Archive for the ‘evolution’ Category

Incrível! Vídeo de Bill Nye Atacando Religiosos e Sugerindo Revolução na Educação Alcança Meio Milhão de Comentários!

quarta-feira, outubro 8th, 2014

Incrível! Um vídeo publicado em 2012 já conta quase sete milhões de visitantes e o debate que se segue parece ser o mais longo da história do Youtube, pois já conta com quase meio milhão de comentários !!!

Mas o assunto do vídeo realmente é importante e faz parte da responsabilidade de todos os seres humanos conhecerem e tomarem posições participando do tema, pois disso depende o nosso e o futuro das gerações: qual a visão de mundo estamos pondo na cabeça dos estudantes, formando suas mentes.

É um combate ferrenho entre a recem-nascida mentalidade materialista e a velha mentalidade mistica que ainda governa a maioria das decisões sociais mundiais. São duas posições extremas, dois lados de uma mesma moeda, e no meio surge agora mais uma diferente e inédita posição, tentando tambem entrar na briga. Veja o vídeo, veja o comentário abaixo postado por essa nova visão do mundo, e reflita buscando sua posição, pois disso depende se nossos herdeiros irão cantar nosso sucesso ou chorar nosso fracasso.  Pois é a maneira como interpretamos a existência do mundo e nele, nossa própria existência, que determina nossos comportamentos e portanto, nosso destino.

xxxxx

Bill Nye: Creationism Is Not Appropriate For Children

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gHbYJfwFgOU xxxxxx E o ultimo comentário postado pela nova cosmovisão “do meio”: 

Louis Charles Morelli – October 08, 2014

Darwinism is not equal the real observed natural phenomena of evolution. And Creationism is far away off the natural real world. The Universal Natural History can not be reached and understood by any human brain with these limited sensors in time/space. One need to see a system standing outside the system for understanding it, and nobody went outside this Universe… yet. Natural evolution is a observed phenomena when we see a simplest thing ( a morula, a blastula) transforming shapes and increasing complexity in 9 month. And it is easy to accept that Nature can amplify this individual phenomena, projecting it into populations transformations. But… we know that the force causing those individual transformations is something “invisible” inside the blastula, the fetus, etc.: DNA. So, why not the transformations from atoms systems to stellar systems to galactic systems to biological systems could not have a invisible force doing it?! Yes there is one, a natural universal formula for all natural systems, called “Matrix/DNA”, which is showed at “The Universal Matrix for Natural Systems and Life’s Cycles” ( Google it). It is not possible to understand in full, biological evolution ( which is merely another cycle of universal evolution) if not knowing cosmological evolution. And darwinism knows nothing about it. There are more four variables coming from the Cosmological Evolution, acting over biological evolution here – it is not merely the three variables considered now by Modern Synthesis ( VSI – Variation, Selection, Inheritance), which fill the gaps. They are natural laws and mechanisms coming from the electromagnetic dimensions, some of them described by thermodynamic systems theory. Our problem just now is that our official astronomic and atomic theoretical models are not complete, far away off the beam, so, the scientific community can not detect the evolutionary lings between cosmological and biological evolution, while Matrix/DNA Theory is suggesting a model of LUCA that fits the gaps. You can see the Matrix formula working into the shape of yours hands, as any natural systems, sub-systems and accessories, like the hands. You can see as elemental structure of atoms, galaxies and now, this new shape of system called ‘consciousness”. You can see the formula inside a lateral pair of nucleotides, the fundamental unit of information of DNA. That’s due DNA is merely the biological shape of something coming from since the Universe’s origins – the Universal Matrix. The first shape of this Matrix we see at the spectrum of natural light waves, so, the original light already had the code for Life. We see evolution here, but it is not the whole history. The phases of evolution are steps of a bigger universal process: reproduction. Inside this universe as a kind of big cosmic egg, is occurring a genetic process of reproduction. Reproduction of what?! Obvious: the Unknown system that generated this Universe. We can not know it.So, while this discussion among theories ( Darwinism, Creationism, Matrix/DNA, etc.) is necessary and good for stimulating the search for more knowledge towards the final thru, it is not rational the offenses, fundamentalisms. Never forget it: our little brain is not equipped for grasping the thru about the system we are inside it. The most rational method for inquiring this mystery is observing what Nature shows here and now, and then, calculating what must be where and when we can not reach. I myself don’t believe on my elaborated theory – The Matrix/DNA – because I bet that it is not complete, it can not be completed by my little brain. My fellows at this mission, the search for our existential meanings: “Try to understand that beliefs are products of Nature and personal specific experiences hard-wiring the connections among neurons and providing informations, some of them false, others real – and only bringing on to the table real natural approved facts and events, can help the Humanity inits evolution. E outro comentario postado: 

Louis Charles Morelli – October 08, 2014

“…if the beginnings of life were not random, they must therefore have been the product of purposeful intelligence.” (Sir Fred Hoyle, highly respected British physicist and astronomer)” Have been normal that human’s goes first to the two extremes of any issue, and finally reaching the middle term, where relies the final thru. Like Nature goes from the extreme hot to the extreme could for reaching the middle state good for life. Here, about the universal meanings of existence, humans have going from extreme infant phantasies ( creationism) to extreme materialism ( Modern Synthesis for Natural Evolution). Sir Fred Hoyle is dancing between these two extremes, so, if it is not randomness, must be divine intelligence. The third hidden alternative, the real thru, must be in between and lots more complex. My suggestion is that when we have a big unsolved mystery, and the known theories are extremists, we need ask it directly to Nature. And Nature shows to us that the life of a baby giraffe has not beginings at random, but… it is not product of mother’s giraffe intelligence either. It is merely a long chain of causes and effects known as genetic process.So, tell us the pure rational thinking, that we must search this genetic process as responsible for emergence of life at any planet of the Cosmos. The long chain of causes and effects has coming from the simplest to gradual more complexity (it happens here, facing our eyes: the embryonary morphogenetic event), so, the genetic process must be under evolution too. It must be coming from cosmological evolution, non-living world. Here relies the third hidden alternative, which must be the final thru. No randomness, no intelligent designers. Nature does not plays dice with her creatures.Ask her, She will tell you the thru, showing to you her production here, and revealing that how She does things here, is how She did things at the origins of this Universe and life here. See what you can discover, yourself, doing that, as I did. See the solution that I discovered after seven years asking the last remained life’s origins witnesses that still are alive at the heart of Amazon jungle, and published at my website: The Universal Matrix/DNA Formula for natural Systems and Life’s Cycles”. But, be advised, my findings are not the final real thru also. I have watched only the half-face of Nature, which  is the chaotic face that produced this salvage biosphere.We know that there is another half-facem the ordered state, when we lift our eyes and see this solar system and galaxy working as a watch.And even if we get the real theoretical model of the ordered Cosmos, we know that we don’t get the final thru yet. Chaotic and ordered states are the two extremes again, the final thru must relies on a third hidden more complex alternative. Today we can build theoretical models about the structure and evolutionary history of the Cosmos, as the scientific astronomers community are doing. They must be not complete, even wrong, since we have our brains hard-wired by the chaotic state, never experimenting the ordered state of Nature. So, the astronomers are projecting the laws and mechanisms of chaotic states when building their astronomical models. There is only a unique way for getting a little bit closer to the final thru: making comparisons between the ordered state and the chaotic state, extracting a third theoretical model. I did it, after 30 years of calculations, but… the final results are suggesting that it is not materialism, it is not randomness and it is not intelligent design: it is something never imagined before. Remembering that this model is not complete, it must have lots of errors, so, we must no believe on it. xxxx E como resposta a este post do Fallible Fiend:

Fallible Fiend – 4 weeks ago (edited)

When I taught at university, I warned students against cheating, but some would do it anyway.  They were always shocked that someone who understood the subject could detect their cheating, even though it was obvious.  They changed variable names and other things to mask their copying, but to no avail!  When you lie to somebody who understands, the lying is obvious!  Creatioinsts use quote mines and thereby misrepresent the scientists without caring that they are misrepresenting them!   Being caught in their intellectual incompetence is what’s making them so frothing in fraudulent Arjunasquirtz these days!  

   

Louis Charles Morelli – Octuber 09, 2014

To Fallible Fiend: “They were always shocked that someone who understood the subject could detect their cheating, even though it was obvious.”

Are you conscious about the virtual cultural matrix 10.000 or more years old built by human inheritance of animals’ instinct? I am talking about this culture that rules ours social systems, shared into big predators (the high class), medium predators (  medium class) and preys ( the slaves workers), mimicking the rules of the salvage jungle? The invention of religions is a good support for this culture due being good strategy for predators keeping slaves.  If yours students were shocked when facing reality it means they believed in it and came from middle class ( conditioned minds) because the high class knows that they are cheating. I will suggest a fantastic discovery from Matrix/DNA Theory for explaining how this virtual matrix works: I watched natives “shamans”  of Amazon jungle when taking their hallucinogenic beverages describing the same picture that very ancient people from Asia used as foundations for their mythos. The big surprise and question for me was: how could it be?! Ok, the first answer is that those people from such different places and time drunk same drugs. But, why this “altered visions” could be the foundations for religions? How they entered a brain dominated by animals instincts and survive together inside the brain?! One possible but surprising answer came when I arrived to Matrix/DNA formula for natural systems… like brains. The formula is suggesting a picture of LUCA ( the Last Universal Common Ancestor), which should be the evolutionary link between cosmological and biological evolution. This “luca” never stood at Earth’s surface, because it is the building block of astronomical systems, like this one that earth belongs to it. Another big surprise is that LUCA was described in full by those mythos. LUCA is a thermodynamic system working as perfect machine described by Physics, ( Newtonian mechanics plus general relativity) using a kind of words, metaphors, symbols, but, The Eden Paradise is the same thing described by another kind of metaphors, words, symbols! Same thing for the world view based on the symbols of I Ching. How could it be?! The explanation is rational, pure natural logistic. Systems as atoms, stellars, galaxies, are species and as such they are our evolutionary ancestors, like the species as bacterias, amoebas, reptiles. All these species are registered into our DNA’s memory. There is DNA for biological systems, but it came from another kind of “DNA” existing as building blocks for non-biological systems, which name I prefer “universal matrix”. ( The inanimate systems are registered at the junk DNA). So, when someone have altered states of brain, like those produced by drugs, this memory comes as flashes, scenes, and each people try to interpret it by its own way. You can see the seven symbols used for building the fable of Adam and Eve at the Eternal Paradise, inside a building block for any natural system, a perfect natural machine, described also by thermodynamic theory. Since that this astronomical building block is reproduced as the fundamental unit of  information called “a lateral pair of nucleotides”, you can now understand why these memories are inside our neurons. Look to LUCA at my website, and you can identify there, the serpent, the apple, the tree, the perfect paradise for Adam and Eve – which were the astronomical evolutionary state of X and Y chromosomes about 4 billion years ago! You will still understand what really was the Fall, and why the entropic force produces biological systems like me and you here. I think that once time this whole theory will be approved, it will destroy those mythos that are the foundations of all religions, forever. But… be aware: the world vision that you are teaching could be another kind of cheating the reality also. And it is, if this new theory will be proved right. So, like you can not see the virtual cultural matrix acting over you, don’t be surprised that yours students are shocked facing reality.

Evolução: Diferenças Entre Darwinismo, Lamarckismo e Matrix/DNA

quarta-feira, setembro 3rd, 2014

xxxx

1) Developmental plasticity is not Lamarckism – PZ Myers

http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2014/08/28/developmental-plasticity-is-not-lamarckism/

xxxx

Ver este artigo tambem:

Dragon fish could hold key information on crucial moment in evolution

Read more: http://www.sciencerecorder.com/news/walking-dragon-fish-could-hold-key-information-on-crucial-moment-in-evolution/#ixzz3CFISNqiv

A species of fish native to Africa could shed light on the evolutionary process that led fish to move on to dry land. The Dragon fish, Polypterus senegalus is not a normal fish – it has two lungs, and can survive outside of water. In a new eight-month experiment researchers have shown that if a Dragon fish is raised outside of water, the fish changes notably. The fish raised out of water showed differences in their bones and muscles involved in movement not shown in those raised in water.

Fish moved on to dry land and evolved into quadruped vertebrates around 400 million years ago, and it is thought that the Dragon fish is a living demonstration of a phenomenon known as developmental plasticity. This theory states that a creature’s physiology can be changed by environmental factors, and that overtime, these changes are incorporated in to the animal’s genome.

Read more: http://www.sciencerecorder.com/news/walking-dragon-fish-could-hold-key-information-on-crucial-moment-in-evolution/#ixzz3CFGxbjxn

xxxxx

O artigo usa um tipo de peixe que tem pulmões posto fora d’água e desenvolve membros para caminhar. Então usa a teoria da seleção natural para explicar como repteis vieram dos peixes como esse. Diz o artigo que o peixe tem uma propensão para desenvolver ossos mais fortes, necessarios para transformar as barbatanas em pés e mãos. Essa propensidade é invisivel enquanto o peixe viver na agua, mas se levado para terra, ele força sua expressão e então fica visivel à seleção natural, que o seleciona. Enquanto estiver na agua, a seleção não enxerga essa propensidade. Então a autor diz que plasticidade desenvolvida não é Lamarckismo, não foi produzida pelo ambiente e transmitida do primeiro peixe para o segundo, não foi determinada pelo ambiente, portanto não é uma força teleológica, como queria Lamarck, mas sim foi desenvolvida pelos mecanismos Darwinianos.

Minha resposta:

1) Fish moved on to dry land and evolved into quadruped vertebrates around 400 million years ago.

I’m not convinced by this theory. It assumes the origins of life in the depths of the ocean and after that immigrated to the continents, while the theory that most convinces me, the Matrix / DNA, presents the most compelling arguments that life had originated on the beach, where there are oceans and continents , and then split up, going some species for water and other for the continent. The Matrix / DNA resembles that all the forces of the galaxy, or the Universe, converge on the beach, including bringing their dualistic aspects, ie, the negative and the positive trend of each force. And all I have seen here being created depends on the encounter and fusion of dualism, which generates a new creature. Must to have the light of day and the darkness of night to a process of generation of life succeed. Must to have the liquid, solid and gaseous states of matter. If had not appeared the Earth’s Moon, there would not have origins of life because it moves the ocean waters to collide with the rocks of the continent, creating a soup for the best work from sunlight, which brought the right template to land for organizing terrestrial atoms into organic molecules. It is missing in the ocean forces and elements that are in the continent, and vice versa. Thus the last biological ancestor must have been amphibian, then life was divided into aquatic and terrestrial. Why would a fish having lungs, if in water there is no necessity or an environment forcing to creates lungs? The dragon fish had lungs because their ancestors were terrestrial, and not the contrary.

2) “The animals have an inherent capacity for building stronger limbs that is not visible when they are raised continuously in an aquatic environment…”

 

That’s right, but… where this “propensity” came from? Matter has no propensity for creating anything that does not exist yet. matter has only one propensity: the resting at thermodynamic equilibrium. Ok, any portion of matter captured and modelled as bones, will have the propensity to more strong bones due natural gravity and they are better for getting the eternal resting. But here is not matter alone, we talking about a natural developed system, called “dragon fish”. And natural systems with propensity to thermodynamic equilibrium are those closed systems ( like galaxies) and not opened systems, like the biological ones. There is something else, beyond ordinary matter, which propensity is not the thermodynamic equilibrium, and this force has been the victorious force in this Universe, since that we see “evolution”. The advantages for any living being, and not only for dragon fish, could be soft bones if he stands in water or strong bones if standing at land, It is not a propensity of dragon fish, it is a propensity of any opened system. In another words – any living creature.

There is a propensity for strong bones coming from something beyond life, beyond this planet.  Such force is so strong that it can select land animals and discarding water animals for continuing evolution, because land is more adequate for strong bones. This propensity is coming from the creator of life here – this astronomical systems to which Earth belongs. This systems has a structure like a skeleton composed by magnetic lines. This structure is pictured as Matrix/DNA model for astronomical systems and it reflects entirely in the shape of a nucleotide. After that, the same shape is mimicked by each vertebra of the vertebral column, because DNA also is a kind of column.  ( don’t believe? Put a vertebra at the side of a nucleotide and see the same shape). The key here is that ours antique ancestors systems – from atoms to galaxies – has its systemic structure – or skeleton – composed by electromagnetic fields and with evolution at Earth surface this same structure tries to reproduce itself, into a solid state.

3) “It is not Lamarckism”

The teleological view of Lamarck is what we are in needs for closing the gaps of Darwinian and Modern Synthesis evolutionary theory. Lamarck believed in a teleological force driven the evolution of living beings, from simple to more complex, but as  said Charles Coulston Gillispie,  a historian of science, “life is a purely physical phenomenon in Lamarck” and “his views should not be confused with the vitalist school of thought”. Since matter alone has no tendency from simple to complex, Lamarck was contradictory, and died with this big unsolved dilemma At Matrix/DNA Theory this dilemma is solved. Vitalists were almost closer to the solution, believing that a external force drives origins and evolution, but their mistake is that this force does not come from vital ancestry – if we think that atoms and galactic systems are not living systems.

Tradução da resposta:

1) Eu não estou convencido por esta teoria. Ela supõe as origens da vida nas profundidades do oceano e depois imigrando para os continentes, enquanto a teoria que mais me convence, a Matrix/DNA, apresenta mais argumentos convincentes de que a vida teria se originado na praia, onde se encontram oceanos e continentes, e daí se dividido, indo algumas espécies para a água e outras para o continente. A Matrix/DNA lembra que todas as fôrças da galáxia,ou do Universo, convergem para a praia, inclusive trazendo seus aspectos dualísticos, ou seja, a tendencia negativa e a positiva de cada força. E tudo o que tenho visto sendo criado aqui depende do encontro e fusão do dualismo, o qual gera uma nova criatura. Tem que ter a luz do dia e a escuridão da noite para um processo de geração da vida ter sucesso. tem que ter o liquido, o sólido e o gasoso. Se não houvesse aparecido a Lua da Terra, não teria havido origens da Vida, pois el move as águas do oceano para se chocarem com as rochas do continente, criando uma sopa para o melhor trabalho da luz do Sol, a qual trazia o template certo para organizar átomos terrestres em moléculas orgânicas. No oceano faltam forças e elementos contidos no continente, e vice-versa. Assim o ultimo ancestral biológico deve ter sido anfíbio, daí os vivos se dividiram em aquáticos e terrestres. Porque um peixe teria pulmões, se na água não existe a a necessidade e nem o meio ambiente forçando cria-los? O dragon fish tinha pulmões porque seus ancestrais eram terrestres, e não ao contrario.

xxxxx

Outro tipo de resposta:

Esta sua proposta parece a mim tão teleológica quanto o Lamarckismo. A chave do problema esta em: o que significa que o peixe tinha “propensidade” para desenvolver ossos fortes? O que é propensidade, o que explica propensidade para “criar” algo que nunca se necessitou, algo nunca existente antes? Ossos mais fortes eras um absurdo no meio aquatico, como é absurdo narizes com 3 ou 4 buracos, não existe propensidade para que no futuro existam narizes com 4 buracos. É mais racional pensar que ossos mais fortes apareceram neste peixe por um novo e nunca existido antes esforço para sobreviver. E a causa do aparecimento deste novo esforço foi a mudança ambiental, portanto, uma causa teleológica ( tenho que ver o que significa teologia)

Porque um peixe teria pulmões?! Senão que em epocas passadas ele se esforçou para mudar seu tipo de respiração, e esse esforço só se explica se ele viveu antes na terra? Este peixe era terrestre e foi para a agua. Qunado o retiram da agua o estao devolvendo para seu antigo habitat. A capacidade de desenvolver ossos fortes ja havia sido adquirida na terra, apenas foi atrofiada na agua. Mais uma vez a causa é imposta pela mudança ambiental.

