Louis Charles Morelli – Mar-03/07/2017
Comentario/resposta postado no Forum “Religious Forum”
( notar que registrei uma conta através da minha conta do Google, pondo meu e-mail e o nome :Louis Morelli (nao foi feito passyword, username, etc).
I know this is a stupid question, but bear with me here. This is not skepticism of any kind, but a mere question.
If a cause of natural selection is mutation, how would that work, if mutation is a random process? I’m stuck here. If natural selection is adaptation, then how could genetic mutation be a part in it if it’s random? Thanks in advance.
Existe vida apos a morte? Como e’ que posso saber, ninguem voltou de la’. Mas,… eu por acaso aprendi um método que tem me levado muito mais longe do que poderia imaginar. Quando você tem uma questão sobre a existência de alguma coisa, pergunte a Natureza e ninguem mais. A natureza de um jeito ou outro lhe propicia um sinal onde a resposta esta. Geralmente ela aponta uma cena, um evento ou um fenômeno acontecendo aqui e agora que explica dentro de uma logica impecável a pergunta feita. mas tinha que ser assim, pois a Natureza ‘e uma so, ela ‘e do tamanho do universo, o universo e’ natureza, então se e’ uma so, ela faz suas coisas diferentes aplicando um método so. Tal como o artista se revela em seus quadros. Se eu pergunto porque se no mundo todos os bichos botavam os ovos fora e de repente alguns acharam de manter os ovos dentro, gerando a parafernália da embriogênese, ela me mostra um modelo astronomico onde um sistema astronomico nosso ancestral ja fazia as duas coisas: botava os ovos fora e em seguida, mantinha os ovos dentro. se eu pergunto como e porque o Universo começou com um Big Bang, ela indica o momento da fecundação de um ovulo, me faz ficar pequenino e dentro do ovulo observando tudo, ai vejo chegando um espermatozoide que parece uma nave alienígena, a nave para no centro do ovulo, fico esperando abrir as portas para descer os genes-passageiros, mas ao invés disso, a nave explode num espalhafatoso big bang dentro do ovulo!. Acontece que o espermatozoide veio enrolado dentro de uma membrana e a membrana rompeu-se subitamente. Ai a Natureza me tira de dentro do ovulo, me faz ficar grande outra vez e me manda para casa dormir. No sonho duas cenas ficam se intercalando no meu cérebro: o big bang do universo e o big bang do ovulo… e as imagens se fundem numa so. Esta’ respondido! Claro, eu tinha começado a dormir bem antes, e a historia de que ela me levou para o ovulo já fazia parte do sonho.
Mas parece que tem um outro caboclo perdido por ai no mundo que esta me passando a perna. Ele aplicou o mesmo método perguntando a Natureza se tem vida apos a morte. A Natureza fez ele ficar pequenino, levou ele dentro de um saco embrionário onde estavam os embriões de dois gêmeos. E ai ele ouviu a seguinte conversa entre os gêmeos: ( esta em inglês, mas voltarei aqui para traduzir tudo)
Existe uma historia, escrita por um desconhecido autor, que fornece uma boa analogia do porque eu penso que deveríamos levar a serio a possibilidade de que exista vida apos a morte.
There is a story, written by an unknown author, gives a good analogy of why I think we should take seriously the prospect of an afterlife. It is based around two babies who’s whole life is dependent on the umbilical cord, analogous to our body, and they ponder if they can survive after it is cut. The mother is a reference to God, please ignore that, because I have no “evidence” for God at all:
— In a mother’s womb were two babies. One asked the other: “Do you believe in life after delivery?” The other replied, “Why, of course. There has to be something after delivery. Maybe we are here to prepare ourselves for what we will be later.”
“Nonsense” said the first. “There is no life after delivery. What kind of life would that be?”
The second said, “I don’t know, but there will be more light than here. Maybe we will walk with our legs and eat from our mouths. Maybe we will have other senses that we can’t understand now.”
The first replied, “That is absurd. Walking is impossible. And eating with our mouths? Ridiculous! The umbilical cord supplies nutrition and everything we need. But the umbilical cord is so short. Life after delivery is to be logically excluded.”
The second insisted, “Well I think there is something and maybe it’s different than it is here. Maybe we won’t need this physical cord anymore.”
The first replied, “Nonsense. And moreover if there is life, then why has no one has ever come back from there? Delivery is the end of life, and in the after-delivery there is nothing but darkness and silence and oblivion. It takes us nowhere.”
“Well, I don’t know,” said the second, “but certainly we will meet Mother and she will take care of us.”
The first replied “Mother? You actually believe in Mother? That’s laughable. If Mother exists then where is She now?”
The second said, “She is all around us. We are surrounded by her. We are of Her. It is in Her that we live. Without Her this world would not and could not exist.”
Said the first: “Well I don’t see Her, so it is only logical that She doesn’t exist.
A nossa proposta é que ondas eletromagnéticas que fluem livres nos ares do Brasil e que atravessam nossos corpos não podem ser cedidas oficialmente a nenhuma pessoa ou empresa privada. Elas devem ser livres como a Internet onde cada qual cria seu blog, seu website, assim cada qual pode instalar sua radio, canal de tv, jornal, etc. As transgressões aos bons usos e costumes – como radios/tv pornograficas, etc. – seriam punidas nas mesmas regras aplicadas na Internet hoje. Favoravel a este movimento, divulgo o link abaixo sobre bons videos a respeito:
Mas temos tambem que considerar as opiniões contrarias como a do Ian Gopfert publicada nos comentarios do Youtube, a qual me provocou a publicar ali tambem uma resposta, a seguir:
+Ian Gopfert – Voce diz que “o brasileiro é consumidor de rádio e tv e existe uma relação de satisfação entre consumidor e produtor”. Ora tudo isso se aplica ao viciado em drogas e o traficante. Se você acha que não se deve combater o traficante que fica nos portões da escola esperando seus filhos para pega-los como a fera pega a ovelha no vídeo – e neste caso os traficantes são o Marinho e as famílias seculares que dominam o Brasil a 500 anos, qual então sua estratégia proposta para salvar seus filhos dos traficantes?
Combater o “Estado”?! Isso seria combater a escola. Chega de ocultar os nomes aos bois por trás de palavras-slogans que são abstratas e inatingíveis como estado, pais, brasil, etc., e vamos direto à causa do mal a qual são “pessoas” com o instinto de predadores da própria espécie humana. Se alguém pode e está expressando publicamente sua ideologia como é o caso das emissoras e seus donos, eu tambem posso e tenho todo o direito de montar a minha radio e expressar a minha ideologia. As ondas eletromagnéticas que fluem livremente nos ares do Brasil e inclusive atravessam o meu corpo não pode de maneira alguma serem cedidas a pessoas ou grupos privados, elas me pertencem tambem como brasileiro dono deste pais e não autorizo tais concessões. Emissoras devem ser como a Internet onde cada um pode criar seu website e o poder publico pode coibir os abusos contra os bons usos e costumes, apenas isso. Eu não vi no seu comentário a sua critica seguida da sua sugestão estratégica e o que você esta fazendo de útil para combater este problema?… como os pais que nem sequer vão às escolas para vigiar os traficantes e ao pega-los, descer o porrete neles… os quais são irresponsáveis para com os seus filhos e os demais filhos do Brasil.
+Bonfim Barros Mas você está colaborando com o errado ao desviar a causa da culpa que são “pessoas” para relega-la a palavras teóricas como “sistema” que se referem a entidades abstratas e fantasmagóricas que são invisíveis e inatingíveis para quem quiser exorcizar esta causa. Os humanos ainda estão com sua genética e mente dominadas pela sua recente herança animal cujo tipo de “sistema social” é baseado nas regras da selva e são divididos entre grandes predadores, médios predadores e ovelhas. O tipo de sistema social pregado por Jesus é o alvo longínquo a ser alcançado mas apenas depois que se exorcizar esta herança animalesca e para isso é nela que se deve concentrar combatendo os comportamentos dos três grupos, pois todos estão errados em relação ao ideal cristão da grande e sagrada família universal. As relações entre emissoras e povo são as versões humanas das relações entre o predador e as ovelhas e não tem como chegar ao sonho de Jesus senão eliminar os efeitos sanguinários do que vês no vídeo eliminando da mente dos humanos a infecção dos vírus do predador e da ovelha. Concentre suas armas e poder de fogo nas pessoas e suas mentes e não os desvie para slogans fantasmas. se queres fazer algo de concreto e útil para para os outros e para nosso mestre e bom filósofo Jesus.
O método da anatomia comparada entre sistemas naturais vivos e não-vivos acabou sugerindo que os vivos já existiam em estado potencial na chamada matéria inorgânica e nos chamados sistemas inanimados, tais como átomos e galáxias. Se isto for comprovado verdade, será uma das maiores revoluções culturais de todos os tempos, mudando tanto as cosmovisões materialistas cientificas quanto as religiosas como as derivadas da Bíblia. Os resultados deste método, portanto, produz uma nova visão do mundo, e como ainda não foi comprovada cientificamente, trata-se por enquanto de uma nova “teoria” ( no sentido original grego da palavra e não na definição moderna de teoria cientifica). Como disse Eisntein, “um autor não precisa comprovar que sua teoria está certa, apenas mostrar que ela faz sentido, tem uma lógica racional”. A prova, destruição, ou consertos da teoria vem depois, com novos dados descobertos sôbre a Natureza. Estou portanto, na busca de fatos reais que comprovem a teoria, mas enquanto não os detecto, meu dever é continuar buscando e acumulando fatos que sirvam como evidências e argumentos fortes para a teoria, ao mesmo tempo que a honestidade me obriga tambem a acumular e divulgar fatos que sirvam como negação da teoria. Neste artigo trago mais um argumento forte, o qual devo desenvolver melhor nos dias a seguir. Trata-se do resultado calculado a partir do método da anatomia comparada em que o código da vida tem que estar inserido bos sistemas astronômicos e mais exatamente nos núcleos dos astros celestes. Á primeira vista isto parece uma suposição absurda mesmo para mim que fiz os calculos, mas como não posso deixar a minha ideologia pessoal julgar os resultados de um calculo impessoal, tenho que buscar onde estaria o êrro neste resultado, e/ou engoli-lo a contra-gôsto, pois quem o está afirmando é a razão pura mais a longa cadeia de causas e efeitos naturais que vem desde as origens deste mundo material, a não ser que cometí algum êrro em algum momento destes cálculos. O argumento se inicia pelo seguinte: Observe as formas iniciais de um corpo humano, denominadas mórula, blástula, etc:
( continuar isto trazendo para cá asiamgens de mórula,blastula e um bebê formado. Depois as imagens do nucleoterrstre e a fórmula)
Do you think is it possible that the modern Cosmos’ world view can be revolutionized like that when the heliocentric world view came upon the geocentric world view? I am asking it because there is a rational theoretical Cosmos’ model, unknown by you, suggesting that reality is very different than we are thinking. For instance, while we think that stars are born, they are dying, and vice-versa. Wait: remember that only proved known facts can debunk this hypothesis, do not deny it supported only upon the believed concepts built by the current theoretical model.
The author is not scientist neither amador astronomer and never thought about thinking out the box in relation to the mainstream model. But, 30 years ago and spending 7 years studying the natural systems that composes the Amazon jungle total biosphere, he found that explanations about the origins of each system must comes from the astronomical system surrounding Earth. That’s the cause he searched data from Astronomy, and concluded that the modern Nebular or Standard Theory must be not complete. Trying to complete it for getting a model able to create this biosphere, he built which is called “The Universal Matrix/DNA of All Natural Systems and Life’s Cycles”. It includes new and very different models for atomic and astronomical systems.
Since that Astronomy, quantum theory, were not his business, and he is a skeptical naturalist philosopher, he tried to forget his models, but, by the last 30 years, the bombardment of news, data, images, every day remembering the predictions of his model, made him to search scrutiny and testings, by the academic teams. Due its isolation at the jungle or even in New York ( he is American citizen) never reached someone for talking about. Here, at CosmoQuestX, appears to be a great opportunity.
There are thousands of evidences for this new model, collected at his unknown website, the unique source of divulgation. So, I don’t know which I will bring here first for beginning a discussion. I will try only one by know, referring the picture attached here.
How Nature – the state of the world, the state of the Solar and Milk Way systems – at 4 billion years ago, built every properties of biological systems at Earth surface? Metabolism, life’s cycle, sexual reproduction, genetic code, etc.,? The Matrix/DNA model is a unique astronomical model that shows where all these biological properties were hidden as potential natural forces and elements inside the Solar and galactic systems. I know you will not accept and grasp this idea, but, the unique rational and scientific thinking way is pointing out one detail of this biosphere at a time, asking here for me pointing out the principle or primordial force at the astronomical model. For beginning to understand what I am talking about, the picture attached here is about the primordial process, forces and elements contained inside the building block of all astronomical systems, 4 billion years ago, that evolved into the modern human sexual reproductive system.
Is there someone interested in this issue? I will be grateful… Cheers for everybody here…
Last edited by TheMatrixDNA; 2014-Nov-11 at 08:41 PM.
What is your theory? Do you have any mathematical models?
“You’re only given one little spark of madness. You mustn’t lose it.” Robin Williams.
Last edited by TheMatrixDNA; Yesterday at 04:11 PM.
( Thanks for remembering me how works the mainstream mindset – it is product of brains hard-wired by a millenary culture based on a specific logistic called Mathematics. If you are interested to know how works brains hard-wired by other life’s experiences – like the rules of salvage jungle and crude Nature plus absorption of scientific data coming from the civilization – here you will have an opportunity. But, please, does not believe that these brains are not worth to know because you have seen no technological and scientific production. This world view is suggesting many new ways for producing new technology. And I think yours quickly question was due the attached picture on my post did not worked, but I have solved it. Please, go back to the first post for seeing the kind of models I have applied.)
Mathematical models? I am talking about a theory about “natural systems” models. Not about man made models for expressing their thoughts. And graphics produced by this theory are suggesting that the linear logistic of Mathematics is good for translating a smaller phase of any natural systems longlife. Here is the predictive power of Math: it can predict the smaller phase of the next systems inside the big hierarchy of systems that composes the Universe. Matrix/DNA formulas are based on human mental translation in shape of designs that register the internal circuit flow of energy/information at observed natural systems and the final result of these draws seems something like genetics and simple computational software’s diagrams. That’s the way Nature works. Math falls when trying to calculate the whole of any system because they are not solely based on Mathematical logics.I will try an analogy:
Aliens made of iron and rubber that does not know life as we know and does not see the our visible light arrived to Earth. They saw lots of bone skeleton walking on the streets ( their vision can’t see the soft meat). Their Cosmology and Astronomy are based on Physics and Math. Quickly they learned and described the skeleton, its origins, composition, etc. Nothing about Biology, neurology, mental sciences, then, nothing about the whole system “human body”. This is the way that Physics and Math is seeing the Universe. Only its skeleton composed by atoms, galaxies and its “mechanistic” processes, not the other levels of processes necessary for understanding the whole. Matrix/DNA’s Universe have a coverture of biological organization of matter which reveals that all natural systems, like atoms and galaxies, have also their “DNA” and express some primordial principles of genetics and so on. Welcome to the universal Matrix/DNA world view.
Last edited by TheMatrixDNA; Yesterday at 04:28 PM.
What do DNA and human sexuality have to do with the universe at large?
Would this “unknown website” be www dot universalmatrix dot com? Because that’s what comes up first when you give universal matrix dna to Google (after some articles that mention the words independently).
Your diagram is not in English, so it is not helpful to a monolingual chap like me.
“For shame, gentlemen, pack your evidence a little better against another time.”
— John Dryden, “The Vindication of The Duke of Guise” 1684Earth’s sole legacy will be a very slight increase (0.01%) of the solar metallicity.
