the evolution of eyes and the debate with creationists. The article:

Complex eyes in the Cambrian

By PZ Myers on June 30, 2011 10:11 AM

and in the section “comments” I posted comments with the interpretation of Matrix/DNA Theory, as the one below:

Louis | June 30, 2011 10:28 PM

Ten billion years ago, in the Cosmic space, vision already existed and was evolving.

Any star is decomposed, fragmented in its smallest points. Then, all of these fragments compose a nebula of dirty. Any nebula is a rotating structure. With time this nebula creates at the center a vortex and all fragments are pulled inside the vortex. The final result is a new star. So, where are the principles of vision here? What is vision, which is its function?

The star is fragmented in its bits of information. When all bits goes inside a vortex, the total of information about the star pass through the vortex. The vortex can know, can “see” the star. The vortex is conic and a cone full of information in shape of light signal is the image of the eyes today. The “eyes” of galaxies performs its function and better than our eyes: the vortex can “see a body in all of its dimensions, the exterior and the interior also. Maybe should be more appropriate if we say “the involution of eyes” I don’t know if the complexes things we see in this Universe was designed by magic from something ex-machine or they are product of a normal genetic process: before the Big Bang there was a “natural system” which is being reproduced by this Universe. So, we can explain why everything here were previous designed by a Matrix like our body was previous designed by the biological shape of the Matrix: the DNA.

But, I can suggest the mechanic, magnetic ancestral principles of everything there are here just now, evolving through the biological evolution as existent in the cosmological evolution. And everything were presents in the first quantum vortex at the Big Bang. I challenge you point out something that I cannot find its ancestral at 10 billion years ago. If you want see a lot of samples look to “The Universal Matrix/DNA of Natural Systems and Life’s Cycles”, theory. (Google it). Darwin described only micro-biological evolution because, of course, he couldn’t figure out how was the previous cosmological evolution.

Evolution’s new foe and the debate at Wired Magazine

Monday, April 26th, 2010

Interesting article published at Wired Magazine, under the title “Evolution’s New Foe: Timid School Administrators” (you can see it at

Following the article are the coments and I am trying to participate. Below the posts for which I answered till now:

Posted by: tahos | 04/23/10 | 11:06 am |

Evolution belongs in philosophy and religion classes alongside creation. The “science” of evolution is tenuous and controversial, and should be explained as such. Presenting it as scientific fact rather than speculation and at best theory does the scientific method a disservice and establishes a pattern of thinking in young people that is dangerous and close-minded.

This is coming from someone who spent several years as a research scientist (cell and molecular biology).

Posted by: Morelli | 04/25/10 | 7:06 am |

Tahos: You should be right saying that “The Neo-Darwinian Theory of Evolution establishes a pattern of thinking in young people that is dangerous and close-minded”. Transformation of some species by Darwin’s three postulates – VSI: Variation, Selection, Inheritance – is a fact. But the fact finishes here. There are thousands of data showing that there is genetic variation, some of them are selected because produces better adaptation and then, is naturally selected. But these proved transformations do not means that Evolution is a Universal Law and the Darwin postulates means Evolution. Let’s see a sample: about reptiles the transformations went from lizards to crocodiles to dinosaurs. After reptiles there are mammals. But… for sure, mammals did not come from dinosaurs. Then, they say: “a meteorite came from the sky killing the dinosaurs, then, evolution departure from smaller reptiles to mammals.” Oh, com’ on! What about lions, elephant, eagles, whales… every developed giant from each species are going to extinction. In the future we will need a lot of tales about meteorites!
There is the possibility that smaller reptiles evolved to mammals. There are a lot of fossil showing animals that are half reptiles/half mammals. It is “almost” certainly that reptiles evolved to mammals. But, there are no observations of occurrence and not a proved link. Then, the “almost” is not a scientific statement yet. And it is almost certainly that the Darwin’s transformations do not explain the occurrence. It explains the variations or to say “evolution” from smaller to bigger, but the bigger were a dead end, then there were no evolution if the final result was not evolution.
The transformations from reptiles to mammals – and maybe from primates to human beings – need another kind of universal postulates. The Darwinian three postulates are not enough. Here is the danger, brilliant pointed out by you. These students, like the neo-Darwinians, will be closed –minded, turning around a non-complete natural process, then, they never will be able to find the whole picture.
I have a theory that suggests new explanations for these topics. But my theory has – besides the three Darwinian postulates – four more postulates, that came from Cosmological Evolution and physical ancestral thermodynamics systems. The theory suggests that Darwin’s theory is only half of the whole history. If these people become close-minded they never will get the whole picture. You are right.