O darwinismo tambem é teleologico quando indioca a seleção natural segundo os mecanismos por ele apresentados. Pois a evolução fixa o mais adaptado e reprodutor, porem o estado do mundo por traz desta seleção no momento que ela acontece é um ambiente que encontra uma espécie adaptada e em maior numero que outras espécies, ou seja, antes deste momento, houve a mudança do ambiente, e de um estado mais caótico para um estado mais ordeiro, ou seja,  de um estado mais simples para um estado mais complexo. A seleção natural apenas acontece depois que a mutação ocorreu, mas a causa da mutação não foi a seleçao natural biológica, e sim, as forças do sistema astronomico ao qual a Terra pertence. Intrinsecamente teleológico.

Mas isto tudo se esclarece quando se descobre que a evolução biológica é mero continuar da evolução cosmológica. A qual não existe mais, ou está inativa, pois ela agora é carregada pelo sistema cosmológico mais complexo que existe, que é a galaxia ( mais complexa que o sistema estelar porque a galaxia contem componentes que o sistema estelar não contem ( pulsar, quasar, black holes, etc).  Se a evolução astronomica dirigiu as  origens da vida e dirigiu a evolução biológica, e estando ela parada ou imperceptivel devido sua lentidão medidas em escalas de tempo astronomico, o que é que continua a fomentar a evolução biológica? Isto nos leva a entender que existe outra força evolutiva no Universo alem da astronomica. E na busca desta outra força é que chegamos à Matrix/DNA, ou seja, o DNA não é apenas atributo dos seres vivos, mas sim é apenas uma forma biológica de uma matrix universal, esta sim, é o “DNA” comum a todos os sistemas naturais, desde atomos a galaxias a seres humanos. A Matrix tambem está sob as regras da evolução, ela tambem surgiu simples e se complexificou, mas então descobrimos que sua forma mais simples é no estado de uma onda de luz original. Enfim, dentro deste Universo, a maneira mais racional de pensar é ver a causa da evolução teleologica, pois não existe mais evolução do Universo, este é o fossil de um ancestral, e existe sim, uma evolução de um unico sistema natural que surgiu dentro deste Universo. Em outras palavras, o Universo é palco de um processo de reprodução genetica, reprodução do sistema ex-machine que o gerou. Assim a teleologia se torna tão reduzida ao naturalismo quanto pensar que o corpo da màe gravida seria teleologico em rfelação ao feto que nele se desenvolve. Lamarck teve erros e acertos, mas  o darwinismo e a “Moderna Sintese” tambem tem seus erros e acertos.

xxxx

Pesquisa:

1) Teleologia: ( Teleology)

Lamarck defendia a geração espontânea contínua das espécies, com os organismos mais simples a serem depois transmutados com o tempo (pelo seu mecanismo) tornando-se mais complexos e próximos da perfeição ideal. Acreditava portanto num processo teleológico, com um fim determinado em que os organismos se tornam mais perfeitos à medida que evoluem.

 Wikipedia: A teleology is any philosophical account that holds that final causes exist in nature, meaning that — analogous to purpose found in human actions — nature inherently tends toward definite ends.

Teleology was explored by Plato and Aristotle, by Saint Anselm during the 11th century AD, in the late 18th century by Immanuel Kant as a regulative principle in his Critique of Judgment and by Carl Jung. It was fundamental to the speculative philosophy of Hegel.

A thing, process, or action is teleological when it is for the sake of an end, i.e., a telos or final cause. In general, it may be said that there are two types of final causes, which may be called intrinsic finality and extrinsic finality.[1]

  • A thing or action has an extrinsic finality when it is for the sake of something external to itself. In a way, people exhibit extrinsic finality when they seek the happiness of a child. If the external thing had not existed that action would not display finality.
  • A thing or action has an intrinsic finality when it is for none other than its own sake. For example, one might try to be happy simply for the sake of being happy, and not for the sake of anything outside of that.

Since the Novum Organum of Francis Bacon, teleological explanations in science tend to be deliberately avoided because whether they are true or false is argued to be beyond the ability of human perception and understanding to judge.[2] Some disciplines, in particular within evolutionary biology, continue to use language that appears teleological when they describe natural tendencies towards certain end conditions. While some argue that these arguments can be rephrased in non-teleological forms, others hold that teleological language is inexpungeable from descriptions in the life sciences.

2) Lamarck:

Jean-Baptiste de Lamarck

A teoria da evolução de Lamarck é fundamentada em três aspectos:

  1. A tendência dos seres para um melhoramento constante rumo à perfeição, um aumento da complexidade dos seres menos desenvolvidos aos mais desenvolvidos; esta tendência seria uma força externa, semelhante a atração gravitacional, que se agisse isoladamente geraria um linha contínua e progressiva.
  2. Porém, esta tendência não atua sozinha na evolução, há a lei do uso e desuso que conjugada com a transmissão dos caracteres adquiridos provoca desvios na linha evolutiva.
  3. O naturalismo depende dos seres vivos para uma base científica e democrática cientificamente por espécies de seres incompreensíveis por natureza.

 

Evolução versus religião na América perturbando escolares, e a Mediação pela Matrix/DNA Theory

sábado, janeiro 4th, 2014

Este assunto na América está ficando muito sério e perigoso, pois veja neste artigo como ele está atormentando dia a dia a vida de professores, estudantes, reitores, políticos, etc. Está até derrubando grandes colégios, quando os financiadores descontentes com o ensino da Evolução retiram seu patrocínio.

Mas o conflito não deveria existir se ambos os lados tivessem um pouco mais de conhecimento sôbre a real Natureza e os profundos significados ocultos em suas criações, ou seja, se soubessem o que a Teoria da Matrix/DNA tem descoberto e reunindo mais evidencias para seus modelos que as duas outras partes juntas.

Tentarei traduzir aqui um inteiro artigo publicado por quem realmente sabe o que está se passando, pois trata-se de um professor que está sendo perseguido num destes colégios, ao mesmo tempo que vou copiando aqui os meus comentários postados no debate que se segue ao artigo.

2013 Was a Terrible Year for Evolution

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/01/02/2013-was-a-terrible-year-for-evolution.html

Karl W. Giberson

By Karl W. Giberson – 2014/01/02/

Meu comentário postado no artigo do The Daily Beast 

MatrixDNA –  

 The problem is not the real natural process of evolution and real facts of origins hidden under the Bible’s scripture. It is all about human interpretations, as discovered now by a new and different interpretation of those real facts, called Matrix/DNA Theory. The facts that Science and the Bible deal with are the same, the interpretations of evolutionists are 50% right and 50% wrong, while the interpretations of Christians are just 50% right where evolutionists are 50% wrong, and vice-versa. Evolution of biological systems is a fact, the problem is the neo-Darwinian theory, pointing out wrong interpretations of real mechanisms and non-complete, since that the three variables VSI – Variation, Selection, Inheritance – are merely half history because the variable are seven, not three. The problem is that Darwin and reductionism has separated Cosmological Evolution and Biological evolution into two blocks without any link between then, and it is a big mistake. Then, the four variable acting here over evolution are not seen, producing gaps and denying the effort of explanations, which are opportunistically used by creationists.

 Genesis, Adam and Even in the Paradise, were not revealed by supernatural beings, it was the memory of ancient people remembering by flashes the history of our ancestors comprising 13,7 billion years, history registered at the memory of our DNA at the center of neurons.  But those flashes were wrong interpreted, the Paradise is the right description of ancestors at the state of thermodynamic system under equilibrium by metaphors.

See a little bit of Matrix/DNA interpretation and discover how it is just the factor that is missing for keeping faith and Science, everybody will be happy.

Tradução:

MatrixDNA –  

O problema não é o real natural processo da Evolução e os reais fatos das origens ocultos sob a escritura da Bíblia. É a respeito das interpretações humanas, tal como foi descoberto agora por uma nova e diferente interpretação daqueles fatos reais, denominada Teoria da Matrix/DNA. Os fatos que a a Ciência e a Bíblia estão abordando são os mesmos, as interpretações dos evolucionistas estão 50% corretas e 50% erradas, enquanto as interpretações dos cristãos são justamente 50% corretas onde evolucionistas são 50% errados, e vice-versa.  A evolução dos sistemas biológicos são um fato, o problema é a teoria neo-darwinista, afirmando errôneas interpretações de real mecanismos naturais, e incompleta, desde que as três variáveis VSI- Variação, Seleção, Hereditariedade – são meramente a metade da história, porque as variáveis são em numero de sete e não três. O problema é que Darwin e o reducionismo têm separado Evolução Cosmológica e Evolução Biológica em dois blocos sem nenhum elo entre eles, e isso é um grande equivoco. Então, as quatro variáveis atuando aqui sobre a evolução não estão sendo vistas, produzindo falhas na teoria da evolução e anulando os esforços de explicações, o que são oportunisticamente usados pelos criacionistas.

Gênese, Adão e Eva no Paraíso, não foram revelados por seres supernaturais, foi apenas a memória do povo antigo se lembrando através de visões relâmpagos e intuições, a história de nossos ancestrais compreendida em 13,7 bilhões de anos, história registrada na memória do nosso DNA, que estão no centro dos neurônios. Mas aquelas visões foram equivocadamente interpretadas, o Paraíso é a correta descrição dos ancestrais no estado de sistemas sob equilíbrio termodinâmico, por metáforas.

Veja um pouco da interpretação da Matrix/DNA e descubra como ela é justamente o fator que está faltando para manter fé e Ciência, e todos serão felizes.

Comentario:

Saltinecracker –  

If God is so great and so perfect then why are their birth defects.So God couldn’t create a being that can’t give birth to something that doesn’t have defects. That doesn’t sound so smart to me nor  God like.

Reply da Matrix/DNA:

MatrixDNA –  

@Saltinecracker  –  That’s an easy answer by creationism. The Creator is responsible by His creation, not for the wrong practice of free will making new wrong creations. And easy answer for Matrix/DNA Theory: our ancestors, about four billions years ago, yet under the primitive evolutionary shape of an astronomical system, choose to be a closed selfish system, cutting relations with external world, closing the doors to Evolution. The Universe reacted applying the force of entropy, the system decayed here, initially under a chaotic state, creating this salvage biosphere in state of chaos, and we, humans, inherited that mistake in shape of selfish genes. So, birth defects are still happening.

Comentario:

GarthMaul – 
If evolution is real, why is it nowhere observed to occur in nature? If science cannot prove that it occurs, why should anyone accept it? Seems to me it is more reasonable to believe in an invisible intelligent creator, than an invisible unintelligent who-knows-what.

Reply da Matrix/DNA:

@GarthMaul  There is a third alternative, you are missing it: an invisible intelligent creator, but, not supernatural. Be it “who-knows-what”, something triggered the Big Bang. Why not a natural intelligent system merely doing the same thing that triggered the Big Bang of an envelope spermatozoon inside an ovule at the initial moment of yours own body? Evolution is proved by 9 months of embryogenesis, when an initial ball of cells evolves into a being. We can’t see Cosmological Evolution due the relativistic effect: the point in time/space that we are as observers is microscopic, while only a macroscopic observer can see evolution as we see it at embryogenesis. So, if you want calling the mysterious system existing before this Universe as God, feel free, no problem for us, agnostics and evolutionists.

Steve50 –  

I thought maybe this article would have some evidence….nope!!! All about being offended that we don’t buy this stuff. We are not like animals. We create. The gulf in between attests to creation. Their is no in between.

Reply da MatrixDNA

MatrixDNA – 

@steve50  Yous said: “The gulf in between attests to creation. There is no in between”

Nope. There are no gulf in betweens. It happens that in Nature there is something called “hierarchy of systems”. If you does not know genetics, you should believe in evolutionary gaps between the shape of a fetus and the shape of an embryo when watching a static movie of embryology. Who works the informations that transforms fetus into embryos is the DNA, a hidden system. Same way has worked biological evolution here, from bacteria to monkeys. It happens that you does not know the real source for biological systems. At Matrix/DNA models we have found that astronomical galactic systems has as building blocks a working primitive system that has all life’s properties. So, the Milk Way is the real LUCA ( the Last Universal Common Ancestor) which Darwin thought that was microscopic and living at earth surface. Every gulf in between at Darwinian theory is now fulfilled by informations supplied by that hidden hierarchic system. I agree that nature is surprising us every day at each discovery, I agree that nature is a job of supreme intelligence, but… my body seems a job of intelligence also and I know that my parents – even that they are intelligent – did not applied any intelligence and no magics for doing me. Why not God?

EABlair –  

I find more dignity and wonder in the notion that I am related, however distantly, to every other living thing on the planet than in believing that my ultimate ancestor started out as a pile of dirt breathed on by an invisible spirit.

Reply by MatrixDNA – 

@EABlair But…the first living being on the planet, from which evolved every living being, with exception of human species, was made by an invisible spirit that breathed a pile of dirt or initial soup. Natural systems are like computers, composed by hardware and software. We created computers merely copying what exists in Nature. I know it because the bits-information that penetrated terrestrial atoms at that soup, were photons radiated by galactic decay, and they drove the atoms to make new combinations, reproducing here the building blocks of galaxies in its biological fashion, as cell’s systems. The anatomy and functionality of those astronomical building blocks are the same we see at a base-pair of nucleotides, the building blocks of DNA. So, there is a photonic counterpart of every natural system, you can call it “software”, or “invisible spirit”, no problem, you are always right. Human species has a novelty, called consciousness, which is the same software of atoms and galaxies. It happens that the “spirit”, or the software, came with the Big Bang, was sleeping at atoms, dreaming at galaxies, began waken up at animals, and lifted up at human beings. You are the one that breathed on that soup.

Something else: we are discovering that the seven principals shapes of any human body under a life’s cycle, vibrating at specific frequencies, the same sequence that vibrates the seven frequencies of any natural light wave. So, natural light is the source that imprints the vital cycle over inertial mass, like dark matter. In other words, light is the first source of a code for life. The Bible says that first God created the light. It seems thru for me now, since that natural light seems to be the arms and hands used by God for creation, everything by natural genetic process. And remember that light is composed by photons, or vice-versa.

somervillechangeling – 

Quote: “Hey, did you know that Adam and Eve were not the first humans and never even existed? And that you can still be a Christian and believe that?”

I have no problems with Adam and Eve not being the first physical humans, but they were the first spiritual humans made in God’s image…

Reply by MatrixDNA –  

@somervillechangeling  Adam and Eve were not the first humans, they were not humans, but, they existed as ancestors of all living beings. The fable of Eden Paradise was written by primitive ancient people with brains not occupied by this accumulated culture in the last 4 thousands years. Their brains were almost empty, so, at their dreams, the neurons produced flashes of scenes and events registered at their DNA’s memory. It happens that DNA is 3,5 billion years old, but its history did not began here. DNA is merely the biological shape of a universal Matrix, a kind of DNA of our ancestors systems, like atoms and galaxies. So, the MatrixDNA  is at least, 13,7 years old, and its whole life’s history is registered at our DNA, most of them, registered at those 300 genes that emerged with the first living being, and today is the most part of “junk DNA”. The description of Eden Paradise by biblical authors is a metaphor for describing the building blocks of galaxies, which were our ancestors, which is registered at our DNA . If you describes a closed perfect natural system under thermodynamic equilibrium, yours description with “scientific words” will describes the same images of an Eden Paradise. I have the system designed here and I can see here every symbol used in Bible: the serpent, the tree, the apple, a paradisiac system, and the system has a circuit  composed by two flows of informations. it happens that those two energetic flows works exactly as works the spermatozoon and ovule at sexual organisms. What the problem if the biblical writers – who never saw a spermatozoon and ovule – choose a name for them, like Adam and Eve? Really they were our female and male ancestors, but, hey, when the top of evolution was the galactic shape. The fable of the Paradise in Genesis was not revealed by supernatural beings, neither by God: it was merely sweet memories from the past when our ancestors where like Gods… without consciousness…  Even the entropic decay of that system could be described as The Fall of Adam and Even, and the beginning here as “the sons of necessity” because here they lifted up as opened systems.  C.S. Lews was pretty right !

somervillechangeling – 
@Saltinecracker  –

I’m inclined to doubt evolution just as much as I doubt intelligent design. Both sides cherry pick arguments and have axioms that I’m not sure will hold up as viable in the next civilization that replaces ours as ours did the medieval.

Reply by 

MatrixDNA – 

@somervillechangeling @Saltinecracker  – Intelligent Designer has some good points, like the irreducible reversibility to a LUCA existing at Earth. Life at earth is product of a design, the source of this design never existed at Earth, but that source was not an intelligent being. Like the genome of yours parents that designed yours body was not intelligent being. LUCA (the Last Universal Common Ancestor) of all living beings is the building blocks of galaxies, and its picture is at my website. Every detail of any living body of any species are reducible to LUCA, but LUCA leaves in the sky. I don’t know and don’t have yet the picture of the system that triggered the Big Bang. The MatrixDNA theoretical models are suggesting that that system must be a conscious intelligent system, since that we are seeing consciousness being reproduced here. But the models suggests that inside this Universe is occurring a process of genetic reproduction, reproduction of that ex-machine system. if you want call it God, no problem with that. I know that the origins of life here did not require intelligence.