Order of Kilopi
I only had to look at the diagram for a few seconds to get the
general idea. The original poster learned about genetics, and
it impressed him so strongly that now he interprets everything
in terms of genetics, including the origin and evolution of the
Have I got that right?
— Jeff, in Minneapolis
the diagram is not in English so I’m not sure what it is trying to claim. I will how ever address some of the OP comments.
Your understanding of how we have come about the current mainstream models seems a bit flawed. It isn’t that someone just came up with a model and “well this model say things would have happened this way” and then just believe.
The theories have been developed and changed over time based on observations. The hallmark of a good theory is that it is not only falsifiable but that it makes very good predictions within its domain of applicability. As a hypothesis coming in to replace a established theory you have to do a number of things. 1st is that the new hypothesis is at least as good at making predictions and fitting the data as the current model within its domain of applicability. This also means that the new hypothesis can be independently verified via the scientific method. Next the new theory should be capable of distinguishing itself from the existing theory. IE you can’t just say “It makes all the same predictions as the existing theory”. This is where new “ideas” most often fail and fail miserably. They can’t be qualified. They often involve a lot of hand waving and seem to always not be defined well enough that anyone can independently verify of falsify them.
English doesn’t seem to be your first language but even so much of that last main paragraph makes no sense to me.
First is that the solar system is about 4.6 billion years old. The material that makes up our solar system is billions of years older and formed from stellar processes from earlier stars. Something we continue to observe today. It isn’t like we just think stars form in a certain way without proof. We can see stars in every stage of the process from their initial formation to their often very violent death. We can tell you what the star is made of, how hot it is, how big it is, how old it probably is, how it will progress in its life cycle. We can now even detect the planets around many stars and tell you a lot about them. There is still a lot to learn but nothing so far points to the current models being just out and out wrong like the old heliocentric or geocentric views.
So what problem is there with the current theories on the formation of our solar system?
Why do you not think that normal chemical processes could not form the biochemistry of the early Earth?
Why do you not think that normal biological processes could not account for the diversity of life from its being on the Earth?
What does DNA have to do with anything in regards to the formation of solar systems?
Why do we care about the “human sexual reproductive system”? Why is it more special then the reproductive system of any other life form on Earth, many of which share traits because of common ancestry.
No, you can’t just make up stuff and make unsupported claims about it in a science forum like here.
First you’d have to explain how alien life could exist from just iron and rubber.
Next you have to explain how that alien life “sees” the universe around us. Even if there was a part of the electromagnetic spectrum that did let them view us like that it doesn’t change the actual physics of the universe so that they wouldn’t be able to make observations in other spectrums.
for example we only “see” in a very narrow band of we define as “visible light” yet we “see”, via instruments, pretty much the whole electromagnetic spectrum. Even if something is completely invisible to the naked eye we can observe it. When you look up at the night sky and see black our telescopes look up in all different wavelengths and see so much more then our eyes alone would.
Could the alien life not have access to technology that would see our flesh? I guess but just because they are ignorant and form bad models on incomplete data doesn’t mean anything. If you think there is something science isn’t “seeing” then you have to explain a) how you can detect it and b) how it is needed to explain what we do see.
I can say that the orbits of the planets are controlled by IPWUs (Invisible Pink Winged Unicorns) pulling them along and we just can’t detect them but this doesn’t make it a better explanation then gravity because since it is undetectable it is not falsifiable.
So far the hypothesis you are supporting doesn’t rise to the classification of science. It is squarely in the realm of what is akin to new age pseudoscience.
To Nowhere Man:
Differences of cultures coming from different habitats makes difficult a conversation, but, with patience, each part will understand the other. You need to learn how doing it because you are going to meet very different culture at new planets. So, by while I didn’t understand why you have interpreted my say – “all these biological properties were hidden as potential natural forces and elements inside the Solar and galactic systems” – as – ” What DNA and human sexuality have to do with the universe at large?” I never said such thing and my answer should be another question: “What the fetus have to do with the egg at large? Maybe, that the egg is merely an accessory supporting the fetus?”. But, I can say: “DNA and human sexuality are evolutionary products made in this Universe and by primordial states of bits-information present at the Big Bang”. For sure! If not, show me what supernatural force coming from outside the long universal chain of causes and effects made them? If you forget this logical principle of reasoning, you will need inventing mystical forces, as gods or ex-machine randomness.
But, will we go anywhere debating concepts. We need to attaining at real facts. My affirmation is: Human sexuality – the machinery and process – is the product of biological organization of matter evolved from the part of the machinery and process of the mechanical astronomical primordial organization of matter.
If we have not seen it, we need search them there, because they must be there. For doing it there is some methods, which the principal are:
a) comparative anatomy between biological systems and astronomical systems ( I did it with atomic systems also). This is a long process because you get thousands of differences, thousands of sameness ( like: biological systems have life’s cycle and astronomical systems have it also);
b) Calculating the reverse pathway of universal evolution, along 13,7 billion years. Starting from the top of evolution here and now and going back to the Big Bang. These calculation will be driven by the the 3 known variables of biological evolution ( VSI- Variation, Selection, Inheritance), plus 4 variables mechanisms of cosmological evolution. Never forget that cosmological mechanisms are involved upon biological and biological mechanisms must have been involved into cosmological.
c) never makes a new step in yours calculations without searching everywhere in universal nature a known real proved fact that supports as parameter the prior theoretical conclusion ( if you does not do it, you will fail away off the beam)
d) and strictly formal logics.
Doing that you will find ( theoretically) what machinery and processes at astronomical systems evolved into biological reproductive sexual machinery and processes. It will be very difficult to recognize the biological process of self-reproduction at the Newtonian described mechanics of astronomical systems, as it is difficult to find inside a computer the corresponding parts and processes that mimics the human brain. But, it is possible going further and discovering these machinery and process at electromagnetic organization of matter, also. The final level inside this Universe where you will see this phenomena is at a positive light wave mixed with negative light wave. ( See the graphic here. Please, try:http://theuniversalmatrix.com/pt-br/…-Spectrum1.bmp
So, the fundamental unit of information of DNA is a lateral pair of nucleotides and it has the same configuration and functionality as the fundamental unit of information of all known natural systems, including atomic and astronomical systems.
( I am busy now, but will come back for other contributions here. Thanks to the contributors…)
Last edited by TheMatrixDNA; 2014-Nov-15 at 05:39 PM.
TheMatrixDNA: You have may get some issues with this ATM thread. As far as I know, you have to present and defend the ATM idea here. The second hand presentation and defense of someone else’s idea will be prone to misinterpretations.
Presenting what could be a diagram of the author’s ignorance about physics and biology in an non-English language is not a good start :P!
For a start
- the universe is at least 13.8 billions years old (not 4 billion).
- astronomy is not biology and biology is not astronomy.
So, in reading the diagram, I can’t help but notice that there are no details. Y contains half the info of what? X contains all the information of what? You have a series of points labeled Function 1, Function 2 and so on. What “function”?
My Portuguese is nearly non-existent.
“You’re only given one little spark of madness. You mustn’t lose it.” Robin Williams.
Biology is just chemistry. Chemistry is just physics. Physics is just the rules that stuff in our universe obey.
Your image makes no sense.
Explain what you mean by it.
Why is electromagnetic wave lengths from 103– 10-2 labeled with Stars and the elderly?
Why is electromagnetic wave lengths from 10-2– 10-5 labeled with Comets and adults?
Why is electromagnetic wave lengths from 10-5– 10-6 labeled with Pulsars and sperm?
Nothing just slapping labels on a existing chart doesn’t mean anything. You have to explain the components and the relations and what it means.
Fact ~13.8 billion years ago the universe started and produced hydrogen, helium and lots of photons.
Fact soon after the hydrogen and helium gas collapsed to form the first generation of stars then fused those light elements into heavier elements.
Fact after a few tens or hundreds of millions of years stars started forming that had higher metallicity
Fact Chemical processes allowed elements to form into molecules.
Fact Those same chemical process allow for biological molecules to form.
Fact There is no reason to think that those chemical processes could not and did not result in at least one abiogenesis event.
Fact There is no reason to think that we are a product of evolution from one such abiogenesis event.
Yes we are part of the universe and our biochemistry is just a product of chemistry. Note the “chemistry” in both those words. Chemistry is just a manifestation of interaction based on physics.
To that end yes the laws that govern our universe are also ultimately responsible for you and me being here. That is it. I’m not even sure what you are trying to claim but it smells of new age pseudo science.
So how about actually explaining what you mean. Because if it is just what I’ve already listed then you have discovered what the science says. Your graphic suggests you are implying more and it really makes no sense as is.
For those that are wondering about the Portuguese from left to right it is
chromosomes X + Y
To Solfe ( thanks by the right question):
I will try to explain a little bit of the diagram because we need several big books for everything ( I am working it during 40 years and every day discovering something new about this formula). It is about ” systems”, which connects and interacts with all natural systems and account for 13,7 billions years of transformations/evolution. I don’t know how to begin and which detail should be the first. Before explaining the diagram, I think that it is better an introduction about the general meaning of the whole theory. This diagram is based upon other diagram, which could be seen as a formula, the most simple software diagram:
The non-scientific merely philosophical observation of the elements composing the Amazon’s biosphere, the way they interacts themselves and with the surrounding whole, identifying and seeing these elements as units of systems, finally suggests that there is a pattern common to every system composing that biosphere. You can see the pattern when trying to draw the channels of interactions between those elements and inside the elements, between their organs and cells ( wait: if you like Astronomy and Physics I will show these patterns at those fields). Drawing those channels where runs blood at animal bodies, or runs those fluids of plants ( I need advise you something very important here: sometimes I forget the right words,, names, in English, or use wrong words, like now I don’t remember the English names of those liquids running inside plants), or the chain of food among the species, all of them results into the same final drawing, or figure. They have the same shape, the same configuration, same dynamics. So, the conclusion by the author is that those fluids or energy changing are carried or they transports a flow of energy/information. It is like an electrical circuit unifying parts into a system. This circuit is a kind of soul of all natural systems. And this circuit models the shape of material structures repeating the same pattern visible at every biological architecture. So, this formula is the circuit inside which runs the flow of energy/information of a complete, perfect, closed, natural system. This flow is composed by particles or parts ( the Fs) which express the dimension space with those intervals between the parts, which express the dimension time, the chronological order of events during the lifetime of a system.
We have no animals and plants visible here, so, I will point out something that you have just now at yours eyes and makes easy to begin understanding what this pattern is about, how it models every biological architecture. Please take yours left hand. Now put it with palm down over the formula. Please, put the palm over F1, that figure of a vortex. The minor finger will be over F2, the followings fingers upon F3, F4, F5, F6 and F7. Don’t get conclusions yet.
Now, please, try to see that the formula have the same shape of a lateral horizontal pair of nucleotides of the DNA. F1 is the left sugar and F4 is the right sugar, while the others Fs are the four nitrogenous bases, linked by hydrogens bridges.
Now, please put yours two hands in front of you. One hand with palms down, the other with palms up. Turn the hands in a way that the fingers of left are superposed upon the fingers at right. Imagine that the two palms are the two horizontal lateral sugars of DNA. The four superposed fingers are the bases, and the thumbs are the left and right streams of the DNA. Still, it could be merely coincidences. It is DNA that makes hands, but, forget it by now.
Do not make any judgement by while, please. This exercise had the goal only for showing to you the basic principles used by the author for beginning to grasp the existence of that universal pattern. If you know the explanations of that formula, you will notice that yours fingers repeat the five principal shapes acquired by yours own body due the process of life’s cycle ( the minor is the baby shape, the other is the child, till the thumb, which is the elderly. And the usual different, specific function of each finger repeats the usual function of each human body shape at familiar and social humans systems, which are, by extension, copies of natural systems. And going further into the levels of different dimensions of this universal Nature, you will notice that the intensity of energy and work of each finger, each shape of human body are equal the intensity of energy of each frequency/vibration of the electromagnetic spectrum of any light wave. The sequence of vibrations/length, etc., are the same.
Now, don’t’do that, but imagine putting yours face upon this formula. The mouth and nose goes over F1. Two eyes are F1 and F7. Two ears are F2 and F6. The front head will be F4. Since that this formula makes the same effect when we put a building block of astronomical systems 10 billion years old, you will discover that the human face was written in the stars.
Don’t do that, but only imagine putting the whole body over the formula, the stomach over F1, the heart over F4, ( both Fs works as a bomb, like stomachs and hearths)… Or take this new system built by Nature, the top of evolution here, called “brain” and put it over the formula, hippocampus over F1 and locates the other hormonal glandes upon each F.
It means that there was a working formula at that terrestrial soup where life began. ( I will explain it later). And working that soup was the energy from the Sun. The author took his eyes from the pantano where he was looking for LUCA ( the Last Universal Common Ancestor of all biological systems) and drove his eyes towards the Sun, The secret is coming from there… that’s when he began to search about everything that the scientific field of Astronomy had collected. And finally draw a model of what must be a building block of astronomical systems that fits the formula. The first drawing made at the jungle with rough papers and pencils was this one, a system containing all known seven principals different shapes of astronomical bodies, but, connected by the same systemic circuit:
As all living beings have a common internal pattern called DNA which was the carrier of biological evolution, all natural systems, from atoms to galaxies to human beings, have in common this pattern, so, let’s say, it is their “dna”, their inner template. But it sometimes is mechanical, biological, electro-magnetic, etc. till existing at a light wave. So DNA is merely its biological shape and the top shape of the long evolution of this “pattern”. Let’s call this universal pattern as Matrix/DNA.
This pattern works like a fractal, but not like the Fractal obtained by Mandelbrot using Math because it is living fractal and evolves from the simplest shape ( merely a vortex) till the most knowns complexes system’s shapes, that’s difficult to identify something that change its shapes and composition accordingly to each different environment.
This pattern is a working natural system. It has parts, nucleus, internal interactions and a final identity of the system, which is the sum of all parts’ information plus the informations derived by fuzzy internal logics, and this identity determines the behavior of the system. But, now, going further into natural history, emerges the suggestion that the great secret of this system is that it is formed when any portion of inertial mass ( dark matter, aether, space’s substance?) is penetrated by a natural light wave which means that the code for all natural systems began with a light wave emitted at the Big Bang. ( wait… this is merely a non-scientific theory – it is a theory as coined by the Greeks philosophers).
Now, if the moderator don’t close this thread because – I agree – it is to much “weird” and seems off topic, the next post I will try to explain the first diagram, which suggests what were the ancestors elements and forces that evolved into sexual chromosomes.
Wayne , I will try getting time for answering each question from yours, but the few time now permit me an answer:
So what problem is there with the current theories on the formation of our solar system?
There is no problem. But… my models are suggesting that have two processes, or two methods for astronomical systems formation. It mimics the two processes, or two methods of cell’s systems formation. The first cell system was formed by symbiosis, then, the cells learned how to replicate themselves. All existent cells today were formed by the second process. My models are suggesting that the first galaxy ( or first astronomical system) was formed by symbiosis. From all existent galaxies today, I don’t know are there old galaxies formed by the first process. Our solar system seems to be the second process, so, the current academic theory could be right. Ihave a question for you, about images captured by Hubble. There are images where two galaxies are together, them, the current theory interprets the image as “collision” of galaxies. My model is suggesting the opposite thing: those galaxies were twins and they are separating. My question is: what data the current model have for proving that they are colliding? If Nature makes that everything equal are self-repulsive and the opposite are attracted, why galaxies should be different?
But why I am telling that they are separating? Because I search the whole Universe, the whole Nature, and never saw a system colliding and entering inside other. By another hand I can see here nature showing the same image sent by Hubble: when a cell system enters into mitosis. We know that it is two galaxies because we see two shapes of galaxies and two nucleus. But, when a cell goes to replicate, first it creates a new nucleo, then the organelles, then the two cells separates. It is the same image I am seeing in the sky, thanks to Hubble and the prestigious NASA’s team. The repulsion between galaxies and their “replication” could explain why the Universe is expanding – for arrangement of places for newborn galaxies, like a fetus or embryo expands.