Posted by: danielpauldavis | 04/23/10 | 2:52 pm |

”If you’re not looking to teach children the best science, that harms their education.” Crick and Watson really believed they were proving their atheism when they discovered the double-helix DNA molecule. What they actually did was prove that random assembly of ANY life was impossible because that double-helix structure required that EVERY DNA molecule be laevorotary: have the hydrogen atom on the left side. Any molecule with the hydrogen atom on the right side would stop all molecular processes at that point and kill the cell (which is what strychnine is all about.) While every atheist and evolutionist likes to point to Miller’s experiments about random DNA production, they always leave out two facts of that experiment. The first is that Miller, et al. included a trap to separate any formed molecules from the rest of the mix before they disassembled as spontaneously as they assembled. Second is that all the molecules were–being random–randomly laevorotary and dextrarotary. In other words, the experiment proved that intelligence was absolutely required for any life to actually exist. Without that intelligence separating the molecules from the mix AND separating laevo- from dextra rotary, inorganic chemistry could never become organic chemistry.

Posted by: Morelli | 04/25/10 | 7:52 am |

danielpauldavis, You said: “In other words, the experiment proved that intelligence was absolutely required for any life to actually exist. Without that intelligence separating the molecules from the mix AND separating laevo- from dextra rotary, inorganic chemistry could never become organic chemistry.”
I don’t agree, I think there is a natural mechanism that does not requires intelligence. If you go to my website you will see a model of a closed system (which seems to be the building block of astronomic systems). In a closed system, the flow of energy begins clockwise and at the top down ( in a watch this should be the mark of 6 hours); the flow goes to 12 and then is shared in two flows; one flow goes back towards 6 and another flow go normally to 1. Then, this flow designs the complete circumference, going to 6. It means that a face is shared into two half faces. Every time you have a complete left face, the flow will build the right one, obeying the bi-lateral symmetry.
Now, going back to DNA. The fundamental unit of information or the building block of DNA is the left/right pair of nucleotides. But, the nucleotides are exact a copy of the astronomic building block. Then, when you have the left nucleotide, and there are enough ingredients around, the flow of energy that goes through the left side falls to the surrounding soup building the right side. No intelligence is required here.

  • Posted by: cardshoot | 04/25/10 | 12:06 pm |

    Your argument is flawed from its start because evolution didn’t have to follow the path you expound. You’re right in that mammals didn’t evolve from dinosaurs, but your implication that evolution is wrong based on that premise is wrong. Dinosaurs and mammals possibly had a common ancestor at some point long before dinosaurs and mammals ever existed.
    Your idea of what happened due to the meteor impact that wiped out the dinosaurs is mistaken also. Mammals already existed at that point in time but were small creatures. It was large creatures that were wiped out by the meteor and the ensuing aftermath of the strike.
    I have no idea where you are coming up with these wild ideas unless you have been taking as gospel the stories of someone else as little informed on the topics as you are.

  • Posted by: Morelli | 04/26/10 | 5:53 am |

    You said: “Your argument is flawed from its start because evolution didn’t have to follow the path you expound.”

    My answer: The path that I expound is the same of Wikipedia: “It is likely that cynodonts were at least partially if not completely warm-blooded, covered with hair, which would have insulated them and helped to maintain a high body temperature. The mammal-like structure of cynodonts hints that all mammals have descended from a single group of eucynodonts.” And cynodonts is still a reptile, the size of a alligator and not dinossaur. Are you saying that evolution did not follow from alligators to dinossaurs?! It should be the opposite?

    You said: “You’re right in that mammals didn’t evolve from dinosaurs, but your implication that evolution is wrong based on that premise is wrong.”