 XXXXXXX

Obs: Meu nickname no Daily é MatrixDNA

XXXXXXX

Tradução do Artigo no The Daily Beast

2013 Foi um Terrível Ano para Evolução

Nunca duvide da crescente evidencia – 64 por cento dos Protestantes Evangélicos e brancos rejeitam a ciência, e professores dos Colégios cristãos são atacados se a noticia de que estão ensinando evolução se espalha para alem da escola.

Evolução não trabalhou bem em 2013. O ano terminou com o livro ante-evolucionista “A Duvida de Darwin” como best seller na categoria de paleontologia da Amazon. O estado do Texas consumiu uma boa parte do ano tentando manter o mais respeitado texto da Biologia para o médio ensino fora das escolas publicas. E o líder ante-evolucionista e administrador do Creation Museum, Ken Ham, fêz seu discurso anual dizendo que “o prego final tinha sido posto no tumulo da pobre e cambaleante teoria da evolução do Darwin.

( continuar esta tradução quando o tempo permitir)

Evolution did not fare well in 2013. The year ended with the anti-evolution bookDarwin’s Doubt as Amazon’s top seller in the “Paleontology” category. The state of Texas spent much of the year trying to keep the country’s most respected high school biology text out of its public schools. And leading anti-evolutionist and Creation Museum curator Ken Ham made his annual announcement that the “final nail” had been pounded into the coffin of poor Darwin’s beleaguered theory of evolution

 

 

Debate no Youtube: How the Universe came from “Nothing”, Richard Dawkins and Lawrence Krauss discuss

domingo, dezembro 30th, 2012

How the Universe came from “Nothing”, Richard Dawkins and Lawrence Krauss discuss

https://www.youtube.com/all_comments?v=CXGyesfHzew

XXXXXXXXXXX

TheMatrixDNA

TheMatrixDNADec – 30 – r:03 AM

Dawkins, like Darwin, had reduced the Universe into terrestrial events for analyzing biological history. They conclude by evolution and tried to identify its mechanisms. But… a microbe living inside a womb watching the embryogenese of a human fetus should conclude by evolution. We, outside the womb knows that evolution is not the ultimate event, it is “reproduction”. Amplifying our vision to the time/space of universal history leads us to see reproduction of Universes with another mechanisms.

XXX

TheMatrixDNA

TheMatrixDNA 1 second ago

Universe is not magic,he can’t create new information from nothing. So, he only can make a new thing, system, by the same process he was made. He can’t invent from nothing new information for other kind of process. We are a new system, so, if we want to know how the Universe was made, we have the process by which we were made. Our body started with a Big Bang, explosion of spermatozoon from initial singularity. What’s was before our fecundation? Another thing like us, conscious, natural. So?

Ninguem me “Cutuca” No Maior Debate da História que Está Acontecendo Agora No Youtube? Brasileiros! Tucuta-me…please! (5)

segunda-feira, outubro 8th, 2012

(Vai lá e clique no botão com o polegar prá cima – claro, se você concordar com meu comentário)  Esta é a quarta parte dêste artigo, vide as três anteriores, numeros 3, 2 e 1) . Foram perdidos muitos posts da Matrix devido uma revisão que desapareceu do blog ( principalmente posts do dia 08). Neus posts estão em dois nomes: TheMatrixDNA e Austriak1)

( Deletar PC Cleaner Urgente! Perdí Todos os posts entre 11 e 13)

Ultimos posts da Matrix/DNA: (perdidos posts de 04, thuesday, devido PC cleaner)

XXX

Posts modêlos para entrada todos os dias:

My question:

Saying that God creates Universes and man that seems like him inside it is not problem because humans also creates eggs and men inside it. Saying that Universes becomes a hot and concentrated small dot and explodes becoming again Universe is not problem because a big adult human becomes small egg and after the sperm “explosion” becomes adult again. But saying God lives inside Universes and Universes evolves without purpose are problems because I can’t see these things in Nature. What’s up?

Louis Charles Morelli 1 second ago

As an agnostic and defending a new and unknown evolutionary theory different than ToE, I want for my kids ToE in science classrooms and ID obligatory in social/philosophical class. Evolution is not understood if only based on biological history, so, ToE is non complete “theory” and is necessary that it be criticized and checked by ID. ToE has no intellectual support for a meaning of our existence as religions does for avoiding kids falling on drugs, and ToE alone will not keep free thought.

Louis Charles Morelli 1 second ago – 8:56 PM – Tue – 09 – Oct.

I think Bill Nye is the expression of a second wave of Enlightenment, as happened at 18th century, due human Reason reaching a new shape in its vital cycle. Philosophers joining to scientists and atheists against those fantasies of Reason’s baby times, promoting science and intellectual interchange and opposed superstition, intolerance and some abuses by church and state. If the first wave was based in Newton ( after Copernicus and Galileo), now it is largely based in Darwin and Astronomy.

Louis Charles Morelli 1 second ago – 7:14 PM – Oct – 12

Creationist “faith” can not be explained rationally based on current scientific view of the world. But, at same time this faith is an aberration produced by Nature, this aberration can not be explained because the scientific current world view does not translate the real world. This faith is product of expression of data storaged in the wrong called junk/DNA, real data about real world of times beyond 4 billion years. People with this faith has hard-wired brain confused by these memories.

XXX – PERDÍ OS POSTS ENTRE 11 E 13.  RECOPIA-LOS.

TrueVerdicts: You haven’t criticized my post: “Science does not explain what does not exists. Time-Space are not entities “per se”, they are human imaginary creations. Think the Universe as a ball. Beyond the ball is nothing, infinite. There is no space in nothing. Now, take any object from the ball and put it outside. Now you have a distance for measurement. You created space. Something for time. Imagine everything stopping moving and coming back moving again. How much time in between? Zero…

Louis Charles Morelli 1 hour ago – 7:00 PM – Oct – 13

XXX

Here are creationists and immediate naturalists debating. They want to model the formation of children’s minds of the world. But, there are a minority – the cosmic naturalists agnostics – that also has its own model. We want our voice be heard here also. As said “illegalconspiracy”, a child with mind structured upon lots of evidences of a natural process of biological evolution interpreted by modern Darwinism will be a believer in an almost magical blind God acting without any guidance (cont.).

For us, biological evolution, the change into news species over long time, is obvious. In another hand, although we consider the indoctrination of children by a doctrine expressed in Bible is a prejudices to their healthy, we try to see the world from a cosmological point of view, and our suspection is that this process is not blind, what leaves opened to possibilities, included a non-biblical kind of “god”. So, although evolution must be a fact, the Darwinian interpretation must be a theory.

XXX

OT, huh? Well…

“Slaves, obey your earthly masters with fear and trembling, with a sincere heart, as you would Christ” Ephesians 6:5

“Slaves, obey your earthly masters in everything; and do it, not only when their eye is on you and to win their favor, but with sincerity of heart and reverence for the Lord.” Colossians 3:22

“Christians who are slaves should give their masters full respect so that the name of God and his teaching will not be shamed.” 1 Timothy 6:1

So much for that.

That’s why earthly masters are the fundies of Christianism and appreciate that book – the Bible. And why you see the high authorities of the church always hand by hand with earthly masters. The very group of predators, mimicking the rules of the salvage system of the jungle for building social systems for humans. That’s why I hate that book since everybody treats me all my life as slave because I was born without family and homeless. I don’t understand why the preys are so indoctrinated.

XXX

since many times creationists are accused of inhibiting science because of their presuppositions (the God-did-it-so-there’s-nothing-­more-to-study idea; but in reality, it’s just the opposite—“God did it” so we have every reason to study it!). Creationists for many years have argued that non-coding DNA is not junk (see “Junk” DNA Is Not Junk)

And now the scientific thought is acting as a science-stopper again. Due some success explaining evolution by Darwinian mechanisms and due our Astronomy still beginning and doing wrong cosmological models (as the wrong model of spontaneous generation of astronomic bodies), modern scientists don’t are stimulated to search the links between cosmological and biological evolution. The result is that changing in species are not understood because there are mechanisms coming from cosmology.

XXX

Ohno stated, “The earth is strewn with fossil remains of extinct species; is it a wonder that our genome too is filled with the remains of extinct genes?”1 Due to his evolutionary presupposition, he assumed that non-coding DNA was merely a “genetic fossil” that may have been useful somewhere in our evolutionary past but had been discarded as we evolved into more complex, higher organisms. Since this “junk” DNA was no longer needed,

Ohno had great intuition, he is in the right track. But he is touching something deeper, he can’t imagine that. Since we discovered that the fundamental unit of information of DNA – a horizontal base-pair of nucleotides – is just a copy of the fundamental building block of old galaxies, we have everything for supposing that DNA is merely the biological shape of a universal Matrix evolving since the Big Bang. If so, junk-DNA is memory of 13,7 billions years of evolution!

XXX

Mutation and natural selection, thought to be the driving forces of evolution, only lead to a loss of functional systems. Therefore, antibiotic resistance of bacteria is not an example of evolution in action but rather variation within a bacterial kind. It is also a testimony to the wonderful design God gave bacteria, master adapters and survivors in a sin-cursed world.

Not in relation to a closed system. Entropy attacks these systems beginning at periphery and advancing internally towards the center. There are no loss of energy/mass but degradation. From periphery goes the bits-information of that system, but if these bits reaches a platform, like a planet surface, a neuron in the brain, they have two alternatives: mixing with locals elements, reorganizing themselves as mutants end lift up as a new system. Or, as in Alzheimer’s, they does not re-organizes.

XXX

I’m pretty sure you know the Bible isn’t written in English, close enough is what we get, as long as the meaning is exactly what it is supposed to be expressed as, the Bible is surely more perfect than any other book available today. You should tell a judge that eye witness is INCREDIBLY FLAWED and there are no truthful people in the world, not even if God’s inspiration is flowing, OH WELL you wouldn’t ever get that. Besides they have no gain in writing a biased testimony, doing it to die.

I have my own theory about the Bible. Some events and places described in Genesis ( the Garden Paradise, Adam/Even, the selfish serpent, the fall to Earth) are real metaphorical but exactly descriptions of the state of the world and the event occurred before abiogenesis. They describes the body and process of LUCA – the Last Universal Non-Biological Ancestor. But I Ching, The Secret Doctrine, also describes the same LUCA. Explanation? Memory of past times registered into junk/DNA.

XXX

1GODISNOWHERE1: “Nothing in the periodic table of elements needs Darwin’s theories”

They need. The elements are different, diversified, because their origins was under the laws of evolution. Mendeleev discovered that each element of positions derived from 7 have the same properties. And Matrix/DNA discovered that different shapes of those elements corresponds to the different shapes of living beings under vital cycle. So, lithium and neon are babies, beryllium and magnesium are kids, etc. Louis Charles Morelli 1:56 PM – Wed -17

XXX

I wonder what the more believable theory is: that everything was created from nothing during the big bang or that matter was already here and was just re-organized by a higher intelligence into what we now call the universe. Higher intelligence or nothing that is our choices.

BigWater59 1 hour ago

I think there is a problem about the scientific community interpretation of Big Bang and this problem is that the Universe is being studied by Physics and its theories are elaborated with mathematical intellectual exercises. One sample? Physics arrived to “maximal amount of entropy” causing the Big Bang. But, a biocentric view see universes produced by Big Bangs as spermatozoon explosions and zygotes being formed due entropy attacking a human body system. Which method is the best? I don’t know.

Louis Charles Morelli in reply to BigWater59 (Show the comment) 1 second ago

XXX

This has been flagged as spam hide • 

1) Creationism is the beleif that a diety created everythign out of nothing…it is the ONLY concept put forth that says From Nothing

2) Big Bang says from a singularity..an expansion from condensed matter.NOT from nothing

This will natural lead to “Well then where did the singularity come from?” which is an argument from ignorance.

Personally, I tend towards the veiw that the universe is eternal and cyclic and that eventually it will colapse back into a singularity and repeat

whiteowl1415 in reply to BigWater59 (Show the comment) 33 minutes ago

All things that are cyclic replicates the last shape automatically, does not need repeats internal evolution again and again. Sample: the first cell system was organized by symbioses, but after that it does not do it anymore, it merely replicates. There is other argument for a theory of recycling universes?

Louis Charles Morelli in reply to whiteowl1415 21 minutes ago

This has been flagged as spam hide • 

Things that are cyclic repeat stages, they need not do so the same way.

Seaons are cyclic, this does not mean it is going to rain on the exact same days every spring or that the snow will fall in the exact same amount.

The cycles can contain internal variation.

Note I said I beleive, not proven, but…

Stars convert lighter elements to heavier ones, logicaly we will eventually end up with only the heaviest which through gravity of thier mass should recolapse

whiteowl1415 in reply to Louis Charles Morelli (Show the comment) 16 minutes ago

Ok… I think we are based in two different things: I am based in systems and you in processes. That’s why I appeal to a system (a cell) and you to a process ( seasons). The weird question is: the universe is a system or a process? If it is a process, you earned, the universe is self-recycling. But, I am not sure. Stars makes heavier elements. But I always search parameter in Nature here. Womb’s cells makes dense placenta for discarding it in name of embryonic evolution, not re-cycles.

Louis Charles Morelli in reply to whiteowl1415 (Show the comment) 1 second ago

This has been flagged as spam hide • 

Nothing in nature isn’t recycled.

Amoung other animals, the placental is often reconsumed by the parents.

When it isn’t it nourishes the soil for plants.

People waste, nature never does.

whiteowl1415 in reply to Louis Charles Morelli 8 minutes ago

Again, our problem is “process or system?” You said that your preferred theory is a self-recycling universe. I prefer an universe under evolution reproducing an old universe but increasing a little bit of complexity. Reconsumed placenta is a process among a lots of them that composes a whole system. In relation to embryonic evolution and its womb, placenta is discarded forever. In relation to Universes, matter will be discarded in name of an embryo of counciousness. You are part of that embryo.

Louis Charles Morelli in reply to whiteowl1415 (Show the comment) 1 second ago

XXX

We have no acceptable theory of evolution at the present time. There is none; and I cannot accept the theory that I teach to my students each year. Let me explain. I teach the synthetic theory known as the neoDarwinian one, for one reason only; not because it’s good, we know it is bad, but because there isn’t any other. Whilst waiting to find something better you are taught something which is known to be inexact, which is a first approximation

–Professor Jerome Lejeune, Lecture in Paris

JoelMckay69 2 minutes ago

There are other theories than neoDarwinian theory that has found as existent the natural process of evolution, working with different mechanisms and suggesting new worldviews. Then, why you don’t know them? Because they can’t be published, the established mindset does not permit it. For instance, I will talk about Matrix/DNA Theory, which arose applying the method of comparative anatomy between living and non-living systems – trying to find a link. But, the found link is not ideologic accepted

Louis Charles Morelli in reply to JoelMckay69 – 12:38 AM – Tue – 16

That is not an argument against evolution it is an argument against abiogenesis. I take it you’re a Matrix student?

BigWater59 in reply to Louis Charles Morelli 3 minutes ago

Yes, the theory is not argument against evolution, as I said: “it found as existent, the natural process of evolution”. The problem is about the differences between the final results between the two theories. 1) The link of Matrix/DNA is the same LUCA – the last common ancestor of all biological systems – hypothesized by Darwin, but Matrix/DNA found LUCA to be an astronomical system and not a microscope organism; 2) Matrix/DNA suggests 7 variables instead 3 of ToE. This changes the whole view.

Louis Charles Morelli in reply to BigWater59 (Show the comment) 1 second ago

I am sorry Louis but that is still a biogenesis argument not genesis argument. I understand the basics of matrix but it still doesn’t fit into this debate.

BigWater59 in reply to Louis Charles Morelli (Show the comment) 1 minute ago

Yes it is a genesis argument also. What is the first moment of your body? The “”big bang”of a spermatozoon inside an egg. Now, try to project this real event here over the Big Bang theory and see the Universe as an cosmic egg. But then, the event here suggests that was there, before the Big Bang, a previous design for evolution here, inside the parents (system) that produced the Big Bang. It is genesis by a natural being without using intelligence and magics, but with consciousness. Makes sense.

Louis Charles Morelli in reply to BigWater59 (Show the comment) 1 second ago

Actually you have a good point and that is what really exist without consciousness to understand it. Is there an universe without conscience life. Good question which I would say no. Nice point.

BigWater59 in reply to Louis Charles Morelli (Show the comment) 26 minutes ago

The problem arises when we try to develop this theory, trying to go deeper into the final mystery..The models suggests that any wave of natural light is the code for imprinting life into inertial mass. You can see why in the theory website. So, it suggests that the ex-machine system that triggered the Big Bang made it using only light. But the source of this light seems to be a kind of vortex (based in QM). Is it “the natural god” a kind of vortex? A vortex with consciousness?! I am lost now

Louis Charles Morelli in reply to BigWater59 (Show the comment) 1 second ago

You’re a little over the top now and I am not a matrix student so bring it down a little so we can understand your point.

BigWater59 in reply to Louis Charles Morelli (Show the comment) 6 minutes ago

The theory is based in a formula made like a computer’s software diagram but at same time is a unit of genetic information. The surprisingly thing is that all known natural systems fits exactly when superposed upon the formula, suggesting that the formula is the way nature organizes matter into systems, from atoms to galaxies to human bodies. Later, we noticed that the functions of that formula can be expressed as the seven different frequencies of light waves and it explains the vital cycles.

Louis Charles Morelli in reply to BigWater59 (Show the comment) 1 second ago

XXX

To say that Humans evolved is to say that intelligence/science saw birth with Humans — that science was at stage zero prior to Humans — as humans are the most intelligent entities — this is conflicting, because there existed things beyond human understanding prior to humans. <= Do grasp your mind very well around this. This only concludes that there was intelligence prior to humans which engineered them.

TrueVerdicts 3 days ago

I don’t understand. It is not what Nature is showing here and now. The nowadays bodies of human beings are made by parents through natural genetic process without parents applying intelligence and although it happens, these bodies evolves and reveals intelligence. That is the real way nature works facing our eyes. So, a rational mind must apply the same process when inquiring the origins of first human beings. The non-living matter must have the forces for intelligence, but doesn’t applied it.

Louis Charles Morelli in reply to TrueVerdicts (Show the comment) 1 second ago

XXX

Only one problem(if Bill is honest) with his narrow-minded assertions. The fossil record. As every paleontologist knows, the fossil record displays a consistent pattern of sudden appearance followed by stasis, that life’s history reflects variation around a set of basic models rather than one of accumulating improvement and finally that mass extinction has been predominantly by catastrophe rather than gradual obsolescence.