The first process of symbiosis is necessary for explain the origins of bodies that are not in the solar system, like quasars, pulsars and galactic nuclei. Who drove this process was just the Matrix, at an evolved state from its primordial state… a light wave. So, using yours own words:
Fact ~13.8 billion years ago the universe started and produced hydrogen, helium and lots of photons.
Fact soon after the hydrogen and helium gas collapsed to form the first generation of stars then fused those light elements into heavier elements.
Till here, I almost agree. The problem is the word “stars”. I would say: … helium gas collapsed to form the first generation of a kind of astronomical body. And other problem is that my models says: there were hidden variables acting upon this evolution, as the spatial substance ( which could be dark matter) that was penetrated by waves of light emitted by the Big Bang. A light wave have seven principal intensity of vibration which imprints the life’s cycle into mass, or matter. When those bodies absorbed the light waves they acquired the process of vital cycles, so, they were being transformed as any body have their shapes transformed under a vital cycle. Having now seven different shapes of bodies, and since their shapes and vibrational states mimics the seven frequencies of light, those bodies were aligned by the same sequence… this was the astronomical symbiosis. It happens that when you curve the line of this sequence, at opened space, getting a spherical shape, and links the initial point with the final point, the flow of the vital cycle becomes the flow that runs inside a circuit performing a perfect closed system. This was the building block of astronomical systems. Its shape and configuration is the same shape and configuration of a lateral base-pair of nucleotides, which pair is the fundamental unit of information, the building block of DNA. So, the seeds for life are being spreaded everywhere, searching a planet in good conditions. It is not panspermia. Astronomical systems projects themselves as a whole as the seed for biological systems. Are there some problem about sizes? The astronomic is big and the nucleotide is microscopic? Nature applies nanotechnology and giantology ( sorry, I need to invent this world just now) everywhere. Yours own body is the result of yours parent bodies that have collapsed and nannotechnolyzed ( another rampant word) inside a microscopic chromosome. I am suggesting that the current academic model is not wrong, only that it is not complete. And with some mistakes: when they think that a image reveals a star born, it is dying, and vice-versa. But, the birth or death of a star takes millions years, so, we never will prove what theory is wrong here. With the Matrix/DNA’s formula we can explaining everything that exists today and the Natural Universal History of 13,7 billion years. And my models are suggesting there are no black holes as theorized by Hawkins: at the nucleus of any astronomical system there is a vortex made by the rotation of a nebula of dust coming from died systems.
Last edited by TheMatrixDNA; 2014-Nov-15 at 05:56 PM.
Later posts suggest that you are the author of the ATM idea, so this may not be an issue. To confirm this my first question.
IF1: Are you the author of this ATM idea, TheMatrixDNA?
I will point out a couple more errors in your OP.
- Any evidence against the mainstream model is not support for your model.
Your model is not the only alternative to the mainstream that exists (just read the ATM section )!
- No evidence can support a model that does not exist.
A model in science is not an idea in someone’s head and their thoughts about what that idea means, even with pretty pictures. A model in science produces predictions that can be tested against the real universe. That involves mathematics.
Scientific terminology exists for a reason – so that people can agree on what things are!
A star is … a star!
Hydrogen (and a bit of helium, etc.) collapsed to form the first generation of a kind of astronomical body called a star!
Light waves are … light waves!
Last edited by Reality Check; 2014-Nov-13 at 06:26 PM.
Seeing I have been a business analyst/ software engineer for over 26 years know I fully understand software diagrams. The diagram you link to makes little sense compared to a software life cycle diagram.
Let us examine your various images. First off your understanding of cosmic evolution seems flawed.
You have this sequence
Black hole => Baby star => Planet => Pulsar => star => star dust
and star dust looping back to black hole.
First off besides the early stars where there was no material to make planets besides those that were failed stars planets and stars form about the same time. During the time the star is forming the planetary system is also forming.
Next is pulsars come after a star has used up all of its fuel and not before.
Also most stars do not form pulsars.
So the actual sequence is something is more of a tree and the next step depends on the previous step. For example a molecular cloud may or may not form a protoplanetary disk and may or may not produce a star sufficient to cause nuclear fusion.
A star when it runs out of fuel will produce different things depending on its size. It may end in a nova leaving behind a white dwarf. It may super nova leaving behind neutron star or black hole. If a neutron star is left behind it may or may not be
a pulsar depending on a number of factors.
Black holes produce almost nothing. The radiation left over from the surface of last scattering, also known as the Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation, over whelms the hawking radiation from any black hole out there at the movement.
The fact is that new stars, and planets, are produced from the material ejected from nova and supernova of earlier stars. But in the animal kingdom that would be the equivalent of when someone dies they explode into a bunch of cells. Those cells group up into zygotes. Those zygotes collect more cells and form blastocyst. Those blastocyst gather more cells forming an fetus. That fetus gathers more cells from the surrounding cloud to make a baby. That baby develops not gathering any more material and cannibalizes itself until it grows old and dies. No need for mothers and fathers. But this isn’t what we see.
You’re charts are almost meaningless. They are factually in error and the fact that there is a “stellar life cycle” and a “biological life cycle” is only similar in name. The links you try to establish art even weak. At best they are badly poetic.
To continue on with your failed analogy. Children inherit their characteristics from their parents. For other life their is no change but just effectively cloning. In astronomy the characteristics of a star system isn’t as strictly linked to the previous generation of stars. A star could be made from the material of 0 – n previous stars and very likely to be more then just 2 previous stars. As pointed out for a new star to be formed it’s parent star(s) must have exploded. Stars don’t pop out of other stars. Some stars die and eat other other stars living for a brief moment again. So in astronomy terms white dwarves/neutron stars are like zombies.
So you need to provide some actual evidence beyond your hand waving and VERY bad analogies between the life cycle of humans and stars.
Then why do you keep bringing up DNA and X and Y chromosomes? DNA is a molecule specific to biology, and not universal there (some viruses use RNA only). While X and Y chromosomes aren’t specific to humans, they are what most people are familiar with because that is what our species uses for sexual determination (generally – there are complicating details). However, it is far from a universal system. Many species don’t reproduce by sex in the first place. Then there is the fact that there are a number of sex determination systems. There is the ZW system, with males having ZZ chromosomes and females having ZW. There’s the X0 system. There are environment based sex determination systems.
X and Y chromosomes are far from universal even in earth life, and DNA (as well as RNA) molecules are far from universal, period. So what’s the point of even mentioning them?
“The problem with quotes on the Internet is that it is hard to verify their authenticity.” — Abraham Lincoln
I say there is an invisible elf in my backyard. How do you prove that I am wrong?
Are you claiming that helium, not hydrogen, is the most abundant element in the universe? Are you claiming that stars are generally made of helium? Note that our own star is mostly hydrogen, and hydrogen is, per the evidence, the most abundant element in the universe.
“The problem with quotes on the Internet is that it is hard to verify their authenticity.” — Abraham Lincoln
I say there is an invisible elf in my backyard. How do you prove that I am wrong?
As said this post isn’t even wrong. It is pseudo science word salad and mean absolutely nothing.
You have no models. You have hand waving word salad with no proof. Hand waving and word salad don’t count as proof.
We know galaxies collide because we understand how gravity effects matter. We don’t have to watch 2 galaxies colliding over tens – hundreds of millions of years to know that it is happening. We have plenty of evidence of gravity pulling matter together. We have absolutely no evidence at the scales you are talking about pushing anything apart. We have never seen, and I can predict with great probability, will never see a human or other body of mass suddenly fly off the Earth do to a repulsion of gravity especially naturally occurring gravity.
Just because you interpret the data in a manner that goes against all known physics doesn’t mean anything besides the fact that you have a very poor grasp on the relevant science. When you look at a picture of a galaxy merger and say it appears to you that they are separating I can agree that a still image could ignorantly be thought that they are separating. Looking at the images there are 3 possible answers.
1) The galaxies are merging
2) The galaxies are splitting
3) The galaxies are static in that formation
Now again if you don’t know any of the science you might as well flip a coin on which one is correct.
But thankfully we don’t have to do this. There not only is a lot of science to back up #1 and that same science falsifies #2 & #3.
We don’t even have to stop there. While you look at a static image that just gives you some visual data actual scientists can use more data then you can see to determine what is going on.
While it is true that these mergers would take much longer then any human would be able to individually watch we don’t need to watch it for that long.
We can detect the motion of these galaxies even with just the images we take. We do this using the doppler shift objects in motion cause.
Think of it this way. Say you are inside a house sitting on a chair looking out a small window.
Outside there are 2 children playing catch. You can’t see either child but when they throw the ball you see it pass the window. Even with that small window you can tell which direction the ball is going and thus which child threw the ball.
Likewise these images can be analysed to indicate the motions of the galaxies and the motions indicate a merger not them flying apart.
So for your idea to be true we would have to do the following
1) throw out what we know about gravity.
2) discover some process that would do what you are suggesting.
I would say: … helium gas collapsed to form the first generation of a kind of astronomical body.
And you would be wrong given everything we know about physics. First off the first generations of stars formed from a mix of hydrogen and helium. A ratio that fits very well with the main stream models. There is no separation of those gases and
if the first generation of stars formed from just helium things would be a bit different. So we have yet another problem where your idea doesn’t AT ALL match the reality we see around us.
And other problem is that my models says: there was the spatial substance ( which could be dark matter) that was penetrated by waves of light emitted by the Big Bang.
First off you having stated a first problem unless you count your actual first idea as a problem. But that doesn’t mean anything because your first idea is fantasy.
The statement “there was the spatial substance ( which could be dark matter) that was penetrated by waves of light emitted by the Big Bang.” means nothing. It is a great example of pseudo science word salad. It says nothing and means nothing while trying to coopt terms in an effort to impress the ignorant. When I was stationed in Hawaii I used to assist our IT help desk. I’d often go out to look at someones computer that called in with some problem. Very often when I got there everything worked fine. Many times it would be something stupid like the computer was unplugged. When asked what was wrong often I would say that I couldn’t find a fault or point out they didn’t have their computer plugged in. One time on a call that it was just the computer being unplugged, and told me on the call at our help desk if it was plugged in and was told yes, I was asked what was wrong with the computer. I responded with “The flux capacitor was oscillating, I just had to invert the modulation to obtain a spherical sinusoidal wave period from the CPU.” and the person nodded in agreement and said “Oh, OK”. When I left their office with a work mate they looked at me and asked what that was about and I told them “Before we came up I asked him if his computer was plugged in and he said yes and it wasn’t and I wanted to see how ignorant about computers he was.”. My word salad didn’t fool my work mate and only made them ask why I said the ridiculous thing that I did. Like wise spouting out a sentence like indicates either 1 of 2 things to most people here. 1) You don’t know even the basics of the science topic you are dealing with and your really think that what you said makes sense or 2) You are just trying to fool people hoping they’ll just nod in agreement.
A light wave have seven principal intensity of vibration which imprints the life’s cycle into mass, or matter.
Again pseudo science word salad. The grouping of Radio, Microwave, Infra Red, Visible, Ultraviolet, X-ray and Gamma ray are all just arbitrary human classifications of the electromagnetic spectrum. In fact the “Visible” spectrum is very arbitrary to the human eye. Other animals have different visible spectrum ranges. We could have any number of break downs and there is nothing about it that “imprints the life’s cycle into mass, or matter”
When those bodies absorbed the light waves they acquired the process of vital cycles, so, they was being transformed as any body have their shapes transformed under a vital cycle. having now seven different shapes of bodies, and since their shapes and vibrational states mimics the seven frequencies of light, those bodies were aligned by the same sequence…
WF1 Define: vital cycles
WF2 State how light waves carry “vital cycles”
WF3 State how different “vital cycles” are part of different frequencies of the electromagnetic spectrum.
WF4 State how the “different shapes of bodies” are defined and how they transition from one shape to another. IE at what point does a baby become a child? How do we quantitatively know if a young human is either a baby or a child?
WF5 Define: “vibrational states”
WF6 State how the “vibrational state” aligns to a body and why other “vibrational states” can not align to a body.
Consider those official questions. We need answers that can be used by independent parties to validate your claims. If your answers can’t be used to validate your claims then you aren’t talking about real science.
Finally you don’t seem to understand what Stephen Hawking says about black holes. So your final statement, like pretty much every other line in your post, says nothing and isn’t based in reality.
Thanks by yours contribution to my work. My suggestion is that gora out from concepts, interpretations and straight on some facts. So, yours question:
WF1 Define: vital cycles
Wikipedia: In biology, a life cycle is a series of changes in form that an organism undergoes, returning to the starting state. (…) Reproduction completes and perpetuates the cycle.
Ok, the world view produced by Matrix/DNA Theory suggests that this phenomena called “vital cycles” came by evolution from the ancestor of biological systems, which is this planet, plus the solar system, plus the galactic system. Yours model says no, everything that is “life” exists only at biological level. Then the mainstream mindset is not considering this phenomena when elaborating the standard model. Or it have did it and I am not known it?
If a cosmic model does not see the vital cycle of astronomical systems, it will be obligated to conclude that these systems and its parts are formed by spontaneous generation, in the shape they are just as we see them. And this is just what the standard model suggests as the formation of astronomical bodies. In Biology we made this mistake long time ago, when the Greek philosophers believed in spontaneous generations of organisms.
A big mistake made by one is comparing a system with parts of another system. Organisms are systems, their organs are parts of a system. The vital cycle is applied over the system, not over the organs, since that organs does not change shapes.
If the vital cycle came from Cosmos, as suggested by Matrix/DNA, it is or was applied over astronomical systems, not astronomical bodies as parts of that systems. Any rational astronomical model need including the calculations of changing shapes. The big problem for doing these calculations is knowing that astronomical systems had two processes of formation, and we does not know who is first generation or later generations.
Then, we are getting lots of images of distant astronomical systems and bodies and the first worry is the classification: it is planet, a dwarf, pulsar, a star? Several bodies have not fit the definition of any group and is becoming common scientists saying… ” This goes against what was believed, meaning that we need fix something in our theory…”
For me, at Matrix/DNA Theory there is no such problem. It is like an alien specie observing humans, each time that see a new human creates a debate: is it a child? a teenager? or maybe an elderly? But, okay, it is good trying to know the most about each object. That’s why I kept the Matrix/DNA cosmological model by 20 years only at my pocket, as an exercise of curiosity, observing the data coming from the mainstream, and making comparisons with my model. My real interest is the Matrix/DNA formula applied over here and now, not cosmology where I can’t do nothing.
The big problem is what this Standard Model is suggesting about ours origins and meanings of our existence. It is suggesting that our existence is not supported by the Cosmos, we are like intruders virus and the meaning of the Cosmos existence is not our meaning. This world view is modeling the mind of humans which is building this civilization based on it. And Matrix/DNA world view is suggesting that the Humanity health is in needs that is time for fixing the Standard Model, before to be too much later.
So, my question is: What happens at 4 billions years ago that changed cosmological evolution in the way that the systems ancestor had no life’s cycles and the systems after that event have life’s cycles?
Then, I am in better situation than you. I have ours hands, faces, everything in our body and ihis biosphere, for accounting as proof of my models. You have nothing here at Earth’s biosphere as proof for yours models, and lots of word salad that are convincing the ingenious students.