    My answer: “I am not saying that evolution is wrong. I am saying that the Darwin’s theory based upon those three variables is not complete for explaining the history of evolution of biological systems (aka, living beings).

    And maybe, the idea of evolution is controversial. If I am a small microbe living inside a pregnant womb, watching the transformations that happen with the fetus, certainly I should believe that evolution is whole picture. But it is not: it is a process of reproduction. Then, we are like microbes watching the transformations of Cosmos and living beings. But… is not scientific established that are watching the supreme process. Maybe we are seeing the evolution inside a process of reproduction… the reproduction of that something that triggered the start of the Universe. Who knows? Maybe this Universe is only a cosmic egg and here is being nurtured the son of something beyond the Universe. You can call it God, no problem with that. My theoretical models are suggesting that it is a natural system, non able to do magic, and suggesting that this Universe is a genetic production. But, Science has no data for deciding this question, yet.

    You said: “Your idea of what happened due to the meteor impact that wiped out the dinosaurs is mistaken also. Mammals already existed at that point in time but were small creatures.”

    My answer: “I know that. I am suggesting that nature does not need meteorites for applying a natural law, observed at each species: every creature that evolves in a wrong way, not supported by the parallel evolution of the environment, becomes extinct, no matter if it last a long time. It is because the creature super-specializes in a way of existence, becomes a closed system itself, a branch of the evolutionary tree that has no future. it is happen with whales, the giant of the oceans, with the lions, the giant of the jungle, with eagles, the giant of the sky… But the deep explanation is a mechanism inherited from our ancestral physical thermodynamic non-living systems, which I cannot expose here.”

    You said: “I have no idea where you are coming up with these wild ideas unless you have been taking as gospel the stories of someone else as little informed on the topics as you are”

    My answer: “That’s just the danger behind the teaching of Evolution to children. You should a good sample. You did not pay attention when I said that the Darwin’s theory and the neo-Darwinian theory does not explains the history of evolution because it is not complete. This idea is so strange for you that you mistakenly understood “non-complete” as “wrong”. It is totally different. You did not pay attention when I said that the history of evolution is not explained only by three variables, but, seven variables. The normal, natural, rational reaction here should be: “What?! I never heard something like that! Are you dreaming? But… how did you get there? Which are the four variables that we don’t know?!”

    Then you go straight to conclusions: wild idea, gospel, you are not informed… that’s just the reaction of the Inquisitors facing Galileo, the Islamic religious facing evolution theory, the scientific establishment facing Boltzmann, etc. Our children nurtured in these textbooks are going to the same way. Ok, maybe the Modern Evolution Theory explains everything, then, will have no problem with the textbooks. But…I am telling you: I was not educated in a scientific school, and then I have the theory of evolution, biogenesis, Big Bang, gravity, under suspicions. I am reasonable informed about modern scientific data, from physics to chemistry to biology, etc. But I was living in Amazon jungle, the Nature there is suggesting a lot of things, mechanisms and processes which can build a bigger evolutionary theory. Why every scientific minded person that I tried to explain the theory does not want to hear? No one of them has showed a scientific data that is contradictory with any detail of the whole theory. Explanation? Close-minded. That’s the danger pointed out brilliantly by tahos ( 04/23/10 | 11:06 am).

    Posted by: cardshoot | 04/26/10 | 6:55 pm |

    I’m not going to try to teach you how evolution works but to set you straight on an aspect or three of it where you seem to be looking at it from the wrong viewpoint.

    1st. The answer to the question of whether evolution went from crocodiles to dinosaurs or from dinosaurs to crocodiles is neither. They are two different branches of a family tree that originated with a long distant common ancestor. And you can add mammals into that family tree also, but that doesn’t mean that mammals evolved from dinosaurs or crocodiles. It only means that they had at some point in the distant past the same ancestor.