Jonathan Michaels 3 hours ago

These three questions are solved by Matrix/DNA Theory, unifying cosmological and biological evolution. The most complex non living system must be direct ancestor of the less complex biological system – of course. Since this ancestor is astronomical – it is the building block of galaxies, a system that works as perfect natural machine and shows all life’s properties – and the first living is microscope, Nature used the same process we see here when miniaturizes a human body inside chromosomes.

Louis Charles Morelli in reply to Jonathan Michaels – 7:47 ÃM – Mon – 15

XXX

First there was simple single celled life. Then suddenly, about 530 million years ago, most major animal phyla were here. The fossil evidence is missing showing how life went from the single cells to the major complex divisions of animal life we have today. After the early Cambria era explosion of life there is fossil evidence that that life was now here. But no fossil evidence beforehand showing how simple single celled organisms suddenly became very, very, very complex.

EphraimManasseh in reply to narco73 (Show the comment) 35 minutes ago

No. The Big Bang of “your life” can be watched here and now, every time is exploded the envelope of a spermatozoon inside an ovule. The Universe only can create things like itself was created. Abiogenese is not going from single soup to single cell, it is about the almost perfect closed system that works like a machine called “galaxy” and nanotechnologically going to a single biological cell. Mother Nature does not play dice with us. She is showing here how she works. Why are you cheating her?!

Louis Charles Morelli in reply to EphraimManasseh (Show the comment) 16 minutes ago

XXX

(Fill in the blank, whatever your blank is) bless Bill Nye. My childhood, for what little of it you were a part of, was that much more awesome while you were in it. Let’s hope you’re right. Let’s hope in the future, the outdated ways of thinking which rule today are gone. Replaced by education and knowledge rather than fear and overreaction. The only saving We All Need is from ignorance.

homewherehorrorlives 18 minutes ago

“The only saving We All Need is from ignorance.” That’s the most beautiful phrase I like and I would ad my bit: “and saved from our selfish gene”. This selfishness expresses in everybody. The result is forgetting that our little brain facing this immense mystery can not grasp the final Truth. So, we watch evolution here, but is it blind without purpose? I watch evolution inside a womb, a shape of blastula becoming unrecognizable in the next shape as fetus. But, then…there is purpose. So?!

Louis Charles Morelli in reply to homewherehorrorlives (Show the comment) 1 second ago

XXX

These debates are mostly useless. I never try and “win”, I just interject verses from the Bible and let God work on your hearts when you read them.

1 Thessalonians 2:13 For this cause also thank we God without ceasing, because, when ye received the word of God which ye heard of us, ye received it not as the word of men, but as it is in truth, the word of God, which effectually worketh also in you that believe.

The1Indignitary 10 minutes ago

It does not works with me. The History of America, my ancestors, its fairy tiles, folklore and traditions in first place, that’s what I want for my kids, not those of foreign origins. And there are no mentions of interventions of God in our History. So, if the god of foreign people is real, he has not talking with us, then, he is not real for us and not our friend. You are practicing mental terrorism on my kids. Let’s the people of America alone for discovering the meaning of our existence.

Louis Charles Morelli in reply to The1Indignitary7:43 – PM – Oct – 13

XXX

Why do so many Christians pretend that science and/or evolution are religions? This is a difficult question to answer because there are so many possibilities. Perhaps religion so controls their lives that they can’t think outside of religious categories. Perhaps they can’t imagine that anything which makes strong claims isn’t religious.

IDisnotscience 42 minutes ago

They have something (a fault on modern scientific thought) for hold on: 1) Darwin should never talk this: the diversification of life shows that species were not created one by one ( by God). Because Darwin was not prepared for explaining the origins of species; 2) Scientific worldview resists to link cosmological evolution with biological evolution and had inserted, in this big abism, the magical thinking of randomness. Scientists need avoiding to extrapolate to worldviews for avoiding enemies

Louis Charles Morelli in reply to IDisnotscience 7:24 PM – OCt – 13

XXX

1) Your science is simply an extremely negligible STUDY of an existing, indescribably sophisticated science/intelligence. Nothing simply ‘be’ be it not Time-Space. The engineering of the tree is the utmost science; the making of the star is the utmost science, the systematic, purposeful, flawlessly timed, synchronizing of cosmological entities is the utmost science; the engineering of the brain is the utmost science…

TrueVerdicts 48 minutes ago

Search the natural matrix formula that organizes matter into systems and discover from where is coming all this “engineering”. If after that you will say loud that this is the formula created by God for creating things in these Universe without magics, I will show for you that this formula is coming from something natural, extra-universe. But you still will say that the extra-universal was created by God… and here I will stop. I don’t know.

Louis Charles Morelli in reply to TrueVerdicts (Show the comment) 1 second ago

XXX

1)Do you realize that your science, as a subject of Time-Space, is lesser than Time-Space, making Time-Space greater (than all) — as such, your science CANNOT explain Time-Space. And, it certainly not with physical approach. Your science is very negligible. It’s no hot stuff! It’s sad that you believe that Time-Space can explain by physics alone. You ought to be begin to understand that Time-Space simply ‘be’; that, in itself is illogical, metaphysical, it cannot be explained with physics.

TrueVerdicts 38 minutes ago

Science does not explain what does not exists. Time-Space are not entities the per se, they are human imaginary creations. Think the Universal as a ball. Beyond the ball is nothing, infinite. There is no space in nothing. Now, take any object from the ball and put it outside. Now you have a distance for measurement. You created the space. Something for time. Imagine everything stopping moving and coming back moving again. How much time was there? Zero.There is measurement of a chain of events.

Louis Charles Morelli in reply to TrueVerdicts (Show the comment) 1 second ago

XXX

Your science will erroneously claim that intelligence dwells within biology, as it seeks to deny all possibilities of anything outside of physics. Intelligence does not reside in the body. “Thoughts” may, allegedly, be influenced in the manner you mentioned as a result of the mechanism/the biology being affected by the drug; i.e, when you alter/impact a vehicle’s part, the vehicle may perform differently; this does not mean the operator/driver/intelligence of the vehicle is ONE with it!

TrueVerdicts 32 minutes ago

Alzheimer’s is proof that intelligence/consciousness resides in our bodies. As the brain decays so does the intelligence and personality. Your ‘soul’ assertion dissolved with a single physical decay.

mechanicmike69 in reply to TrueVerdicts (Show the comment) 25 minutes ago

I will suggest an argument for your theory. Think about a computer decay like Alzheimer, but, die fire. The hardware goes destroyed, but what happens with the software? As said mechanicmike69, the scientific theory uses Alzheimer as evidence that consciousness reside in our body. I think that computers are evidence that consciousness is separated. The software resident in computer is destroyed but the same software is in other places, like the mind of his creator, other computers. Do you agree?

Louis Charles Morelli in reply to TrueVerdicts (Show the comment) 1 second ago

The “software” in humans is the interconnection of billions of nerve cells, that die when you die and have no duplicate copies. Your argument is rediculous.

HodadWah in reply to Louis Charles Morelli (Show the comment) 32 minutes ago

Hold on. Bits in a computer does not organizes themselves for running a software and does not creates their own software. And for clues that my argument is ridiculous you need bring on the paper peer-reviewed that reveals the mechanisms by which neurons are related to thought. There is no one. My theoretical models suggests that a natural software composed by photons is transmitted by galaxies over primordial soups driven abiogenesis. This software, later, becomes human consciousness. Weird,but

Louis Charles Morelli in reply to HodadWah (Show the comment) 1 second ago

xxx

EVOLUTION DOESN’T MAKE FOSSILS; FOSSILS ARE NOT EVIDENCE OF EVOLUTION. STOP HIJACKING THE EVIDENCE OF THE GLOBAL FLOOD OF NOAH FOR YOUR EVIL ATHEISTIC PSEUDOSCIENCE OF EVIL EVOLUTIONISM.

HISTRUTHBEKNOWN in reply to ExtantFrodo2 (Show the comment) 1 hour ago

That’s funny! You say that one real natural phenomena – the amount of collected fossils – are being used by evil evolutionism as evidence for evolution, and at the same time, you point out one real natural evidence that sometimes in that place in the past had some flood and uses it by yours evil religionism as evidence for your imaginary fairy tales. If you think this behavior is a sin, why you do it?!!

Louis Charles Morelli in reply to HISTRUTHBEKNOWN 1 hour ago

Because he is mentally ill.

HodadWah in reply to Louis Charles Morelli 4 minutes ago

What should mean that his brain is hard-wired in a non natural way? And maybe due indoctrination? I think that my brain is not hard-wired correctly also and I explain it by the fact that I am product of a chaotical biosphere that has tortured me mentally. But, if he have problems we need try to help him going back to the right track. My theory suggests that the supreme goal of evolution here and now is evolution of human brains and that we need all human brains evolving for our collective future

Louis Charles Morelli in reply to HodadWah (Show the comment) 1 second ago

I have waisted enough of my time trying to explain things to religious people. They do not get it and I think never will. I now try to humiliate them with their beliefs. But you go for it. I enjoy reading your post.

HodadWah in reply to Louis Charles Morelli 1 minute ago

I understand that you are upset due religious prejudicing yours goals. I was just reading Cosmic Log where comments criticizing NASA for spending money with Curiosity for finding pieces of metals. I will give my last dollar for NASA doing it because I need cosmic expansion, and religious does not help. But I don’t agree with humiliation, I think it does not work either. They are our brothers, we need find a kind of method for bringing them to our team, but, it needs be good for them also.

Louis Charles Morelli in reply to HodadWah (Show the comment) 2 seconds ago

XXX

EVOLUTION DOESN’T MAKE FOSSILS; FOSSILS ARE NOT EVIDENCE OF EVOLUTION. STOP HIJACKING THE EVIDENCE OF THE GLOBAL FLOOD OF NOAH FOR YOUR EVIL ATHEISTIC PSEUDOSCIENCE OF EVIL EVOLUTIONISM.

HISTRUTHBEKNOWN in reply to ExtantFrodo2 (Show the comment) 4 minutes ago

That’s funny! You say that one real natural phenomena – the amount of collected fossils – are being used by evil evolutionism as evidence for evolution, and at the same time, you point out one real natural evidence that sometimes in that place in the past had some flood and uses it by yours evil religionism as evidence for your imaginary fairy tales. If you think this behavior is a sin, why you do it?!!

Louis Charles Morelli in reply to HISTRUTHBEKNOWN (Show the comment) 2 seconds ago

XXX

This argument looks like it’s gonna go on forever….

VitalSubtlety 15 minutes ago

Not forever. The reliance on evidence for making decisions, for understanding what is true, for establishing one’s position with regard to everything else – is growing. Religions rely on non-evidence , are based on faith, and fail as means to find truth. With the internet, more people see this and abandon the old ways.

ExtantFrodo2 in reply to VitalSubtlety (Show the comment) 10 minutes ago

Congratulations! You wrote what is happening with the right words. I think that religion has been propagating inside churches/schools by that authoritarian strategy of one-direction-dialogue. Nobody in a mass can stop the priest for asking questions when don’t understand/don’t accept something. Now, with Internet, everybody can see  doctrine questions enunciated and has the courage for doing what has been afraid to do. God Bless the Internet…oh…I mean… PinkUnicorn bless the Internet…

Louis Charles Morelli in reply to ExtantFrodo2 (Show the comment) 1 second ago

XXX

Part 1 of 2

You can’t deny God from ignorance as you aren’t all knowing. What you don’t know is infinitely more than what you believe you know but is mostly wrong. Only a superior intelligence could and did create all that exists that humans didn’t and can’t reproduce in the world nor could or does mindless & lifeless chemical elements by chance. This leaves only God, a superior intelligence/being, as a reasonable and intellectually honest option.

HISTRUTHBEKNOWN in reply to TheRainmaker2001 (Show the comment) 18 minutes

Please, tell me how and which method have you used when connecting the real and natural amount of proved data we have today and show me the final picture did you got? I did my own search for knowledge of those data, I choose a method (comparative anatomy between all known natural systems) for connecting all that data, I got a final picture, which is not suggesting any magic intervention of gods, from since before the origins of this Universe to nowadays. I am very curious to know your picture.

Louis Charles Morelli in reply to HISTRUTHBEKNOWN (Show the comment) 1 second ago

One cannot have knowledge/science of things presumed/imagined, which do not happen, and have hot happened and which cannot be reproduced. Pond scum to you evolution never happened or happens.

EVOLUTIONISM IS A LIE AND PSEUDOSCIENCE AND SCIENCE FICTION ATHEISTIC STYLE. IT HAS BECOME THE RELIGION OF THE ATHEISTIC SORT.

COMPARATIVE ANATOMY DOESN’T SUBSTANTIATE YOUR IMAGINED NOTIONS THAT A BEAR BECAME A WHALE; A MONKEY BECAME A HUMAN, THAT BIRDS CAME FROM DINOSAURS. THIS IS INSANE & UNSCIENTIFIC.

HISTRUTHBEKNOWN in reply to Louis Charles Morelli (Show the comment) 3 minutes

You are right…lol! One cannot get the final Truth (if have one) based solely in all data we know today. Any methodical exercise of connecting the known data shows blank spaces where is missing data. But we need some guide, meanings that makes sense, then we do the connection and hypothesizes how should be that missing data and get a final picture. This is called “theory”. Sample? The Higgs bosom. It is a guide for next search, experiments. Still waiting your picture.

Louis Charles Morelli in reply to HISTRUTHBEKNOWN (Show the comment) 1 second ago

Comparative anatomy is the most ancient and authentic method for rational theories about the unknown. Opening the bodies of animals instead the body of humans was the method for inferring what was inside the human body, which substantiates ancient medicine. We don’t know the natural forces that drove abiogenesis, then, take the state of the world of that time, put the existent systems, atoms and galaxies, over the table, and do comparisons with the first cells systems. Get theories of forces.

Louis Charles Morelli in reply to HISTRUTHBEKNOWN (Show the comment) 2 seconds

YOU’RE SO STUPID AND CAN’T THINK FOR YOURSELF.

WHO SAW A BEAR BECOME A WHALE, OR DINOSAUR BECOME A BIRD, OR AN APELIKE CREATURE BECOME A HUMAN, OR CHEMICAL ELEMENTS IN WARM POOLS OR WATER SPONTANEOUSLY GENERATE THE ALLEGED COMMON ANCESTOR OF ALL AND THEN ITS TRANSMUTATION INTO ALL THE LIFE FORMS THAT EVER LIVED? EVOLUTION FROM POND SCUM TO ALL THAT EVER LIVED WAS AND IS NEVER SEEN FOR REPEATED TESTING AS THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD REQUIRES. THEREFORE, EVOLUTIONISM IS ATHEISTIC PSEUDOSCIENCE/SCIENCE

HISTRUTHBEKNOWN in reply to Louis Charles Morelli (Show the comment) 3 minutes ago

You are right. The great transformations of, to say, reptiles into mammals, are not well explained solely by the three mechanisms of ToE: Variation, Selection, Inheritance. Then, what a rational mind should do? Go back re-observing everything. Put the galaxy over the table, put the reptile inside the galaxy, stands above the galaxy and think. One day, one year, or 30 years like I did, no matter, think. I got an answer: there are more four mechanisms added to those three. I got my mammal. Theory

Louis Charles Morelli in reply to HISTRUTHBEKNOWN (Show the comment) 1 second ago

Are you saying that I can’t think by myself and you can, then, I should accept like a ewe your conclusions? You are insulting my intelligence. Ne pas jamais. But I like to learn and changing real information. If you go straight to the data…

Louis Charles Morelli in reply to HISTRUTHBEKNOWN (Show the comment) 1 second

COMPARING ALL CARS AND THEIR ENGINES DOESN’T MEAN THAT THIS COMPARATIVE EXAMINATION CONFIRMS THAT CARS EVOLVED BY ACCIDENTAL COLLABORATION OF MINDLESS AND LIFELESS CHEMICAL ELEMENTS. DID YOU WAIT FOR YOUR CAR AND HOME TO MAKE ITSELF?

WHY ARE YOU INCAPABLE OF RATIONAL CRITICAL THINKING? WHY DO YOU LOVE THE LIE OF EVIL EVOLUTIONISM? WHAT SIN DO YOU LOVE OVER THE TRUTH OF GOD?

YOUR IDEA OF THEORIES IS ACTUALLY VILE FOOLISH HUMAN IMAGINATION.

HISTRUTHBEKNOWN in reply to Louis Charles Morelli (Show the comment) 3 minutes ago

Comparative anatomy does not work in this way, it works only applied over real natural wholes systems. But the comparison of cars, since the carriage pulled by horses to a BMW suggests evidences for a process of evolution and suggests the existence of an external agent driven this evolution. Since it is not a living thing, the evolution happens in the agent, not in the cars. If a future car gets artificial intelligence, it should evolve by itself. That’s what happens since origins of life.

Louis Charles Morelli in reply to HISTRUTHBEKNOWN (Show the comment) 2 seconds ago

GOD DOESN’T LIE. MAN DOES. WHY ARE YOU LYING FOR EVIL EVOLUTIONISM?

THE CAMBRIAN EXPLOSION OF LIFE FALSIFIES EVOLUTIONISM, AS DOES THE FOSSILIFEROUS SEDIMENTARY WITH BILLIONS OF DEAD FLORA & FAUNA AS GOD PLANNED TO DESTROY, AS DOES INFORMATION IN THE GENOME OF ALL BIOLOGICAL LIFE AND THE DNA CODE THAT CAN ONLY COME FROM AN INTELLIGENT MIND, AS DOES ALL THE KNOWN SCIENTIFIC LAWS THAT EVOLUTIONISM DEFIES.

HISTRUTHBEKNOWN in reply to Louis Charles Morelli (Show the comment) 3 minutes

You are right, accordingly with my theory, which does not agree with the idea of a meteorite causing it. Dinosaurs disappeared due same cause disappears all species that super-specializes as closed systems and closes the door to its own evolution. But is not falsifies evolutionism. Nature applied the old astronomical mechanism of entropy producing chaos for dinosaurs and went backwards, finding the small cyanodont for continuing evolution and getting a mammal. And then, new order arose.

Louis Charles Morelli in reply to HISTRUTHBEKNOWN (Show the comment) 1 second ago

There’re many idiotic stories for the extinction of dinosaurs. Dinosaurs are found in graveyards with many different animals together. This information is kept from the public because it falsifies the alleged order of evolution which the fossil record doesn’t help as with the Cambrian Explosion of life containing more than 100 phyla that suddenly appear without links to the bacteria, spores, algae in the adjacent layer, the Precambrian, just below the Cambrian. Evolutionism is a cosmic lie.

HISTRUTHBEKNOWN in reply to Louis Charles Morelli 1 minute ago

Sorry, I have not studied completely the Cambrian explosion as you seems to be well informed. But I said that I am waiting your information about the method you been using and the final picture you got. You have found intervention of a God producing a flood at that time? Is it 60 millions years ago? My method has suggested that – if had no evolutionary links between pre-Cambrian and after-Cambrian, there was intervention of solar flares due atomic reactions reaching internal new layers.

Louis Charles Morelli in reply to HISTRUTHBEKNOWN (Show the comment) 1 second ago

YOUR COMPARATIVE ANATOMY IS EXACTLY THE SAME AS MY CAR/ENGINE ANALOGY. STOP LYING. DID YOU READ ROMANS 1:18-32?

ALL THE CHEMICAL ELEMENTS IN YOUR BODY AS IN THE CAR ARE NOT ALIVE I.E. HYDROGEN, OXYGEN, CALCIUM, NITROGEN, CARBON ETC. ARE NOT ALIVE AND CAN’T CONTRIVE ENGINES, CARS OR BIOLOGICAL LIFE.

THE “EVOLUTION OF THE CAR” IS YOUR DECEPTIVE USE OF THE WORD. IN THIS CASE IT’S THE PROGRESS IMPROVEMENT OF THE AUTOMOBILE AND TECHNOLOGY BY HUMAN INTELLIGENCE, NOT WITHOUT INTELLIGENCE.

HISTRUTHBEKNOWN in reply to Louis Charles Morelli 4 minutes ago

You are right, is the same analogy, and that’s why we arrived to same conclusion: there is an external agent doing it. The difference between us is about who is the external agent acting over biological evolution. You have seen a magical god I have seen a new cosmological model. The elements in our bodies are not alive, but they were connected by photons coming from sun light and cosmic radiation bringing on informations about a system that is half-mechanical/half-biologica­l. That’s a theory.

Louis Charles Morelli in reply to HISTRUTHBEKNOWN (Show the comment) 1 second ago

XXX

ANYONE THAT ACCEPTS EVOLUTIONISM IS A MORON.

NOBODY SAW MINDLESS AND LIFELESS CHEMICAL ELEMENTS POPPING INTO EXISTENCE FROM THE ALLEGED BIG BANG OF NOTHING AT ALL, THAT THEN COLLABORATED TO CONTRIVE THE ALLEGED COMMON ANCESTOR OF ALL WHICH THEN TRANSMUTED INTO EVERYTHING THAT EVER LIVED?

BILLY NYE THE PSEUDOSCIENTIFIC GUY IS SUGGESTING THE OPPOSITE WHICH IS A PUT-DOWN AND AN INSULT TO BELIEVERS OF GOD.

HISTRUTHBEKNOWN in reply to HodadWah (Show the comment) 1 hour ago

Who are you in Internet calling me a “moron”? What evidence/proof have you found for bringing on the table and proving that?

Natural evolution was the rational conclusion of any healthy mind in my teenager times. There was no enough data about abiogenesis and Big Bang, so, any affirmative conclusion would be not rational, it were opened questions. About History, myths, the one of my nation has the first place, and there is no mention of interventions of supernatural beings. What do you want?!!

Louis Charles Morelli in reply to HISTRUTHBEKNOWN (Show the comment) 1 second

XXX

I did not say DNA cannot “divide or reproduce”. It cannot change into another (entity’s) DNA.

TrueVerdicts in reply to TheHigherVoltage (Show the comment) 7 minutes ago

I think you are based on the information that scientists have trying to ad information into DNA and never got an improvement – an information that fits your world view. I read it 20 years ago, and I don’t know if still is valid. But, since you are advocating the idea that humans are special because you believe they have “soul”, I ask you: “why not a soul under evolution that can change DNA when the body is a hardware that does not works?” Have you thought in this possibility?

Louis Charles Morelli in reply to TrueVerdicts (Show the comment) 1 second ago

XXX

I agree. Though, dolphins are not intelligent, as they CANNOT engineer and innovate. I submit to all following this debate that only Humans are intelligent.

TrueVerdicts in reply to ExtantFrodo2 31 minutes ago

I think you need change the word “intelligent” in this debate and not using the words “engineer, innovation” for advocating an idea of human “soul”. Intelligence has been defined in many different ways including, abstract thought, understanding, self-awareness, communication, reasoning, learning, retaining, planning, and problem solving. People here understand it as it derives from the Latin verb intelligere which derives from inter-legere meaning to “pick out” or discern.

Louis Charles Morelli in reply to TrueVerdicts 2:21 AM – Thu – 11

XXX

Thankyou but there is a God and he is the the one and only holy GOD and that is the only one you should believe in!

Chloe Woodward 14 minutes ago

If you feel happy with your belief, good for you. But, please, don’t tell it to my kids neither through their school because I want the mind of my kids free of private fantasies for better learning so many things about the nature of this world and be prepared for survival facing the ferocious competition. Fantasies are defined as private world views without public evidences.

Louis Charles Morelli in reply to Chloe Woodward 9:36 – PM – Wed – 10

XXX

One does not convert to atheism because atheism is nothing. It is a neutral stance on the claims about god. One just wakes up one day and says ” shit I’ve wasted my life on bullshit!!!”

allanhill1 1 minute ago

But…attacking the name “god” is wrong, I think. My life’s experience and little knowledge are suggesting that this mind inside each human head and probable in many other lifeforms are like bubbles of dense substance called “consciousness” floating in an infinite ocean of slight consciousness, like a photon floating in light waves. Particles of photons with high quantum of light can be wave, also. Each one can call this “ocean” by the name he/she wants. If “god”, no problem.

Louis Charles Morelli in reply to allanhill1 (Show the comment) 1 second ago

XXX

Life is so complex, that just a few proteins coming about by chance …even if the whole universe was an organic soup, is 10 with 40,000 zero’s after it to 1. Note that 10 with 50 zero’s after it, is a number greater than the atoms in the universe. So the chance is 0

iaml3642494 2 hours ago

An ovum is so simple and an embryo is so complex! Any hypothetical microscope being located inside an ovum, seeing only yolk, should say that the chance of something like genes coming about… even if that little universe was an organic soup, is 10 with 40.000 zero’s after it to 1. he should concludes the chance is 0.

But.. it happens. Nature has some forces in it that makes it happens. This microscope being that can’t see those forces would believe in magical gods or magical randomness. You?

Louis Charles Morelli in reply to iaml3642494 – 8:47 PM – Wed – 10

Yes for a few proteins to randomly pop up in thin air is damn near impossible. That’s not what scientists think happened btw. please do some research on abiogenesis. and it’s not evolution anyway.

tsub0dai in reply to iaml3642494 (Show the comment) 2 hours ago

Yes, iaml3642494 appealing to magical gods for explaining what happened in that primordial soup is not rational. But, scientists appealing to chemical reactions for explaining it is not rational too. My post above to iaml3642494 appealing to observed process happening in Nature is more rational, but… then, the same observation reveals that the events in that soup are driven by instructions coming from external source. Those scientists are suffering from myopia.

Louis Charles Morelli in reply to tsub0dai (Show the comment) 1 second ago

XXX

XXX

Oh, friend, I thank FATHER for you this day! I, too, come from hard knocks, I can thus praise HIM for it’s not of me that you are seeing such a “good life” & “living a rich life” but of HIM & HIS love by HIS grace & mercies that I can share my testimony today with you & others. There’s nothing too impossible for FATHER to correct, nothing too bad/monstrous HE can not heal with in your hurting heart, friend, I assure you. Place your trust in HIM & HE’ll make a way for you. Feel free to PM me, OK?

netta2158 in reply to Louis Charles Morelli (Show the comment) 3 minutes ago

“Feel free to PM me, OK?”

No it should not be good for you. If you are happy with your faith and respect the space of my kids, good for you. I am not the kind that go to church because when the priest says the first phrase and I think it is wrong, I stop him or I go out. No talks one direction alone. Debates only are useful if starts with real facts on the table. For instance: why your God permitted that me and other 1 million Americans that worked hard all life loose our homes?

Louis Charles Morelli in reply to netta2158 (Show the comment) 1 second ago

XXX

We have been seeking beings like us through the cosmos for decades with no success, that’s because our kind is unique. It’s not just biological. And we are mistakenly looking for intelligence of a difference creed than us. We are likely to encounter our same creed first in the cosmos, and they won’t necessarily  be more intelligent than us, but they could be more or less ‘advanced’ than us. And when/if we do find our kind, rest assured, that they will resemble us from top to bottom.

TrueVerdicts 2 minutes ago

Again you are only half-right. Seeds of “life” are produced and spreaded by galaxies in different time/space and they can germinate and grow if a convergence point is appropriate. That’s due the building blocks of galactic systems are half-alive and has the same configuration of nucleotides, the building blocks of DNA. Entropy attacking galaxies produces the transmission as in genetics and nanotechnology do the rest. But then is possible that we find a lifeform made-up of iron or plastic

Louis Charles Morelli in reply to TrueVerdicts (Show the comment) 1 second ago

XXX

There are diverse, transferable degrees of intelligence. Humans’ degree of intelligence was transferred, not evolved. In fact, biology CANNOT evolve; it is universally decreed impossible. Because all bodies within Time-Space, whether (inert or alive, including Humans) have a constant, identifiable structure, pre-determined mechanism, and purpose.

TrueVerdicts 1 hour ago

We don’t know yet. There is the new theory of Universe, called biocentrism. It makes sense also. Opposing Physics-centrism, if this Universe is the place where is occurring a process of genetic or computational reproduction of what was before the Big Bang, from Biology will come the Theory of Everything. All you said fits with evolution of a universal embryo: intelligence is transferred and evolves, all bodies has a Matrix/DNA structure, purpose, pre-determined mechanism, etc.

Louis Charles Morelli in reply to TrueVerdicts (Show the comment) 1 second ago

XXX

Science’s narrowed biology-alone approach to intelligence simply diminishes the magnitude of what we’re part of; thus, has conducted studies on the wrong platform. Which is why we remain largely incapable of conquering the cosmos. The degree of intelligence needed to be fully fluid within Time-Space is metaphysical, not just biological or physical. It MUST be metaphysical as the state of being of Time-Space, itself, is metaphysical; i.e.Time-Space simply be; this fact is biologically unexplained

TrueVerdicts 1 hour ago

You are only half right, but if your goal is conquering the cosmos, we are together. Mathematical theorems has indicated that matter alone could not jump to self-consciousness and neurology has not found how neurons are related to mind. It means that biology producing consciousness is largely theoretical. I said before how “metaphysical intelligence” seems merely natural ex-machine software. Time is measure of chains of events and space arises only if have two objects. They aren’t entities.

Louis Charles Morelli in reply to TrueVerdicts (Show the comment) 1 second ago

XXX

Another reason why intelligence does not reside in biology/genes is.. take robots/computers for example.. they can only showcase a mechanism. This is the plague that has stopped Artificial Intelligence dead on its track. AI will NEVER be self-innovative no matter the amount of physical intelligence inserted in a robotic entity; it can only showcase a limited, programed mechanism — even when it records new things on its own by means of repeated patterns, it cannot engineer and make things better

TrueVerdicts 1 hour ago

You don’t know the work of those two Physicists that earned the Nobel-2012. They got the isolation and observation of photons waves which is one step before quantum computation, which will be one step before artificial intelligence. If you add this discovery with what we had get in Matrix/DNA models, you will see the relation biology+intelligence+light. See our model: any wave of natural light seems the arm and hand of “the father’s source” that brings the code for imprinting life on matter.

Louis Charles Morelli in reply to TrueVerdicts (Show the comment) 1 second ago

XXX

INNOVATION is UNIQUELY what intelligence is! The reason that, thus far, only Humans, as a subject of Time-Space, can innovate (not the stars, nor gravity, nor dolphins, nor monkeys, etc), is because only Humans are direct progenies of gods. Only gods can innovate. Therefore you are a god, not just biological matter, not EVOLVED. Because biology CANNOT evolve. You were engineered/created with the same properties/intelligence of “that” which engineered you (As it says: “In his image”)! Read below.

TrueVerdicts 1 hour ago

Human intelligence produces real innovation only when observing Nature, discovering its mechanisms/process and mimicking them. But you are right: only who has consciousness which are direct progenies of that “generator of universes” ( some fish, apes, already has flashes of it) can do it. But since you are mirroring in humans for inferring what is our “father” why you forget that we are not magicians, only natural? For avoiding rational evidence that the ex-machine “father” is too natural?

Louis Charles Morelli in reply to TrueVerdicts (Show the comment) 1 second ago

XXX

Biology can exist without intelligence (as all physical entities, including matter, are biological); and intelligence can exist without biology in a metaphysical form. However, biology cannot exist in a metaphysical form – which is where science remains stuck until it changes course.

Humans have inherited and can tap into the metaphysical source: innovation, dreaming, imagining, weeping, meditation, etc. Other forms of biologies, that we know of, cannot. [some say ‘spiritual’ for “metaphysical”]

TrueVerdicts 54 minutes ago

What you call “metaphysical intelligence” we call “universal software”, and biology is the hardware. We get the software when extracting out the energetic circuit of any natural system, included human brain and DNA. We have tracked backwards the evolution of this software and seen its origins at the Big Bang (quantum vortex and fluctuations of light waves). Only humans have dreams, consciousnesses, etc, because this software was sleeping in atoms, dreaming in galaxies and is waking up in humans

Louis Charles Morelli in reply to TrueVerdicts (Show the comment) 1 second ago

1) You are wrong, and you know it. Because you would have to explain the origin of the Big Bang. Secondly, if you’ve “extracted” it, you ought to be able to integrate it into other physical/biological entities. You folks should start with AI for instance, why not? Not gonna happen!

TrueVerdicts in reply to Louis Charles Morelli 2 minutes ago

Nope. And I can explain the origin of the Big Bang. Reason suggests that when you feels that there is a natural phenomena but you can not see it, collect its effects and search in nature the same manifestations. The phenomena producing these manifestations that you can see is the best source for a theory about what you can’t see. There is another “Big Bang” initializing a natural system and producing expansion, etc: the fecundation starting your own body. Nature does not play dice with us.

Louis Charles Morelli in reply to TrueVerdicts (Show the comment) 1 second ago

2) Had Humans been solely biological, we would’ve digressed to the level of intelligence of the other biological species; or, it would be natural that other biological species progress/evolve to the level of intelligence of Humans. Biology, being found throughout Earth, could not have singled out just Humans be to intelligent, leaving behind all other species.

TrueVerdicts in reply to Louis Charles Morelli 3 minutes ago

My post agree with you that humans are not solely material biology, as only hardware, I told about the software. The cause that among all primates and other biological species only ancestors of humans got a brain that could wake up this universal living software was that only they went to leave in a cave, feeding the younger and older, which was the root of the human family, where arose feelings and emotions, the impulse for this awakening. If any ape give food to his father, he can get it too.

Louis Charles Morelli in reply to TrueVerdicts (Show the comment) 1 second ago

XXX

if your god is the father then who was the mother? You should have symmetry in your anthropomorphism in order for your mythology to make some sense..

Mike Johns in reply to netta2158 (Show the comment) 2 hours ago

Well…glup…in certain meaning, the last universal common ancestor was the father of all living beings, and he was hermaphrodite… Oh…no…is God gay?

Louis Charles Morelli in reply to Mike Johns 2 hours ago

Noah is our common ancestor, and having 3 sons doesn’t make him a hermaphrodite. As for FATHER being gay, I do think HE is a very happy and joyful CREATOR after all look at all HE’s created … such beauty through all that our senses marvel in! What an awesome CREATOR we serve! Hallelujah, FATHER! Amen! Won’t you please learn of HIM & that of HIS love? HE truly is wonderful. HE loves you & us all so very much. Peace & HIS abundantly blessings to you, friend. <(^8

netta2158 in reply to Louis Charles Morelli 2 minutes ago

Este post abaixo devia ir para TrueVerdicts e errei:

Sorry, it is not possible an intelligent conversation between us. It seems that you had a good life with lots of money and living in a rich place for explaining why you have seen only the half part of this world, the beautiful one, which could explain the way your brain was hard-wired and your faith in a intelligent designer. Unfortunately I have seen the other half, the bad and monstrous design, which had effects in my hard-wiring and explains why I can’t believe in gods watching this here.

Louis Charles Morelli in reply to netta2158 1 second ago

Every living thing through out the universe exists to evolve on some level, however, with out GOD, creationism & evolution would cease to exist. Therefore the human race who the FATHER of the Universe created, along with all seen & unseen things, need to teach our offspring about HIM & all that HE’s created especially of HIS mercy, forgiveness, grace, & unconditional love. I can only hope HE draws you, & us all, closer to HIM. May YESHUA/JESUS bless & fortify you, & us all, everyone. Peace. <(^8

netta2158 25 minutes ago

You are right, accordingly to last results of Matrix/DNA evolutionary cosmology, “theory”. Human race have as father who created the Universe. The problem is who created the Universe. Physics suggests it was a small atom. This theory suggests that this Universe is a kind of cosmic egg where is occurring a process of genetic or computational reproduction of who was existing before the Big Bang. But, parents outside the womb/egg does not go there creating shapes of fetus, embryos, etc. All Nature.

Louis Charles Morelli in reply to netta2158 (Show the comment) 1 second ago

Yes, of course it’s nature … GOD, our FATHER in Heaven, created the very essence of nature and that of its’ components and cosmos. With out HIM there would be nothing, and nothing from nothing equals nothing … no womb, no egg, nor creation, no “big bang theory” and no “us” to debate HIS existence. I thank GOD the FATHER for HIS mercy, patience, forgiveness, grace, and love for we are a stubborn and rebellious creation. JESUS bless you, friend. Peace. <(^8

netta2158 in reply to Louis Charles Morelli 2 minutes ago

XXX

1) Ask yourself, if the essence of Earth was to harbor Humans, as we so arrogantly think, then why is it that Earth must have been in existence some 4 billion years prior to Humans insignificant few thousand lousy years on it. We can all agree that humans is the best thing to happen to Earth; then why must Earth have existed such length prior to the main Event?? That’s because, the Earth is, assuredly, NOT billions of years old; and science as a whole is in error.

TrueVerdicts 3 minutes ago

Nope. The shape of humans are result from evolution coming since abiogenesis, and abiogenesis took some billion years which is natural when a shape is coming from systems belonging to cosmological evolution. Think abiogenesis as process of macro-universal embryogenesis which takes billions years. Why should humans to be the best thing to happen to Earth?

Louis Charles Morelli in reply to TrueVerdicts4:36 AM – Wed – 10

Your science has gotten you so lost. Nothing, absolutely nothing, lasts such length within Time-Space. You cannot even truly begin to wrap your mind around ONE million years of past events, much less billions of years. Your science is tedious, very suppository and speculative. Yes, Humans, are the best thing to happen to Earth.

TrueVerdicts in reply to Louis Charles Morelli 22 minutes ago

Nature is tedious for a microscopic observer but it runs fast for an universal observer. Look to Solar System just now, it seems eternal, never changing, the moon always around Earth, the Sun always there… What then if observing the galaxy, 10 billion years, same shape? This vision impregnates us with tedious… but only those that think microscopically. Stars dies, becomes dust and resuscitates from its own gray, everything is moving. Abiogenesis is for universal observers understanding.

Louis Charles Morelli in reply to TrueVerdicts (Show the comment) 1 second ago

XXX

Não Publicado

There is a method for training a person to evolves from a microscopic observer to an universal observer and you can learn it. But then, you need understanding universal macro evolution (13,7 billions years) and not only biological evolution (3,5 billion). And you need learn that DNA is merely the biological shape of a universal Matrix that began as simplest quantum vortexes emitting light at the Big Bang, has organized matter into atoms, galaxies and now is living inside cells systems.

XXX


louie says – ToE alone will not keep free thought.

Religious brainwashing is the antithesis of free thought…

geezusispan in reply to Louis Charles Morelli (Show the comment) 2 minutes ago

You should say “creationism brainwashing is the antithesis of free thought”. Because there are religions more like philosophies different than creationism, which believes in ex-machine consciousness not interfering with human existence. But, the surprising and aggressive reaction of atheists (denialism of some form of superior consciousness) against a religion suggests that atheism is the other side of a coin, and if so, it seems also the antithesis of free thought. Why not ID also?

Louis Charles Morelli in reply to geezusispan (Show the comment) 1 second ago

So let’s hear your argument for ID

tsub0dai in reply to Louis Charles Morelli 3 minutes ago

I think nobody will accept my deep reasons for ID not in science classroom but in philosophical studies. Because for understanding my arguments, one needs leave out this planet, going above the galaxy, and from there, observe biological evolution here. I don’t know nobody did it besides myself. Doing it, ToE is revealed as a very poor theory that needs be improved. Then forget this argument and keep only the following: ID has been a tool for evolutionists rethinking evolution, improving it.

Louis Charles Morelli in reply to tsub0dai (Show the comment) 1 second ago

Why not admit that God is the slow force behind evolutionary processes and cut out the middle man?

unclethermo in reply to Louis Charles Morelli (Show the comment) 20 minutes ago

Why not admit that God is the slow force behind evolutionary processes and cut out the middle man?

unclethermo in reply to Louis Charles Morelli (Show the comment) 20 minutes ago

I think that if one accepts evolutionary process by evidences seen in biological evolution, can not relates it with the idea of magic and omnipresent gods. Rationally, the two ideas are self-exclusive. But, universal evolution leaves an open door to the possibility that this evolution we are observing could be merely steps of an ex-machine process of reproduction (till of consciousness) like a virus inside an egg see evolution of an embryo. We are microscope beings in relation to the universe.

Louis Charles Morelli in reply to unclethermo (Show the comment) 1 second ago

XXX

single cell organism’s from chemical reactions, research the theories instead of asking people on youtube…

kegstar4mma in reply to DarkHoundNero (Show the comment) 9 minutes ago

Certainly he knows the theory about “single cell organism’s from chemical reactions”from high school. If he is asking how life began is because he does not accept this theory. Why hydrogen cyanide separated from the Prussian blue and linked to ammonia for resulting in adenine if it never happens and any other situation? The theory suggests it was due pure chance, which is a hypothesis not falsiable. He is in his right.

Louis Charles Morelli in reply to kegstar4mma (Show the comment) 1 second ago

XXX

Alma 14:124 “Yea, and my joy is carried away, even unto boasting in my God; for he has all power, all wisdom, and all understanding; he comprehendeth all things, and he is a merciful Being even unto salvation, to those who will repent and believe on his name.”

One of my favorites. Makes me feel happy. :)

bigjoegamer09 10 minutes ago

So you will educate your kids saying to them they are sinner and needs repent? Ok, we must respect the way you want to educate yours children, but, please, never tell this thing to my kids and does not force it into schools, because I am sure this is very prejudicial to the self-esteem of my kids.

Louis Charles Morelli in reply to bigjoegamer09 (Show the comment) 1 second ago

XXX

ok, well, answer this qustion, if we came from life, and they say we came after the big bang theory, how did life start?

from whatever beginning of time they claim the big bang happened

how does life come from nothing?

if the first organism was brouht into existence and started repopulating

how could it be alive?

life just doesnt start from nothing, it had to be given it

DarkHoundNero in reply to parsivalshorse 2 minutes ago

When we have no enough data for provide an answer about any natural phenomena the logic is searching in Nature parameters, patterns. Because nature has its laws for doing natural things, and maybe there are patterns from where we can learn those laws. So, a good parameter for yours questions: Nature did your own body starting by an “explosion” ( abrupt opening of spermatozoon membrane), your life came from yours parents existing before that explosion. And they are “natural”. Any question?

Louis Charles Morelli in reply to DarkHoundNero1:55 AM – Wed – 10

XXX

And today we have separated the two fields of study into clearly defined “abiogenesis” and “evolution.” There is even an informal and outdated “law” in the study of evolution called “biogenesis” in which it is given that life is only formed from other life.

As you have been informed twice now that abiogenesis and evolution are two separate fields of study, you will begin to be a liar yourself should you choose to repeat the claim that abiogenesis and evolution are the same field of study.

arthurjeremypearson in reply to HISTRUTHBEKNOWN (Show the comment) 1 hour ago

Lol… thanks! That’s why I am following this debate: every minute you learn something new. The difference between abiogenesis, biogenesis and evolution, very well explained.

There is a tentative for searching how those ancestors non-living systems could produce – directly and evolutionary – the first living cell system. The Matrix/DNA Theory found a theoretical solution: a model of the building block of ancient galaxies that’s half-mechanical/half-biologica­l. Maybe ToE will be cosmological.

Louis Charles Morelli in reply to arthurjeremypearson (Show the comment) –  1:36 AM – Wed- 10

XXX

indicating outward velocity as if, say, from an explosion.

we beleive that god is eternal and there for exists outside of time

its an explanation and realy better than nothing

why answers are better than nothing

boldburrito, you believe in the Bible’s god,  and I must respect the freedom of beliefs.  But why are  you here? I have collected your writtens: “every scientist now agrees that time started at somewhere”, “what made the big bang how did something come from nothing?”, “we believe that god is eternal and there for exists outside of time”, ” its an explanation and really better than nothing”, “why answers are better than nothing”.  All of this is debatable. Are you trying to extrapolate it to public education?

XXX

YOUR COMMENT IS THE NON SEQUITUR FALLACY. ATHEISTS DID NOT INVENT GRAVITY, GEOMETRY, OR ANY OTHER FIELD OF STUDY. ANYONE CAN STUDY GOD’S CREATION TO REALIZE GOD USED SYMMETRY, PROPORTION, PURPOSEFUL DESIGN ETC. WHEN HUMANS DISCOVER THE THINGS GOD MADE AND GET SOME SUPERFICIAL UNDERSTANDING IT NO MORE SUPPORTS THE RIDICULOUS NOTION OF EVIL EVOLUTIONISM THAN ONE STUDYING THE INTERNAL COMBUSTION ENGINE WOULD. MINDLESS AND LIFELESS CHEMICAL ELEMENTS DON’T AND CAN’T CONTRIVE LIFE OR ENGINES.

HISTRUTHBEKNOWN in reply to parsivalshorse (Show the comment) 2 minutes ago

“ANYONE CAN STUDY GOD’S CREATION TO REALIZE GOD USED SYMMETRY”

So, symmetry is used by creationists as argument for magical creation? Sorry, it is not. Symmetry is result of a natural force that had been always present when Nature developed a new specie of systems. So, this force has been a systemic function and its mathematical number is phi, considered the golden ratio. Go to see the Matrix/DNA formula for systems, you will see there is no magical action for producing symmetry.

Louis Charles Morelli in reply to HISTRUTHBEKNOWN (Show the comment) 1 second ago

YOU’RE A ROYAL BUFFOON. YOU JUST TOLD A FANCIFUL STORY. HAVE YOU SEEN NATURAL FORCES I.E. WIND, RAIN, THUNDER & LIGHTENING MAKE LIFE? MINDLESS AND LIFELESS CHEMICAL ELEMENTS CAN’T AND DON’T CONTRIVE LIFE OR CARS, BOATS, HOMES ETC.

DID YOU WAIT FOR NATURAL FORCES TO MAKE YOU A COMPUTER?

WHY DO YOU TALK ABOUT AND SAY THINGS THAT ARE IDIOTIC WITHOUT CRITICAL THINKING?

HISTRUTHBEKNOWN in reply to Louis Charles Morelli 1 hour ago

But you have not search the Matrix/DNA formula as I suggested for you learn how I based my arguments about where bi-lateral symmetry seen here is coming from. You have jumped to the conclusion that mine is “a fanciful history”, without knowing the foundations of that argument. This is the way you are dealing with origins of life, universe. etc.? Jumping to conclusions without searching the data collected by Science and/or empiricism? Sorry, in this way is not possible an educated debate.

Louis Charles Morelli in reply to HISTRUTHBEKNOWN (Show the comment) 1 second ago

A computer is not a living creature…Completely wrong comparison..

TheRainmaker2001 in reply to HISTRUTHBEKNOWN (Show the comment) 59 minutes ago

By the way, computer are made by humans, and if humans are not a natural force, I don’t know what else they are…

Louis Charles Morelli in reply to TheRainmaker2001 (Show the comment) 1 second ago

And he says: “ALL THE ELEMENTS OF YOUR BODY AREN’T ALIVE LIKE THOSE IN A COMPUTER” . Is he suggesting something like the vital force as suggested by Pasteur – but is he suggesting this vital force coming from a magical god? If so, he does not know the strong evidence that the “vital force” was existing before life’s origins, animating the ancestors systems and there are strong evidences that it is encoded in a single wave of natural light. Ah..ah…now you are saying: this guy is also crazy!

Louis Charles Morelli in reply to Louis Charles Morelli (Show the comment) 1 second ago

XXX

what makes you atheist so sure that there is no God. science says nothing on the subject.

itsoriginalme 3 days ago

That’s right. Science doesn’t prove a thing. It only disproves.

Disproves stuff like talking snakes and “stopping the sun in the sky” and a worldwide flood.

Science is a knife that cuts away falsehoods, leaving something that’s the closest we can get to the truth.

God, spirits, and the supernatural might exist, but science says nothing about them. It all comes down to if you accept unfounded claims of magic, or not.

And if you do accept magic, I got a bridge I want to sell you.

arthurjeremypearson in reply to itsoriginalme 48 minutes ago

They are not unfounded claims most are founded on personal evidence granted that it is not testable but, it does not mean the claims are not valid. It just seems unlikely. The story of Adam and Eve is an allegory even though there are some who believe in it literal interpretation. Mass Christianity however recognizes that the story is an allegory

itsoriginalme in reply to arthurjeremypearson 1 minute ago

If it is allegory, must have a real event/fact that support the message in that allegory. What’s the real event/fact related to the narrative about Adam and Eve?

Louis Charles Morelli in reply to itsoriginalme 9:39 PM – MOn – OCT – 08

It is a story of how original sin came in to play and mankind gain free will independently of God. There also moral to the story that making something forbidden only makes people want all the more.

itsoriginalme in reply to Louis Charles Morelli 46 seconds ago

No, it is not “a story of how original sin came in to play”. The discipline of History in school there is anything related with this story. If you have discovered some real event/fact that in the past there was a ordered/perfect world, there was human beings or other lifeforms, these beings did something wrong and had a fall …. you need send it for peer-review. I elaborated a testable theory of a real event/fact for that allegory, it seems related to real event, do you want know it?

Louis Charles Morelli in reply to itsoriginalme (Show the comment) 1 second ago

i’m listening

itsoriginalme in reply to Louis Charles Morelli 2 minutes ago

Ok. There was a real world as described allegorically. In this world were living our ancestors, they did a “sin”, and they felt towards planets and they drove abiogenesis, still driving our evolution. This world is rational, scientifically testable, and I have its pictured model. It is the result of a method: comparative anatomy between living and non-living systems. Since Science has not got all data about that space/time, still is a naturalistic philosophical theory. Do want know more?

Louis Charles Morelli in reply to itsoriginalme (Show the comment) 1 second ago

XXXX

You see I’m going to have to disagree with Bill’s biased opinions, I think that all children should know things so that they can make there own informed decisions about life rather than being forced into one thing or another. They choose religion one must accept that, if one follows science then so be it.

MrDevin712

You are right accordingly with my personal viewpoint, which must be no totally right accordingly to the final Truth. This debate is between two extreme opposite world views – theists and atheists – and your suggestion means you are in the middle, like me. The question of this video is too much important, it is about the chose of the destiny of human kind. We in the middle need our voice be heard also, but all that came here suddenly disappears. We need here a list for subscribers. Or not?

Austriak1 in reply to MrDevin712 9:39 PM – MOn – OCT – 08

XXX

@DarwinsFriend Yes, let’s everyone rebel and become kings. There would be no inhabitants in our own personal kingdoms though since everyone one is king of their own inhabitantless kingdom as well. We will turn the universe into a hell. Or did you think you would deny one single individual the rebellion you enjoy? Party on, alone.

John Brown 21 minutes ago

Wrong. We, evolutionists don’t want to be kings. We want to rebel against any gods as described on the Bible, against humans’ gangs that gets money and power based on the rules of predators/prey observed in this chaotic and salvage biosphere, we want the universal human family as dreamed by a man, Jesus Christ. Everybody is our brooder with equal rights and obligations, every mother is our mother, every child is our child… This is the great cause of Humanity, going to its own transcendence.

Austriak1 in reply to John Brown (Show the comment) 1 second ago – 9:39 PM – MOn – OCT – 08

All this without authority right?

John Brown in reply to Austriak1 51 minutes ago

I don’t want be authority, I don’t want followers, employees, nobody below me, I want partners. If someone or a group want different, think different, no problem, keep their space and respect our space. Any social system that needs nucleus and periphery, predator and prey, any kind of authority, is based in the formula of closed systems, or dispersion opened system, which is a non-complete and related to past times of evolution shape of the ideal natural universal formula. Yes, no authority.

Louis Charles Morelli in reply to John Brown (Show the comment) 19 minutes ago

@Louis Charles Morelli Sounds ideal but what do we do with those who refuse to play along? They say they don’t want partnership but war. What do we do and by who’s authority?

John Brown 3 minutes ago

Of course, first of all we need a cohesive group. Second we need to choose: let’s stay here among them or chose a separated place for living? Third: we need work hard for to be prepared for our self-defense. Fourth: while developing ourselves – materially and intellectually – we begins to ignore them – no business with them. And so on… While we don’t do nothing about this “dream” we need participate in this kinds of debate for not permitting any group getting the power. Snakes swelling snakes.

Louis Charles Morelli in reply to John Brown (Show the comment) 1 second ago

@Louis Charles Morelli So unresolved disagreement means separation, like in a marriage. How long, unless disagreements cease, before we’re all separated? And, a military without a chain of command? Also, it’s death for those who don’t want partnership? Guess they weren’t free to rebel.

John Brown 4 minutes ago

Needs separation because the two groups, certainly, if one gets power, will make life here insupportable and self-destroyed. Atheism would leads to a kind of “Brave new World”ruled by a Big Brother, cutting our dreams about “to be something else more than apes” which is a mind-stopper. Theism would permit that the normal evolution of Nature with its normal changes caught us non prepared by Science, because they lives based in the “supernatural”. We need evolving but keeping our mind free.

Louis Charles Morelli in reply to John Brown (Show the comment) 1 second ago

We will be separated – living at the same or different places – only temporary. We will joining together because we will develop the right Science and the right technology, we will have better society while they will be in trouble.Today technology is not for humans welfare because technology arises every time we discover new natural process/mechanism and Science is selecting some data and discriminating others due be driven by profit. They are our brothers in species, we will save them.

Louis Charles Morelli in reply to John Brown (Show the comment) 1 second ago

@Louis Charles Morelli I’m having a hard time understanding you, are you translating from another language? Anyway, I don’t completely disagree with your utopian idea but you haven’t given me any realistic method to accomplish it. How will men ‘get along’?

John Brown 4 minutes ago

Sorry, English is not my native language, I am still learning. I think you have not read my two last posts to you. I think there is a possibility for human kind solving these actual problems that are leading us to out of control. A new big discovery about real Nature, about the meaning of our existence. This discovery would be the right drive towards a new worldview with new moral, where each human being will be part of solution. There is a scientific method that can leads us to this discovery:

Louis Charles Morelli in reply to John Brown (Show the comment) 1 second ago

@Louis Charles Morelli Oashpe? Scientology? Too naive and vague for today’s problems. So enlightening it’s blind.

John Brown 17 seconds ago

Nope, I don’t approve Oashpe and scientology. The worldview that I think is more rational and explains better our existence is TheMatrix/DNA Theory, but I don’t believe in it also. I need a world view now for driven my behavior but I cant believe in anything created by this little human brain when I remember the size and age of this Universe. I am still searching…

Louis Charles Morelli in reply to John Brown (Show the comment) 1 second ago

@Louis Charles Morelli I take that to mean that humankind doesn’t have the answer right now and I agree. Salvation won’t come from the mind of men and science. It came from above this world and Christians like me are saying “comprehend the light in the darkness (Christ) and take hold while you have the chance to choose life”.

John Brown 1 minute ago

Sorry, I can’t agree with this organized religion called “Christianism” because the real world I have seen in my life’s experience is suggesting to me that this religion is wrong. Christians are not real Christians I think and Jesus Christ said lots of wrong things and I don’t believe he was a son of God’s Bible.But Jesus said the most beautiful and lovely phrase: The universal sacred family is not this nuclear family but one where all brothers are my brothers, etc. Science is the unique hope.

Louis Charles Morelli in reply to John Brown (Show the comment) 1 second ago

@Louis Charles Morelli I take that to mean that humankind doesn’t have the answer right now and I agree. Salvation won’t come from the mind of men and science. It came from above this world and Christians like me are saying “comprehend the light in the darkness (Christ) and take hold while you have the chance to choose life”.

John Brown 1 minute ago

I have post a comment answering this one. But let’s take this good example you said:”comprehend the light in the darkness (Christ)”. Yes, since light seems to be a universal constant, it should be the treasure keeping the secrets of universe and human existence. Comprehend what is light and finding all existent sources of light is the supreme goal. But you stop doing it when you think you know the mystery: you said “Christ”. Meanwhile my research of light is suggesting it has the code for life.

Louis Charles Morelli in reply to John Brown (Show the comment) 1 second ago

Mark 3:35 “For whoever does the will of God is My brother and My sister and mother .” We don’t get to decide which parts of God’s word works us while we reject the rest. It’s either all valid and important or none of it is . You wouldn’t have it any other way would you ?

John Brown in reply to Louis Charles Morelli (Show the comment) 3 minutes ago

God never said direct to me or to my parents or to my grandparents, to nobody that I know, what is his will. Why not? I am not a son of God equal others human beings? Why he talks with one son and not with other? My understanding about good fathers is that they does not discriminates their sons. So, it is most probable that my brother who said that god talked to him is lying. What will work for us, for our next generations? I have my opinion based in my life’s experience, anything else.

Louis Charles Morelli in reply to John Brown (Show the comment) 1 second ago

@Louis Charles Morelli Searching? There is nothing else but Jesus.

John Brown 3 minutes ago

So Jesus is a searching-stopper. Who accepted Jesus and follow Jesus has arrived to the ultimate Truth. Does not need searching anymore. It means this being arrives to the ultimate shape and from now it will be eternal. I would not support eternity in this weak and stupid shape of human species. I know, you will say that the eternal is not human shape, but, the soul(spirit) shape. It is not rational to believe that we have soul and humans can ending the evolution of souls. No evidences.

Louis Charles Morelli in reply to John Brown (Show the comment) 1 second ago

So you don’t believe because you don’t understand or accept His actions in a matter? Are you your father’s judge or authority?

John Brown in reply to Louis Charles Morelli 4 minutes ago

I never will accept that a father talks to one son and not with other. If my father do that, I go out of that house and never will see him again. It means he does not love me. That’s was my position when I began concluding that the Bible (the book of the Christian community where I grew up) is merely fiction. Then, I did my own search about the meaning of universe’s and human existence. Today I keep the possibility of having a superior kind of consciousness and why it does not talks to humans.

Louis Charles Morelli in reply to John Brown (Show the comment) 1 second ago

The bible indicates that people will reject the truth in favor of appealing doctrines of malevolent beings. I can’t stress how important it is to be careful and pray for guidance. Your eternal destiny depends on it. Please.

John Brown in reply to Louis Charles Morelli (Show the comment) 1 minute ago

A book does not indicates anything, the author does. The intention of this author is clear: he was advocating a doctrine, he want more people following the doctrine and is trying to keep the people that is already indoctrinated. He believes in that doctrine? Maybe yes but certainly nod guided by Reason. He is guided by natural instinct of survival and selfishness which approves privileged status for him, approves authority of ones over others, and avoids his obligation for doing the hard work..

Louis Charles Morelli in reply to John Brown (Show the comment) 1 second ago

My will ?! First of all, since I was born I never had an opportunity to apply my will. I was born in the wrong place, in the wrong time, and earned a body that seems merely an ape, less able to survive. The most bad design. And a human civilization that mimics the rules of the jungle, shared into predators and preys.That is why I choose early not reproduce me, I made myself the job of evolution, discarding what must be discarded.

Course I will select what I think operates better as you does.

Louis Charles Morelli in reply to John Brown (Show the comment) 1 second ago

I lean completely on the bible . You rely on your own wisdom which is limited by it’s comparative lack of knowledge.

John Brown in reply to Louis Charles Morelli (Show the comment) 3 minutes ago

No, you not lean in the Bible, you lean on what the authors of a book wrote. Who were those authors? 3.000 years ago? Yes, of course, I prefer lean on my poor and faulting knowledge than on the thousands minor knowledge of that authors. That’s why I am still searching knowledge, but the unique source for knowledge I believe is Mother Nature. I don’t approve the fact that Jesus worked as a searching-stopper for you, because you will not helping me to fix what I think is wrong.

Louis Charles Morelli in reply to John Brown (Show the comment) 1 second ago

Adendos Começam Aqui:

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

Excelente Esclarecimento da Diferença Entre Abiogenesis, Biogenesis, e Evolução:

And today we have separated the two fields of study into clearly defined “abiogenesis” and “evolution.” There is even an informal and outdated “law” in the study of evolution called “biogenesis” in which it is given that life is only formed from other life.

As you have been informed twice now that abiogenesis and evolution are two separate fields of study, you will begin to be a liar yourself should you choose to repeat the claim that abiogenesis and evolution are the same field of study.

arthurjeremypearson in reply to HISTRUTHBEKNOWN (Show the comment) 1 hour ago

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

Against Creationism/ID

What’s malevolent, evil, & vile about the biblical god? Where shall I start? Maybe drowning a planet, sending fire bombs on a couple of cities, murdering the firstborn of Egypt for his own glorification, considering burning his chosen people & needing a mere man (Moses) to set him straight, sending his son down to be murdered so that he could forgive people their transgressions instead of just forgiving them. God is a total douche bag who despite his omniscience couldn’t teach a dog to bark.

ExtantFrodo2 14 seconds ago

“Slaves, obey your earthly masters with fear and trembling, with a sincere heart, as you would Christ” Ephesians 6:5

“Slaves, obey your earthly masters in everything; and do it, not only when their eye is on you and to win their favor, but with sincerity of heart and reverence for the Lord.” Colossians 3:22

“Christians who are slaves should give their masters full respect so that the name of God and his teaching will not be shamed.” 1 Timothy 6:1

So much for that.

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

SÔBRE EDUCAÇÃO DAS CRIANÇAS, NAS ESCOLA E FAMILIAS

Public school teachers and administrators shouldn’t allow creationism, which is a religious ideology, to be presented in classes or other officially sponsored school activities (assemblies, field trips, etc.). Unfortunately, we can’t always trust school administrators to do the right thing. Whether through ignorance or malice, creationism slips in and complaints from parents come too late.

IDisnotscience 21 minutes ago

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

Informações Valiosas

Ohno stated, “The earth is strewn with fossil remains of extinct species; is it a wonder that our genome too is filled with the remains of extinct genes?”1 Due to his evolutionary presupposition, he assumed that non-coding DNA was merely a “genetic fossil” that may have been useful somewhere in our evolutionary past but had been discarded as we evolved into more complex, higher organisms. Since this “junk” DNA was no longer needed,

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

Contra Evolução/Ciência

Hmmmm, science is the gathering of evidence and basing conclusions on that evidence. So technically evolution can’t be at the core of science because it would bend the scientists thoughts on a subject towards it. And that’s bad science. Just a thought.

Evolução: Grande Debate no “The Telegraph”

sábado, dezembro 10th, 2011

xxxx


xxxx

Artigo publicado no THE TELEGRAPH, sob titulo:

Islam, Charles Darwin and the denial of science

Saturday 10 December 2011

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/8931518/Islam-Charles-Darwin-and-the-denial-of-science.html

by: Steve Jones – Professor de Genetica na University College London e President of the Association for Science Education

… resultou em grande numero de comentários e debates fervorosos que podem ser vistos no prosseguimento do artigo. O professor reclama que cada vez mais aumenta o numero de estudantes que reagem negativamente às aulas sôbre evolução, ameaçando tornar-se epidêmico, mas o maior problema, segundo êle, é que se os estudantes não estudarem a teoria da evolução não poderão exercer profissões nas áreas de biologia, como a medicina.

Realmente é um grande problema! Mas o que estaria por trás dos estudantes? Qual seria a causa dêste fenômeno? Pensei nisto observando os mapas da Matrix/DNA e acho que tive uma razoável intuição. Está explicada no comentário que publiquei no The Telegraphy, abaixo do artigo e que vai transcrito abaixo, porem ainda em Inglês.

O artigo vai transcrito abaixo até que possamos analiza-lo pela Matrix/DNA, mas agora vamos ver o comentário postado lá pela Matrix/DNA:

Louis C. Morelli

0 minutes ago

“Now, though, we have evolution, the grammar of
biology. More and more, students do not like it.”

And, these students are wrong? Or were you, the
wrong student? If evolution works, the new brain is better than the old one.

These students are better informed about the world
than the teachers were. And the information we have today about the world, does
not fit with the Theory of Evolution. Today we have learned more a lot about
cosmology than could be imagined 30 years ago, when the nowadays teachers went
to school. When a person see the images from NASA about the Universe, the early
Universe, and then watch a video about cellular machinery working, they
logically see that Charles Darwin does not answer their questions: the Darwin’s
evolutionary process does not explain the process by which the world has
working.

It is clear, by the images, that the early Universe, added to the explanations
from Cosmological Theory, could not produce alone the modern cellular machinery.
It is clear that is missing to TofE the knowledge of something else that was encrypted
in that Universe, into matter, all long this time, and Darwin did not grasp it.

Then, the failure of Science to know what else are
there working among the matter, but the students grasp that is missing
something, is being used by the old teachers of religions, opportunistically, with
the idea that is missing God.

There is a new result from a new method of investigation,
suggesting the existence of a natural element that could fill the gap needed by
evolutionists: a kind of natural formula that is under universal evolution that
organizes matter into natural systems, The Matrix/DNA Theory. But then, a lot of
novelty are suggesting, not changing but complementing the Darwin’s theory, as
the follows:

1) Evolution works with seven variables and not only
the Darwinian three (VSI);

2) The same laws, the seven variables, were applied upon
biological and cosmological evolution;

3) There was no origins of life, since that the
biological ancestors (atoms and astronomic systems), has all life’s properties;

4) DNA is not a code, but, merely, a set of
variations of a unique natural system;

5) The Big Bang process is the simplest form of a
human’s baby initial fecundation;

6) The differences in the electromagnetic spectrum of
light encodes the process of life’s cycle;

7) This Universe is a reproduction’s process;

8) The process of evolution we see here, well
documented and inquestiionable, does not means evolution is the final process:
it is merely phases of a universal reproductive process;

9) Matter has evolved through two faces: hardware
and software. The human body is the top of hardware’s evolution here and the
top of evolution of the software is consciousness;

10) The Universe is a kind of cosmic egg, inside it
is developing an embryo, with body and mind. It means that the Universe was
produced by something with mind (not sure about the body), and by natural
genetic process. We have no data yet for to suppose what is this kind of “father/mother”,
or merely a computational creator.

11) Then, the idea of
evolution is safe because it really occurs. Only the Darwinian Theory and the
Modern Synthesis are not complete. And also, the idea of a better sense of
existence for Humanity is safe, if you prefer giving names to that probable “father/mother”,
like the name “God”, it is a logical, rational conclusion from the viewpoint of
this new theory.

xxxx FIM do MEU COMENTÁRIO xxxx

Artigo:

Islam, Charles Darwin and the denial of science

A growing number of biology and medical students are rejecting the very basis of their chosen subject in favour of creationism.

xxxx

Seleção e Análise dos Comentários Postados:

xxxx

Richard Dawkins no New York Times e o Parecer da Matrix/DNA

quarta-feira, setembro 21st, 2011

A Knack for Bashing Orthodoxy

(Uma Habilidade para Atacar Ortodoxia)

The New York Times

(Observação dêste autor: Apesar de ser curioso intelectualmente à discussão entre mentes mais letradas, não tenho tempo e não é minha prioridade a questão entre religiosos e ateístas porque considero ambos no reino da metafisica quando estou mais necessitado de informações sôbre fatos reais naturais. A cosmovisão da Matrix/DNA sugere que nosso corpo e o Universo material perceptível são produções naturais, não detecto nada super-natural nos modêlos, portanto, a metafisica fica para alguma possivel futura ocasião de ócio. Quanto à abstrata dimensão dos nossos pensamentos, reunidos num conjunto que denominamos “mente”, existe uma porta aberta para a possibilidade de alguma fenomenologia metafisica, porem, como disse, essa dimensão perde em prioridade agora para a dimensão da matéria aqui e agora. Portanto, celebridades intelectuais como Richard Dawkins que trazem à tona a palavra “Ciência”, mas que impregnam estes toques com grande cobertura metafisica atrapalham meu estudo, por isso ignoro-os e aos seus livros na maior parte das vêzes. O post a seguir confirma o que penso e reforça o que deve ser minha atitude:

http://community.nytimes.com/comments/www.nytimes.com/2011/09/20/science/20dawkins.html?sort=newest
399. Mario Latendresse
menlo park, ca
September 21st, 2011
12:27 am
Dawkins’ books are quite boring and I have never learned any science from them. He has an ax to grind and that gets very annoying. Which new ideas has he brought forward in the field of science? I do not see any. )

Comentário pela Matrix/DNA postado no NYT, nos comentários que seguem o artigo:

Dawkins iniciou sua militância intelectual quando descobriu que poderia opor a idéia da competição egoísta contra a estabelecida preferência pela idéia da cooperação altruísta. A seguir expomos a resposta da nova Teoria da Matrix/DNA:

O que é verdade? Qual é a real caracteristica dos seres vivos que fomenta a evolução?
O altruísmo individual projetando-se como cooperação no grupo, ou o egoísmo individual projetando-se na competição dentro e fora do grupo?

Vejamos o que sugere a experiência da História Natural Universal:

1) A macroevolução universal se apresentou composta de micro-ciclos: … ciclo do sistema atômico, ciclo do sistema astronomico, ciclo do sistema biológico, ciclo do sistema consciente.
2) O micro-ciclo evolucionario do sistema biológico foi composto de outros micro-ciclos: … ciclo dos micro-organismos, ciclo dos répteis, dos mamiferos.
3) Cada micro-ciclo de espécies do sistema biológico apresentou o seguinte enrêdo:

1) Existe uma espécie no tôpo da evolução dentre todas as espécies;
2) Existe um individuo ou um sub-grupo no topo da evolução dentro da espécie que está no tôpo da evolução dentre tôdas espécies; Ex: As familias Rotchild, Rockfeller, na espécie humana.
3) Quem está no tôpo da evolução conserva e se acomoda (super-especialismo: fecha as portas à evolução); Ex: dinossauros, leões, baleias, águias. Republicanos?
4) A entropia ataca o que se acomoda; Ex: Rei Luis XV e familia na França, Elite do Império Romano, Egipcio. LUCA
5) A entropia elimina a forma acomodada no tôpo e a fôrça da evolução retorna buscando a forma mais evoluida a seguir que se mantem na necessidade aberta à evolução; Ex: descarta o dinossauro e retorna ao lagarto para transforma-lo no mamifero.
6) A entropia causa o caos para todos sobreviventes. EX: era glacial, etc.
7) O caos produz a competição e faz expressar o egoísmo individual, e mesmo do grupo sôbre outros grupos;
8) A competição se soma ao caos contra todos. O ponto maximo do caos&competição na espécie humana foi a Segunda Guerra Mundial; Tem inicio o despertar pelo desejo da ordem;
9) A cooperação substitui a competição. O estado de ordem cresce enquanto o de caos diminui;
10) O estado de ordem é estabelecido. No tôpo da evolução os vencedores se acomodam e conservam; fecham as portas à evolução;
11) A entropia ataca; recomeça o estado de caos.

Portanto cada ciclo é dividido em três fases: caos, equilibrio transitivo, ordem.

Resultado: Eu não entendo porque essa controvérsia entre um grupo que elege Cooperação e Altruísmo contra outro que elege Competição e Egoísmo, se ambas as coisas são relativas às fases da evolução e existem e em doses iguais.

xxxxxx

Tradução para postar no NYT:

Dawkins began his intellectual fight when discovered that could oppose selfish competition against the stablished preference for altruistic cooperation. The following is the response from the new Theory of Matrix/DNA:

What is truth? What is the real characteristic of living things that promotes evolution?
Individual altruism projecting itself as group cooperation, or individual egoism projecting into the competition within and outside the group?

Let’s see what suggests the experience of the Universal Natural History:

1) The universal macroevolution is presented composed of micro-cycles: … cycle of atomic system, astronomical system cycle, cycle of the biological system, cycle of the conscious system;
2) The micro-evolutionary cycle of the biological system was composed of other micro-cycle: … cycle of micro-organisms, the cycle of reptiles, mammals;
3) Each micro-cycle of species of the biological system presented the following scenario:

1) There is an evolution of the species at the top among all species;
2) There is an individual or a sub-group at the top of evolution within species that is on top of evolution among all species; Ex: The Rotchild and Rockefeller families in human specie .
3) Who is at the top of the evolution preserves and settles (super-specialism: closes the door to evolution); Ex: dinosaurs, lions, whales, eagles. Republicans?
4) The entropy attacks what sits; Ex: King Louis XV and family in France, Elite of the Roman, Egyptian Empire.
5) Entropy eliminates the form staying on top of the evolution and returns seeking below the specie less evolved and in need that keeps itself open to changes; EX: Evolution drops from dinosaur and returns to lizard to transform it in the mammal;
6) Entropy causes chaos for all survivors. EX: ice age, etc..
7) The chaos produces competition and does express the individual egoism, and even the group egoism over other groups;
8) The competition adds to the chaos against all. The peak of the chaos & competition in humans was the Second World War; Begins awakening the desire for order;
9) Cooperation replaces competition. The state of order grows as the chaos decreases;
10) The state of order is established. At the top the winners will accommodate being conservative and safe; They closes the door to evolution;
11) The entropy attacks, resumes order to the state of chaos.

Thus each cycle is divided into three stages: chaos, transitive equillibrium, order.

Result: I do not understand why this dispute between a group that elects Cooperation and Altruism against another who elects Competition and selfishness, if both are related to the phases of evolution and exists in equal doses.

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Segundo Comentário Postado pela Matrix/DNA:

NYT: Genes, he says, try to maximize theur chance for survival”

Nope. Dawkins has brilliant insights but he did a desservice to evolution of human moral code. Genes does not knows about death, their future death, so, they do nothing for survival. As primitive molécules, they search food and the best physical acomodation. That’s all they do. The production of proteins are a sub-product from their alimentation. About genes, there is no selfhness neither altruism, there is determinism. Human beings are councious about death, they adds the search for survival. The less intellectually evolved search its individual survival, applying competition andbeing selfish against its specie and everything else. The most intellectually advanced discovers that survival is better reached if join in society. Selfish competition begans being changed for altruistic cooperation.

The BBC documentaries of that time were better for the evolution of human kind than the book “The Selfish Gene”.

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Resposta a meu comentário:

426. Sereno
413. Louis Charles Morelli.

I would tell you that Dawkins uses “genes try to maximize their chances of survival” as a figure of speech. He makes this clarification in “The Selfish Gene” quite carefully. I also take issue with your jump from “selfish gene” to “thus selfish individuals.” The selfish gene is just about whether the unit of selection is truly the organism or if it could be the genes. Then starts showing how focusing on genes helps explain a lot of stuff. However, the figure of speech allowed a lot of phrases that have been mistaken by both the scientific community and the general public for no bad reason. They sound preposterous if we forget that it is figure of speech. Some have taken the figure quite literally as true though, and talk very seriously about evil “selfish machines” or other “selfish memes” trying to take over the world. Thus worsening this misunderstanding.

Anyway, the idea is that even altruism is something that can be explained if it maximizes the probabilities for reproduction/copying/whatever of the genes behind this behaviour, which it does. It also explains a lot of behaviours and phenotypes that would remain perplexing otherwise. The idea behind the selfish gene, once understood, is very helpful, and has indeed influenced the thoughts of evolutionary biologists.

Read the book. read also “Genome, the autobiography of a species in 23 chapters” (not by Dawkins, but shows a few examples of the power of the selfish gene paradigm to explain some interesting phenotypes, and it is a beauty of a book).

See ya.

xxxxxxx

Minha resposta à resposta acima:
Your Submitted Comment
Louis Charles Morelli

Location

New York, NY

Comment

426. Sereno

“I would tell you that Dawkins uses \”genes try to maximize their chances of survival\” as a figure of speech… I also take issue with your jump from \”selfish gene\” to \”thus selfish individuals.\”

But… it was what really happened!

NYT: “The moral implications proved deeply troubling, suggesting that altruism disguised selfish, gene-driven behavior. “Many readers experienced the book as a psychic trauma,”…

So, are we selfish and due our genes?

The Matrix/DNA Theory: “Universal Macro-Evolution is a whole composed by cycles which are composed by micro-cycles and so on. Each cycle has the same scenario: a) begins with the state of chaos due the entropy attacking the last evolved system that accommodated into super-specialism (like Earth’s biosphere is the chaos state from the decaying astronomic ordered state); In this chaos there is domination of competition and individual selfishness. b) The suffering under chaos leads the individuals to wish the ordered state (equilibrium transition). c) A specie in internal ordered state is allocated at the top of evolution, (altruism and cooperation) and begins the accommodation into super-specialism which triggers entropy again and new cycle.

Thus, selfishness/competition and altruism/cooperation exists at equal doses.

I think that Dawkins made a good service debunking the supremacy of altruism/cooperation over the human moral code, but he did a disservice bringing on the supremacy of selfishness/competition. We have the domination and war from corporations today due this kind of world vision.

By the way, as a researcher myself, I thanks the informations about the evidences of selfish gene over natural phenomena. Any links? Thanks.

See ya.
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Inicio da análise do Artigo:

1) Cooperation x Competition:

NYT: ” … the predominant popular view of evolution was that animals and insects worked together, albeit uncounciously, and thatnatural selection acted on undividuals to do what was good for their species. Cooperation, again unconscious, seemed woven (tecida, interpenetrada) in nature.

Examples of cooperation cited by BBC in those times:

1)The dung beetle…
2) The male deer fight…

Dawkins says: ” That sort of thinking was pretty dominant in the culture. And it’s plain wrong. I wanted to correct that ubiquitous ( estando ou parecendo estar presente em todos os lugares o tempo todo)misanderstanding”.

O que êle pensou estar errado? O que êle tinha em mente como certo? A resposta vem…

“Genes try to maximize their chance of survival. The succesful ones crawl down ( rastejam por baixo) through the generations. The losers, and their hosts, die off. A gene for helping the group could not persist if it endangered the survival of the individual.”

2) Altruísmo x Egoísmo

E assim ele chegou ao “selfish gene”, e descobriu que esta metafora era uma grande frase de efeito no publico. E explorou a reação publica.

Ele trouxe a idéia de que o altruismo na cooperação é aparente, apenas disfarça o egoísmo.

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Obs.: No quadro dos comentários não coube o texto devido excesso de palavras. Abaixo está como foi dividido o texto para o caso de ter que postar novamente:

Post 2: Primeira parte:

Dawkins began his intellectual fight when discovered that could oppose selfish competition against the stablished preference for altruistic cooperation. The following is the response from the new Theory of Matrix/DNA:

What is truth? What is the real characteristic of living things that promotes evolution?

Individual altruism projecting itself as group cooperation, or individual egoism projecting into the competition within and outside the group?

Let’s see what suggests the experience of the Universal Natural History:

1) The universal macroevolution is presented composed of micro-cycles: … cycle of atomic system, astronomical system cycle, cycle of the biological system, cycle of the conscious system;
2) The micro-evolutionary cycle of the biological system was composed of other micro-cycle: … cycle of micro-organisms, the cycle of reptiles, mammals;
3) Each micro-cycle of species of the biological system presented the following scenario:

1) There is an evolution of the species at the top among all species;
2) There is an individual or a sub-group at the top of evolution within species that is on top of evolution among all species; Ex: The Rotchild and Rockefeller families in human specie .
3) Who is at the top of the evolution preserves and settles (super-specialism: closes the door to evolution); Ex: dinosaurs, lions, whales, eagles. Republicans?
4) The entropy attacks what sits; Ex: King Louis XV and family in France, Elite of the Roman, Egyptian Empire.
5) Entropy eliminates the form staying on top of the evolution and returns seeking below the specie less evolved and in need that keeps itself open to changes; EX: Evolution drops from dinosaur and returns to lizard to transform it in the mammal;
6) Entropy causes chaos for all survivors. EX: ice age, etc..
7) The chaos produces competition and does express the individual egoism, and even the group egoism over other groups;
8) The competition adds to the chaos against all. The (following)

Post 1 – segunda parte:

(…) peak of the chaos & competition in humans was the Second World War; Begins awakening the desire for order;
9) Cooperation replaces competition. The state of order grows as the chaos decreases;
10) The state of order is established. At the top the winners will accommodate being conservative and safe; They closes the door to evolution;
11) The entropy attacks, resumes order to the state of chaos.

Thus each cycle is divided into three stages: chaos, transitive equillibrium, order.

Result: I do not understand why this dispute between a group that elects Cooperation and Altruism against another who elects Competition and selfishness, if both are related to the phases of evolution and exists in equal doses.

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Estudante Republicano: “Serei um Cientista Criacionista Sem Acreditar na Evolução”

sábado, setembro 3rd, 2011

Êste assunto de conflito interno da mente da Humanidade continua ganhando manchetes. Um estudante de 19 anos americano, Austin Casey, publica um artigo revelando que o candidato republicano à presidência, Jon Huntsman, estaria tentando parecer intelectual e racional para ganhar os votos da comunidade cientifica quando aproveita para criticar as palavras de seu competidor, outro candidato republicano, Rick Perry, de que a evolução seria apenas uma teoria com muitas falhas. O artigo (cujo enderêço e titulo está indicado abaixo), revela que o estudante pensa como Perry. Não demorou para os militantes defensores da Teoria da Evolução publicarem contra-argumentos, como PZ Myers do Pharyngula (artigo indicado abaixo).

E o que a Teoria da Matrix/DNA tem a dizer a respeito?

Casey: ” Contrary to Huntsman’s claim, the Republican Party is proving more scientific because of its legitimate recognition of the gaps in evolution.”

Matix/DNA – ” Existem gaps realmente mas na Teoria da Evolução, e não na “evolução”, como o autor tenta sugerir. A Teoria da Evolução é algo diferente da evolução natural por enquanto, e ninguem pode afirmar que existam gaps na evolução ( o que significaria que a existência da diversidade das espécies e da hierarquia de complexidade entre as espécies conteria interferências de agentes não naturais, ou, ao menos, teriam ocorrido eventos influenciadores vindos de alguma dimensão diferente da dimensão que produz a corrente de causas e efeitos que nossos sentidos percebem). Aliás, ninguem nem mesmo pode afirmar que existe o processo da Evolução, apesar de que os fatos que conhecemos analizados pelo nosso tipo de racionalização sugerem que ela exista).

Eu penso que existe um interesse oculto privado na ação dos republicanos de defender uma cosmovisão criacionista. Não sei se os mentores do partido são realmente criacionistas ou se estão agindo maquiavélicamente, ou seja, por saber que a população americana na maioria é criacionista e por querer os votos deles, faz-se um discurso com sofismas, pregando o que não se acredita. Huntsman seria um republicano rebelde dentro do partido. Não sei. Apontar os gaps na teoria é salutar pois êles existem, e isto indica que a pessoa seja mais cientifica, mas se aduzir ao apontamento que a evolução não existe…, a pessoa perde seu mérito cientifico. Na cosmovisão da Matrix/DNA os gaps são preenchidos porque inserimos à evolução biológica a evolução cosmológica, o que acrescentou mais quatro variáveis às três variáveis de Darwin. Sugerimos que os gaps de fato não existem, o que existe é ineficacia da moderna e acadêmica Teoria da Evolução.”

Casey: “To point out one weakness, evolution relies on the assumption that beneficial genetic information has been repeatedly added to genomes throughout the history of the universe. But not even Richard Dawkins, a leading evolutionary biologist from Oxford University, could name a single mutation that has added beneficial information.”

Matrix/DNA: PZ Mayers,em seu artigo indicado abaixo aponta indica um link a uma lista de mutações benéficas:

http://www.gate.net/~rwms/EvoMutations.html

Examples of Beneficial Mutations and Natural Selection

… a qual vamos precisar ler e analizar.

Casey: “Evolution has so many gaps that refusing to search for new explanations of the evidence available to us would be completely unscientific,…”

Matrix/DNA: ( Pôsto como comentário no debate que se segue ao artigo):

” There are gaps in the Theory of Evolution, but it not means that there is evolution and gaps in evolution. Yes it is not rational refusing others explanations than evolution since evolution is not proved yet. The diversification of species and the hierarchy of complexity among the species are facts and rationally they suggest the possibility of evolution.
But, for instance, if the sequence of events of an embryo seems evolution for an insider observer, is a process of reproduction for an outsider observer. So, we don’t know if there is a cosmologic process of reproduction or evolution.
The gaps in Theory of Evolution could be, as suggested by the Theory of Matrix/DNA, fulfilled if doing what Matrix/DNA has made: unifying biological evolution to cosmological evolution. The final result is adding more four variables coming from the non-biological world to the three variables seen at biological evolution (V-variation, S-selection, I- inheritance). You can see the results at the matrix/DNA website.”

xxxxx

http://www.lsureveille.com

To the Point: Believing in evolution doesn’t make you scientific

By Austin Casey – Columnist

Published: Thursday, September 1, 2011

Lista de Obras Criticando Darwinism como Teoria da Evolução. ID

terça-feira, agosto 23rd, 2011

Eugene Koonin, THe Logic of Chance.
Surprising evolutionary reconstructions arising from the comparison of complete genomes leads to the question: Is there a tree of life–or a forest?

James Shapiro. Evolution: A view from the 21st Century
Shap[iro proposes an important new paradigm for understanding biological evolution. Shapiro demonstrates why traditional views of evolution are inadequate to explain the latest evidence, and presents a compelling alternative. His information- and systems-based approach integrates advances in symbiogenesis, epigenetics, and mobile genetic elements, and points toward an emerging synthesis of physical, information, and biological sciences.

Massimo Piglucci. Evolution – The Extended Synthesis
The Extended Evolutionary Synthesis is a provisional one subject to modification in the light of further discoveries in the field which are coming thick and fast.

Jerry Fodor and Massimo Piatelli-Palmarini, “What Darwin Got Wrong”
“We thought we’d best make clear from the outset, because our main contention in what follows will be that there is something wrong – quite possibly fatally wrong – with the theory of natural selection; and we are aware that, even among those who are not quite sure what it is, allegiance to Darwinism has become a litmus for deciding who does, and who does not, hold a `properly scientific’ world view.”
Their most persuasive, and engaging, criticism is that evolutionary theory is just tautological truisms and historical narratives of how creatures came to be. Natural selection as the driver of speciation has become decreasingly explanatory as research continues to appreciate the complexity of internal and external processes impinging on development.

Suzan Mazur, “the Altenberg 16: An Exposé of the Evolution Industry”
““Let’s begin with the facts: The days of evolutionary science being an exclusive old boys club are over” The scientific establishment has been somewhat scared of dealing rationally and openly with new evolutionary ideas because of its fear of the powerful creationist movement. {Why is creationism so powerful if evolutionists have all the scientific evidence to back them up?]

—Lynn Margulis, recipient of the US Presidential Medal for Science:
“And what Haldane, Fisher, Sewell Wright, Hardy, Weinberg, et al. did was invent. . . . The Anglophone tradition was taught. I was taught and so were my contemporaries. And so were the younger scientists. Evolution was defined as ‘changes in gene frequencies’ in natural populations. The accumulation of genetic mutations were touted to be enough to change one species to another. . . . No. It wasn’t dishonesty. I think it was wish fulfillment and social momentum. Assumptions, made but not verified, were taught as fact.”

S.N. Salthe, “Analysis and critique of the concept of Natural Selection”
“The Darwinian (Synthetic) theory of organic evolution, insofar as it is crucially driven by the concept of natural selection, is not suitable to be a part of Modernism’s creation myth…As to its ability to explain the evolution of organisms (as opposed to the evolution of gene systems), it has not, after some 60 years of development, delivered a very convincing mechanism.”

Carl WOese, ” A New Biology for a New Century”
Biology today is at a crossroads. The molecular paradigm, which so successfully guided the discipline throughout most of the 20th century, is no longer a reliable guide. Its vision of biology now realized, the molecular paradigm has run its course. Biology, therefore, has a choice to make, between the comfortable path of continuing to follow molecular biology’s lead or the more invigorating one of seeking a new and inspiring vision of the living world, one that addresses the major problems in biology that 20th century biology, molecular biology, could not handle and, so, avoided. The former course, though highly productive, is certain to turn biology into an engineering discipline. The latter holds the promise of making biology an even more fundamental science, one that, along with physics, probes and defines the nature of reality. This is a choice between a biology that solely does society’s bidding and a biology that is society’s teacher.

Stuart Newman ( professor of cell biology and anatomy at New York Medical College in Valhalla, NY)
“Unless the discourse around evolution is opened up to scientific perspectives beyond Darwinism, the education of generations to come is at risk of being sacrificed for the benefit of a dying theory.” He now has a theory about the origin of form of all 35 or so animal phyla – ”it happened abruptly” not gradually, roughly 600 million years ago via a “pattern language.”

Evolução: Multilevel selection theory (A mais recente versão dos atuais evolucionistas)

domingo, agosto 21st, 2011

Multilevel selection theory (reler e analizar)

Wikipedia:
See also: Unit of selection

In recent years, the limitations of earlier models have been addressed, and newer models suggest that selection may sometimes act above the gene level. Recently David Sloan Wilson and Elliot Sober have argued that the case against group selection has been overstated. They focus their argument on whether groups can have functional organization in the same way individuals do and, consequently, whether groups can also be “vehicles” for selection. For example, groups that cooperate better may have out-reproduced those that did not. Resurrected in this way, Wilson & Sober’s new group selection is usually called multilevel selection theory.[12]

David Sloan Wilson, the developer of Multilevel Selection Theory (MLS) compares the many layers of competition and evolution to the “Russian Matryoska Dolls” within one another.[13] The lowest level is the genes, next come the cells, and then the organism level and finally the groups. The different levels function cohesively to maximize fitness, or reproductive success. After establishing these levels, MLS goes further by saying that selection for the group level, which is competition between groups, must outweigh the individual level, which is individuals competing within a group, for a group-beneficiating trait to spread.[14] MLS theory focuses on the phenotype this way because it looks at the levels that selection directly acts upon.[13]

MLS theory does not lean towards individual or group selection but can be used to evaluate the balance between group selection and individual selection on a case-by-case scenario.[14] Some experiments done imply that group selection can prevail, such as the experiment conducted by William Muir of Purdue University comparing egg productivity in hens. In the experiment, he demonstrates the existence of group selection by showing that in individual selection, a hyper-aggressive strain had been produced that led to many fatal attacks only after six generations.[15] Group selection has been most often postulated in humans and, notably, social insects that make cooperation a driving force of their adaptations over time.[16]

For humans, a highly pro-social, cognitive thinking species, social norms can be seen as a means of reducing the individual level variation and competition and shift selection in humans to the group level. Wilson ties the MLS theory regarding humans to another upcoming theory known as gene-culture evolution by acknowledging that culture seems to characterize a group-level mechanism for human groups to adapt to environmental changes.[14] The ways to test MLS is through social psychological experimentation and multilevel modeling equations.

Wilson & Sober’s work has been part of a revival of interest in multilevel selection as an explanation for evolutionary phenomena. Indeed, in a 2005 article,[17] E. O. Wilson argued that kin selection could no longer be thought of as underlying the evolution of extreme sociality, for two reasons. First, some authors have shown that the argument that haplodiploid inheritance, characteristic of the Hymenoptera, creates a strong selection pressure towards nonreproductive castes is mathematically flawed.[18] Second, eusociality no longer seems to be confined to the hymenopterans; increasing numbers of highly social taxa have been found in the years since Wilson’s foundational text on sociobiology was published in 1975,[11] including a variety of insect species, as well as a rodent species (the naked mole rat). Wilson suggests the equation for Hamilton’s rule:[19]
rb > c
(where b represents the benefit to the recipient of altruism, c the cost to the altruist, and r their degree of relatedness) should be replaced by the more general equation
(rbk + be) > c
in which bk is the benefit to kin (b in the original equation) and be is the benefit accruing to the group as a whole. He then argues that, in the present state of the evidence in relation to social insects, it appears that be>rbk, so that altruism needs to be explained in terms of selection at the colony level rather than at the kin level. However, it is well understood in social evolution theory that kin selection and group selection are not distinct processes, and that the effects of multi-level selection are already fully accounted for in Hamilton’s original rule,