You don’t have the human being as account for proof of yours Cosmic model because you have separated Universal Evolution into two blocks – Cosmological Evolution and Biological Evolution – without any evolutionary link between them. You took the long natural chain of causes and effects that comes from the Big Bang and left it outside the Earth’s surface, because the final product of this chain here and now does not fit with yours model as the producer. Then, for explaining our presence here you need fulfill the gap between the two blocks with something non-existent, as the magic randomness. Wake up now for not finishing like yours gurus writing books explaining how something could came from nothing, and put words salad there… Or Stephen Hawking seeing non-existents black ghosts monstrous cannibals of galaxies in the sky…
Do you know the worst thing about this? Is that, I think, it is possible that yours models are right. I have no proof for debunking them, so, I should be mystical, not rational, if merely saying that they are impossible. The first rational reaction when we have no proofs for debunking a specific world view, is the Einstein’s reaction: “One doesn’t need to prove that his theory is right. Only that it makes sense.” So, the absence of proof is not enough for repealing a theory – that’s why it has the name of theory. The problem is that yours model does not make sense. I am asking a unique real proved fact that debunks my models and till now, nobody brought it over the table. Only bringing on another hypothesis and theories. I know it does not means that these models are right, I only ask the mortal fact for putting the models into the garbage and be free for searching on another direction, because I am here after the final thru – if it exists or not.
After all yours bombardment, I still prefer the Matrix/DNA model when making comparisons with the Standard model because the few facts that I really know pointings out that it makes more sense. Matrix/DNA is something from something and something always back… Again, I am on better situation than you, because I have not broken my head on a wall of Nothing… at least, yet.
To Jeff Root:
Almost right Jeff, but was not in that order that the theory was developed. First there was no genetics and no Universe, only a man living alone in the jungle, excaping from slavery by human modern civilization. As naturalist philosopher every time observing details of Nature and asking “why?, how?, “what’s produced this phenomena?”, he noticed a general pattern, put it in the paper – it is the Matrix/DNA fórmula. Genetics and the Universe came after, because the formula left him there.
But, what is wrong thinking that this Universe is a kind of egg where is occurring a process of genetic reproduction of the thing that was existing before the Big Bang? The fact is that I am in the last 30 years, looking for any real proved fact that debunks this idea and nobody shows it. So, why isn’t it possible? Remember that genetics is based on DNA and DNA seems a computational program. Then, if we say that is occurring a genetic process or a computational process, maybe is something in between.
There are two ways for investigating evolution. You can start from the Big Bang and calculating the next steps till arriving here and now; or you can start from everything that is known here and now and calculating the steps back in time, to arriving to the singularity and the Big Bang. The Standard model applies the first method; Matrix/DNA applies the second.
You look to the diagram. My question is the repetition of the question made by the author when he saw a picture of sexual reproduction and learned about chromosomes: “What’s hell… How Nature had the idea when created this extraordinary engineering?! Where and how the long chain of causes and effects coming from the origins of this world, that created this phenomena here, had hidden the natural forces and elements used for producing this phenomena?”
I would like an answer from the cosmic standard model. Meanwhile, the Matrix/DNA model has suggested an answer with this picture, I don’t believe in it, it must be tested… against real facts.
What’s yours answer? But, please, no theories talking about magics of supernatural creative gods and supernatural creative randomness.
Reply Part 1
Correct you don’t know it. You don’t seem to know the basics of science and there is the problem. You make untrue statements about reality then blame your ignorance of the science and claim it is wrong while you over simplified analogies some how provide a better explanation. They don’t. They might make you have a warm fuzzy feeling that you know something most people don’t but that does no good in the realm of reality where other people have to be able to take your claims and compare them to observations.
You apparently ignored my previous statement that said basically Biology comes from biological chemistry which is really just a subset of chemistry which follow the rules of physics which seem to have been set in the first moments of our universe.
So VERY high level picture of what has happened in the last 13.8 billion years.
The universe was in a very hot dense state. Essentially a sea of energy unimaginable by most people.
Something, which we do not know and may never know, triggered a change in the hot dense state that made space rapidly inflate.
As it rapidly inflated the fundamental forces of our observable universe came into being. These forces being gravity, the strong force, the weak force and the electromagnetic force.
This allowed matter to form from energy which isn’t just an idea but an observable fact that we as humans have reproduced here on earth.
This first bit of matter was ionized hydrogen. This hydrogen was create at a point where the temperature and density of the hydrogen in the universe was able to also undergo fusion like what happens in our sun.
This allowed a portion of the hydrogen to fuse with other hydrogen into helium. Something we also know can happen and have duplicated here on Earth.
As space expanded, as predicted by General Relativity another highly tested theory that so far has never been falsified, the temperature of the material cooled. This is a simple rule of thermodynamics that says when you expand a volume of stuff that stuff will have its temperature lower. This is also tested here on Earth. Your refrigerator and air conditioner work on this exact principal.
After a few minutes of the inflation the temperature and density was low enough that the ability for hydrogen to fuse together stopped which led to a mix of about 74% hydrogen and 26% helium.
The universe was still pretty hot and dense. To hot for the hydrogen and helium to be able to hold onto any electrons.
About 380,000 years after the initial inflation the temperature of the universe dipped to about 3,000 degrees Kalvin. Electrons could then stay connected to the the nucleus of the hydrogen and helium atoms.
At this point the material became electrically neutral which allowed the photons to travel essentially ignoring the matter.
The universe continued to expand but at a much slower rate then it started at.
The Hydrogen and Helium gas that was spread through out the universe started to gravitationally collapse. This caused the first stars to form. Massive stars the burned very hot and very quickly.
Through stellar nucleosynthesis the hydrogen and helium started forming heavier forms of matter. The ratios that we observe perfectly matching what would be predicted by the periodic table and theory of stellar nucleosynthesis.
At the end of a stars life, because of processes we understand very well. The stars under go novas and supernova which is responsible for not only spreading the elements that formed in the star over its life time but also more and new elements that the star during its life time couldn’t produce because the energy levels within the star were not high enough.
These heavier elements, that because of the electromagnetic force, could then combine into things we call molecules via the rules of chemistry.
These more complex clouds of gas, still mostly hydrogen and helium, would continue to collapse down but now along with stars being able to be formed planets and other bodies could as well.
Chemistry allows large and more complex molecules to form some molecules that we classify as biological molecules but is still just chemistry.
This continues using not only the material provided by the stars but also energy from these starts to form the first self replicating molecules.
Because the process of self replication isn’t a perfect process, ie it doesn’t happen the same way every time, these replicating molecules could change over time.
Sometimes the changes would cause some molecules not to be able to replicate any longer.
Eventually, and at least once, these biological molecules combined enough into a system we would recognize as life.
This for Earth happened about 3.6 billion years ago. Only a few hundred million years after the Earth and less then a billion years after our sun formed.
Evolution is the science that explains how this first set of life evolved into all the life we see now and see evidence of in the past.
Not all life reproduces the same. Human reproduction is a highly faulty system. Humans can’t be classified as the most evolved life on our planet either. All we can say is that we have the most complex brain that we have discovered so far.
no “spontaneous generations of organisms” needed. Our biology is a product of chemistry which is a product of physics which results from the rule of physics within our universe
Reply part 2
And what is that word salad supposed to mean?
That a babies heart and an old man’s heart are the same shape? If so I’ll point out that they are only the same shape as much as a babies body and a old person’s body are also the same shape.
Meaningless word salad. What changing shapes? If you want to talk cosmology and most of astronomy the only real shape is a sphere and that is dictated because of gravity.
No! Your ignorance of the science leads you to this incorrect conclusion. Your incorrect conclusions lead you to make patently false claims that pretty much so far are not falsifiable only because what you are saying makes no sense. It would be like instead of saying “5 + 3 = 8”, I said something like “Banana + red = electricity”. Actually that statement is still better then what you’ve said because it actually makes claim with a result that can be compared to what we observe.
Care to provide a reference to anything like that? Even so science doesn’t know everything. It probably will never know everything. Science takes new observations and tries to make sense of it by either fitting it into the current theories or coming up with new theories. But while you’ve claimed there are “thousands of evidences against the mainstream model” you have not presented even ONE here.
You have no model. All you have nonsensical ramblings. You have so far shown no problem with the main stream models beyond you saying there are problems and that your model, that really doesn’t amount to more then a jumble of thoughts you’ve put down in a web site that make no sense given all that we know regarding science and reality.
Science isn’t about philosophical meanings of our existence. What it is about is the meaning behind why we think natural systems behave as they do. It is about predicting what those natural systems will do in the future given a starting condition. The big bang model doesn’t tell us anything about where the hot dense state of the universe came from. It just states that given it started from that state this is how we predict it evolved. But not in a biological evolved definition but the more simple definition of evolve which means something like unfolding. Trying to gleam philosophical meanings of our existence isn’t the realm of science. It is the realm of philosophy and religion and there are other internet forums you can go to if you want to discuss those but mind you making pseudo science statements to try to back up your philosophical claims isn’t going to help you with people that understand and care about both science and philosophy.
The physics of our universe allow for life to exist. Life isn’t an intruder in our universe. It didn’t come from outside of our universe. Another poor analogy that you are putting forward.
What happened 4 billion years ago is that the Earth formed and was capable of supporting life as we know it. It doesn’t say that life else where in the universe didn’t exist before then. We can say that life couldn’t happen at 380,000 years after the big bang because the universe lacked the appropriate complex material to form life. Not only do you need the right molecules for life to start but you need other conditions for life, as we know it, to start. For life as we know it that includes liquid water. If I was able to pop around the universe or even just our galaxy I’d expect to find life as we know it to be in many different places. I’d expect that the origins of some of those life forms to be older then 4 billion years and some to be younger. I’d expect that we’d probably even be able to find a system where an abiogensis event is occurring right now for the first time on some new planet.
First rule of replacing an existing theory is to know everything you can about the existing theory. You seem to not even have a pop science level of understanding of the formation of the universe let alone biology. No surprise you have questions about how it could happen. But instead of going to the Q&A board and asking questions, getting answers and learning you’ve come here and announced that the science you don’t understand at all is wrong.
You can imagine whatever you want, but if you want to support a scientific argument, you need to present a useful model supported by significant evidence. You haven’t shown anything like that.
The fact is that I am in the last 30 years, looking for any real proved fact that debunks this idea and nobody shows it. So, why isn’t it possible?
If I say there is an invisible elf in my backyard how do you debunk the claim?
You’re making a very common type of claim, one that is often seen in pseudoscience. The burden of proof rests on your shoulders. It is up to you to present a falsifiable argument, which you have yet to do. I’d suggest looking up “argument from ignorance.” And as others have pointed out, your arguments demonstrate extremely limited knowledge about the relevant scientific subjects, so if you don’t see the problems with the arguments you’ve presented, you either haven’t tried very hard to learn, or you just aren’t willing to listen to anything that contradicts you.
Just as one example:
That’s fundamentally wrong. If our existence wasn’t supported by the Cosmos, we wouldn’t be here posting about this!
“The problem with quotes on the Internet is that it is hard to verify their authenticity.” — Abraham Lincoln
I say there is an invisible elf in my backyard. How do you prove that I am wrong?
Response Part 1
Again you have presented absolutely nothing here. If you have a problem with some main stream science topic then ask questions and learn. Some times the answer might be “We don’t know” and that is fine. We don’t know everything and probably never will. The main stream models you criticize have great predictive power. Your “model” isn’t even a model. Just because you call it a model doesn’t make it one. A model defines and quantifies a particular aspect of the natural world. This definition and quantification allows use to make predictions that can be tested. For example special relativity predicts that the faster you go relative to another observer the less time you will experience. It predicts this very precisely giving us the formulas that tell use how much time difference we should see if we run tests. Decades later after the theory was first presented we finally got the technology to test it and when we did the results matched prediction to a very high degree.
We test physics all the time. We test chemistry all the time. We test biology all the time. If you have a problem with something in one of those realms perhaps you should ask but you still haven’t presented even one piece of evidence against the main stream model.
Finally when I use the term word salad I use it in direct response to a statement you’ve made. Others can come along if I’m just totally misunderstanding your point. I point out where definitions are ambiguous. I point out where you use specific terms in a manner that they have no meaning in. That is word salad. If you don’t understand something that doesn’t make it word salad. So if you want to coopt terms for use in your idea then you have to define what you mean by those terms. Seeing as you haven’t that leaves your references to things like the electromagnetic spectrum having properties that they don’t based on arbitrary groupings that we humans use is a prime example of your word salad. Please tell me what word salad do you think I or any other person here has used?
First off when we talk about evolution in cosmological and astronomical terms we are talking about a very different thing then biological evolution.
The former refers to how the basic structures within the visible universe formed.
The later refers to how life changes over time because of changes in genetics that work on a population scale. Process like inheritance, random mutation, horizontal gene transfer, sexual selection, etc.
The genes of a human are different then the genes in annelids (worms) from 500 million years ago. We share some of the basics. Both us and them use the same DNA tool kit. The chemistry is the same. But our evolution is very different.
There are planets out there in space that have been around much longer then the Earth. The oldest one we have discovered is over 12 billion years old. This planet will be around in another 12 billion years. We don’t know if the Earth will be. Maybe the Earth will survive our sun’s red giant phase. Something we know will happen because the science of stellar nucleosynthesis is well established and matches observation perfectly. We’ve witnessed many super nova. We even have before and after pictures of a star that has gone nova.
Take your alien example. Show an alien with intelligence a number of pictures of a human from fetus to death and there is no reason why they couldn’t put them in the order even not knowing our biology. With stars we not only have all the pictures but we know the physics as well. We know why our sun will not ever go super nova. We know our sun will stop fusing elements at carbon. This isn’t guessing and word salad. This is science.
I don’t say the current main stream models are “right”. I, and any good scientist out there, would say that the current models are “The current best explanations for the current observations we have”. Science does a lot of disproving and what we are left with is models that have the best predictive power in their domain of applicability. Even then sometimes we use models that are less accurate because they are more simple to use. A prime example of this is Newton’s law of gravity. We know it isn’t right. We know GR provides more accurate results. But we still use Newton’s law of gravity because in its domain of applicability it works very well and is much easier to use.
Again how, specifically, is something that one of the main stream models says ‘impossible”. Give us an actual specific example and perhaps we can explain it to you. Not that not being able to explain something doesn’t make it impossible.
No one can explain exactly what the stars that came before our sun and provided the raw material for our solar system were. But we can make some general statements about it. No one can say exactly how life started here on Earth. Even when we get to the point where can produce new “life” in the lab we still won’t be able to say exactly what happened here on Earth. We can say there seems to be no barrier to life starting given normal physics and chemistry.
to be continued….
Response Part 2
Do you mean Einstein’s quote of “No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right; a single experiment can prove me wrong.”
And that is true. Science isn’t about proofs. Math is about proofs.
Science is the intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behaviour of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment.
A scientific theory is very different then the common term theory.
A theory is defined as “an idea used to account for a situation”
A scientific theory is defined as “is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on a body of facts that have been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experiment. Such fact-supported theories are not “guesses” but reliable accounts of the real world.”
The problem with your idea is were possible I’ve pointed out where it isn’t supported by observations we have of the real world. Much of what you’ve said can’t be falsified because you don’t make any testable claim.
For example physics predicts that hydrogen when excited should have a very definite spectral signature and when we test it it matches exactly with prediction.
Our understanding of physics and elements was so good that elements were predicted before they were discovered. These predictions included much more then the spectral signature of the element. It included things like how it would react with other elements. The big bang model predicted that there should be a near uniform glow in the sky from the point where the universe cooled so that the hydrogen and helium could capture electrons. This glow should match a thermal black body spectrum of ~3000 calvin red shifted due to the expansion of the universe. Decades later this was discovered and that is what is called the Cosmic Microwave Background. There have been many attempts to disprove it but it is still the best explanation we have for the observation.
The main stream models do make sense. It is apparent they don’t make sense to you but if you actually spent the effort to learn what the models predict and why you might actually start to understand them.
I have shown you already where your idea doesn’t match reality. I’ve provided that definition of “scientific theory” which your idea doesn’t even come close to matching. You don’t even have a hypothesis at this time because you haven’t clearly defined a problem, stated how your idea answers that problem with some data in a manner that other people can test if your idea.
I think I understand what you are saying so I’ll address what I think you are saying after I repeat your statement in my own words.