    2nd. The meteor and aftermath causing the death or extinction of the large dinosaurs doesn’t have to explain the death of other large organisms and in itself might only be partially responsible for the extinction. But before the meteor impact there were big dinosaurs and shortly afterwards there weren’t any more as evidenced in the fossil record. If other animals go extinct it doesn’t have to be from a meteor strike; it could easily be another factor causing it and you don’t have to resort to a meteor impact to explain them. But when you have a boundry layer left by a meteor that is a distinct dividing point between there being large dinosaurs and there not being large dinosaurs in the fossil record it is pretty likely that the meteor impact had something to do with it. There were other extinction events and theories about what caused them too, just look up extinction events. They seem to drive or cause a temporary speeding up of evolution.
    3rd Major evolutionary change takes time on a timescale that you cannot personally observe in real time in any major way in a group of organisms, other than microorganisms, partially due the time between generations and the time a characteristic in a portion of a population actually becomes a determining factor in survival of the individuals in the population.

    As far as Darwin’s theory being wrong or not complete enough because it is based on three principles, I can give one principle that explains all evolution. Populations of organisms change over time due to the genetic differences within the population affecting the reproductive success of descendents. But to see what the modern theory of evolution is look up ‘modern evolutionary synthesis.’ Neo-Darwinism originated in the late 1800’s so it isn’t really pertient except people continue to use term and confuse it with modern evolutionary synthesis.

    As far as the theory of evolution causing people to be closed-minded, being closed-minded isn’t necessarily a bad thing when the thing someone is wanting you to open your mind to is without merit( or unprovable). I am not going to entertain for a moment that the sun is really a giant ball of Jello. I am absolutely closed-minded to that idea, at least until someone goes there and brings back a bowlful.

    Posted by: Morelli | 04/27/10 | 4:03 am |


    You said: “I’m not going to try to teach you how evolution works but to set you straight on an aspect or three of it where you seem to be looking at it from the wrong viewpoint.”

    My answer: “To me it seems that you are looking how evolution works not by the wrong viewpoint, but from a non complete one. Darwinian evolution or even modern evolutionary synthesis is about micro-evolution, only about biological systems evolution. But the process of Evolution – the mechanisms of this process – was not created by the stupid matter of Earth and not beginning in a deep ocean mixed soup. Before that the matter in this Universe was under the principles of Cosmological Evolution and from this dimensions are coming the mechanisms. In that time we had the so (and mistakenly) called non-living systems, like atoms, stellar, galaxies systems. The planet Earth and its matter is a production from the cosmological laws and mechanisms, then, if we want really understand any natural mechanism here at our biosphere, we need to understand its origins from the sky. Because evolution as transformation among species ( and not variations and selection of individuals inside the specie) have used the Gold punctuation jumps, and these jumps are influences from the forces coming from systems hierarchy superior, like the immediate astronomic system to which our planet belongs. The transformation from a reptile (cynodonts?) to a mammal is all about the sexual reproductive process: till reptile every species lay eggs out, at cynodonts happened the big jump that built the extraordinary engeenery of womb and pregnancy. Which was and where were the forces in Nature, in the environment or in the reptile itself, which made this spectacular transformation?

    When I am telling about the danger of a non-complete knowledge closing the mind that denies the search for the whole picture is just about this. Evolution is a fact, period. We know the formula VSI, and it explains everything. So, from now to the infinite we have only to search the data that completes the history of evolution, and fighting those that does not believe in it. We stops using our mind searching alternatives to evolution, which is correct, like you said, we are not going to think that the sun is a ball of Jello. But… we have fossil telling the history about the skeleton transformation from reptiles to mammals. We don’t have fossil about the soft anatomy of reptiles transforming to mammals. And VSI is not enough for to explain it. Which motive leads a reptile to develop the modern reproductive process, the stage of pregnancy, if the new state means a big sacrifice, losing abilities to survivor and to hunt? How could natural selection to choose the worst adaptive intermediate creatures? These kind of questions does not appears in a brain of a trained evolutionist.

    The modern theory of evolution has broken evolution in two separated blocks- Cosmological Evolution, from the big Bang to 10 billion years ago and Biological Evolution in the last 3,7 billion years – with no links, no connection between them, so, for to fill the big abysm between then, we appeals to variations by chance. This could be a mythos, the principles of a religion, the not-to-be-magical-thinking.