“I think the main stream models are restricting the investigation of other ideas that may explain what we observe better”
This is often the argument of someone with a new idea. They think the existing models are wrong and because their idea goes so much against the existing model that people are unwilling to investigate their idea.
The actuality is 2 fold. First is the current models are the best current explanations for a reason. That is because they’ve survived everything that has been thrown at them. They produce the best and most accurate predictions.
The second problem is most often someones idea has fatal flaws that stop anyone from wanting to investigate it further. If someone presents an alternate explanation for some aspect of the natural world and the very premise that the new idea is built upon is based on a misunderstanding of something we can stop right there. It would be like someone told you that they could beat you in chess in 5 moves and you were a grand master at chess you might sit down with them. If they immediately move a pawn diagonally like it was a bishop or a queen then you have ever right to just get up and walk away. No matter what the rest of their game is the reality is they aren’t playing chess. I’m sorry but what you are doing isn’t science.
If you wish to say something like “The big bang model can not explain the abundances of hydrogen and helium in the universe and my idea is a better explanation” you’d already have a problem because it does explain it. Your idea might explain it better but the false initial statement won’t help your presentation.
Once again you have not provided a SINGLE problem. The closest thing you’ve come to is making it clear that you don’t understand what the current science is. What even basic cosmology says and how physics, chemistry and biology work.
Your idea doesn’t explain the origin of the universe any better then me claiming the universe came from magical universe creating pixies.
So come up with an actual problem with an actual model and how your idea answers it and matches the observations we have.
Let me ask you some a simple question.
WF7 What is the ages of the universe as predicted by your idea?
WF8 What evidence do you have that your idea about the age of the universe is correct?
WF9 How can some interdependently test you ideas prediction of the age of the universe?
To Van Rijn
You: DNA is a molecule specific to biology, and not universal there… While X and Y chromosomes… it is far from a universal system.”
Okay, I have not explained the first picture. There is a universal formula that organizes matter into systems, from the Big Bang to humans and now, consciousness. Like there is a biological formula that is common to all biological systems, called DNA. This formula is a natural complete system totally unknown to human kind, because since Bertalanffy with the General Theory of Systems did not knew the formula and what really is a natural system, couldn’t develop this field which failed into cybernetics and artificial systems.
The formula is composed by any body under the force or process called life’s cycle ( which came first from waves of light which propagates by this process, but I will not go such further now). Under life cycle a body differentiate from other without it because it has “self-dynamics” ( sorry problems with English here). So the body propagates into time and space being transformed into new shapes, like light. At the picture, the arrows are the aspect waves, for the dimension time, while the bodies “Fs” are the aspect “particle” for dimension space.
Under life’s cycle a human body change every second when a cell is substituted, but for easing we will talk about only seven shapes: blastula, fetus, embryo, child. teenager, adult and cadaver. Usually we see these shapes aligned linearly, but if we encurve the line making a sphere, we got a natural, complete, perfect, closed system ( totally in thermodynamic equilibrium, a perpetuum motor, the most perfect possible machine, and would be eternal if have not the increase/decrease of energy, when entropy degenerates the system: such state was only reached by matter when evolution arrived to the first building block of astronomical systems. And it failed as biological systems, which are opened systems.
A system is composed by parts, each one performing a specific function ( the Fs). Since that each part is a shape of a unique body, and we can see the general aspects of each part, we can conclude which is each function: the dust of a prior system as degraded mass rotates building an axis and from here a vortex. The dust is entering the vortex (F1)which is mixed with energy in increase state coming with F5. This works like our kitchen machines ( liquefators?) with three levels of density and which creates bubbles high energetically and heavy elements, which are expelled from the vortex into space ( F1 is the generator womb). We have the shape of germ (F2) till embryo ( for biological systems, is not a seed yet). For astronomical bodies ( of the first original astronomical systems or building blocks) this was the nucleus. This bubble cross the event horizon composed by surrounding dust (part of F7) that works like amnion/placenta and this dust is aggregated upon the nucleus making concentric spheres (F2, F3) with different densities due the space becoming cold. Now it is a seed, seed for plants,animals galaxies, maybe universes and so on… At the building block of astronomical systems, F3 was the first planets. Here humans are teenagers).
The internal germ feeds on this “placenta” eating it from inside to outside. At the first astronomical body, this creates pression of gas which need be expelled and the body develops giant volcanoes. At human bodies this is the age of 14,16, when begins to ejaculate, at cells systems, mitochondrias begins expelling ATP, and so on…
Crossing gravity this expelled matter falls into the magnetic lines of the spiral going internally towards the nucleus, because it is a closed system. This is F5, comets at the sky or spermatozoon at human beings, or pollen for plants, or RNAt and RNAm for cells, etc.
So, inside the sphere has a circuit, where runs the flow of energy/information of the system. When the flow arrives to F4, it is shared, one part going to adulthood ( here begins entropy) and other part going to the nucleus. So, this lateral internal branch carries energy while it is increasing, that is what is mixed with degraded mass, creating a new cycle. Observing the picture we find that F4 performs the male function ( volcanoes was the astronomical shape of what evolutionary became “penis”. F1 performs the female function, so, the system is hermaphrodite ( like his first reproduction as biological system called primordial cells, which were hermaphrodite). The flow F1 to F4 to F1 is half-face, has only half part of informations from the whole system ( in fact it has all informations, but half part is dubbed, so, the left half part is dominant, then, it i expressed. It is the non-biological ancestor of chromosome Y; the flow F1 to F7 to F1 have also informations of the right face, so, total informations, it is the ancestor of female chromosome X. When the system was divided into two bi-sexual symetric faces, developed this newtoniam mechanical sideral astronomic process of sexual reproduction – which was a development coming from the change of pions between neutrons and protons at atoms systems. I have discovered thousands of marvellous details in this formula, I described only one, and here there is no space for continuing.
There were two processes for astronomical systems formations, like there were for cell’s system formation. This formula should be about the first process, which does not happens anymore. So, this was the building block which is equal the building block of DNA. While at biological systems their DNA is inside, at the astronomical system, its DNA was the whole system. I am composing how this DNA was the template for atoms. It is Universal. Under evolution also. It is the “Matrix”. I think this Matrix emerged at this Universe in shape of quantum vortex inside bubbles which was bits-information working as the first universal genes coming from the unknown system that triggered the Big Bang. When these vortex disappears they leave a wave of light, which has the code for life’s cycles in shape of seven different frequencies.
Now I need yours help for destroying this theory that is a kind of virus that I got in Amazon jungle and it is eating my life and I can’t resist to it because it makes to much rational sense for me and everyday I am discovering new evidences suggesting that it exists, but, I am a skeptical, I do not believe in it. Debunk it and you will save my life. Please, only a unique real known proved fact that debunks everything here. Thanks. Any question? Cheers…
Oh… it is missing the most important part; Matrix/DNA is saying that Humanity is 8 billions genes building together with other trillions of genes spreaded in this Universe, the final body made off consciousness substance in the shape of the matrix formula that will be the exactly reproduction of the thing that created this Universe. From the Big Bang to the Big Birth. So… you are the son… Congratulations.
You:WF7 What is the ages of the universe as predicted by your idea?
I never thought about that, I accept 13,7 billions ( I said it in a post above. See b) Calculating the reverse pathway of universal evolution, along 13,7 billion years.) But, let me do now some calculations by my naturalistic method. The embryogenesis pf a human takes 9 months. I think that its consciousness appears at 6 or 8 months. Let’s say… seven. Since that in this Universe is occurring a normal natural process of genetic reproduction from some system that must have consciousness also ( if it appeared here, is because it was there); and since that natural processes here are fractals of universal processes or macroscopic fractals…Considering that the Universe today have 13,7 billions years ( yours model says it) and consciousness is emerging just now, it means that 7 months for humans is equal 13,7 billions years. to the Universe. So, 13,7 shared by 7 = 2, each human month is 2 universal billion years. Humans have birth 2 months after getting consciousness. So 2 x 2 = 4 and 13;7 + 4 = 17.7 … I will bet that this Universe will die, will be discarded as placenta, at the age of 17,7 billions years. Let’s wait till there, if I lose I will pay the beer, but if you lose you will pay, okay?
Last edited by TheMatrixDNA; 2014-Nov-15 at 05:34 PM.
There is the problem. Your idea is just a mash of bad philosophy that has no support with the reality we have around us.
The main stream models make specific claims that can be tested and falsified. It can be tested now not in billions of years. It can be tested in different ways too. For example we should not see many objects that we think are older then 13.8 billion years old. Surprise we don’t. There are some outliers but these are few and far between and is probably an indication that there is something going on that we haven’t accounted for making the object appear older then the universe rather then the objects actually being older.
You seem to put a very strong importance on human consciousness but there is absolutely no indication that there is any tie between consciousness appearing here on Earth and any physical process in the universe.
Let us travel down this road. Now you say our universe will end in 4 billion years and has a direct linear relationship to human pregnancy.
A typical human pregnancy lasts for ~265 days and that we are at about day 206 because you believe consciousness arises at about 6-8 months.
First you need to define “consciousness”. I’ll do that for you
the quality or state of awareness, or, of being aware of an external object or something within oneself. sentience, awareness, subjectivity, the ability to experience or to feel, wakefulness, having a sense of selfhood, and the executive control system of the mind
The fact is a fetus and even a baby doesn’t have a sense of self. It isn’t until about 15 months – 2 years after being born that a typical human has a sense of self. But lets ignore this fatal misunderstanding of the science you have proposed.
Supposedly our universe has already gone through the first 3 phases of blastula, fetus, embryo or at best according to you.
I’ll point out that your misunderstanding of the science here is also greatly flawed.
A fetus is AFTER an embryo. In fact a blastula is an embryo. The blastula occurs on about day 3. This means the firsts major transition, according to you, should have been at about 200,000,000 years. Yet recombination occurred at 380,000 years. You are off by 3 orders of magnitude. In human pregnancy terms that that is about 7 minutes after fertilization not day 3. Yet we see no major transformation of that 1 cell at that point.
The universe became matter dominated at about 9.8 billion years. What major significance happens at pregnancy at a 21 weeks of pregnancy? OH look nothing major.
Why would the universe be tied to the birthing cycle of 1 species on our planet. Our babies are considered to be born under developed. Ideally pregnancy would last longer for the babies sake but the human body wouldn’t cope that well. Human evolution has a very valid explanation for this. No cosmology needed.
There is no connection between the universe and our species birthing cycle. To say there is with what you have provided as examples is absurd and very bad cherry picking of data since you can’t even get the order of categorization we have arbitrarily given to different points of pregnancy. You have to explain why you leave out some stages and how someone could tell which “stages” are important and which ones are not.
No one can prove you wrong because you don’t want to learn about reality and when told about it you don’t seem to want to accept reality. You turn around and repeat the same thing over and over ad nauseam.
You can’t claim you’ve spent 20-30 years researching this all and then get basic 9th grade biology wrong. At best you’ve spent 20-30 years concocting a fantasy version of our universe in your head disregarding any reality that conflicts with your fantasy. The only one that can make you understand that your idea isn’t based in reality is you and the only way you can do that is actually learning about nature as it actually is. Not your false distortions of reality.
You seem to be trying to develop your own version of astrology which is another pseudoscience that has absolutely no real observations backing it up. Good luck with that. I’m sure there will be those that will believe you but then there are people out there that will believe anything.
Why humans? Why the human reproductive cycle?
Why not elephants? (2 years) or fruit flies (hours)?
Humans have only been around for a few hundred thousand years. What was the universe’s timeline before then? Say, when dinosaurs roamed the Earth, or bacteria?
How does the universe evolve in the same way creatures do? Do stars gestate baby stars? Do baby stars inherit blueprints of their “parent” stars?
The real problem here, is the lack of distinction between an analogy i.e. superficial similarity, and an actual model.
If analogies were actually models, then I could say that the Sun is the same shape as an orange, therefore they must have the same history and physics. I could then go on to say that the Sun, by extension, has seeds, and grew on a cosmic tree.
Do you see how superficial similarities do not inform us about underlying structures?
You: “Why humans? Why the human reproductive cycle? Why not elephants? (2 years) or fruit flies ( hours)?
Dave, for understanding the Matrix/DNA basics, and why humans, please, first see these images at this adress:http://theuniversalmatrix.com/pt-br/artigos/?p=8409 ( please, I am not trying to sell my website, but I have tried attaching here the images from Google-images and didn’t get it).
Ok. The shape of a brain plus the “medulla” is the same shape of an ovule being penetrated by a spermatozoon still with its tail outside. Merely coincidence? Nature built the architecture of “fecundation” for giving birth to a new baby, which is a “new natural system”. I suppose that the human head means for Nature the same that an egg/womb. Inside this “egg” is being generated a new shape of the natural universal system called “consciousness”, or “mind”. Inside this head-womb-egg, the ovule ( the spherical part of the nervous system) is being fecundated and still keeps the extension as the spermatozoon’s tail. Same process, same artist, same target = same final image, scene, picture. But…”maybe”… yet.
Is it mere coincidence that the two shapes are equal? Or it means that inside Nature there is a natural force working as specific function for all natural systems, and like an artist, this force models matter with its “personal style, does not matter what new environmental configuration and new material disposable ingredients?
Nobody knows. There are two alternatives here, maybe more. And a human makes his/her selection. The preferred alternative is dependable how was hard-wired his/her brain. So, a brain educated by the Standard model will say: “It is not even a coincidence, the two images have nothing to see in common.” Other brain, creationist, will see God here. My salvage brain nurtured between the jungle and the books from naturalist philosophers is skeptical and experimentalist, then I am testing all possible alternatives. The alternative that it is merely coincidence is being built and tested by the Standard model. Someone need testing the other alternative, and I am not seeing someone doing that, so, I need do it.
Why humans and not elephants? Because the most complex natural system that I am seeing here and now( this region of the Universe and this time) is consciousness. Elephants have a little bit of it, humans have more of it. And the most complex system known just now is probably, the top of universal evolution here and now. The top state of a fetus is the nearest shape of the generator’s shape.
Yours own body began with an unique event: the explosion of a sepermatozoon’s membrane at the center of an ovule. A microscopic big bang. Then two different but symmetrical strands of two DNA’s tried to align at the exactly position and I see this as “chaos” because each female gene searching its male counterpart producing chocks, conflicts, heating the environment. Everything here mimics the beginning of a new natural system inside the egg “universe” at 13,7 billions years ago, if you considers the theoretical Physics of the Nobel Prize Yukawa about the nuclear gluon. Following came the morula, the blastula, which mimics the shapes of the first galaxies… is it mere coincidence again? Maybe. Or is there a universal pattern? I don’t know, both are rationally possibles alternatives. If it is a pattern, the embryogenesis of consciousness at human beings must be a microscopical embryogenic process mimicking the embryogenesis of the thing that carries on ( or put outside his body) this universal “egg” where is being nurtured a natural system that is its/his/her reproduction. Welcome to the Matrix/DNA alternative, but does not believe in it, it is under testing against real facts.
Last edited by TheMatrixDNA; 2014-Nov-16 at 03:03 PM.
This is fun but not even consistent. Are you saying there is a pattern which pre-exists matter? A pattern which like fractals works at all scales? A pattern is a nice idea but is it what you are claiming.? Otherwise In your description what comes first?
sicut vis videre esto
When we realize that patterns don’t exist in the universe, they are a template that we hold to the universe to make sense of it, it all makes a lot more sense.
Originally Posted by Ken G
Dave, this question could be answered if you change the idea of “abiogenesis” by the idea of “astronomical embryogenesis”. It is the possibility that all history of abiogenesis ( maybe 3,5 billion years) is merely the history of reproduction of an astronomical system at Earth’s surface. Which operates in a scale of millions, billions years. This astronomical embryogenesis history finished when evolution here arrived to the primate ancestor of humans. At this point began another history of reproduction, a reproduction of another system hierarchic superior to galaxies, bringing on also its more complex bits-informations.
But… why the “embryo” here is so different in relation to what should be an embryo of an astronomical system? It is due “severe mutation”. Why severe mutation?
The answer is very complex and need a entire book, but I will try a few resumed details:
a) The astronomical “mother” was formed with only two states of matter and at free space. Solid and gaseous. Her baby here is being made at “closed space” and made off with three states of matter, adding the liquid state. The liquid state transformed the initial Physical forces and laws into Chemistry, exactly “organic Chemistry”. This change in environment, space, material ingredients, causes severe mutations.
b) While at human embryogenesis the genome of the parents is transferred to their offspring entirely closed inside an envelope (chromosomes), at astronomical embryogenesis the “genome” is transferred fragmented into bits-information, expelled free in space and different times. I think that these bits-information are photons produced by emissions of radiation by stars and others bodies, where each photon accounts for a specific bit of the astronomical system. These photons were the non-biological ancestors of modern genes. When these bits reach a planet with good conditions, they penetrates its atoms and drive these atoms to novelty, new combinations, trying to reproduce the system where they come from. Since they arrives at different regions of that planet and at different times, this will produce smalls packets of information, these packets can be joined producing larger packets and so on. This is the cause of diversification of species and the transformation of species.
There are more important details, but no time and space here for it. And if you try to think about it, certainly you will see details that I have not observed yet. Never forget that this is merely a “non-scientific theory”, does not believe in it. Cheers…
Last edited by TheMatrixDNA; 2014-Nov-16 at 03:52 PM.
Profloater< I ask you, please, think in this way:
There is a pregnant woman. Inside her womb is working a kind of formula, called DNA, building an embryo. The DNA came from parents that exists outside and before the womb. They were existing before the micro big bang caused by the explosion of an spermatozoon envelope inside an ovule.
Now, try to remember all image and scenes narrated by the Standard model about the universe’s origins. Make comparisons between the two situations. Try to see the womb – only the womb – as being what we call “Universe”. While the fundamental elementary particles of the Standard model could be bits-informations, primordial ancestors of the genes.
If you saw similarities, it is possible that they are merely coincidences. But it is possible also that it is not coincidence – could be the repetition of a pattern.
My skeptical, agnostic mind suggests that I keep considering all possibles hypothesis, since that they appears “rational” to me. So, I will test this hypothesis about a pattern till the hell. The Standard model is testing the other hypothesis, where there is no pattern. Thanks God. Someone is doing something good.
“If” it is a pattern, there was a kind of DNA as hidden variable working at a universal natural system formation going to be the embryo, – which is not the same that “the universe’s formation”. The Universe is merely the womb.
We found a formula that has been worked very well… as a “cosmic Matrix/DNA”… “if” there was a cosmic DNA. So, is possible that we have the womb, the DNA… it is missing the woman, the parents. It is missing the natural system that belongs to an evolutionary species that lives beyond the Universe, and was existing before the Universe. This mysterious natural system could be a microscopic atom containing all mass of all galaxies, as suggested by the Standard model. It is rationally possible. But, I think, the Matrix/DNA is also rationally possible alternative. The “God” alternative should be possible to my reasoning if this “God” is a natural system, non-supernatural, not a magician, because I have not seen the effects of such God inside this universal womb. But… I am a monkey-man arriving to New York coming from the Amazon jungle so my brain is not developed for to grasp everything, and maybe, creationists have a better developed brain that is able to perceive more of this world. It is possible.
I have stopped my investigation inside the limits of the space universe and about only the time after the Big Bang, I resist to all temptations for looking for the woman, because I know that my brain could not understand it: it is missing more sensors, I need to develop the actual sensors, etc. Besides that, just now there are billions of my human brothers being tortured under severe conditions of life and I need work here and now trying to produce something that diminishes this torture. No time for building theoretical metaphysics.
But you do yours choice, of course. If you build a good metaphysics – who is that woman, her species, etc. – I will appreciate knowing it. Cheers…
Last edited by TheMatrixDNA; 2014-Nov-16 at 04:50 PM.
Dave, for us the “Universe” is a super-agglomerate of agglomerates of galaxies. These galaxies are species of the evolutionary tree, they are ours ancestors like bacteria and reptile are. Maybe these galaxies are fossils, maybe they are still active. Like our human bodies have more aliens cells than our own cells, we exists inside a big body or fossil of our ancestral. It is not the Universe neither galaxies that are evolving, but, the evolution is about a universal system inside it. The top of this evolution here – in this specific region of this Universe – and at this time, is the shape of this universal system called “human being”. Maybe at other regions there are most evolved tops.
You asked “How does the universe evolve in the same way creatures do?”. I think that the question should be the opposite: How does the creatures evolve in the same way the universe do. Because if one mimics the other, is the most recently that mimics the older.
Remembering that I also does not know the final thru, the Matrix/DNA models are suggesting that the Universe is not a magician, than, it can not create new informations from nothing. It only can do things with the informations that it received at his birth.
Then, the universe was made by a method, a process. It is the unique process that the Universe knows, that it has informations for. So, never the creatures inside this Universe could be created by other process than the process that itself was created.
The problem is that creatures does not evolves as the Universe evolves, because the Universe stopped evolving when its evolution arrived to the shape of galaxies. I say it because the building block of galaxies is the most perfect possible machine/organism/system that is possible doing with matter. It was the supreme goal of all matter, reaching the thermodynamic equilibrium in good conditions of existence. It was a paradise for our ancestors. It is a perfect closed system, isolated from everything else, closing the door to evolution. If you see the shape of the Matrix/DNA as the template of galaxies, you will understand lots of things.
But, then, above the galaxies and maybe above the universe, there was a superior natural system, with a weapon, a force, which can be measured by us as “entropy”. Maybe this mysterious system is who gave the initial informations to the Universe by normal genetic process. Due entropy, our ancestor in the sky failed at planets surfaces, as biological systems. These are opened systems, opening the door for continuing evolution.
But remember: this is merely a theory: does not believe in it. I don’t believe in it. Which not means that I will not testing it. Cheers…
Last edited by TheMatrixDNA; 2014-Nov-16 at 05:55 PM.
My Almighty Pink Unicorn! Wayne, how you could making a post totally wrong? Do you really think that Matrix/DNA suggests that this Universe has consciousness, or is going to have it? That I am doing comparisons between human consciousness and universe’s consciousness? That the evolution of the womb ( this universe) should be equal the evolution of the embryo inside it (a natural system that has been evolving since the Big Bang) ?! That’s absurd.
For yours sake: The Matrix/DNA is suggesting that human’s head works as the egg/womb where is being generated a new shape of the universal natural system, called “mind”, or consciousness. The Universe is other thing, it is the womb/egg where has been developed all prior shapes of this system. Consciousness was sleeping at atoms,dreaming at galaxies, began to wake at biological systems, and is lifting up at humans, that’s the suggestion from Matrix/DNA
If it seems to you, it is totally wrong. Of course, there is no physical process in the universe revealing some influence or effect from consciousness. You can be sure about that because there is no physical process in biological embryogenesis revealing action or presence of consciousness. As it is here, it is there.
Any definition of mind. consciousness, any theory about, is not scientific statement because this field belongs to Neurology which still did not find how neurons produces thoughts, or how neurons correlates with thoughts. Universe and thoughts are abstracting things and you made this big exercise of comparison between them rolling lots of data?! I never had time for…
If you understand as “evolution of the universe” as the evolution from elementary particles to atoms to galaxies I agree, but it stops here. Matrix/DNA is suggesting that this line of evolution stopped at galaxies for natural corrections like the DNA has mechanisms for self-corrections. Then, the old evolution came back continuing through biological systems. If you want to do comparisons between the embryogenesis of the universe and embryogenesis of consciousness you never will got it, because the evolution of “this universe” arrived to morula, or at least till blastula, and stopped it.
The age of the Universe is an issue that I never did and I can’t deal with now, I have no time for, and I don’t see any useful product from this issue, I made the post about it tempestivally answering yours question, without thinking, and in a hurry made some mistakes, as not considering the time of that correction and if will have some acceleration at the end of the process. Sorry.
But, thanks by the contribution. You have made me to remember that I need open a new chapter in my website for researching this issue. And you have furnished some informations that I didn’t have.
Last edited by TheMatrixDNA; 2014-Nov-16 at 07:57 PM.
The rules of the board require you to answer a question here not push us off to your site so that your back link count goes up.
Coincidence? It looks as much like that as it does a Chupa Chups. Our brain is a product of our evolution. Cephalopods can be highly intelligent too but their brains is shaped very differently. Why do you Stop with the medulla? What is wrong with the rest of the nervous system? Our brain looks like a lot more like coral or vise versa.
You now seem to be putting a lot of weight in pareidolia. This is like when you see a shape in the cloud or stars or other natural feature. Most often, but not always, this is an issue of perspective in that it would look totally different from another direction. For example with your sperm and egg example if the sperm was as big in relation to the egg as the medulla is in relation to the brain then the egg would not survive fertilization. Also an egg is not the shape of the brain. It is round like a ball and the brain is not. The human egg has the texture of a luffa not a smooth creased surface.
So you are seeing what you want to see. So the connection you’ve made is very weak and again has absolutely no evidence for it besides in your brain.
They are not equal. This sizes are wrong. The shapes are wrong. The textures are wrong.
You are cherry picking what you consider evidence then running with it. All the while ignoring everything that goes against your idea.
The argument “nobody knows” is intellectually dishonest. Just because we don’t know with 100% certainty anything, because we are after all only human and not omniscient, doesn’t mean that 2 ideas hold equal probability of being correct.
On the one had we have science with independently verifiable statements. On the other hand we have nothing but conjecture on what you think looks similar to something else. I can’t be certain that gravity will be around tomorrow but I am as close to certain about that fact as I can be. It doesn’t mean that someone like you who says we’ll be able to fly tomorrow using only the power of our minds is just as likely to be correct.
No you aren’t. You are not doing anything remotely like being skeptical. That which is asserted with no evidence can be dismissed with no evidence. You have NO evidence. You have nothing that can be independently verified. You have no guidelines in which we can decide what structures in the universe should look like other structures. Why don’t we see giant eggs and sperm in space? Why don’t planet have that shape? I can tell you why. Gravity! I can tell you why our nervous system is shaped like it is. Evolution! The answer is of course more detailed but you don’t seem to want to learn. I’ve simplified the history of the universe for you and you seem to have ignored that so I wouldn’t have much hope if I tried to explain the evolution of the nervous system but here is a picture of some other creatures brains.
They don’t all look like sperm and an egg. I don’t think even the human brain does. What they do look like is that they all share a common basic structure, that has nothing to do with a sperm and egg beyond all those creatures using sperm and eggs in their reproductive cycle.
No, again you are cherry picking. Humans are not more evolved then elephants. There are a handful of other animals we know have a sense of self. That have consciousness. More consciousness then even a 1 year old human baby.
Tell me what makes your understanding of your sense of self better then a Magpie’s sense of self?
NO! you don’t even understand the big bang. The big bang wasn’t a explosion of stuff. It wasn’t even an explosion. It was just space time inflating. There is no more mass/energy in the universe today then there was at the point of the big bang. In human terms that means you and I would have the mass of 1 egg and 1 sperm. I don’t know about you but I’m pretty sure that the combined material of the egg and sperm I came from doesn’t equal 100kg
It doesn’t matter what you see. What matters is what you can define, quantify and what predictions you can make. I’m sure this all makes sense in your head but given the level of your scientific understanding I’m not surprised it doesn’t actually match what actually happens in our reality.
This is the closest you’ve come to actually almost coming upon something science has known for a while. The fact that a sphere is the most simple 3 dimensional shape. It has the smallest surface area to volume. Even so most cells are not spherical. Not even all eggs are spherical. Galaxies, even early ones are not spherical either. Their shapes are dictated by the in falling material and the physical law that the material must maintain its angular momentum.
I notice you totally ignored the gross misunderstandings you seem to have about gestation and cognitive development and everything else I’ve pointed out. This is called confirmation bias. Your refusal to accept reality when it doesn’t fit with your idea.
You are the one saying that our now, development of our species consciousness within our universe, is some how related to when, you thought, consciousness developed within individual humans. So yes I think it is absurd and I think your suggestion is too. Hence I’m pointing out just some of the fatal problems with your idea.
Even catering for English not being your first language that statement makes absolutely no sense.
You really have no grasp on any science it seems. I’ll have talk to one of my very close friends who is a senior professor doing active research on cognition and consciousness that apparently you don’t think she is actually doing science. Lets see if what she does classifies a science.
1) investigate some aspect of the natural world. a
2) formulate testable ideas that can and are independently verified or falsified. a
3) design and perform experiments that can be repeated by others. a
4) collect data from the experiments. a
5) present the data so that it can be independently reviewed. a
6) present a conclusion that may or may not support your initial idea. a
You’ve skipped steps 2-5. What you’ve put up on your site is not data. It is baseless assertions and there is a big difference.
First off I’m not suggesting anything about your idea beyond the fact that it is based on very bad understandings of various scientific fields and doesn’t match what we observe in the universe.
You are the one that is claiming there is a link between biological evolution, human gestation and the the evolution of the universe. You don’t define exactly how anyone besides you can identify what links there are and how anyone would be able to identify those links.
No, you can’t just brush stuff away when it shows your idea is flawed. You are making claims that the big bang is something very different then it is. One of the things the big bang model lets us predict is the age of the universe. Thus your “better” explanation should also explain it.
You can’t just blame this on being hurried either. Your web site has the same problems with its “cycles”. Again before you can replace or put down something you need to understand that something. You clearly do not have an accurate understanding of the scientific fields you are pontificating on. Thus any conclusions you base on your faulty understanding are most likely also going to be faulty. You made very specific claims based on your idea that I showed would also indicate we should, if your idea is correct, find other correlations. In a sense as presented your “idea” makes predictions that there are similar stages between the evolution of the cosmos and human fetal development. I’ve pointed out that this is not the case. That on both sides there are pretty significant points that don’t have a correlation with the other side. Thus your idea as presented is falsified. Welcome to the scientific method.
I am still actually waiting for answers to most of my direct questions.
I am still actually waiting for just ONE of the thousands of evidences you have against the mainstream model. Not your hand waving based on your ignorance of the mainstream models.
Sun and oranges? Shapes are mere coincidence? Impossible!
Plants were the first biological systems produced by this astronomical system to which Earth belongs, the Milk Way. Animals are later generations. We know that firsts species are more “equal” to an ancestor than the laters. So, plants as the first “visible” biological systems, must mimics the shape and functions of their ancestor Milk Way… Let’s see the evidences:
The Milk Way is a spiral, the three of oranges seems a spiral.
Milk Way has a central “trunk” and arms. The tree of oranges have a trunk and branches.
Milk Way have planets, the colors can be blue, green, etc. The tree has leaves.
Milk Way has yellows luminous stars attached to the arms. The tree have beautiful yellow oranges attached to the branches…
And our star have a very caloric relationship with the tree through photosynthesis…
My friend, don’t you think that is too much coincidences? And look to each leaves, again the fractal of the tree drawn there… As the tree keeps the fractal, the shape of its creator. The probabilistic calculus shows that Nature could create here billions of differents things, shapes and atomic combinations, but, no, it choose just to do the daughter like the mother….
Before going to the jungle and educated by the Standard model – which taught that biological evolution has nothing to see with cosmological evolution and shapes here are merely product of chance, I believed in my teacher. But the continuous bombardment of patterns made me began to suspect that, again, human beings were suffering of more faith than reason.
Oranges emerged inside the Milk Way and made by the Milk Way. Who else? Did you see someone bringing on something from outside the Milk Way? All informations for oranges and its trees were here and neither the Milk Way is a magician able to create informations from nothing ( only God and the ruler of the Standard model, the Almighty Absolute Randomness, are able to do magics). The astronomical building block was LUCA – the Last Universal Common Ancestor of all biological systems. Daughters in Amazon jungle have the same shape of their mothers. Where you live is different? So, what’s the problem that you at least does not experiment the alternative of natural patterns?