    I am not a scientist but I learned a lot myself about natural philosophy, studying from Hippocrates to Euclides to Mendel to Darwin, they were not scientists also, merely natural philosophers trying to apply the scientific method isolated at very hard and poor circumstances. While Darwin spent 4 years observing small details like the birds, I spent seven years isolated in the jungle observing the bigger details, trying to understand macro-evolution. But is impossible getting reasonable answers if we do not consider the sun’s light and the astronomic context influencing biological evolution. Then we have new ideas, new theoretical models, even the surprising event when we have a theoretical model of an astronomic system where we can see, only among the connections among spheres and vortices in the sky, a system that lays eggs out and at the same time keep the eggs inside showing a thermodynamic structure identical the modern mammals womb. But, if it is thru, then, the mechanisms of atoms, galaxies need be increased upon the three Darwinian variables for to explaining the whole picture, included how and why a reptile became mammal.

    It is not interesting from the natural systems viewpoint, loosing time with the meteorite influencing living species at that time. From the controversy around 1860-1960 among Maxwell’s demon, Szilard’s cost of information, Brillouin’s positions about dissipation, Bennett’s positions, etc., we knows today that any system that gets information beyond the limits of its physical possibilities, will pay the hard price for discarding it. Obtaining information does not cost ( at least in the path from alligators to dinosaurs if the environment is properly), forgetting it is the problem. It happens with any system, be it atoms, stellar, galaxies, plants or a human body. So, the pathways of evolution that leads the first reptiles to dinosaurs and then, going back to an alligator for to follow the path to mammals were obeying thermodynamic laws, macro-evolution laws, because the dinosaur had to forgetting the wrong informations they got. The pregnancy phenomena, the womb anatomy were written in the stars, thermodynamically, billion years before life’s origins, and those mechanisms are inside us, at our genetics, and above us, surrounding us, modeling the planets environment. It does not need religion, neither supreme intelligence, neither creationism nor Intelligent Designer for to explain Evolution, but, it does not need also the atheist mythos of Nature variations by chance selected for evolution. Open-mind, continuing to search at larger horizons, this is the right thing to teach our beloved children. But, ok, if you are parent and want another way, it is not me that will try to change your mind. I expose this theory trying to change informations, to see critical thinking against the theory, because, I am sure, my worldview is not complete either.

    Posted by: Morelli | 04/27/10 | 4:24 am |

    cardshoot ,

    Correction: Instead “Gold punctuation” I wanted to write about the Stephen Jay Gould and Niles Eldrege punctuated equilibria theory. Sorry.

    Read More

    “A Grand Bargain Over Evolution” by Robert Wright, Was Predicted by Matrix/DNA Theory

    Saturday, October 10th, 2009

    Article Published in The New York Times, Sunday, August 23, 2009, page 9, Sunday Opinion


     Robert Wright is brilliant on his thesis that natural selection could be made even before life’s origins and he reveal some arguments for that. Then he says that        “… God did his work remotely. His role in the creative process ended when he unleashed the algorithm of natural selection (whether by dropping it into the primordial ooze or writing its eventual emergence into the initial conditions of the universe or whatever).”


     Of course, to say that God trusted natural selection to do the creative work assumes that natural selection, once in motion, would do it. This claim turns out to be scientifically plausible.


    Matrix/DNA Theory Comments: “ Our models suggests that processes like natural selection were existing before the Big Bang. Resuming, when the models says that this Universe is a genetic production, he suggests that there is a father/mother of the universe, be it whatever system is. So, this Universe has the final purpose to reproduce his father/mother system. it means that what we see as evolution – be it Cosmological and Biological evolution – it is really, small steps in a big process of reproduction. And at any reproduction process there is natural selection: the final body of the father/mother drives the process to finally reproduce their own shape. So, among any events by chance, any species that arouse as sub product or in parallel to the real fetus, can be selected and gets his eternal place in the trunk of the evolutionary tree, or can be discarded by natural selection. The agent behind natural selection is the genome that came beyond the universe. But ( the good news for atheists) it not means that God did it. It means that an unknown system that was existing before is as natural as the universe and our land.But ( the good news for theists) it is plausible that beyond the natural creator of the Universe there is a God and He did it remotely… 

    U.S.A: Copyright Washington n. 000998487/2001-02-20 | Brasil: Reg. Dir. Autorais - Brasília n. 106.158/11-12-1995 | Louis Charles Morelli