You can see the face of LUCA in this image:
Last edited by TheMatrixDNA; Yesterday at 06:05 AM.
Our rules require that you answer questions in this forum. Do not make any other claims in this thread until you have answered the outstanding questions. If you do not, this thread will be closed and you may not discuss the topic here anymore.
My moderation comments will appear in this color.
To report a post (even this one) to the moderation team, click the reporting icon in the lower-left corner of the post:
◄ Rules For Posting To This Board ► ◄ Forum FAQs ► ◄ Conspiracy Theory Advice ► ◄ Alternate Theory Advice ►
Of course, it is flawed, but, everything you have said here as informations about the Standard model I already knew long time ago. The Matrix/DNA is about natural systems which needs all scientific fields knowledge and expertise, and I can not get everything alone.That’s the reason I am here at this forum: searching more informations about the whole theory, trying to get explanations of deep Physics concepts and deep Mathematical calculations that I couldn’t get alone, searching any established “natural” fact or scientifically proved “natural” law, mechanism, process that could debunk the whole Matrix/DNA’s models and those scientifically collected data that are evidences or could helping to develop the Matrix model. I think that yours rewards loosing your time with me is that you have the opportunity to see the world and the mainstream model from the eyes of people educated and trained at the crude and yet virgin Nature of the jungle, which is a good laboratory at opened sky, producing different neuronal connections and hard-wired brain while you have had a strictly urban life and artificial laboratories with powerful technological instruments as extensions of our brain’s sensors. You will think that I have nothing useful because you need data experimentally proved and I didn’t it because I have no access to scientific laboratories but lots of suggestions for scientific experiments. But, please, if you still think that will lose yours time – and it is possible – I will understand and I don’t want prejudice you.
[QUOTE=WayneFrancis;2254626]It isn’t that someone just came up with a model and “well this model say things would have happened this way” and then just believe./QUOTE]
I have read this many times when watching these debates between materialists and creationists. Matrix/DNA works as a kind of “third view” with different propositions that neither materialists neither creationists knows. Matrix/DNA is and will be attacked by both sides. Matrix/DNA was built accidentally, after observing Nature in the jungle and learning which ways Nature works at that slice of biosphere. These observations suggested ideas that were being accumulated and finally resulting into a big theoretical model which includes the external Nature beyond the immediate space and time. Now we need data from this external Nature to check if the theory is agreement with reality. All data that I have obtained from scientific books were predicted by the models and are in agreement with them. Remember that I didn’t said that the Standard model would be wrong when compared with Matrix/DNA model. Most part are in agreement, but, Matrix/DNA is suggesting many things that is missing in the Standard model.
Yes, I am naturalized American citizen but the native language is Portuguese and some native languages of the jungle. I have tree big problems when trying to communicate explaining the Matrix/DNA world view: a) Despite the fact that since my infant times I read books in English and learning it alone or schools, i never wrote in English, then,it prejudices all Matrix/DNA details when communicating them by writhing. But I am still learning day by day and if you teach me something that I weiting wrong, I will be grateful;2) Matrix/DNA models are suggesting many new natural mechanisms, processes, objects, that have no name yet in any language, so, we need creating new words. For instance, the models suggests the state of astronomical bodies that is not a quasar or a pulsar how it is defined by the Standard model, but since there is no name for these objects and they are in between the definitions of pulsar and stars, I have used the name of pulsar for that body, which causes lots of confusion by people trained by the Standard model.
My friend, we will lose time here if you continuing to repeat common informations about the Standard Model that I know since my infant times. Now I am reading lots of material about general relativity, the Hubble constant, the Physics of the Nobel Prize Hideki Yukawa and of course, quantum theory and String M-theory. Matrix/DNA models were built with data from hundreds of books got at universities’ libraries and my job at earlier times was helping students making theses, monographies, of several different fields. You are saying that because I wrote:”How Nature – the state of the world, the state of the Solar and Milk Way systems – at 4 billion years ago, built every properties of biological systems at Earth surface?” It means how was the evolutionary state of this solar and galactic systems after a cosmological evolution that began with the Big bang at 13,7 billion years ago. I was thinking that Matrix/DNA models are suggesting the presence of more natural forces and elements as hidden variables in relation to Oparin’s model for reduced atmosphere at 4 billions years ago at the life’s origins first moments, which were missing at Urey/Miller’s experiments and that’s the cause that Urey did not get amino acids able to perform the next steps towards proteins. Based on Matrix/DNA models we need to repeat the Urey experiments with different processes and changing/adding some ingredients.
I am following this issue every day, carefully. But the interpretations from astronomers for images and data measurements sometimes are not accordingly to Matrix/DNA models. The real data fits the models, what is different are the interpretations of these data. For instance, those planets free in space without orbiting any star are a problem for the Standard model that was not predicted it, but it fits very well predictions from Matrix/DNA models registered 30 years ago. That’s the reason I can’t abandon Matrix/DNA putting them in the garbage, they are right in relation too many things that were not included into the Standard model.
It is being difficult to me to define the formation of our solar system after Matrix/DNA models advice that there were two process for astronomical systems formation and I don’t know what process was applied for formation of this system. The fact that is missing some shapes of astronomical bodies in our solar system (pulsar, quasar, etc.) indicates that it is from second generation, which process is similar to the Standard Model. The differences between the two models about solar system formation are more related to magnetic fields, forces and ingredients modeling the system at its formation, etc. But since I had no time for to much cosmology and I am developing hundreds of researches at another fields as Biology, Neurology, Medicine, etc., because matrix/DNA is about natural systems and these systems have a little bit of each scientific field, these models are not complete yet.
The normal chemical process has formed the biochemistry of the early Earth, what does not mean that yours theoretical model about normal chemical process has formed it. You know that are gaps in it and I think they will be fulfit when completing the model. Matrix/DNA model has translated the real chemical processes better than yours model, I think.It happens that the suggestions of Matrix/DNA, despite it seems to work well, are very “weird” from mine and yours point of view. For instance I am now studying the Sun’s magnetic field from Matrix/DNA different perspective because the models are suggesting there are evolutionary relations between the known fact that the Sun’s magnetic field flips at each 11 years cycles was the ancestor mechanism that developed into the mechanism at genetic level that possibilities the signals switches putting genes in or off. It is very “weird”, very complex, but it makes sense. From where Nature got the mechanism for these signals and commands at genetic level, accordingly to the Standard model?
In the jungle we see life by a different perspective than yours at urban habitat and a naturalist philosopher arrive to a conclusion that Pasteur was right and Linus Pauling wrong, Must have a kind of vital principle acting inside the earlier organic chemistry, coming from the mistakenly called “non-living world”, which still is a strong and determinant hidden variable unknown by modern Science. Matrix/DNA suggest what is it, how it is, and where it came from. Biological systems are merely a continuing from cosmological evolution with severe mutations because astronomical systems were formed and composed with only two principals states of matter – solid and gaseous ( of course, there are the electromagnetic, the quantum, states, etc.) – and biological systems were formed and composed with three states, adding the liquid state, which had multiplied the power of Physical processes resulting into chemist processes. Forgetting the differences of formation and composition by Physics and Math is the cause that that chemistries and biologists are not grasping the whole picture of earlier life’s formation.
The normal biological processes accounts for the diversity of life, of course, what does not account is the theory of the Standard model about normal biological processes. When we see the novelty suggested by Matrix/DNA models about how are normal biological processes we see clearly that a theoretical model in fact works. For instance, and about diversity of life and reducible complexity, we get more explanations adding the mechanisms and processes that has in normal biological processes but the Standard model has not solved them. Take LUCA from the Earth’s surface and put it in the sky: you will see how all complexity are reduced to LUCA. Keep LUCA at Earth’s surface and you have no way for escaping from the assertions of the people from the intelligent design. Break the external membrane of spermatozoa and spreading the genes into different spaces and scales of time and you will get the great diversity of the offspring from a unique common ancestor. So, Matrix/DNA models can help the real Science and you.
I didn’t said that, it would be absurd!
Neither I care. I mentioned it because it is the most known evolutionary shape of this system by human beings and here I am talking with the life form called human beings.
Response Part 1
You keep talking about “natural” this and that. Science is about the study of the natural world. I and others have pointed out basic scientific observations that are at odds with your idea and you seem to either ignore it and just repeat the same thing over and over.
Statements like “yet virgin Nature of the jungle, which is a good laboratory at opened sky, producing different neuronal connections and hard-wired brain while you have had a strictly urban life and artificial laboratories with powerful technological instruments as extensions of our brain’s sensors.”
means nothing. If you have a claim that observation you make some how different then what other people make then you’ve got a problem. You seem to be claiming that you are privileged to knowledge that others are not. If you have data you believe others have missed you need to explain how others can obtain said data. Otherwise you are appealing to Revelation. Science relies on all observers being able to make the same observations. If you think you’ve made observations because you’ve been in a “Jungle” and some how you have clearer skies then people in the city I’ll point out the scientist make observations all over the world and make observations with equipment that reveals much more information then you’ll ever be exposed to.
[QUOTE=WayneFrancis;2254626]It isn’t that someone just came up with a model and “well this model say things would have happened this way” and then just believe./QUOTE]
No. You can make baseless claims like that. Science has observation which can be independently made and verified. Creationist and you have hand waving. There is no “external nature”. If you aren’t talking about the natural world, which is what science does, you are talking about a supernatural world which isn’t science. Even when scientist talks about things like the multi-verse much of the time it isn’t science. When they make claims that can be tested then they are in the realm of science. Like I’ve pointed out before claiming your idea gives all the same answers as the current models doesn’t make your idea science. You have to show HOW your idea arrives at the same answer. For example you’ve made a claim that the first galaxies shapes are the same as a human egg because of some fractal system word salad. The main stream models explain the shape of the galaxies by how GR dictates how gas clouds will collapse under their own gravity. Observations show that the first galaxies are elliptical not spherical like a human egg. The main stream models can start with a gas cloud and demonstrate how the material produces elliptical galaxies. They can show how these Elliptical galaxies will continue to collapse and form into spiral galaxies. They show how various galaxies colliding with each other form the many different irregular galaxies we see. You have “Hey that looks like a human egg to me! There must be a deep philosophical meaning behind it” The science is quantifiable, reproducible and falsifiable. Your idea is new age pseudoscience.
Then invent a new name and more importantly define it. Explain it in detail. Tell us what these new objects are. What are their properties. How are they formed. Where can we expect to see them.
You keep claiming there are thousands of evidences against the main stream models and now many new object but you have not, even once, provided any examples.
Sorry I don’t believe you. Here is why I don’t believe you. You provide no evidence. Your statements show a clear misunderstanding of even basic cosmology that I’ve already pointed out. Coming back and saying you understand what the main stream models say since you where a baby is highly unlikely. If you were some type of savant then I’ll point out that it is useless because what you communicate to others isn’t a great understanding of what you are writing about but a huge fantasy world that is in gross opposition to the natural world the rest of us live in.
If your idea will succeed in producing life in experiments then tell us how and get ready to accept your Nobel prize. What “ingredients” need to be change/ added? What processes need to be incorporated. Tell us how so that we can independently verify your claims. The problem is your claims are completely without evidence thus I go back to this quote
“that which can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence”
Until then you are just shoveling more pseudoscience.
I honestly don’t care who or what you read. If you come here with accurate statements about the mainstream models, 1 or more problems with the said model and an actual model that will provide answer(s) then I’m on board with you. But you don’t. You don’t have a model and repeating that you do over and over without any evidence of an actual model makes you look like a liar that is just trying to get attention. You have not provided even on problem you have with the main stream model. This would be in the form of a well defined statement like “x is observed but no model currently explains why. My model explains x by the following …” followed by a detail explanation of how your model explains the observation. If you model, at any point, requires something that can not be measured and observed, then you’ve stepped out of the realm of science and into the realm of the supernatural and it isn’t falsifiable. Lastly so much of your posts show gross ignorance of the actual science. Dropping terms and names like GR, the Hubble constant or any scientists name doesn’t lend credibility to your argument.
To be continued…
Response Part 2
How? Why do you think the main stream models can not explain rogue planets? Why do you think the main stream models can not explain even rogue stars in intergalactic space. The main stream models have not problem with planets being ejected from their host system. This can occur in a number of different ways. Interaction between 2 solar systems can easily eject a planet from its host system. Interaction within a solar system between planets can also eject a planet from its host system. This is a prime example of your ignorance of the science. I’ll also reiterate that gasp in some model isn’t evidence for your model. Saying your model explains something doesn’t mean your model explains something. An actual well define explanation that is falsifiable can be an explanation for something. But you haven’t provided that. All you’ve provided is “These objects look the same to me….coincidence? I think not!” Which is an appeal from and to ignorance.
More word salad and avoidance. You say our solar system is missing pulsar, quasar, etc. Here again is an obvious misunderstanding of the science. There is absolutely no reason why we should ever find a pulsar or quasar as part of our solar system. In fact it would be near impossible for us to be in a solar system that has one of those objects because they are not very conducive to life. We have no reason to think that a solar system should have a G class star half way through its lifespan in the main sequence should be paired up with a pulsar or quasar. We could find a system like that which happen by interactions of multiple systems that allowed the 2 stars to form separately but eventually become gravitationally bound to each other. It would be more surprising to see planets as we would expect those planets to be ejected during the process. But even then you might find planets involved depending on the distances and masses involved. But if there was a planet then life is highly unlikely because of the amount of ionizing radiation that the pulsar would emit.
So another question for you.
WF10 Why if your idea predicts pulsars and quasars in many solar systems do we not observe this to actually be the case?
WF11 Why does your idea predict pulsars and/ or quasars partnered with stars that are still well within the main sequence?
Please reform this statement. Perhaps you should use Google translate and use your native language.
First you have provided what problem you have with, what I’m guessing is biological system. Second you have not stated what that actual problem is and how your idea solves that problem.
But you have made a bit of testable statement and claim.
You say the sun’s magnetic field causes genes to turn on and off.
WF11 How does the our sun’s magnetic field cause genes to turn on and off.
What, precisely, within the a gene is reacting with the magnetic field of the sun. What genes are affected. What determines what genes are effected. What changes should we detect with the magnetic field flips? How do the genes react to the sun’s magnetic field but not the hundreds of other magnetic fields life on Earth experience? What patterns within biology should we detect on a 11 year cycle from the corresponding sun’s solar cycle? What data do you have to support your claim.
Note this is a formal question and I would actually like an answer, even if it is I don’t know, to this question before any of my other outstanding questions
To be continued…
Response part 3
Again gross misunderstanding of even basic science. There are 4 states of matter as defined by science. Solid, liquid, gas and plasma. These are very different then the fundamental forces. I have no idea why you would mention “quantum” at this point either beyond thinking using terms, even if it has no relation to what you are trying to discuss, will some how confuse anyone here into thinking that either we don’t understand something or in the hopes that you’ve used a term that might be applicable.
The rest of your statement, like most of your posts, means absolutely nothing to anyone but you.
What do you mean by “earlier life’s formation”? Are you talking about abiogenesis?
It would help if you stop jumping around with topics. Pick one problem with one area of science.
State your understanding of what the relevant main stream model says about that problem.
State your idea’s solution to that problem in a manner that is falsifiable by others.
When you do that we can then discuss if your idea actually rises to the definition of science.
I’m also curious to know what conflict between Pasteur and Pauling you think modern science has wrong?
Let us get things straight here. If you are going to use scientific terms then you have to use them in the context that science used them.
First Evolution accounts for the diversity of life. It does not cover Abiogenesis which is more a field of complex chemistry.
When you bring in the “standard model” into the discussion you are confusing the issue.
The standard model is a theory concerning the electromagnetic, weak, and strong nuclear interactions. It is ultimately responsible for how chemistry works. You do NOT have to bring it up when talking about biology. It doesn’t add anything to the discussion of either evolution or abiogenesis. Those 2 fields work fine with the standard model. If you agree then stop talking about the standard model when you are talking about biology.
I’m guessing you have a problem with abiogenesis. Do we know how life started? No. Do we think that something else is needed to explain the origins of life beyond chemistry? No. If you think there is then you need to state what extra you think is needed. If you don’t then stop saying the current models can’t explain it. Note that there is a difference between “Can’t explain it” and “Has not yet found an explanation”.
Pretty much everything you seem to say is absurd. You keep co-opting terms and expect people to understand your meaning with out providing any definitions. Take the following quote from you where you draw a link between the shape of a tree and the shape of a spiral galaxy.
The Milk Way is a spiral, the three of oranges seems a spiral.
Milk Way has a central “trunk” and arms. The tree of oranges have a trunk and branches.
Milk Way have planets, the colors can be blue, green, etc. The tree has leaves.
Milk Way has yellows luminous stars attached to the arms. The tree have beautiful yellow oranges attached to the branches…
And our star have a very caloric relationship with the tree through photosynthesis…
You present a link that coincidental beyond the fact that a galaxy and a tree are both within our universe.
The galaxy does not look like a tree. The central bulge in a spiral galaxy is the result of a very different process then the trunk of a tree.
You seem to be amazed that planets have colours and a tree have leaves.
You seem amazed that because we human perceive some stars as yellow, our sun actually has a peak luminosity in the green band, is profoundly related to oranges.
The only part that begins to make any sense there is that plants use photosynthesis to produce their energy.
So we have a bunch of rambling from you that you make links between something terrestrial to something cosmological based solely on your opinion that they look the same.
Your refusal to understand that just because you can cherry pick, and very badly I might add, some properties of 2 different systems that you think have the same invisible root cause in your “Matrix/DNA” idea, doesn’t mean they do. Because you don’t provide anything that can be tested of falsified.
If you don’t care then stop bringing up a link between the 2. Your images imply links that are not there. It doesn’t matter if you pick a elephant, worm, bee or amoeba. Your basic understanding of the both biology and astronomy are wrong. It isn’t about interpreting the data different. It is about you being ignorant of the science.
and claim that is one galaxy hatching out of another. Yea it looks a bit like that from that image but science isn’t based on just that image. Science knows about GR. It know the relative motions of those 2 galaxies. It can map the dark matter from those 2 galaxies. Every piece of data points to this being the product of 2 galaxies colliding because of gravity.
You come along and claim it some how shows 1 galaxy hatching from another.
For your idea to be true almost everything we know about physics has to be false.
Where did the mass of the “new galaxy” come from?
Where did the energy for momentum of that new galaxy come from?
How are the 2 galaxies going against general relativity in one aspect but seemingly holding together via gravity in another.
You treat pictures like that in a manner where you say scientist can not say if they are colliding or separating. But I’ve already told you that they can tell the directions those galaxies are travelling in. We see many examples of galaxies in the process of merging. From just starting to merge to almost completely merged. We know they are merging because of the extra information that scientist have beyond the simple picture you are looking at and it fits perfectly with simulations of galaxies merging. What it doesn’t match AT ALL is galaxies spontaneously splitting apart. Claiming it is a difference in interpreting the data is like reading the first paragraph of Moby Dick and saying the story is just about a guy who got bored and went for a ride in a boat is just a difference in interpreting the major theme within the story of Moby Dick. You are either ignoring or are ignorant of the rest of the book.
I’m going to cut off one of your objections before you try to make it.
You’ve claimed because we haven’t been around long enough that we don’t know those galaxies are in the process of a merger that we can’t say they are.
Going back to the Moby Dick analogy. Is like saying “Well you only have 1 page of the book, how do you know the real whole story?!”
We know the whole story because we have every page of the book available to us right now. We can put those pages together and the story makes sense.
It is like we have the cliff notes of Moby Dick = general relativity
We then use the cliff notes to reconstruct the entire book from the pages torn out of the binder and thrown about the room.
We can then reconstruct the book based on our understanding from the cliff notes.
Based on GR we can reconstruct galaxies merging We can test it in many ways. Each time we get results that are in agreement with observation.
What you want is the equivalent of a claim that Star Wars Revenge of the Sith is a story about a man that cures his need for robotic limbs and life support by shuffling himself into a pool of lava then jumping out of it with his limbs spontaneously regenerating. All because you don’t know if you should watch the movie in reverse or not…even worse that we don’t know which direction the movie was intended to be played.
Este foi meu ultimo post o qual não foi publicado e o thread foi fechado:
Hi, Sir… Seems to me that you are the moderator so, thanks by doing that.
[QUOTE=Reality Check;2254894][B]TheMatrixDNA[/B]: You have may get some issues with this ATM thread. As far as I know, you have to present and defend the ATM idea here. The second hand presentation and defense of someone else’s idea will be prone to misinterpretations.[/QUOTE]
Yes, I am the author of a copyrighted work registered as “fiction” ( note: not “Sciences”) which documents numbers from Brasilia and Washington can be seen at my website. I began this thread talking the necessary and unavoidable about the authorship referring to “the author” and not explaining that the author is myself, but, as you can see at posterior posts, I have corrected it. My motive for doing that is avoiding the readers changing the focus from the topic of Matrix/DNA models and the Standard Model to the focus over the authorship.
[QUOTE=Reality Check;2254894][B]TheMatrixDNA[/B]:Presenting what could be a diagram of the author’s ignorance about physics and biology…[/QUOTE]
Please, could you pointing out every detail of this diagram suggesting that the author is ignorant about [U]”natural”[/U] and not [U]theoretical[/U] physics and biology? With real scientifically proved facts, please? That’s one of those several causes I came here to CosmoQuest forum: elucidating my misunderstandings about the Standard model and correcting or explaining the misunderstandings of others persons that shows interest to know the Matrix/DNA model.
[QUOTE=Reality Check;2254894][B]TheMatrixDNA[/B]: in an non-English language is not a good start.[/QUOTE]
I know that. But as not a native speaking English I made lots of effort trying to understanding the diagrams written in English, so I need using the translation free at Internet for doing that. Will you never accept any diagram written in Germany, French or other language?! Ok, you are free for doing that. I had not translated the diagrams yet to English due missing time and the technological resources at the jungle where the originals were made.
[QUOTE=Reality Check;2254894][B]TheMatrixDNA[/B]:[*]the universe is at least 13.8 billions years old (not 4 billion)..[/QUOTE]
Please, if you can do it, explain to me how my words here: ” How Nature – the state of the world, the state of the Solar and Milk Way systems – at 4 billion years ago…” was interpreted as saying that the Universe is 4 billion years old?! I will guest that such terrible mistake is due English alone. So, I will write it another way: “How Universal Nature ( and not only the terrestrial Nature), and pay attention, please, I am saying how the cosmological evolutionary point in that time – 4 billion years ago – of its entire cosmological evolutionary history of 13,7 billion years,…) Is it possible now to understand this English and that it is not suggesting that the author would not know that the techniques of redshift measurements carbon dating, cosmic background radiation, etc., are suggesting that this Universe is 13,7 billion years old? Could you think that someone ignoring what any high school student knows, coming here talking about cosmological models?! Sorry, I can’t believe in it…
[QUOTE=Reality Check;2254894][B]TheMatrixDNA[/B]:[*]astronomy is not biology and biology is not astronomy.[/LIST][/QUOTE]
Good point! Here is the focus of differences between the Standard model world view and the Matrix/DNA model world view. Please, could you bring here which are the scientifically proved facts ( and not the theoretical interpretations of this fact made by the believers in the Standard model) showing that the natural architecture of this Universe is separated into two blocks, one being ruled only by known human Physics and Astronomic Science and other block being ruled by human Physics Science known laws plus the rules upon biological systems?
I know that human Sciences needed in the past dividing General Science into compartments due the limits of its unique scientific applicable method that is the reductionist method. I don’t know that [U]Nature[/U] did same such division. If you does not explain to me where and when Nature did it, where and when the long [U]natural[/U] flow of causes and effects that began when this Universe was transformed from something that was existing before,and which flow has showing that it is increasing complexity upon the initial reduced complexity, when and were this flow changed his cosmological trajectory because you know that the laws, forces, elements and mechanisms that rules what you call “biology” were not inserted in this flow before what you call biology, emerged at the surface of this planet.
Ok, I know that this complex question written in non good English can not be understanding. So, let’s try another very reducible way: Please, bring on here the scientific proved facts that ( not yours words “astronomy” and “biology” and yours concepts about these words) that the natural world composed by solar and galactic systems is not the natural world composed also by biological systems, and vice versa. Where and when the natural words was shared into two different natural worlds, one in relation to the systems existing before life’s origins and the other existing at Earth’s surface after life’s origins.
My question is due the Matrix/DNA universal model has not detected such separation at Nature and is suggesting how the “biological phenomena”that we are watching here and now had all its evolutionary initial states at all natural architectures since the Big Bang. Don’t worry and please, don’t makes initial judgements about the mind of the person you are talking. This is normal at any event when two different cultures meets face a face first time. Cheers…
E a oposição materialista respondeu a David Dobbs com o artigo no Pharyngula:
by PZ MYERS
No artigo do Pharyngula está ocorrendo um debate com nossa participação, sendo meu ultimo comentario o seguinte:
9 February 2014 at 2:26 pm (UTC -6) Link to this comment
You said: Louis, I also take offense at your suggestion that science has failed humans on a moral scale.”
500 millions humans slaves at 400 years ago; 7 billions (90% of the world population?) humans slaves today. Against numbers, there are no minded produced arguments.
I will not remember the evidences that our planet is sick, changing climate, due we are not sure of it is man made illness.
But… accordingly to the results of my investigation, the worst thing that human science is doing is leading Humanity towards the Admirable New World, under the rules of a Big Brother. It will be the premature abortion of this new natural system being generated here, called “consciousness”, for to be eternal zombie.
There are three fundamentals problems with human science in the last 400 years:
1) The supreme, honest, altruistic, goal of the founding fathers at the Illuminism, was denied by the disciples and science sold its soul to the dominant class of human predators, feeding the selfish gene. All science’s production has been delivered gratefully to these predators, giving them power, feeding a monster, becoming anti-human;
2) While the founding fathers were fighting the mysticism and its prejudices to human kind, the disciples built another mystical world view, changing the magical God by the magical blind Universe and science lost the right way. But, like the ancient deist mysticism was based on memory registered at our genetics, this new mysticism is also based on it. It is a genetic process coming from our creator, which is described by Newtonian mechanics, then, science is driven to grasp the mechanical aspect of every natural phenomena, while every phenomena has lots of another kind of matter organization, others invisible natural systems acting here due the hierarchy of systems, etc. That’s why science is driving us, our youngers today, towards a mechanical state of human society;
3) Science must be a feed-back process between the reductionist method and the systemic method. Reductionism gets data about details and systemic approach try to connect these data into big pictures, building good theories that feeds the search for reductionism. But, systemic method does not provides profit in money, nobody is funding it. Systemic thinking was born with Margullis ( the symbiotic theory), Fritjof Capra (The Tao of Physics) and others, till Bertalanffy making what francis bacon did with reductionism, collecting every dispersive data into a General Systems Theory. Bertalanffy could not advance because no human being was discovered yet what is a real natural system, the unique tentative today is my suggestion called “The Universal Matrix/DNA for Natural Systems”. So, The general theory about natural systems was killed and Wiener, Rosenberg, who were mathematicians/physicians took the control and deviate it from natural to artificial systems, creating cybernetics and this whole scientific enterprise today dominated by the electro-mechanical brain of computers.
Nope, my friend. There are 7 billions human beings being tortured today at this absurd human condition of existence, the planet is dying… to the hell with this kind of science! Go back to the intentions of the founding fathers, do what I am doing, alone, paying it with my hard work, not being a traitor.
Meu primeiro comentario postado no Facebook:
Preciso aprender urgente esta técnica para transformar notas de 1 dólar em notas de 100 dólares…
8 December 2013 at 11:19 am (UTC -6) Link to this comment
Coming from Amazon jungle I can’t understand the mindset running at Western Sciences, principally, this debate about evolution and biogenesis. Who drives the evolution of my body ( from blastula to adult) is the body of my parents because they are my creator, they are the phenotype driven my genes. Then, logically, who drives the evolution of biological systems at Earth surface must be the creator of this planet, all its elements, included all biological systems. It is the phenotype that created and rules the genes. Its name? The Milky Way. But, then, Western Sciences does not have a model of galaxies that fits as the creator and ancestor and phenotype of the first cell system. That’s the problem. It is merely a job of connecting the seven kinds of astronomical bodies in a working system that you will understanding every step of evolution here. I did it and the face of LUCA (the Last Universal Common Ancestor e creator of life here) is shown in a theoretical model at my website, called “The Universal Matrix/DNA of natural Systems and Life’s Cycles”. Ok, I understand that a half-monkey from Amazon jungle can not teach evolutionary biology here, but, maybe I can tell something about natural logics.
8 December 2013 at 11:05 pm (UTC -6) Link to this comment
Coming from Amazon jungle I can’t understand the mindset running at Western Sciences, principally, this debate about evolution and biogenesis. Who drives the evolution of my body ( from blastula to adult) is the body of my parents because they are my creator, they are the phenotype driven my genes. Then, logically, who drives the evolution of biological systems at Earth surface must be the creator of this planet…
Congradulations, you just graduated to the sort of thinking that people had 500 years ago in the “Western Mindset” as well. The problem is, some where in the process, people realized that it just didn’t make any damn sense as an explanation. You had to keep making excuses for all the stuff that didn’t work in any sort of way close to what any intelligent creator might have come up with. And, it doesn’t help, at all, to just wave vaguely and proclaim that we just don’t, somehow, understand his genius (which would be 100% completely Western too, as long as you are religious, and looking for excuses for why “god” made things that contradict each other, don’t work rationally, or make no sense as part of a “grand plan”.)
This is a purely human conceit, the idea that there is some creator some place, that is like us, and therefor, because *we* make things, he “makes things”. I say human conceit because, evolution doesn’t have a plan, but humans can plan. We don’t change with the environment, we change the environment to fit us. Every other animal is subject to the whims of the nature, living or dying, without one bit of say, at all, in when, or how. If the world changes too much for them, they neither adapt, nor can they adapt the world to save themselves. We, mere humans, at least once we learn the “basics” of changing things to fit us, can. The more we know, the more we can change. But, even we have limitations. We get better and better at it. 2,000 years ago, we had no idea how to deal with earthquakes. It was pure luck if building still stood, and a whole island of people was lost, due to them not seeing the signs they needed to leave. Today, we know what it means, and how dangerous it is to stay, even if, in the end, we can’t prevent it from happening. 1,000 years ago, a simple disease could wipe out 90% of the population of a whole continent. Now.. maybe it could still happen, if it really was nasty enough, but it would to be *far* nastier than the ones from back then, for us to have **no** way to deal with it, or contain it, or figure out how it spreads, etc. Even 20 years ago, people would have died from things we can either treat, repair, or control, well enough to keep them alive today.
We shape our world, and every bloody conceited, hubris filled, fool, since the first day someone made a mud hut, because there wasn’t a cave nearby to live in, has been claiming that there must be some “bigger, invisible, creator, who, like us, made a giant mud hunt, lit fires on it, and thus created the sky!”
You “insight” isn’t one. Its making unfounded assumptions about what might have “made” the world, based on the totally absurd hubris that there must be something out there, at least a bit, like yourself, who “made” the world. An idea based on the equally silly concept that, without the knowledge, no matter how basic, passed from your parents, and others, to you, about how to do those things, you would have any higher survival rate than any other monkey, if the world suddenly changed too much for you to keep living in it.
Outro artigo no debate: PHARYNGULA
A conversation about David Dobb’s controversial article
Mais contribuição de PZ Myers: