Archive for the ‘criacionismo’ Category

Novo Debate Entre Criacionistas e Ateus Sobre o Mistério das Existências e a Sugestão da Matrix/DNA

quarta-feira, julho 6th, 2016


It takes a fool to deny the obvious

And my comment published at the Myers’ article:

The Matrix/DNA
July 6, 2016 – Amazon Jungle

Creationists and atheists world views are both “magical thinking” due a fundamental mistake: they are forgetting the naturalist systemic perspective. Any living thing is a system, a systemic biological organization of matter and energy. And systems can only coming from other system. Nobody had discovered a system coming from a part or piece of a system, neither from something not belonging to a system.
So, the first amino-acids were systems in itself, made by atoms systems and this astronomical system. Since that atoms system are too much simple, and galactic systems are lots more complex, the logic’s suggests that amino-acids were a production of astronomic nanotechnology, like human genome, chromosomes,ovules, are products of human natural nanotechnology.

Following this line of logic’s we got a new world view called Matrix/DNA where a new theoretical astronomical and atomic model fits just as the ancestors of the first living cell.

Now the problem would be:but the first system, be it an atom or an elemental particle composed by other smaller particles as a system, where it came from?

We found that all these natural systems were made by a unique natural formula. Then, we found that any universal set of radiation performing a light wave has the same formula for systems. Conclusion? The forst natural system in this Universe and perceptible dimension was a light wave.

Where the light wave came from? No other simplest thing in this Universe was detected as ” the light wave producer”. Our method of rationalization is suggesting that the first natural light wave worked as the genome of some ex-machine entity. If so, this Universe is merely a kind of egg where is occurring a natural process of genetic reproduction of the systemic thing that produced it. Is is God? If you want call it by that name, remember that it is not magical, it does things by natural process. Is is a big absolute chance? If you want call it by tat name, remember that it is a phenomena that is being reproduced exactly like it happened once, so, when this process arrive to an end, it will not be the absolute chance, because it would be an event that has been repeated.

What matters here is the final moral concept from this world view: we are 8 billion genes plus trillion of genes spread in this Universe building a kind of baby. So, each of us – as gene – has a unique, specific, not mimicked, not able to be stolen – information. It is our mission and we are not conscious about that. If one of us dies not do his/her job, the baby will born handicapped. So, let yours brother free for doing its mission. If creationism, atheism or Matrixism are wrong interpretations of this world, our inner mission will correct our wrong beliefs. And we got correction every time that we learn something new about the Universal Nature. That’s why I made the Amazon jungle my second house: there are plenty of natural phenomena for learning there.


Mãos Humanas: Controvérsia do Paper Mencionando um “Criador”

sábado, março 19th, 2016


Deu o maior “fuzuê” internacional um paper cientifico (tese) revisado e publicado por uma revista cientifica que menciona um Criador como autor do elo ainda desconhecido e não explicado cientificamente entre a anatomia arquitetônica das mãos humanas e sua impressionante coordenação de movimentos sincronizados. Um biólogo – provavelmente ateu – começou o alvoroço ao publicar a menção ao criador e logo um exercito de patrulheiros ideológicos engrossaram fileiras numa batalha para anular o paper. E conseguiram. Porem, o assunto e` bem mais complicado do que parece principalmente para mim que – conduzido pela formula da MatrixLight/DNA – descobri muitos aspectos que ainda são ignorados, inclusive o que e’ e de onde vem esse elo, das mãos humanas. E como não poderia deixar de ser, me envolvi nos debates.

(  teoria das mãos humanas aqui no link: )

Planejamento para meus comentários. O que eu preciso dizer:

A menção a um criador indefinido e` prejudicial ao meu interesse porque sugere a interrupção da pesquisa sobre o como e o porque da existência quando meu interesse e` que a pesquisa continue porque ela vai levar a confirmação da minha teoria. Mas acima dos meus interesses esta a minha consciência de justiça, a qual sugere que os autores não devem serem punidos quando não definiram o que eles entendem por criador.

– Let me start by clearing a stupid misconception that you probably have. I’m not a Christian. I don’t believe Jesus is the son of god. I don’t believe in a god. I don’t believe in an afterlife. However, I do understand science, and I do understand religion. Let me further point out that this was a Chinese paper, and as such, it’s very likely that the “god” to which the author was referring, was not the Christian god, but of course your bigoted and ignorant position focuses on Christianity.xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Artigos Relacionados a Controversia:
Science Journal Publishes Creationist Paper, Science Community Flips Out
Correcting errors is now anti-religious bigotry? Um PDF Cientifico sobre a evolução das mãos) The Evolutionary history of the hominin hand since the last common ancestor of Pan and Homo (PDF)

onde diz : ” This evidence sugests that these derived fatures evolved prior to the intensificaion of stone tool-related hominin behaviors begining around 2,5 million years.”

En declaraciones a la revista Nature, Cai-Hua Xiong, uno de los autores, explicó que la polémica se había desatado debido a una falta de entendimiento cultural. Al no ser hablantes nativos de inglés, los científicos habían traducido por “Creador” un término chino que se refiere a la“naturaleza guiada por procesos naturales como la selección. Es decir, un concepto que no podría estar más alejado del creacionismo.
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxComentarios uteis nos artigos:

Luis Barillas ·

Works at Ninguna
Nadie a hecho la mano por parte del creador, simplemente a traves de años a evolucionado y eso se debe al cerebro, por eso se dice que las manos es el segundo cerebro; la mano seguira afinandose y posiblemente perdamos dos dedos que casi no usamos; los pricipales que se usan son el dedo gordo que es el principal y los dos que le siguen.-Vease en los monos casi al hagarrar usan toda la mano conjuntamente con el dedo gordo.-

BT47 to vasshu – 3/03/16 4:23pm

The conclusion of a paper is the place where you illustrate the conclusions of the study being described. Did the study conclusively prove that hands are the result of a creator’s intent? No; then you don’t get to write about it in the fucking conclusion.

3/03/16 4:40pm

Actually, scientific papers can indeed include opinion, so long as it’s separate from the scientific investigation itself, and a conclusion is a perfectly sound place to put your own opinion on the topic.

Science cannot prove anything. It can only falsify. However, when it comes to religion, of course science cannot falsify it. Science is the realm of the empirically falsifiable, while religion specifically involves that which has no known method of empirical investigation.

3/03/16 4:44pm

Agreed. The paper was about the mechanics of the hand, not how it came to be that way.

3/03/16 4:46pmStorm in a teapot.

There are two throwaway references to the Creator in an otherwise boring but scientifically valid paper. It is clear reading this that the author’s first language is not English and there may have been cultural reasons why this was included.

This is not the thin edge of the wedge people – y’all need to calm the hell down.

3/03/16 4:50pmI feel like a lot of people in the academic community are religious negativists. They default to a belief in nonexistence, whenever there is no evidence for existence.This is actually just as religious as a belief in existence (any belief, which lacks a known method of empirical investigation, is religious), and so the comment actually clashes with their own religious beliefs.
And no; I’m not saying atheism is a religion. Atheism is a lack of belief in gods. Religious negativism is a belief that there are no gods, afterlives, etc.

3/03/16 4:55pmMy point, in reference to your hand example, is that the ability to adapt to doing different jobs with our hands has exactly zilch to do with intelligent design.

3/03/16 4:57pmActually, I should say that it should go in the discussion section.

> The discussion section is the authors’ opportunity to give you their opinions. It is where they draw conclusions about the results. They may choose to put their results in the context of previous findings and offer theories or new hypotheses that explain the sum body of knowledge in the field. Or the authors may comment on new questions and avenues of exploration that their results give rise to. The purpose of discussion sections in papers is to allow the exchange of ideas between scientists. As such, it is critical to remember that the discussions are the authors’ interpretations and not necessarily facts. However, this section is often a good place to get ideas about what kind of research questions are still unanswered in the field and thus, what types of questions you might want your own research project to tackle.

3/03/16 5:03pm

Opinions can be placed in a scientific paper only when after a research yields no definite proof or results are inconclusive. Opinions do not need to be justified or even accurate. They are just that, opinions.



a view or judgment formed about something, not necessarily based on fact or knowledge.


Extratos do paper:

– Hand coordination should indicate the mystery of the Creator’s invention

– the complex biomechanical architecture

– Although many researchers have noted the effect of the biomechanical constraints on hand coordination [1,3,7,10], few have found a clear link between the biomechanical architecture and hand coordination. In this paper, we will explore such a functional link.We tried to find clear corresponding evidence of coordinated relationships from the biomechanical characteristics of muscular-articular connective architecture and to establish the functional link between the biomechanical architecture and the characteristics of hand coordination

The link is a formula. Pense numa celula redonda que deforma sua membrana para desenvolver varias invaginacoes e ex-vaginacoes para mover-se ou absorver,agarrar alimento. Agora pense nessa celula encima de uma ostra microscopica,  Ela precisa se infiltar na casca da ostra e retirar o alimento. Ela vai criar extensoes membranosas para ssa tarefa. Qual o link entre a arquitetura bioquimica da celula e a coordenacao com que suas extensoes atuam? Em primeiro lugar sao as informacoes que ela tem sobre a ostra, informacoe que viri pelos outros sentidos, como cheiro, tato, e se tivesse, visao. Essas informacoes iriam dirigir a forma e movimento de suas extencsoes. E tudo isto esaria limitado pelos constraints, ou seja, o que ela nao poe fazer de extensoes. Agora vamos para o cerebro. Ele ja nao precisa se fixar em cima de uma ostra maior para tirar-lhe o alimento porque ele fez as maos para isto. Mas ele depende das informacoes do s seus sentidos, que estao localizados em sua arquitetura, cada qual numa regiao. Entao digamos que ele tem que puzxar o alimento para fora porque o cheiro diz que e` bom alimento. se o proprio cerebro nao tivesse maos e nem dedos e tivesse que fazer isso, ele desenvolveria uma extensao na regiao da funcao que melhor puxa as coisas do mundo externo, e esta funcao pode ser a F6, porque essa e a unica funcao na formula que o fez que puxa coisas de dentro do proprio sistema explusando-a para fora.Esta funcao faz o figado no corpo humano, e faz o lisossomo na celula, faz o cadaver estelar ou ana vermelha na galaxia. No cerebro o local dessa funcao seia no seu topo dsuperior direito. Ora, quando a formula vai para a mao, esta funcao esta na posicao do dedo indicador. este realmente e` o mais forte e dextro e habil para puxar coisas com um unico dedo. S ele nao puder fazer a tarega porque e` muito grosso e nao entra no buraco, ou porque esta distante do buraco, entao sera usaode um dedo mais fino ou mais proximo. Qual o link que a equipe esta procurando? nao existe um link aterialixzado visivel. Pois o link e` a formula quese reproduziu como cerebro e o cerebro se reproduziu como uma mao, mas e` laro, a mao que e ilha do cerebro sera neta da formula, todos os tres elementos pertencem amesma linhagem evolucionaria, portanto temm a mesma imagem e funcionalidade.

– the human hand adopts a distinctive coordinated control strategy for each task
Porque? Porque a mao humana ‘e uma arquitetura igual a arquitetura funcional do cerebro. E o cerebro trabalha controlando automaticamente milhares ou milhoes de tarefas no corpo simultaneamente, sem que nossa consciencia participe desse trabalho. Essa habilidade do cerebro em mover musculos rapida e simultaneamente se deve a que rodos estes musculos pettencem a sub-sositemas que sao copias do sitema do cerebro. Entao quando o cerebro comanda uma acao das maos para uma tarefa que varios dedos, palma, precisam pegar, afastar, puxar agarrar objetos, e` o cerebro presente nas maos usando-a como extensoes de suas regioes operacionais.

para entender isso vamos lembrar como a celula primordial redonda criou o primeiro cilio que viria mais tarde sr um rabo,um tentaculo, ou um membro para transporte, ou para agarrar cominda. Esta celula que estava afixada em algum lugar sentia sinais de algo comestivl proximo, digamos, a sua esquerda.  SUA FOME E SEU DESEJO DE ALCANCAR ESTE ALIMENTO COLOCOU TODA SUA FORCA NO SEU LADO ESQUERDO e assim a membrana naquela area foi se alongando.

O cerebro tambem esferico e ao realizar qualquer tarefa manual, sente o desejo de extender- na direcao de um objeto, desloca forca para a palma da mao que ele construiu para imita-lo como extencsao e quando alcanca o objeto, desloca forcas para as varias regioes necessarias para a tarefa que ele quer fazer. Estas forcas deslocadas dentro do cerebro sao imitadas nos musculos das plamas das maos, mas como com a evolucao o cerebro ja criou od s dedos e nao precisa deformar a palma da mao para cada tarefa, as forcas partem para os dedos atraves dos musculos. Para quem conhece a formula da Matrix/DNA que e` a formula da arquitetura do cerebro e igualmente a forma da arquitetura das maos, entendem todo o processo mentalmente e rapido.

– the versatile ability to complete various tasks is a crucial advantage of the human hand
Nao. A habilidade versatil para completar varias tarefas nao e` das maos e sim do cerebro

`- it is necessary to understand the basic characteristics of coordinated movement needed when various tasks are performed.
os movimentos da palma da mao e de seus dedos sao os mesmos movimentos produzidos pelas seis funcoes sistemicas da formula para sistemas naturais. Quando a formula atua apenas para manter seus movimentos internos automaticos de sobrevivencia, os movimentos se iniciam por F1 ( a palama) deopois move o dedo minimo, depois o dedo proximo (F2) e assim ate mover por ultimo o polegar (F7). mas quando a formula se torna sistema aberto para relcionar-se com o mundo exterior, entra em acao a funcao requerida sem uma ordem fixa. Ao inves do circuito de movimentos ser esferico, ele acende funcoes( aplica forca nos dedos) esporadicamente conforme requer a acao sendo executada.

– cluster analysis was used to determine a network and detailed coordinated relationship among joints.

a network nao vai revelar a formula da mao justamente pelo motivo do paragrafo anterior, nao sera um movimento sistemico de sistema fechado mas sim pontuacoes aleatorias de funcoes que resulta numa network desenhada pela fuzzy logics.


Meus comentarios postados em:


The link between biochemical architecture and hand coordination was explained and its Inventor is the inventor of the Creator. So what?

The brain is the inventor of the hand and God. As the brain does not remember how it did the hands, he does not know why and how invented God. So, the problem is a mystery about an invention of the creator, or in another words, himself. The authors are right.

The human hands has the same phenotype and genotypic functionality of a unit of the building blocks of the DNA, which is a lateral pair of nucleotides. We have demonstrated it putting side by side the two elements, but this demonstration is not known by scientific community, yet. You can see a designed model at

The human brain, after the development of the superior cortex, also has the same architecture of DNA`s building block and human hands. The reason is very clear: the three elements were made by the same creator, which is the universal formula that Nature has used for organizing inertial matter into functional systems.This formula can be seen at the same website and is called Matrix/DNA.

As says the paper, “It is not understood which biomechanical characteristics are responsible for hand coordination and what specific effect each biomechanical characteristic has”. it means that Human Sciences has not solved a phenomenon and this fault is prejudicing human kind by a non-working medicine and avoiding the construction of better robotics for improving automatic production. This problem has been solved by human intelligence and now we have a team of valuable engineers doing a good work advancing our knowledge. So, who is prejudicing human kind?

The paper has all scientific value obeying the scientific method. Due some unfortunate three words related to ultimate causes not related to the engineering process, words that express the state of the minds of the human beings doing the job, the entire paper is retracted, as the whole job should go to the garbage.Such is the minor importance of that words that another real scientific workers – the team of PLOS peer review – did not care about. Who retracted the paper was an ideology coming inside the human scientific enterprise. And due this ideology, lovable workers and the whole human kind is prejudiced. Please, remember that outside the las there are 8 billion brothers of us being tortured in this stupid condition of human existence and waiting for the unique hope of salvation we have, that is Human Science.A scientific experiment can not be interrupted or influenced by far away disturbances of human noises doing the job, noises like words not related to the experiment in itself

The link between  the biomechanical architecture and hand coordination is the way that works the internal coordination of the brain after receiving information from its sensors, which goes stored at the medulla oblongata
which has another storage of information from the internal body. Since that hands are made upon the same template that brains were made, and the two are interconnected, the wishes of the brain activates regions or specific functions of the brain that are located at same regions or functions of the hands. What holds an object is the brain, who moves or pulls the object is the brain touching and holding the object, through its extension that its own design.

its is very ease to understanding the whole thing when you know the formula that operates the genetic stuff which was self-projected as human brain after million years of evolution and self-projected itself as human hands.If you knows the grandparents, the parents, of course, you will understand the anatomy and functionality of the son.

Nobody has noticed that the human hands mimics exactly the shapes that a human body shows in its lifelong. The palm of the hands is the pregnant mother, the smallest finger mimics the shape, the size, the inactive ability of the baby, The next finger mimics the aspects of the teenager, till the thumb mimicking the senior. Why? Merely coincidences? No, the variations and functionality of a human body is dictated by genetics, whose building blocks are systems where each molecule performs functions in the same sequence of a life’s cycle. There are lots of details we are now grasping about human hands, due that formula. I never pretended that the Science Academy recognizes this formula as I would never pretend that it recognizes God.although the formula is scientifically falsifiable while God is not. The engineers are doing a research trying to solve a natural phenomena. Science is working in the lab.What matters which is the ultimate cause theorized in the mind of the workers, if the process is running by the scientific method?! They have a physical profitable goal doing the job. In a second plan, they are testing their preferred theories. If the advocates of other theory want to destroy their theory, what better chance than this testing their theory? The hopes and happiness of 8 billion humans brothers will wait till that three words be expelled from their way. It is insane. I didn’t like that mention to a creator also, I know that was not a magical creator that did it. But my offended ideology or theories can not prejudicing the walking of Science. Science, the Universe and 8 billion human beings does not care about what I like or not. They want walking ahead,and those lovable workers are doing that, it matters..Congratulations to the heroic procedures of the peer-review team, which did not stopped Science due something did not tasted well to their rationality also.



United States

March 16, 2016

The link between biochemical architecture and hand coordination was explained and its Inventor is the inventor of the Creator. So what?

You really aren’t that bright or honest are you? You did see that the authors said nothing in their paper was meant to support creationism?

Minha Resposta to dean:

Louis Morelli

New York – USA

March 17, 2016

I can’t understand yours post or you did not understood mine. The paper talks about a creator. But it does not give a name or does not makes definition of that creator. And we need remembering that they are Chinese, nurtured under the Taoism philosophy, where creator has different meanings than creationism. But, be it what it can be, any phylosophy (or religion or gods) are created, invented by the human brain. Since that my theory suggests that the hands were also made, developed, invented, by human brains, so, the brain is the Creator. And since that the brains that developed the humans was ancestrals, our modern brain does not knows, or does not remember how the hands was made. This is the mistery, which the authors mentioned in the article. Of course, that seems not to be their intentions, they seems to be thinking about a different inventor. But it can not be proved, since they did not defined it. The literally meaning of the text is correctly. We does not know how the creator of the hands did it, since that is not possible to mimic it technologically, doing robots’ hands, which is the goal of the authors. We know that the way the authors wrote those half dozen words is not morally honest. But it is not against any law, because the meaning is correctly. Only under established law we could retract the paper. Am I wrong?

Comentarios no PLOS abaixo do paper:

Post by Beagle:

Scientific editing (at last) not censorship
Beagle replied to Kanbei85 on 16 Mar 2016 at 22:29 GMT

Hi Kanbei85,

Could you please elaborate on your words: “the evidence has an annoying habit of not conforming to Darwinian expectations” ?
Expectations are hypotheses. When a hypothesis is proved wrong, only the hypothesis was wrong, not the theory that had inspired it. Consistent failure to prove any hypothesis of a theory indicates that the theory is useless, possibly because it is invalid. In my experience, the theory of natural selection offers a so far unbeated frame to look forward an explanation and find it. Refering to a Creator has never been something like necessary.
Now, the trouble with the “Creator” hypothesis is that it is beyond the reach of any controled experiment we may set-up. All that we have is the world as it is. Whether someone feels that the world is a miracle is beyond the scope of science. Such a feeling is better shared with another community. Pretending that some piece of the world, or that the whole system is a miracle is an opinion (i.e. personal theory) that cannot be proved wrong. Therefore it is not a scientific theory and does not belong to a scientific paper. But it has been written in books.

Minha resposta para Beagle:

RE: Scientific editing (at last) not censorship

TheMatrixDNA replied to Beagle on 17 Mar 2016 at 09:38 GMT

Hi Beagle,
The article says that ” It is not understood which biomechanical characteristics are responsible for hand coordination and what specific effect each biomechanical characteristic has”. Another paper about human hands evolution says that ” ” This evidence suggests that these derived fatures evolved prior to the intensification of stone tool-related hominin behaviors beginning around 2,5 million years.”
And the final goal of the article is: ” drawing a clear functional link between biomechanical architecture and hand coordination”.
Now, my conclusion: ” While everybody ” not-creationist ” was believing that the effort for building stone tools triggered the development of human hands, we found that the opposite is thru. The mechanisms of Darwinian theory of evolution ( which is not wrong, but it is not complete for explaining the real natural process of evolution), has not worked here. The final effect ( modern hands coordination) is not due prior actions of natural selection which are unknown. Of course, Darwinists will always saying that the cause was a random mutation like creationists will say that it was intervention of God. Neither Darwinists, nor creationist will supply the authors with the mechanism they need for building robotic hands.
The mechanisms of my own theory of evolution explains very well this link, its origins and development. I think that my theory can supply what the authors need. But, I was a lost man in Amazon jungle which has no PHD and can not apply the scientific method in my researches about natural phenomena, so, I developed another method, but, so, I can not send a paper for peer-review, so, the authors does not know this theoretical version of this mechanism. My hopes is that the research continues because the mechanism exists and one day the scientific method will meet it.
If a paper suggests that the unknown mechanisms was created by a magical creator, it is working as a science-stopper, at least for Western mindset ( not for Taoist Eastern mindset). But, if a paper suggests that the unknown mechanism was produced by Darwinian theory of evolution, it also is working as a Science-stopper because their method will never meet the solution ( my theoretical solution)..
So, I think that this paper need an advice from the authors that the creator was not defined in the paper, and it could be the human brain and its ancestors. The mystery is about what the ancestor` brain did and our modern brain does not remember. In another hands, I think that the retraction of the paper by believers in Darwinian theory of evolution is wrong if it is based upon the world view that emerges from this theory.
Las manos humanas são una grande oportunidade para los científicos entenderem a evolução e os criacionistas entenderem a seu Deus. Com seus dedos e sua palma, as mãos repetem as seis formas do seu corpo durante sua vida, repetem a formula dos building blocks do DNA e imitam a configuração do cérebro como sistema. Isto tudo porque todas estas coisas – as mãos, o cerebra, o DNA – são sistemas feitos por uma unica formula natural, chamada MatrixLight/DNA, que pode ser vista no meu website. Esta formula nos leva a entender este mundo desde aqui ate o momento do Big Bang, quando então a limitada capacidade do nosso cérebro não pode ir alem. E neste alem, os criacionistas podem ver a formula sendo criada por seu Deus e os cientistas verem a formula surgindo por um processo natural, dependendo da preferencia de cada ser humano.
Las manos humanas son una gran oportunidad para los científicos comprender la evolución y los creacionistas entienderen su Dios. Con los dedos y la palma, las manos repiten las seis formas de su cuerpo durante su vida, repitiendo la fórmula de los bloques de construcción de ADN e imitan el cerebro como una configuración de sistema. Todo esto porque todas estas cosas – las manos, el cerebro, el ADN – son sistemas formados por una única fórmula natural, llamada MatrixLight / ADN, que se puede ver en mi página web. Esta fórmula nos lleva a entender este mundo de aquí hasta el momento del Big Bang, cuando entonces la limitada capacidad de nuestro cerebro no puede ir más allá. Y allá, los creacionistas pueden ver la fórmula siendo creado por su Dios, y los científicos ver la fórmula apareciendo como un proceso natural, dependiendo de la preferencia de cada ser humano.

the design of a multifunctional robotic hand should be able to better imitate such basic architecture

Nature has developed human hands from an initial spherical architecture. But these origins is not about the 6 or 8 million years ago at the hominide ancestors, and it you does not go beyond this time, you ill never undesrtand the whole process of creation.

This spherical arquitecture was the almost spherical primordial cell. The cell produced membrane invaginations or extensions called cylios. These dformations of the membrane were not aleatory. An extension emerged just in the location that a cell organelle, internally, was in need of something from the external world. So, if 4 or 6 kind of organelles were surrounding the membrane, internally, the cell must have produced 4or 6 units of exensions ( cilias) and/or invaginations.

For advancing what we are talking about, you need already designing the whole thing in yours mind: the primordial cell, at that time in that shape, was like an octopus, or a human hand. The cylias developed to modern fingers and the body of the cell is represented by the palm.

It happens that each cilia must have its molecular motor. But each motor needs to be a little bit different from the others. Because each finger has its own weight, size and habilits. So, how to build this motors and first, how to make those differences in that motors?

We need go back in the origins of the anatomy of the cell. If till now I was describing a theory, now it is not theory animore, we will entering in a simple hypothesis… that suggests how to do the motors. The hypothesis can go beyond the cell, till the creators of the cell, from where came the anatomy.

The organelles of the cell were built like the margullis simbiontic theory describes it. But how were there such micro-organisms that were able to fit so perfectly that its sum produced a new complex system called cell? It is due a mechanisms spread by the whole universe, carried on by natural light waves, like those emitted by the sun and Earths radioactive nucleus, or magnetic field. I will not explain this hypothesis here that comprehends 13, 7 billion years of evolution from those waves invading the inertial space substance and organizing matter into natural systems. I will jump to the conclusion of this evolution that is resumed to a formula, the Matrix/DNA. 

So, the Margulli theory suggests that were existing certain types of micro-organisms and they got connected. Matrix/DNA suggests why those micro-organisms had their shapes and why they got connected. You need know it for knowing what kind of the motors` differences you will need and how to do the different robotic fingers and the palm.

The micro-organisms had the right shapes, the right evolutionary states, and the right tendency to connections because they came from a unique micro-organisms under the life’s cycle process. This process is the essence of this formula. Look here, please ( explaining the formula)

So, the spherical cell was modeled, built by this spherical formula-template.
So, each different systemic function built an organelle. When each organelle builds its cilia, the cilia is an extension of its function. If the organelles are separated by shapes related to the ags of a unique body, and the cilia is modelled by an organelle, each cilia will be different from the other, because each organelle will project something of itself upon the cilia. That`a why the cilias must mimics the shapes produced by a life’s cycle process. In fact, please let’s go to verify this hypotheses just know facing the fact of our hands.( Here is the pregnant mother, or the source, the starting point, here is the baby, the teenager, the young becoming sexualy mature and adult, the adult, and the senior…curvado e desajeitado como um velhinho. 

 But, while there is an internal spherical circuit connecting the organeles, there is no circuit connecting the cilias. But, I think its possible to get the different tunctionsof each cilia, or ieach finger, if we broke the spherical circuti into separatedlines and link each unit to the palm. But the palm needs to be designed mimiching the brain, because each task, each object, will be manuased by the brain that has multiple functions. it happens that the formula that made the cell and the fingers, the hand, the palm of the hand, is the same formula that made the brain. 



Video : Debunking the Arguments Against Evolution and the Arguments for Evolution – by Matrix/DNA Theory

domingo, novembro 1st, 2015


The video with the link below was produced by creationists as response to the evolutionist Bill Nye video against creationism. Since that there is now a middle-term world view, which is against creationism and academic theory of evolution, called Matrix/DNA Theory, I am exposing below the Matrix answers to the topics related by those videos.

CMI: Evolutionism is not appropriate for anyone – a response to Bill Nye 

CMI = Creation Ministries International

Following, the Matrix/DNA answers posted at the Youtube comments section:


Louis Charles Morelli – Nov – 01 – 2015

CMI: ” If you try to ignore the problems with evolution your worldview becomes just crazy, just untenable, itself inconsistent.”
Matrix/DNA Theory: ” Yes, the Darwinian theory of evolution has lots of non explicable problems and the absurd conditions of life of those more evolved species is a fact against this theory. If God ask me: ” Do you want repeat your life again or do you want to born as a bacteria?” My answer should be: ” If I will born again like these 95% of world population that are slaves today, I will prefer to be a bacteria”. All species that reached the best fitness, adaptation, were extincts or going to extinction. So, there is no biological evolution, this world is inconsistent. But… If we know the right process of natural, universal, cosmological, evolution, we learn that an intelligent species could evolves, and at other planets some of them did it. Life and evolution at Earth dimension are untenable, but at the universal, the world dimension, it is not, it makes sense. The problem is that the natural process of evolution is not limited by the three variables mechanisms discovered by Darwin. VSI – Variation, Inheritance and Natural Selection alone will drive any specie to the wrong fitness, wrong adaptation, selected by the wrong agent, like humans have selected the wrong leaders and celebrities. There are more four mechanisms coming from cosmological evolution. Non-intelligent animals can not knowing them but we can and so, we could produce the right behaviors and mutations on to the right way.”


Louis Charles Morelli – Nov-01-2015

CMI: “Sure animals change with each new generation, but the types of changes that are observed will never amount to the kind of change that evolution requires even given millions of years.”

Matrix/DNA Theory: “Both, evolutionists and creationists are 50% wrong and 50% right. In fact, mutations alone, by chance and natural selection, does not amount to what evolution requires. But, in fact, biological evolution did it. Them how Nature did it? Applying the same method applied at embryogenesis. In the hierarchy of natural systems that Earth belongs to, there is a system revealed by Matrix/DNA that is driving biological evolution for reproducing it, like at embryogenese the evolution of that process does not amount to the kind of change required for a blastula becoming a baby in 9 months. If embryogenesis do it is because there is DNA and a system beyond the ovule, which is the human species. This explanation is the explanation required by biological evolution. So, there is a system, beyond Earth and surrounding Earth, that emitted seeds of life containing its ” DNA”, and this system is the parents, it is driving evolution here. The human problem for knowing the thru is the academic official Astronomy. They does not know what an astronomic system is, they don’t have the right model of the galactic system that created life internally. Matrix/DNA Theory has the right astronomic model where all life’s properties, included a kind of DNA in shape of a Matrix, are there. It does not need any information from outside this galaxy and from any supernatural entity, this galaxy has all information, since it is the link between cosmological and biological evolution, and since it is half-mechanics and half-biology. Darwinian evolution can not explain completely the mechanisms of evolution because it is limited to Earth and based on wrong concepts coming from Physics, Math and Astronomy.. It is possible that a hypothetical superior intelligence has developed a kind of genetic-computational program for generating such galaxies that can produces biological systems, but, if it did, it must be before the Big Bang, from beyond this Universe.


+YHWHisSovereign This video was absolutely hilarious and so true! He’s even wearing that stupid, dr who bow tie!  Bill Nye is, as you guys pointed out, totally wrong about Evolutionism keeping america in the science race, in 1962 America’s public schools rated in the top 10% worldwide in science, math & overall education. Then, in 1963, we removed prayer & creation & began teaching kids they evolved without God. Today, America’s schools rank in the bottom 20%. The Bible Word warns us to avoid false science and today we’re reaping the fruit for not doing so.

+Michael Friedl : In fact, removing prayer & creation from schools, and replacing them with the atheism world view, can diminish the moral motivation of students and producing a non-humanist adult. But, the thousand of years when schools were dominated by creationism, build this social system, based on slavery of the weak and privileges for the those linked to sacerdotes, these absurd and torturing condition of 95% of world population. We doesn’t need a world view based on chance, and doesn’t need a world view based on magical thinking. We need a new world view which reveals a humanist moral code, based on better life for all humans. Like the Matrix/DNA world view.
We all wish evolutionists would turn to science instead of trying to indoctrinate children into their religion. Evolutionism has nothing to do with science. It is contrary to some of the best scientific laws. In information theory, it is well known that information cannot increase when being transmitted from one point to another. With evolutionism, it can, and must increase. Evolutionism has been thoroughly debunked, but its proponents don’t care.
+YHWHisSovereign – That’s information theory. In evolution, there are free informations in the air, coming from more evolved systems than biological systems, which can be aggregated to biological systems like us. At embryogenesis, how new and more complex information are added to the fetus shape, making it an embryo and baby shape? Because the new informations are existing inside the fetus and at the fetus environment. Learn about the right astronomical model and you will see these informations in the air.
Your statement is completely false. We cannot observe, test, and predict evolution. It would take millions of years of observing, testing, and predicting which no one has or can do. Observing finches change from one variation of a finch to another variation of a finch, does not prove evolution. All it shows is adaptation. No one can observe the origins of kinds (I’m not talking about species), except the creator of those kinds.  Believing in creation, as what the Bible lays out, is not blind faith. The Bible has been proven to be very reliable. Thanks to archaeology and extra-biblical resources, many of the claims in the Bible has been proven. The consistency of scripture also validates the Bible. The logic behind the necessity of the attributes of God, being a requirement for the reality that we observe, or rational thought itself, is overwhelming to me. An example of this is: God is universal, immaterial, and invariable. The laws of logic are universal, immaterial, and invariable. The existence of the laws of logic are therefore explained by the existence of God. From ID, they can predict the existence of irreducible complexity in biological structures. Engineers also learn a lot from studying nature. If nature came about by chance, there would be nothing to learn except that the approach to engineering should also be about chance. Hopefully no engineer would take this approach. The DNA code is also amazingly similar to the coding practices of engineers. You should take the time to research this area.
Louis Charles Morelli – Nov -21 – 2015
+YHWHisSovereign You said: “Believing in creation, as what the Bible lays out, is not blind faith.”

Of course, it is blind faith.
1) You said above that ” Your statement is completely false… because No one can observe the origins of kinds”. Have someone observed, watched, creation? No, then, the Bible’s authors statement is completely false.
2) Saying that ” the universal laws of logic are universal, immaterial and invariable and it proves a God that has these properties” is circular reasoning. And false: nobody knows what the universal law is while does not go outside and beyond the universe. Nobody can know the thru of a system standing inside it. And I am seeing these laws evolving, under variation, from merely electromagnetic laws to Physics to Chemistry to Biological laws.
3) If these laws are immaterial, only by magis they could acting among mater. Have you watched magics anytime?  

I am suspecting that in fact there are laws from a universal logics. From the Big Bang ( with a different interpretation) to human beings, the Matrix/DNA Theory has grasped a logics hat fit everything we know, but this logic is the same of genetic computation. So, this universe can be merely a kind of cosmic egg where is occurring a genetic process for the reproduction of the thing that triggered the Big Bang. This logic is pure natural. If you want to believe that genetic computation was created by a God before the Universe, there is no problem with that, but then, such God does no need coming all time at every planet that holds life creating species by species. Genetics programme alone can do it, from electromagnetic level to biological and even consciousness level. Yours God is too much small, and is he less intelligent than Bill Gates? And why this universal logics couldn’t be produced by a natural being existing beyond the observable universe that is merely being reproduced as consciousness? Where all conscious beings like humans are the genes? Genes does not know what they are doing, and why are them here.Remember: Jesus Christ, the great human philosopher, pointed to the floor and said ” Son” and pointed to the sky and said ” The Father”. He doesn’t said God. Between father and son there is genetics.

EvC Forum: There is no evolution neither creationism – this is the new Matrix/DNA world view

quinta-feira, agosto 20th, 2015


Evolution versus Creation Forum (EvC Forum)

Topic:   There is no evolution neither creationism – this is the new Matrix/DNA world view

Message 07-08-2015 3:32 AM – 1 of 1 ( 762056) 

Every known reproduction process is made off by smalls evolutionary steps ( remember embryogenesis). From the Big Bang to the end of this Universe – the Big Birth – is occurring a reproductive process of the unknown thing that generated the Universe. The smalls evolutionary steps are about a unique natural system that is changing shape due the same force that makes a human body changing its shapes: the force of life’s cycles. So we had the atom system, the stellar, the galactic, the cell system and finally the self-conscious system( all these natural systems were our ancestrals). We have discovered that all these systems has a common formula ( which I will bring here in shape of algorithm), called Matrix/DNA, and the biological DNA is merely its last shape here and today. I am challenging everybody to bring on here a unique real proved scientific fact that could debunk this new theory, because I am searching it everywhere, every new scientific paper or NASA’s Images, in the last 30 years, and never found anything. This new world view leaves doors opened to creationism and to materialism, my method of investigation/calculations can’t go beyond the natural limits of universe’s spacetime, so I don’t know what’s or who is the ex-machine creator. Then, this is the theory for agnostics, the third view that I think, has the right to participate in this debate also. Thanks by any criticism, questions, etc. ( I am American citizen but English is not my native language, so, any grammatical correction will be welcome).

O Universo Planejado Para Gerar Sistemas Biológicos e Gerar Úteros Planejados Para Gerar Sistemas Auto-Conscientes – Veja Vídeo

quinta-feira, março 26th, 2015

As “Wheels Within Wheels”, de Michael Denton derivam da consciência cósmica na forma de bolhas dentro de bolhas


ATP Sintase - How it Came From LUCA

Como o motor celular da Síntese de ATP veio do motor central rotatório no centro da galaxia: ATP Sintase – How it Came From LUCA – Teoria da Matrix/DNA

Ao ter conhecimento do incrível numero de fascinantes detalhes arrolados neste vídeo e que vieram compondo a evolução desde as origens deste Universo, não há como, racionalmente apostar na teoria de que antes das origens do Universo havia um plano, um programa, ou seja lá o que for, que determinava exatamente este tipo de evolução que ocorreu nestes 13,7 bilhões de anos, a produzir sistemas vivos e auto-conscientes, tenha ou não desejado esse resultado aquilo ou aquele que continha o programa.

Mas isto não é novidade para nós, pois vemos aqui esta mesma história se repetir todos os  dias quando nasce um ser humano. Havia a barriga de uma mulher que foi feita pelo programa genético de seres que existiam antes da mulher existir. Esta barriga foi crescendo, se transformando, evoluindo no sentido de tornar-se cada vez mais complexa e tornou-se a arquitetura exatamente definida em todos os seus mínimos detalhes para receber, hospedar e nutrir um  sistema natural auto-consciente, até que ele esteja pronto para existir fora dela.

Então porque ficamos tão admirados com o mesmo processo que – somente agora estamos descobrindo – ocorreu com o Universo como um todo? O processo está aqui perante nossos olhos, cientificamente comprovado, que é possível ocorrer neste mundo material. Mas o que não  consigo entender é que existem pessoas – e por incrível que  pareça “existiram bilhões de pessoas que já morreram e hoje existem 8 bilhões de pessoas” que não  conseguiram ainda fazer a operação racional mais simples deste mundo. Esta operação é a seguinte:

Se vemos o inicio,  meio e fim de uma história que ocorreu no espaço e tempo em que existimos, e ao mesmo tempo não vemos o inicio nem o fim de  uma outra história ocorrendo em tempo e espaço maior do que podemos ver, mas  de cuja história vemos perfeita e nitidamente o meio, e constatamos que é exatamente o mesmo meio da história que conhecemos aqui e agora, não  existe outra alternativa mais racional que construir uma teoria cientifica em que o inicio e o fim que não vemos da história na dimensão maior sejam exatamente iguais ao inicio e fim conhecido na nossa dimensão.

Não tem como… não existe possibilidade estritamente racional para qualquer ser pensante neste mundo construir teorias com outras alternativas. Se o fizer,  certamente, inevitavelmente, essa pessoa deixa de ser naturalmente racional porque terá de apelar para invenções do imaginário que só existem no seu mundo de sua imaginação. Os seres humanos primitivos que produziram as teorias mais próximas do naturalismo, como os asiáticos produtores das filosofias orientais, tambem se desviaram do óbvio e apelaram às criações da imaginação mas por um motivo perfeitamente compreensível: eles não tinham o conhecimento do que  ocorre na barriga da mulher que os gerou e  nem o conhecimento do  Universo que  temos hoje. Mas depois  deles e até  os  dias de hoje a razão humana se desviou de suas raízes naturais  e degringolou pelos reinos  das fantasias de uma forma irracional. Hoje a humanidade está composta por uma grande maioria que acredita piamente que na barriga universal apareceu um ser sobrenatural com uma varinha magica fazendo o acabamento na barriga para instalar bebês já prontos feitos tambem por mágica…!!! Mas de onde tiraram essa idéia absurda! Isto nunca foi visto por nenhum humano  e nenhum alienígena comprovadamente está vindo aqui e dizendo a cada um destes humanos que ele teria visto o tal ser mágico. É sabido que homens possuem imaginações capazes de comporem longas fábulas imaginarias. Temos muitas delas, como as varias lendas gregas com heróis que tinham superpoderes, as lendas modernas de super-homens com iguais superpoderes,  o mais moderno mundo imaginário de Harry Potter… mas daí a gente ser obrigado a ver que existem pessoas que acreditam que estas construções imaginarias ocorreram ou ainda ocorrem… é ser obrigado a tristemente constatar que a razão humana se desvia da  sua raiz natural e sai a flutuar no espaço sem suporte concreto de apoio. Se isto continuar,daqui  há mil anos alguem vai desenterrar um livro  de ‘Harry Potter e vai erguer altares aos personagens crendo  que aquilo foi e é o mundo real.

Mas alem dos primitivos e desta moderna maioria desviada, existe o resto, uma minoria que está  crescendo a cada dia porque os  bancos escolares os estão assim produzindo, que está indo no  caminho da outra face da moeda das ilusões imaginarias. Alguem que apesar de ver perfeitamente todos os dias novos indivíduos nascendo de barrigas e ter um razoável conhecimento do meio da história deste Universo, tambem irracionalmente está construindo e fortalecendo a teoria de que os humanos, a vida, foi um cisco ao acaso que se formou e tornou-se um  cisco complexo dentro desta barriga universal…

Novamente…à p… que pariu, parem este mundo louco que  eu quero descer…  Isto não tem cabimento! É tão ou mais irracional do que a teoria absurda da maioria.  E vão mais longe: ao invés de transporem o conhecido daqui que atuou nas origens da barriga da sua mãe, naturalmente, para o desconhecido evento natural antes das origens da barriga universal; e de transporem o conhecido final da história natural aqui, para o desconhecido final da mesma história que tem o mesmo meio, porem numa dimensão natural maior, criaram imaginariamente um  NADA magico que ao invés de usar uma varinha usa vibrações magicas que teria criado tudo, para preencherem aquele vazio desconhecido antes da origem da barriga universal, e depois imaginam uma infinidade de barrigas universais existindo alem desta para preencherem o vácuo desconhecido no final desta história… Mas onde viram e tocaram este tal de Nada vibrante e outras barrigas universais construídas de maneira diferente da nossa porque esta  aqui produziu o cisco por acaso que não pode acontecer nas outras barrigas porque então seria a regra, e não um acaso..? Certamente não viram isto no inicio e no fim das barrigas aqui geradoras da vida.  Podem até ver algo indicativo disso e termina-lo com a lógica inventada por humanos chamada de Matemática, mas somente estes indícios aparecem em ambientes artificiais. Ora… acreditar que o Universo é um produto  artificial e não  natural… é perder o controle das faculdades mentais.

Então resta na Humanidade o incrível e absurdo fato de que apenas um humano – dentre os bilhões que morreram e os  8 bilhões que estão ainda vivos hoje – que elaborou a sua teoria de maneira que foi o único a escrever até hoje: neste Universo está ocorrendo meramente uma história natural de reprodução genética. E a partir dessa máxima, construiu uma teoria da história do todo transpondo para ela os mesmos roteiros do inicio e do fim vistos aqui para completarem o meio visto daquela história. Isto novamente é um absurdo: o que devia ser a regra geral consiste numa exceção unica, absoluta!

Bem, o vídeo apresentado aqui foi  elaborado por alguem que realmente, honestamente, e com muitos lampejos de racionalidade natural, coletou as estonteantes jóias de detalhes que nos levam a teoria racional de que este Universo tem funcionado como uma grande barriga à imagem e semelhança das barrigas de nossas mães aqui na Terra. Mas ao mesmo tempo que o  autor revela sua genialidade natural, de repente se desvia de foco e nega a barriga de sua mãe para adornar o Universo com fantasias de amigos fantasmas imaginários com quem conversa no escuro de suas noites, tal como qualquer criança no alvorecer da razão o faz.  Qual o motivo da vergonha da barriga de sua mãe? Para nega-la dessa forma? Não é suficiente ao estuda-la e à sua história de formação e desenvolvimento a extraordinária engenharia ali visível para ver que o Universo há fora tambem foi formado e desenvolvido pela mesma extraordinária engenharia? E o que dizer do incrível programa que vem na forma de espermatozoides e óvulos na barriga da mamãe girafa quando ela produz uma nova girafinha sem aplicar qualquer recurso de inteligencia?! Qual o problema em entender que este programa denominado DNA atuante aqui é a face terrestre do programa que tem atuado nesta barriga  universal denominado “Matrix/DNA”?

O autor deste vídeo denominou-o “Rodas dentro de rodas”, evidenciando que o que vemos aqui na média dimensão é igual ao que se descobre existir nas macro e micros dimensões. Mas rodas não existem para gerarem vida, e barrigas sim. Então porque não usou o nome de “Barrigas dentro de Barrigas”? Porque ele tem vergonha de barrigas e/ou acha que o fenômeno natural é muito simples para alcançar e fornecer cores à sua inteligencia. Falar em rodas pressupõe um agente inteligente como construtor, é mais atrativo para expor sua vaidade pessoal como  ser inteligente. Porem eu revi a história em que a barriga da minha tataravó produziu a barriga da minha avó  que produziu a barriga da minha mãe que me produziu… e nunca vi nem minha tataravó, nem minha avó, aplicando suas inteligencias para produzirem barrigas… Apenas vi Natureza e por isso alem do Universo minha razão natural sugere existir um continuum de Natureza, nenhuma fantasia a mais…. tais como oceanos infinitos de ondas de nadas vibrantes…

Todo individuo humano na sua forma de criança por nada entender da avalancha de objetos e de movimentos que se apresentam a seus olhos recém-abertos cria  fantasias de amigos imaginários fantasmas com quem conversar e trata todos os objetos como brinquedos, e assim é compreensível que a Humanidade como um todo na sua infância também assim tenha se comportado. Porem, estamos no ano 2.000, depois de quinze mil anos de cultura e conhecimento acumulados, já está na hora dessa Humanidade se tornar adulta, de entender a verdadeira razão da existência dos  fenômenos naturais e as causas produtoras destas existências. Não existe capacidade infantil imaginaria humana capaz de criar um mundo fantasiosos que supere em beleza e alegria o verdadeiro mundo real e natural, como estou descobrindo mais a cada dia.

Este vídeo tem um documento em PDF do  mesmo autor, o qual copio  abaixo para ir traduzindo-o quando o tempo permitir.  O árduo trabalho da tradução é um dos principais métodos de estudo autodidata que tenho empregado desde minha infancia para melhor entender, raciocinar e memorizar conteúdos cientificos/filosóficos não corriqueiros na nossa vida normal. Alem do que é um bom exercício para melhor se aprender outros idiomas.

Privileged Species

Artigo relacionado: 

Wheels Within Wheels: Michael Denton on the “Coincidences” that Make Us Possible  

The Place of Life and Man in Nature: Defending the Anthropocentric Thesis – PDF

Michael J. Denton, Aditya Jyot Eye Hospital, Mumbai, INDIA 2 Discovery Institute, Seattle, Washington, USA


Here I review the claim that the order of nature is uniquely suitable for life as it exists on earth (Terran life), and specifically for living beings similar to modern humans.

Aqui revejo o argumento de que a ordem da natureza é unica e especificamente projetada para a Vida tal como ela existe na Terra,  e especificamente similar ao humanos modernos.

I reassess Henderson’s claim from The Fitness of the Environment that the ensemble of core biochemicals that make up Terran life possess a unique synergistic fitness for the assembly of the complex chemical systems characteristic of life.

Eu reafirmo o argumento de Henderson “O Tunelamento do Ambiente” que a montagem nuclear dos bioquímicos que formaram a vida terrestre possuem uma unica modelagem sinergística para a montagem dos sistemas químicos complexos característicos da vida.

( continuar tradução) 

Projeto de Deputado para Inserir Criacionismo nas Escolas Brasileiras

quinta-feira, fevereiro 12th, 2015

Deputado propõe ensino de criacionismo nas escolas e cria um debate trava-cabeça

14 de novembro de 2014 às 19:27

Tópicos importantes grifados:


O pastor Marco Feliciano, deputado federal pelo PSC (Partido Social Cristão) de São Paulo, apresentou na quinta-feira, dia 13 de novembro, um projeto de lei que institui o criacionismo em todas as escolas brasileiras, sejam elas públicas ou privadas.

(Continuar este artigo)


Questão Desafiando a Matrix/DNA Theory: Quem foi LUCA?

sexta-feira, outubro 24th, 2014

Há uma frase continuamente sendo repetida pelos defensores do darwinismo:

“All the evidence proves that every animal and plant derived from common ancestry”

” Todas as evidencias provam que cada animal e planta derivaram de um comum ancestral”

E quando debatem com religiosos dizem:

” … all the evidence supports evolution. There is no such thing as two sides like evolution/creationism, because creationism/intelligent design is complete nonsense not supported in any way.”

“… todas as evidencias suportam a evolução. Não existe tal coisa de dois partidos como evolucionismo/criacionismo, porque criacionismo/design inteligente não faz sentido e não é suportado por nenhuma maneira.”

A teoria da Matrix/DNA é uma nova hipótese que surgiu justamente para ser a terceira alternativa do meio entre os dois existentes “partidos”. Obviamente existe a evolução ( nós podemos assistir ela em 9 meses toda vez que evolui um feto), contrariando a criação por um ato magico de um deus sobrenatural, mas a teoria da evolução de Darwin e mesmo sua mais moderna forma – a Síntese Moderna – está muito incompleta, não detectou nem sequer a metade dos mecanismos da evolução, e apenas trata de um ciclo da evolução universal, quando se concentra na evolução biológica e ignora a cosmológica. Existe prévios projetos, designs, para toda e qualquer nova forma de sistema natural, de átomos a galaxias a plantas e animais, mas tudo ocorre por uma longa cadeia natural de causas e efeitos, sem qualquer necessidade de aplicação de inteligencia em nenhum momento.

Um ponto em que a Matrix/DNA discorda da teoria evolucionista darwinista é em relação a LUCA, o ultimo ancestral “não-vivo” de todos os seres vivos. Ou como parece desejarem os darwinistas: LUCA como a primeira forma de vida que teria surgido neste planeta ( ou noutro qualquer) sem descender ou ser gerado por nenhuma forma de vida anterior. Teria sido apenas efeito de uma espetacular mutação acidental ocorrida no desenrolar da longa cadeia natural de causas e efeitos. Então LUCA teria sido um micro-organismo muito simples – o mais simples de todos – que teria aparecido na Terra, e a partir dele começou o processo de evolução que hoje culmina na forma do ser humano, inclusive com um cérebro complexo e capaz de ser auto-consciente. Mas tal micro-organismo nunca foi descoberto e de todas as formas de vidas mais simples dos três grandes reinos dos vivos ( archaea, bacteria e eukaryota), nenhuma preenche os requisitos para ser este hipotético LUCA.

Então quando na frase acima afirmam que ” Todas as evidencias provam que cada animal e planta derivaram de um comum ancestral”, não estão obedecendo as regras cientificas necessárias para se estabelecer um fato, pois o fato – a apresentação e comprovação do comum ancestral – não aconteceu. Então neste ponto e para estas pessoas que assim afirmam, Ciência se torna mitologia. Uma fé, como qualquer outra, e não um produto da Razão.

Enquanto isso, os adeptos da fé no Intelligent Designer buscam provar que os detalhes dos organismos mais complexos não são redutíveis a um organismo inicial simples. Dizem que na primeira célula viva aparecem peças, que vieram separadas e montadas ali. Como seria o caso dos cílios. Mas tambem ainda nada provaram, enquanto o outro partido não consegue mostrar um ancestral onde todas as peças já existiam.

E enquanto isso, a Matrix/DNA Theory surge com uma hipótese jamais pensada pelos dois partidos: LUCA de fato existiu e ainda existe, nele estão já rodos os detalhes que apareceram nos organismos complexos, porem, LUCA nunca existiu na face da terra e nem poderia, não caberia na Terra, pois LUCA é um sistema natural do qual a Terra é meramente uma peça: LUCA é um sistema astronomico. Mas não é o sistema Milk Way e nem este sistema solar, e sim, é o building block de todos os sistemas naturais, desde átomos a galaxias a corpos humanos. E apresenta um modelo, no papel, da anatomia deste LUCA. Provas? Evidencias? Esta teoria está no mesmo pé em que está todas as grandes teorias cientificas, desde a teoria gravitacional, a teoria cosmológica do Big Bang, a teoria darwinista: assim como não podem trazer à mesa o evento do Big Bang, o terrestre ou planetário LUCA, assim tambem a Matrix/DNA não pode trazer o astronomico building block. O que todas estas teorias podem fazer por enquanto é correrem atras de mais e mais evidencias, rezando para que nenhum novo fato descoberto derrube-a totalmente.

Figura n.1 = Quem é o LUCA pela Matrix/DNA Theory ( num desenho rude e simples porque foi feito na selva amazonica, sobre os joelhos e na beira de um pantano):

Matrix/DNA: O template para todos os sistemas naturais, de átomos a nucleotideos a galáxias e células. O circuíto energético padrão.

Matrix/DNA: O template para todos os sistemas naturais, de átomos a nucleotideos a galáxias e células. O circuíto energético padrão.

Figura n.2 = Mostra a “alma”de LUCA, ou seja, a fórmula que se obtem ao extrair o fluxo de energia/informações que corre internamente no corpo de LUCA:

E o desenho do circuito do fluxo interno de informação da fórmula da Matrix/DNA na sua versão de sistema perfeito fechado, na forma de diagrama de software

E o desenho do circuito do fluxo interno de informação da fórmula da Matrix/DNA na sua versão de sistema perfeito fechado, na forma de diagrama de software

Bem…, se LUCA está no espaço sideral, e nós estamos dentro de LUCA, é preciso que a Matrix/DNA Theory prove que todos os detalhes dos organismos complexos já existiam neste LUCA, certamente numa forma mais primitiva de cada detalhe. A teoria já apresentou uma explicação de como muitos detalhes biológicos vieram parar na superfície da Terra e como convergiram para um único ponto de onde emergiu a primeira célula viva. Para tanto foi fácil suspeitar que a reprodução do astronomico numa forma microscópica biológica se dá com uma pequena mas muito importante diferença a nível de mecanismos: enquanto na evolução biológica, intrínseca, dentro dela, todas as novas criaturas são geradas pela carga genética transmitida dentro de envoltórios cerrados, o building block astronomico dispersa sua carga genética no espaço e no tempo ( assim como fêmeas de micro-organismos aquáticos dispersam seus óvulos na água), mas as unidades dispersadas possuem uma força de auto-atração para se reunirem caso se encontrem ( assim como na água óvulos e espermatozoides dispersos se atraem e se unem). Então LUCA não precisa ser produzido em nenhum planeta, pois ele é a própria galaxia em seu desenvolvimento evolutivo, assim como uma mórula não precisa ser produzida em nenhuma placenta, pois ela é a própria espécie humana em seu desenvolvimento evolutivo. E assim, LUCA é uma semente separada em suas unidades fundamentais de informação espalhadas por todo o Universo. Se encontrar uma boa seara, a semente germina e floresce. A galaxia se auto-reproduz. não importa que a galaxia tenha o tamanho astronomico e uma célula viva primordial tenha dimensões microscópicas, assim como um humano adulto pode se tornar em microscópicos cromossomas antes de se reproduzir novamente como adulto. Isto é nanotecnologia natural. E depois a giantologia natural ( giantologia? – acabei de inventar esta palavra, mas ela faz sentido, pois tudo que encolhe, depois se expande. Se existe a redução do grande em pequeno tem que ter a ampliação do pequeno para o grande…).

Estamos todos na corrida por mais evidencias,  e na busca de trazer LUCA à mesa dos debates, derrubando os opositores.

Eu preciso então montar uma tese onde apresento todos os detalhes dos organismos vivos com suas raízes em LUCA. Por exemplo, já mostrei em LUCA os princípios de toda a parafernália que compõe e desenvolve a reprodução sexual. Assim tambem foi com o aparelho digestivo, a visão, as orelhas na forma espiralada, chegando ao cumulo de mostrar que a face de LUCA é exatamente o molde da face humana. Inclusive mostrando como LUCA é igual a maioria dos humanos que tem uma miopia no olho direito, e quais as causas termodinâmicas dessa miopia exatamente do olho direito. E o molde da forma das arvores, imitando a forma espiral da galaxia. Porque existem frutos pendurados nas pontas dos galhos das arvores que amadurecem, pelo meso motivo que existem astros pendurados nos galhos da galaxia e que amadurecem brilhando como supernovas… É realmente surpreendente – ao menos para mim – como tudo está se encaixando…

Mas… eu nunca trouxe o building block astronomico, o meu hipotético LUCA, à mesa dos debates. Portanto não posso dizer que o meu é um “trabalho cientifico”. Não posso afirmar nada, apenas sugerir, e respeitar as outras teorias como possibilidades.

Enfim, tenho que listar todos os detalhes dos complexos organismos e para cada qual mostrar imediatamente seus princípios nos níveis astronômicos… e depois ainda, como já fiz em vários casos, mostrar estes princípios ainda mais rudes, no meu novo modelo de sistema atômico. Quando então vou buscar provar que o meu LUCA foi derivado de outro LUCA que já existia no nível atômico… e assim até chegar ao LUCA que surgiu com o Big Bang. Assim como posso provar e mostrar ula bolinha que foi a minha primeira forma quando houve no centro de um óvulo uma enorme explosão que libertou os genes que estavam fechados dentro de um espermatozoide…

Curioso é que os três partidos não consigam se digerirem autofagicamente.  Nenhum partido não tem a menor condição de aceitar ou mesmo entender os outros dois partidos. Parece-me que existem três tipos de configuração entre neurônios totalmente diferentes entre si. Porque um único ancestral comum se dividiu em três reinos vivos ainda é um mistério, mas tambem porque um único e primitivo cérebro primata se dividiu em três diferentes reinos é outro mistério. Estarão relacionados entre si? Os dois eventos teriam a mesma causa, um mesmo mecanismo? Isso ainda está para ser pesquisado…

Os três reinos primitivos da vida ainda existem na Natureza? Acho que sim. As bactérias fazem parte dos nossos corpos. Mas acho que de alguma maneira os outros dois tambem estão no nosso corpo. Ou não? Me pergunto isso porque gostaria de saber quem foi o vencedor, em termos de evolução, dentre os três primitivos. Pois me pergunto qual dos três partidos de hoje vai ser o vencedor. Mas se eu aplicar o tipo de raciocínio que sempre apliquei para construir a Matrix/DNA Theory, o resultado final que calculo aqui não vai ser bom para nenhum dos três partidos. Pois não é nenhuma das três formas primitivas que hoje conquistou a auto-consciência. Elas podem ainda estarem no corpo que a conquistou, mas pararam no tempo. Isto significa que os três partidos estão ainda errados, que a verdade vai construir uma quarta forma, e a esta entregara o troféu… Ai, ai, …. o minimo que posso esperar aí é que ao menos a teoria da Matrix/DNA se torne como as bactérias, com certeza ainda existentes e participando dentro do corpo do senhor da terra, a quarta forma. Nesse caso, os darwinistas e os criacionistas estarão onde estão hoje os archaea e os eukaryotes…, cujo lugar não sei … he, he… Eu brinco com os dois, mas na verdade os amo porque estão no mesmo barco que estou – a busca suprema pela Verdade – ajudam-me muito a testar e desenvolver minha pesquisa, são mais uteis a mim que os indiferentes a estas questões existenciais, e por fim, tenho pena deles, pois sei quanto esse mistério nos tormenta e quanto a vida se torna dura nesta jornada ingrata. Se algum deles estiver mais próximo da Verdade que a minha visão do mundo, que vença e eu me prostrarei de joelhos, pois é melhor conhecer a Verdade que viver enganado por uma mentira…


Como e porque um reptil se transformou em mamifero!

domingo, setembro 7th, 2014

  Artigo precisa ser revisto, corrigido, refeito. Ver no Word se tem artigo com titulo: O maior ato heróico… ( no website já foi checado e não tem). Acrescentar aqui o artigo que fala da possibilidade de o maimefero ter surgido na agua. Cadê a foto do cianodonte?

  Pela lógica natural Neo-Darwinista, os mais fortes são selecionados, multiplicados e dominam o ecossistema, portanto, os dinossauros teriam evoluido e hoje ocupariam o lugar dos humanos, tendo a nossa inteligência e a nossa mania de dar ponta pé num pedaço de couro de vaca arredondado e cheio de ar que chamamos de bola! Os carros seriam gigantescos, nas escadas rolantes dos Metrôs teriamos que ver onde pisar pois haveriam muitos rabos, e… imagine o tamanho e a forma dos vasos sanitarios!

Mas um réptil gaiato que não era um dinossauro, e sim um dos menores, e ainda uma fêmea, desafiou todas as leis da lógica Neo-Darwinista com suas fábulas mitológicas de queda de meteóritos causando extinções em massa, e mudou tanto o curso da Historia que ao invés de dinossauros vendendo pipoca nas ruas, hoje existem humanos fazendo isso. Bem… talvez ela não tenha agido segundo a imediatista e sempre equivocada logica da biosfera em estado caótico terrestre, mas sim sob o comando irresistivel de uma lógica maior do Universo. É o que os modelos da Matriz estão sugerindo.


Cianodonte Fêmea: A Maior Heroína da Evolução?


Para que função ou utilidade pratica o Intelligent Designer dos criacionistas criou os crocodilos quando criou as espécies uma a uma? Pelo que vi no Pantanal do Mato Grosso, foi para comer nossas pernas! Mas me retrucaram que a função do crododilo é comer bichos menores que proliferam como ratos e assim manter o equilibrio ecológico. Nossas pernas entram no cardapio crocodiliano como sobremesa. Perguntei porque então foi criado um sistema de proliferação dêsses… “Ora, para justificar a criação de crocodilos…”.  Os criacionistas sempre me deixaram boiando na maionese… Porem, o homem revelando-se melhor projetista, matou alguns crocodilos, tirou-lhes o coro, usou-o para fazer sapatos e botas para proteger suas pernas de serem comidas por… crocodilos! Acontece que quando o crocodilo põe os dentes na bota com seu proprio coro, desconfia que la’ dentro ao inves de uma perna possa ter um irmao de sua especie, e como ele nao e’ canibal, sai fora… “Esse tar de homi e’ esperto e porreta… esse bicho tem futuro!”

A base da transformacao do reino dos repteis em reino dos mamiferos foi simplesmente a maneira de tratar os ovos. Os repteis botam os ovos fora, abandonando a prole `a propria sorte; os mamiferos mantem os ovos dentro ate’ que os filhotes nascem mais preparados para sobreviverem. Isto quer dizer que ao menos numa especie de reptil, as femeas comecaram a terem seus corpos transformados, desenvolvendo toda a parafernalia da gestacao embrionaria. Mas porque um animal praticamente sem cerebro, de sangue frio, que existe quase apenas como uma maquina para devorar comida e sobreviver, que precisa da maior destreza, versatilidade fisica, velocidade, etc, para a caca e a defesa, se nao quiser morrer de fome, de repente morre de amores por seus ovos, nao quer larga-los de jeito nenhum, fica segurando o bico da coisa para nao deixar os ovos sairem, e assim de geracoes a geracoes, por milhoes de anos, ate que de repente nao era mais um reptil e sim estava fazendo “meeeee'” como uma vaca?!!! Voce teria uma explicacao para o caso do Joaquim, que acreditava que a urina daria um bom vinho, que quando tinha que urinar, ficava segurando a urina o maximo que podia, esperando assim que esse ato repetido por milhares de seus herdeiros futuros, resultaria num belo dia num deles urinando vinho?  Pois e’ isto que a logica neo-darwinista quer botar na minha cabeca… Quantas femeas sentiram aquelas dores terriveis que poderiam ter sido evitadas simplesmente botando os ovos fora, quantas femeas repteis morreram apenas porque a enorme barriga as impediram de cacar a presa… porque teimaram nisso?!!!

Quando eu ia comer na casa-restaurante de palafita feito nas margens do Amazonas da Dona Eustaquia eu sabia, pelo omelete servido, se quem estava na cozinha era ela ou sua fogosa e adoravel filha. Pois esta mexia os ovos na frigideira da mesma maneira que mexia os ovos dos clientes na cama. Portanto a moral da historia e’ que pelo omelete se conhece a omeleteira, pelo tratamento dado aos ovos sabemos quem foi a especie , no caso, se reptil ou mamifero.

Esqueca Jesus Cristo, Joana D’arc, El Cid, Tiradentes, Luther King… esqueca todos os herois humanos, pois heroismo mesmo, o maior ato heroico de todos os tempos, em nome da Evolucao da Vida, foi acao de uma reptil! E agora estou falando serio! Ao inves de quando voce abriu os olhos pela primeira vez na sua vida, estar ja’ cansado de tanto chutar e esmurrar as paredes de um ovo, e ver uma paisagem selvagem, talvez a enorme bocarra de uma serpente esperando-o, sentir um frio e uma fome dos diabos,… voce hoje nasce baby ja formado, numa maternidade limpinha, leitinho nos peitos da mamae, fraldinha limpa… ao inves da boca da serpente ves a boca de um bicho grande mas amigavel fazendo bilu-bilu… e sabe gracas a quem? `Aquelas milhares de femeas repteis que sacrificaram suas vidas, cada uma acrescentando um detalhesinho a mais de complexidade nos seus quadris !… (nao so detalhes funcionais mas tambem esmeirando-se nos detalhes esteticos, tanto assim que o resultado final hoje saiu gostoso pra cara…, pra caramba!)

Tanto que quando eu estava na selva observando jacares e lagartos e senti essa historia de heroismo, minha primeira vontade foi a de construir um altar  e sobre ele colocar uma femea lagartixa embalsamada, acender a fogueira e prestar culto de adoracao… ou entao dar um longo e afetuoso beijo de gratidao na boca de um crocodilo…

Porem… reptil na realidade e’ uma  forca de destruicao, quase uma maquina, sangue frio, sem quaisquer tipo de sentimentos, nem mesmo deve saber ligar os filhotes que ve sairem de um ovo ao seu proprio corpo, tanto assim que eles mesmos devoram os proprios filhotes… Sentimento maternal numa lagatixa? Nao me faca rir porque me cai a dentadura. Claro que a femea reptil nao agiu heroicamente por ela mesma. Elas estiveram agindo automaticamente como zumbis sob a voz de um comando, que inseria instrucoes dentro do corpo delas, a nivel de DNA. Qual o misterioso personagem por traz deste comando de instrucoes?!!!

Sei que se algum Darwinista tivesse a pachorra a ler algo que este misero Ze’ Ninguem escreve, talvez risse `a vontade e com um ar condescendente de quem sabe das coisas e as explica para uma crianca curiosa cheia de imaginacao errada, explicaria que essa transformacao foi uma lenta serie de mutacoes ao acaso selecionadas e passadas de geracao a geracao, etc.. Certo dia -diria ele – uma reptil nasceu com o canal excretor mais apertado que o comum, tinha enorme dificuldade e muitas dores na excrecao, mas o tempo maior que os ovos permaneciam dentro dela fazia com que, quando os filhotes botassem a cabeca para fora dos ovos no meio das rochas, ja estavam um pouquinho mais maduros e aptos a sobreviverem, sendo assim selecionados e seus filhotes herdaram essa anomalia, e nova mutacao inventou um tipo de placenta dentro do reptil ja prevendo que no futuro o ovo se transformaria em filhote e precisava alimenta-lo antes de solta-lo ao mundo…

Bem… na verdade o Darwinista teria exposto os eventos e resultados de forma correta. A cru e grosso modo, para um observador alienado que apenas ve as coisas acontecerem sem refletir sobre causas e efeitos e sem localizar o fenomeno nos inconmensuraveis tempos e espacos cosmicos, as coisas acontecem e pronto, o Deus Magico dos outros explicadores antigos e’ substituido pelo Acaso Absoluto Magico, capaz de prever o futuro e saber inclusive que corpos materiais em estados etarios  e formas que nunca existiram iriam surgir e precisar de reserva previa de alimentos… E ponha nisso mihoes de fortuitas e felizes ocorrencias mutacionais ao acaso que seriam necessarias para transformar o simples aparato excretor de repteis na extraordinaria engenharia da embriogenese que surgiu na especie humana! Ele escolheria o caminho facil da ironia e desprezo ao inves de ir na selva infernal, esconder-se no matagal horas a fio observando a colonia de jacares-acanga do Territorio dos Jamanxins, estudando-os pelo metodo da empatia, ou seja, “auto-exorcismo do ego”, ou seja, anular-se o seu “Eu” e o seu corpo, e viver o momento do “Eu e corpo do jacare”, buscando compreender sua historia e comportamento. Como fez o Mestre Darwin com os pasaros ornitorrincos a ponto se sentir-se com bico ao inves de boca e ter a fantastica ideia da Evolucao, e como fez aqui esta “crianca” para ter a estranha ideia da Macro-Evolucao Universal, a Matriz, softwares naturais, etc. Enfim, nem eu, nem ele, e nem os partidarios da teoria do deus magico que teria descido dos incomensuraveis reinos dos megaversos para vir aqui atuar no palco deste planetinha perdido no Cosmos, tem provas para suas teorias, apenas o tempo tera’ a ultima palavra…

Observe o modelo do software da Matriz no estado de Sistema Fechado. Observe o modelo do hardware desse software, o building block dos sistemas astronomicos, o qual foi o ultimo nao-vivo ancestral comum de todas as especies de seres vivos… procure ver estes mecanismos de botar os ovos fora e/ou mante-los dentro. A solucao para este misterio que nunca homem algum resolveu antes… vai surgir para voce. Se nao matar a charada, volte a este artigo mais tarde, que, quando eu tiver tempo, a exporei aqui. Ate’ la’ boa sorte na sua aventura com os ovos de repteis e mamiferos, e veja la’ que tipo de tratamento produzira’ seu omelete…

Ninguem me “Cutuca” No Maior Debate da História que Está Acontecendo Agora No Youtube? Brasileiros! Tucuta-me…please! (6)

segunda-feira, outubro 22nd, 2012

(Vai lá e clique no botão com o polegar prá cima – claro, se você concordar com meu comentário)  Esta é a sexta parte dêste artigo, vide as cinco anteriores, numeros 5,4,3, 2 e 1 tôdas aqui nêste blog com o mesmo titulo) . Foram perdidos muitos posts da Matrix devido uma revisão que desapareceu do blog ( principalmente posts do dia 08). Meus posts estão em três nomes devido problemas na conta do Youtube:  Louis Charles Morelli, TheMatrixDNA e Austriak1)

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


Posts modêlos para entrada todos os dias:

All posts here by Matrix/DNA seems “away off the beam”, it makes no sense, the words are out of order, phrases are not connected in comprehensible way. It “seems” because Matrix/DNA is a narrative of this world by a never knew before way for connecting all real natural facts and events observed here and now. Is not the words out of order, it is your way of connecting real facts that is out of order. We need give to our children more power than we had, which is the right naturalistic knowledge

TheMatrixDNA8:05 PM – Mon – Nov – 12

The fundamental problem with the observable universal history of evolution is that evolution is product of matter, and matter, we know, has the supreme tendency to get eternal thermodynamic equilibrium. So, must have a force among matter that is odd to matter. How to find it ? Nature must answer this question. And I see the matter inside a fecundated ovule not going to inertia, but moving under evolution. DNA contains this force here. And now we discovered the DNA of Universe: the Matrix/DNA.

TheMatrixDNA4:16 PM wed 07

Louis Charles Morelli12;48 PM – Sat. – Nov – 03

Question: If the supreme tendency of matter is to accommodate at eternal thermodynamic equilibrium state, which non-material force could exist against this tendency, forcing matter towards complexity and evolution? If there was a God creating this world, why he made matter with this tendency for being the structural substance of this world and the substance of bodies of living beings with the opposite tendency- the tendency for eternal dynamic movement? Atheism and creationism makes no sense?

Louis Charles Morelli 1 second ago

I know the answers. Atheism will say that the Big Bang produced chaos, after that matter is searching its ordered state, and that’s why we see evolution just now. And creationist will say that God created the world in perfect state ( this was not the tendency of matter or living beings) but the sin of Adam/Eve broken the perfection. But, I think that an infinitelly perfect and not mutable world, at ordered state, is the same of “nothing”. It should be a closed system, the supreme selfishness.

Louis Charles Morelli 1 second ago

Why not asking these supremes questions to Nature? Who else could be more faithful professor? That’s what we did. We spent 7 years at the heart of Amazon jungle asking nature, because there is the last untouchable land that still has the witness of life’s origins. And we got a third alternative, not atheist, neither creationist, but 50% of each one. This Universe is a kind of cosmic egg, the galaxies are the fossils of our ancestors, and the History is “from the Big Bang towards a Big Birth”.

Louis Charles Morelli 1 second ago

Inside this Universe is occurring a kind of genetic/computational reproduction of that unknown system existing before and beyond this Universe. It is all about the embryogenesis/evolution of a unique natural system, which has a Matrix/DNA. We, human beings ( and maybe a lots of another extra-terrestrial lifeforms), are the genes being expressed just now for building the brain and consciousness of this universal system. We need loving and helping each other, because we will be one.

My question:

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

Louis Charles Morelli 1 second ago

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

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

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

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

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

Louis Charles Morelli 1 second ago 9:55 PM – Wed 17


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

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

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

Louis Charles Morelli – 1:21 PM – Friday, 19

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

Louis Charles Morelli in reply to Louis Charles Morelli1:21 PM – Friday, 19

The monstrous, sanguinary, enemy number one of human specie, terrorist, god of the Bible, was merely projection of human ancient almost salvage personality to the common humans’ dream of ideal supermen. But, every human is different from all others, then, the ancient debate about the ideal god was worked by writers. It was a projection of this earlier fetal evolution in shape of blastula, where billions of diversified cells should converge and be resumed into the first initial cell. Irony!

Louis Charles Morelli8:50 PM – Tue – 23

From Matrix/DNA Evolutionary Theory: “Natural Selection is the immediate environmental selection acting by stress guided by natural designers which are non-immediate natural systems, occupying the systems’ hierarchy at sequential inferior and superior levels.” This process goes back and before the Big Bang, triggered by an ex-machine natural system that contains consciousness. If you are a theist and want to call this natural system “God” know that it creates as do humans’ father and mother.

Louis Charles Morelli –  1:56 PM – Fri – 26

It is not rational that people does not accept the visible process of embryogenesis and the whole life cycle of a human being as the exactly mirror of universal evolution. One motive of this deviation of Reason is the missing knowledge that universal evolution is all about the evolution of a unique system that began as merely vortex/matrix, evolved to atom, star system, galaxy, cell system, human, mind, and next… These are different shapes of any natural system under the process of lifecycle.

Alan Clarke: “What’s more amazing is that if Genesis was derived by a dream, it was a dream like no other”

The same “dream” occurred to the creators of I Ching, as to the visionaries of chakras, as to those black holes like vortex related in Secret Doctrine, and they can occur today to natives of Amazon jungle. All of them are flashes of a single pair of nucleotides, which are DNA’s bits, because these units are bits of information for galaxies and atoms also. Kekule’s ring was the same dream

TheMatrixDNA5:30 PM – Thu – 08

Não Publicado:

I was thinking about it just now: teaching kids that a supernatural assassin of human beings, causing wars and killing whole tribes, causing floods and killing even the lovely squirrels and butterflies; approving slavery, etc, as a humans’ hero, is just the kind of doctrine that produced the Inquisition, the killings of september 11. If this being exists, he is enemy Number One of human kind and all life, he should be bring on to Justice as terrorist. That’s a bad moral education. Or not?

And posted by: TrueVerdicts 1 hour ago


If anyone here wishes to debate me, learn from Louis Charles Morelli or Kenith Adam and see how we debate. The rest of you, four-letter-word lightweights (deemed below my pay grade) whom I’ve asked to GO WAY, please can continue to do so.

If you wish to re-insert yourself in my debate, say something constructive with no profanity!


I’m sorry and do not mean to offend you – but you do not write english welll enough for your comments and statements to actually mean anything. parsivalshorse in reply to TheMatrixDNA (Show the comment) 6 hours ago

Ok, Parsival. Please, see this: “I found the number 1,618 when searching for a number for the point in time/space occupied by the piece of the perfect closed system circuitry – the Matrix – that has the function of systems’ reproduction. But, then, this number remembered that is very known and famous as “the number Phi”. Sacred geometry, bi-lateral symmetry are some of its names. Why? Then I discovered that the left face of Matrix is reproduced by Phi making the right face. That’s bi-lateral

TheMatrixDNA in reply to parsivalshorse (Show the comment) 1 hour ago

symmetry! Since that Matrix is a kind of universal fractal, repeated everywhere, was explained why people see beautiful and wonder about this number.” This piece with this number is spermatozoon at sexual level, RNAm at cellular level, the base Uracil at DNA level, comets at astronomical level, and particle pion at atomic level. But Phi must be also the force that trigger DNA replication and now I am searching what is this force” I know you will see no meaning here. Due an unknown worldvision

TheMatrixDNA in reply to TheMatrixDNA (Show the comment) 1 hour ago

I have to agree with parsivals horse. Your use of the language appears to be no more than a collection of words without any meaning. Certain sentences do make sense by themselves but they appear to be floating without a context.

Peter van der Meer in reply to TheMatrixDNA (Show the comment) 36 minutes ago

No, that’s happen also with people that talks my native language but does not know the Universe I am describing. But I am sure that all words and all sentences are perfect connected and located and at the right sequence for any kind of apresentation. And I know how to express ideas, since that at my childhood I got the first place at scholar concourses for writing. I think this strange odd effect that everybody feels would happen when listening the author of I Ching explaining the symbols.

TheMatrixDNA in reply to Peter van der Meer (Show the comment) 1 second ago


Beginning of Debates


“[Natural selection] may have a stabilizing effect, but it does not promote speciation. It is not a creative force as many people have suggested.” Daniel Brooks, as quoted by Roger Lewin, “A Downward Slope to Greater Diversity,” Science, Vol. 217, 24 September 1982, p. 1240.

HISTRUTHBEKNOWN in reply to Wolf King (Show the comment) 2 hours ago

Brooks was right. There is no creative force, in the meaning that this Universe could have forces able to creating new information from nothing. But, still, speciation is merely reproduction of natural mechanisms, systemic functions, geometric shapes, existents since the beginnings of this world, that were expressed by natural systems unknown to us, and since these systems are hidden from our understanding, the mechanisms were unknown also. We’re discovering them by Matrix/DNA methods

TheMatrixDNA in reply to HISTRUTHBEKNOWN (Show the comment) 1 second ago


It is not an assertion fallacy, you just failed to reflect on it deeply enough. If we break down everything we know to exist into the smallest form of matter possible, physicists still cannot explain its origin. This is a very basic principle, or the law of conservation of mass. Assuming that our scientific understanding applies universally, it is evident that we cannot find an explanation for our existence in its entirety. The same concept applies also for time, space, etc.

Silas Rainville in reply to Kenith Adams (Show the comment) 18 hours ago

But we can elaborate falsiable theories that makes sense. it is enough that you has the right knowledge of universal evolution and projects its logics upon the existence before the origins. Because these origins must be a natural and logic effect of that chain of causes and effects that must happened before the origins. That’s what Matrix/DNA Theory did for finding a natural system existing before Big Bang and finding a half-biological/half-mechanica­l system before life origins.

TheMatrixDNA in reply to Silas Rainville 16 hours ago

What you are saying is reasonable, and I agree with you. I am just addressing the basic premise that something cannot not originate from absolutely nothing.

Silas Rainville in reply to TheMatrixDNA 2 hours ago

The curious thing here is that the law of conservation of mass seems be applied also as “the law of conservation of knowledge”. Remembering Godel’s theorem ( nobody can know the thru of a system – which in this issue is the universe – standing inside this system). That’s why I suspect that the human shape will be transformed into new shape/substances for to be able to extrapolate the universe and able to know the thru about it.

TheMatrixDNA in reply to Silas Rainville (Show the comment) 1 second ago


“Because our brain can not process the information of this world as having a beginning, neither the information of this world as having no beginning.”

That is just reasserting your assertion fallacy, all you are doing is doubling down on the same flawed premise. The human brain processes information that much we know, you have yet to show information it can not process. Your premise is an illogical paradox since you are limited to a human brain yourself.

Kenith Adams in reply to TheMatrixDNA (Show the comment) 3 hours ago

My brain knew the information coming from some theorists (as Hawking, etc.) that the universe could self-assembling from itself. There are several theorists talking about vibrations arisen from absolute vacuum. All these things suggests a beginning from nothing and my brain could not process it. By other hand theism has spreaded the information that has gods and worlds with no beginning, infinite. My brain could not process this information also. An I can’t see a third alternative. Not fallacies

TheMatrixDNA in reply to Kenith Adams (Show the comment) 1 second ago


Billions of women give birth yes, but they don’t have virgin births…lol

There is no evidence that a rib can make a person, nor that a snake could talk. I don’t make the claim the bible does.. Whether that’s through speech or mind control..

TheRainmaker2001 in reply to HISTRUTHBEKNOWN (Show the comment) 8 minutes

Yes, there are evidences, metaphorically. But explanations requires a deeper understanding of universe’s pastimes and cosmological evolution. The metaphor of “woman made off man rib” comes from the ancestor mechanism of this process we see here today called “DNA replication”. Imagine the right strand of DNA alone and it appears a vertebrate column with two ribs. That’s the man. For making the left side (woman) need reproduce the first rib. This happened with LUCA billion years ago. Snake also..

TheMatrixDNA in reply to TheRainmaker2001 (Show the comment) 1 second ago

was there, inside the body of LUCA. If you look to the photo of LUCA it seems a snake swallowing its own tail. So, the snake is the systemic circuit, which means that it has the identity, the personality of the system. LUCA was a perfect closed system in itself, the extreme expression of selfishness, from who we inherited the selfish gene. And the Fall was due Eve built the system/snake and occupied the place of queen, which is mimicked by any insect society today. Unconscious remembering…

TheMatrixDNA in reply to TheMatrixDNA (Show the comment) 1 second ago


@Terncote “[Darwin] let the cat out of the bad and it’s never going back in”

1) That’s a little overstated since natural selection was described by creationist Edward Blythe in two papers (1835 & 1837), years before Darwin published Origin of Species in 1859.

2) Portions of creation theory overlap with Darwin, namely information loss by mutations & natural selection, genetic variation, and changes within species, but not common descent were bacteria can turn into people given 3-4 billion years.

Alan Clarke in reply to Terncote (Show the comment) 7 minutes ago

“not common descent were bacteria can turn into people given 3-4 billion years.”

You are saying that a blastula can’t turn into a human baby given 9 months because his parents are blastulas! Bacterias were merely a reproductive shape intermediary step between the Last Universal Common Ancestor (LUCA), which was not biological and not living at earth surface. If you see the picture of LUCA model from Matrix/DNA Theory you will see the human face previously designed in the sky.

TheMatrixDNA in reply to Alan Clarke (Show the comment) 1 second ago



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

Don’t worry with this rationally acceptable theoretical event because it does not denies your theoretical ID. The final result we see at chrom 2 is just the way Nature records mechanisms and process into matter for this material structure works. A sample of this process is the case when nature discarded the top of reptile evolution – dinosaurs- and went back in time catching the smaller cynodont for continuing evolution to mammals. The ape was discarded as the dinosaur. Previous design.

TheMatrixDNA in reply to HISTRUTHBEKNOWN (Show the comment) 1 second ago

LMAO. You just told a fairy tale story. The scientific method of the evil lying atheists/evolutionists is to tell “Lamarckistic” stories. Sorry evil lying deluded atheist, the Real Scientific Method doesn’t use just-so Lamarckistic stories it uses empirical methods. The chimp is not healthier than the human body; this is just your unsubstantiated allegation. Loosing DNA you say, that would be devolution. Information can only come from a mind i.e. of God; Mindless and lifeless elements can’t.

HISTRUTHBEKNOWN in reply to TheMatrixDNA (Show the comment) 20 minutes ago

“The chimp is not healthier than the human body; this is just your unsubstantiated allegation.”

Ok, I am going back to Amazon jungle next month for developing my researches, you are invited. I will introduce you to Marilyn, a female orangutan that’s my friend, you can leave with her for two weeks because, for sure, you will die (if not by a snake, at least by malaria) and she will continue alive. Than, from the hell, you will phone to me saying: “Yes, you were right…”

TheMatrixDNA in reply to HISTRUTHBEKNOWN (Show the comment) 1 second ago

LMAO. You just told a fairy tale story. The scientific method of the evil lying atheists/evolutionists is to tell “Lamarckistic” stories. Sorry evil lying deluded atheist, the Real Scientific Method doesn’t use just-so Lamarckistic stories it uses empirical methods. The chimp is not healthier than the human body; this is just your unsubstantiated allegation. Loosing DNA you say, that would be devolution. Information can only come from a mind i.e. of God; Mindless and lifeless elements can’t.

HISTRUTHBEKNOWN in reply to TheMatrixDNA (Show the comment) 20 minutes ago

Ok, now we can change our ideas. Maybe you are right saying that information can only come from a mind. The Matrix/DNA Theory has calculated Universal History in the reverse way, from here and now towards the Big Bang. At the Big Bang I stopped because I know my little brain can not go ahead, rationally. But wasting time, projecting the natural logistic saw here for calculating what’s was going on before the Big Bang, the results suggests a natural system with consciousness. Is it yours God?!

TheMatrixDNA in reply to HISTRUTHBEKNOWN (Show the comment) 1 second ago

“Loosing DNA you say, that would be devolution”

The Maxwell Demon is a discovery that it is easier to get new good information than lose the bad ones. DNA is full of repetitive not useful information inserted by retrovirus and inserted by wrong pathways of ancestors that were discarded by evolution. Cleaning these bad informations is not devolution, is the way for the best use of its energy.

TheMatrixDNA in reply to HISTRUTHBEKNOWN (Show the comment) 1 second ago

“The chimp is not healthier than the human body; this is just your unsubstantiated allegation.”

Ok, I am going back to Amazon jungle next month for developing my researches, you are invited. I will introduce you to Marilyn, a female orangutan that’s my friend, you can leave with her for two weeks because, for sure, you will die (if not by a snake, at least by malaria) and she will continue alive. Than, from the hell, you will phone to me saying: “Yes, you were right…”

TheMatrixDNA in reply to HISTRUTHBEKNOWN (Show the comment) 1 second ago

You mention research in the Amazon but have you ever been published in a peer reviewed journal? Has your research ever been able to withstand scrutiny?

How is an animal being better adapted to it’s habitat than a human evidence for overall health? Health is not a measure of ones ability to survive a foreign and hostile environment. Contrasting the Orangutang with local tribes of humans that have also adapted to those surroundings is a much fairer comparison but still doesn’t address health.

Kenith Adams in reply to TheMatrixDNA (Show the comment) 12 minutes ago

“You mention research in the Amazon but have you ever been published in a peer reviewed journal?”

My website says at the first page an advice: this job does not pretend to be scientific. Because, the method of comparative anatomy was practiced by Greeks before the emergency of scientific reductionist method and modern Science has rejected my systemic method initialized by Bertalanffy “General Theory of Systems” and the works of Capra, Margullis, etc. It is my right to tell about any theory.

TheMatrixDNA in reply to Kenith Adams (Show the comment) 1 second ago

“than a human evidence for overall health?”

My friend, the most healthier does not need medicine and evidence for overall health. It is a product of the environment, well synchronized, that’s it. But my saying that the ape’s bodies is most perfect machine than human body is based also on my models of LUCA, which is the creator of this biosphere and apes. I am seeing in the models that evolution was driven till apes for reproducing LUCA which is the most perfect machine. Humans are out.

TheMatrixDNA in reply to Kenith Adams (Show the comment) 1 second ago


HISTRUTHBEKNOWN in reply to TheMatrixDNA (Show the comment) 22 minutes ago

My friend, giraffes has long necks because Nature ( created by your God or other way) permits it.There is a mechanism at light waves electromagnetic spectrum level, which we can see also at systemic astronomical formation level, that is a circuit through which flows information. Any natural system can use this mechanism, can cut it for becoming shorter, or expand it for to be longer. I am telling you: while we can’t go outside this Universe, don’t worry with evolution, ID is safe, Bible not.

TheMatrixDNA in reply to HISTRUTHBEKNOWN (Show the comment) 1 second ago


I can see no difficulty in a race of bears being rendered, by natural selection, more and more aquatic in their structure and habits, with larger and larger mouths, till a creature was produced as monstrous as a whale.” Charles Darwin, The Origin of Species (1859; 1984 edition ), p. 184.


HISTRUTHBEKNOWN in reply to TheMatrixDNA (Show the comment) 20 minutes ago

I can see no difficult either. One problem of yours is about not thinking in relativistic way. Why the emphasis in the word “montruous”? It is due its size. But it is considered big in relation to what parameter? In relation to a galaxy, whales are microscopic. Perfect suitable for existing as not “monstrous”. So, wales are not montruous bears. And this “Natural Selection” working here is the agent of an environment that was produced by a monster system produced by Eve before the Fall. Right?

TheMatrixDNA in reply to HISTRUTHBEKNOWN (Show the comment) 1 second ago


You are indoctrinated with all the atheistic pseudoscience of evolution.

Evolutionist falsely claim a chromosome fusion to make it appear that a human chromosome fusion lead to and is evidence of evolution. “[There’re] Millions of differences between human and chimpanzee DNA”. In the Y chromosome, chimps have only two-thirds as many distinct genes or gene families as humans. Also, more than 30% of the chimp Y chromosome lacks an alignable counterpart on the human Y chromosome and vice versa”.

HISTRUTHBEKNOWN in reply to Steve Malkony (Show the comment) 6 minutes ago

That’s the way evolution works. The chimp’s body is healthier than human body, it is almost a perfect biological machine for facing the real virgin Nature that’s the jungle. So, from the phenotypic aspect it is going “degeneration” which means “losing DNA material”. But we know that from apes to humans DNA has increased its material. Why the paradox? Because since first humans evolution is working at brains and its sensory levels. So, it lacks alignable counterpart and vice versa

TheMatrixDNA in reply to HISTRUTHBEKNOWN (Show the comment) 1 second ago


@parsivalshorse “There simply is no competing theory”

“A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it.” – Max Planck

Alan Clarke in reply to parsivalshorse 1 hour ago

This is food for tought and remembers the same great Teilhard that you mentioned in other post. I noticed that suddenly, at the generation of 1970/2000, lots of people were talking the word “matrix”. That’s never had before. Why? There was anything new discovered about matrixes. I required copyrights of my book “Matrix/DNA” at 1980 and 20 years later they did the movie with almost similar idea. It seems that a collective consciousness (Teilhard) wake up for a new fact. People around the world.

TheMatrixDNA in reply to Alan Clarke (Show the comment) 1 second ago

It seems that this unconscious collective mind of Chardin meets the “meme”of Dawkins with the punctuated equilibrium of Gould at same time. Very curious, don’t you think so?

TheMatrixDNA in reply to TheMatrixDNA (Show the comment) 1 second ago


Secondly, (this is crucial) we must assume that everything has an origin, including our reality as a whole. Once we accept the premise that our existence cannot explain itself or account for its own origin, it follows rationally that something outside our scientific realm of understanding must account for its creation. Hopefully I explained this well enough, I apologize if its not clear.

Silas Rainville in reply to Kenith Adams (Show the comment) 1 hour ago

Unfortunately, your assumptions don’t fit observed reality.

Self-organization is a a fact of nature at all levels.

Emergent phenomenon are all around us.

You are arguing from ignorance.

marksmith1117 in reply to Silas Rainville (Show the comment) 1 hour ago

No. Let’s see a sample of self-organization: Chinatown. People arriving from all different places of China to a same point in spacetime trends to meet, to stands next, to organizes and transforming the environment into a new shape remembering China. So, Chinatown was not self-organization of Chinatown, it was re-organization of informations coming from a past organized system. That’s the way that informations coming from an astronomical organized system has organized the first cell system

TheMatrixDNA in reply to marksmith1117 (Show the comment) 1 second ago

You are right, see my post as rebuttal to Marksmith that had criticized you post. There is no self-organization triggering origins of anything.

TheMatrixDNA in reply to Silas Rainville (Show the comment) 1 second ago

“The existence of our reality cannot be explained through human thought. ”

That is an assertion fallacy with no basis in reality. Why can’t we understand the existence of our reality?

“Rationally, it seems more reasonable to believe that something outside of our realm of understanding is accountable for the origin of reality. ”

That is the exact opposite of rationale and reasoning. The rational stance is to not accept extraordinary claims with absolutely no evidence.

Kenith Adams in reply to Silas Rainville (Show the comment) 11 hours ago

That is an assertion fallacy with no basis in reality. Why can’t we understand the existence of our reality?

Because our brain can not process the information of this world as having a beginning, neither the information of this world as having no beginning. And our brain can not grasp a third alternative. So, we need wait the evolution of our brain.

TheMatrixDNA in reply to Kenith Adams (Show the comment) 1 second ago

It is not an assertion fallacy, you just failed to reflect on it deeply enough. If we break down everything we know to exist into the smallest form of matter possible, physicists still cannot explain its origin. This is a very basic principle, or the law of conservation of mass. Assuming that our scientific understanding applies universally, it is evident that we cannot find an explanation for our existence in its entirety. The same concept applies also for time, space, etc.

Silas Rainville in reply to Kenith Adams 1 hour ago

But we can elaborate falsiable theories that makes sense. it is enough that you has the right knowledge of universal evolution and projects its logics upon the existence before the origins. Because these origins must be a natural and logic effect of that chain of causes and effects that must happened before the origins. That’s what Matrix/DNA Theory did for finding a natural system existing before Big Bang and finding a half-biological/half-mechanica­l system before life origins.

TheMatrixDNA in reply to Silas Rainville (Show the comment) 1 second ago


I am not infering any such thing.

I am stating that ENCODE is jumping the gun on thier claims and that, based on what we already do know, thier claims of that much DNA being functional vs simply interactive is premature and I highly doubt it will pan out being correct.

whiteowl1415 in reply to RogerS4JC (Show the comment) 1 hour ago

Why are there long chains of repetitive “letters”? Considering that DNA is the chemical counterface of biological architectures, every letter must be a chemical record corresponding to a real architeture. So, why the long repetitions? Answer: it means extended evolutionary periods of stasis, without significant evolution. So, billions of years can run without any significant change but time does not stop because at any place something is moving and added to time. That’s cosmological evolution.

TheMatrixDNA in reply to whiteowl1415 1 hour ago

No, that is just you spewing garbage.

Why the long repetitions?

Because there is only so many ways you can you 4 letters in a 3,200,000,000 character genome, idiot.

whiteowl1415 in reply to TheMatrixDNA (Show the comment) 39 minutes ago

You are saying that 3.200,000,000 character genome is a building made with iron, cement, cheese and marmalade, idiot.

TheMatrixDNA in reply to whiteowl1415 (Show the comment) 31 minutes ago

You called DNA a “building block”.


marksmith1117 in reply to TheMatrixDNA (Show the comment) 28 minutes ago

Never I said that. DNA is not a building block. It is the biological counterpart of a universal Matrix that we can see using our intelligence at every natural system, from atoms to galaxies. You misunderstood it, idiot.

TheMatrixDNA in reply to marksmith1117 (Show the comment) 5 minutes ago

No, I am saying the sequenced part of it, the bases, are composed of guanine, adenine, thymine, and cytosine (G,A,T,C)..Idiot

whiteowl1415 in reply to TheMatrixDNA (Show the comment) 19 minutes ago

I ammmmm sssssayiiiiiing thhhhhhe sammmmmmmmmmme thiiiiiiing. Excuse-me, these repetitions of letters is because I am written relativistically in cosmological evolutionary time which is ways more longer than your time. Do you understand, idiot?

TheMatrixDNA in reply to whiteowl1415 (Show the comment) 1 minute ago

Heck no. He meant guanine, thymine, cytosine, and adenine (G,A,T,C)

NuggetKazooie in reply to TheMatrixDNA (Show the comment) 14 minutes ago

And I mean the something. These molecules at nucleotides are material tools made by natural forces called “universal functions” because these forces are the motions that organizes inertial matter into systems. What he is suggesting is that the building of letters represents things, substances, that were out of the long universal chain of causes and effects ( aka “evolution”) He is saying that this building is made of iron and cheese.because probability does not forbidden it.

TheMatrixDNA in reply to NuggetKazooie (Show the comment) 1 second ago

Its a chemical chain that when fed though the right cellular systems tell the body how and when to make everything it needs.

ActuatedGear in reply to TheMatrixDNA (Show the comment) 29 minutes ago in playlistNew Releases

Very good, I agree. It makes something that your computer do when you are writing a text in Word. But chemical chain alone as the computer’s hardware alone couldn’t do it. Both needs a software. See the diagram of this natural software at Matrix/DNA Theory.

TheMatrixDNA in reply to ActuatedGear (Show the comment) 1 second ago

“Never I said that. DNA is not a building block” TheMatrixDNA in reply to marksmith1117 17 minutes ago


” DNA is merely a pile of building blocks”

— TheMatrixDNA in reply to marksmith1117 (Show the comment) 6 days ago



Or just STUPID?

I say BOTH.

marksmith1117 in reply to TheMatrixDNA (Show the comment) 24 minutes ago

That’s not DNA as building block, stupid! Horizontals laterals pairs of nucleotides are biological building blocks as unit of informations because they are the same configuration of those seven astronomical bodies organized as systems by the vital cycles process which is triggered by any electromagnetic spectrum of light wave…, my brother so stupid like I am because we, both, don’t know the Truth. Piles, like DNA, are mass of systems, not systems itself. And biological information are packets

TheMatrixDNA in reply to marksmith1117 (Show the comment) 1 second ago


1) You draw a bad annalogy that DNA is like a Building

2) You draw a bad anaology to language… 2a) Because the 4 letters in DNA are not the same as using the 26 letters in the english alphabet 2b) Because it isn’t actualy a language, it is chemical reactions that some idiot compared to a language in the same type of bad analogy you just did

whiteowl1415 in reply to TheMatrixDNA (Show the comment) 37 minutes ago

1) Not if you see the human body as a building; 2a) it is not the same when you are talking metaphysical ideas. Those chemical basis are real tools performing real actions; 2b) It is not a language as the misunderstanding that DNA should be a code expressing a message. Each nucleotide-pair derives from a universal perfect closed system formula as fractals that are diversified for composing new larger fractal.

TheMatrixDNA in reply to whiteowl1415 (Show the comment) 1 second ago


Birney was right about the scepticism. Gregory says, “80 percent is the figure only if your definition is so loose as to be all but meaningless.” Larry Moran from the University of Toronto adds, “Functional” simply means a little bit of DNA that’s been identified in an assay of some sort or another. That’s a remarkably silly definition of function and if you’re using it to discount junk DNA it’s downright disingenuous.”

Carrie Coco 3 hours ago

That 80 percent covers many classes of sequence that were thought to be essentially functionless. These include introns – the parts of a gene that are cut out at the RNA stage, and don’t contribute to a protein’s manufacture. “The idea that introns are definitely deadweight isn’t true,” says Birney.

Carrie Coco 3 hours ago

So, that 80 percent figure… Let’s build up to it.

We know that 1.5 percent of the genome codes for proteins. That much is clearly functional and we’ve known that for a while. ENCODE also looked for places in the genome where proteins stick to DNA – sites where, most likely, the proteins are switching a gene on or off. They found 4 million such switches, which together account for 8.5 percent of the genome.* (

Carrie Coco 4 hours ago

(Birney: “You can’t move for switches.”) That’s already higher than anyone was expecting, and it sets a pretty conservative lower bound for the part of the genome that definitively does something.

Carrie Coco in reply to Carrie Coco (Show the comment) 4 hours ago

In fact, because ENCODE hasn’t looked at every possible type of cell or every possible protein that sticks to DNA, this figure is almost certainly too low. Birney’s estimate is that it’s out by half. This means that the total proportion of the genome that either creates a protein or sticks to one, is around 20 percent.

Carrie Coco in reply to Carrie Coco (Show the comment) 4 hours ago

To get from 20 to 80 percent, we include all the other elements that ENCODE looked for – not just the sequences that have proteins latched onto them, but those that affects how DNA is packaged and those that are transcribed at all. Birney says, “[That figure] best coveys the difference between a genome made mostly of dead wood and one that is alive with activity.” [Update 5/9/12 23:00: For Birney’s own, very measured, take on this, check out his post. ]

Carrie Coco in reply to Carrie Coco (Show the comment) 4 hours ago

I think that scientists of ENCODE and elsewhere are not thinking rationally about DNA and Nature as a whole. That’s the reason that is keeping very slow those researches and experiments. Matrix/DNA Theory is a new and novel naturalistic thinking that suggests a different picture. What’s DNA? Merely a pile of a simple system (nucleotide-horizontal-pair) diversified into millions of different shapes connected into separated groups (genes) that resembles the same system-formula, that are

TheMatrixDNA in reply to Carrie Coco (Show the comment) 1 second ago

aligned as two helix because they are assembled over a template: a simple wave of light. This “pile” is the record of events that were the experiences of this systemic formula through time and space. But this history did not began here and biologically, it began at the Big Bang. So, the atomic and cosmological evolution are recorded in that region we call “junk-DNA” in a time that DNA was not biological but a kind of physical Matrix. Here we see why proteins stick to genes also.

TheMatrixDNA in reply to TheMatrixDNA (Show the comment) 1 second ago


Evolution is both a fact and a theoryThe fact is that it has happened. See the fossil record and also see Stephen J Gould’s paper, Evolution as a Fact and a Theory.The fact is that it has happened as per the fossil record.The theory is the mechanism for how it has happened. That is natural selection, sexual selection, etc.Creationists like to mix these two points up..The scientific community considers evolution a fact.The only people who reject evolution do so for reasons that are not scientific

TheRainmaker2001 in reply to epicnegroable (Show the comment) 6 minutes ago

Great post! The difference between the real and observed natural process of evolution and the theory called “Darwinian”, or even the Modern Synthesis. Congratulations you have written in good English what I was trying to say. The real mechanisms seen today here and now that constitutes the interpretation of Evolution are not the whole mechanisms that acts over evolution. So, there is a distance between evolution and modern interpretation of it ( called “theory’). Astronomy will solve it.

TheMatrixDNA in reply to TheRainmaker2001 (Show the comment) 1 second ago

Astronomy has nothing to do with the mechanisms of heritable traits in living organisms.

marksmith1117 in reply to TheMatrixDNA (Show the comment) 32 minutes ago

You are right in relation to shorter times. But Astronomy has alterations that are altering our astronomical systems that are altering our environmental biosphere that are causing mutations at genomes by a kind of punctuated jumps See the mechanisms of alterations at matrix/DNA cosmological models) . So, you are wrong at longer times, that’s why modern evolution theory is not complete and can not shut up the arguments from creationists that are bringing on gaps seen in this theory.

TheMatrixDNA in reply to marksmith1117 (Show the comment) 1 second ago





HISTRUTHBEKNOWN in reply to arthurjeremypearson (Show the comment) 9 hours ago

So, is God inspiring salvage natives of the jungle till today? Because the scenes and symbols that were the sources for genesis narrative are talked by those natives as were talked by orientals thousands years ago when they elaborated the narratives of I Ching, chakras, etc. These sources are images end events about the software aspect of matter/energy that pops up as fast flashes into primordial minds remembering their ancestry when we were non biological system. See sources Matrix/DNA models

TheMatrixDNA in reply to HISTRUTHBEKNOWN 2 hours ago


Everyone believes in God, but not everyone believes in the His Free Gift. Everything is clearly seen… “For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse…” (Romans 1:20) People that claim to not believe in God actually do believe, but they try to persuade themselves that He doesn’t exist. “Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools” Rom 1:22

caycug1 in reply to Tom Adams (Show the comment) 59 minutes ago

Maybe you are right, all of us should appreciate that should be a God, souls, we should be eternal, etc. “Yours “Romans” citation is very smart and appropriated here. It is an advice against the creationism expressed by texts in the Bible. Why? For the invisible things of him are clearly seen… but…where are they seen? In the reign of imaginations of those Bible’s writers? No. It is clearly seen in Nature. Genesis is a not honesty try to jump the observation of Nature as Science do it.

TheMatrixDNA in reply to caycug1 37 minutes ago

” Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.” (Romans 1:25) Nature is not God. God is a Spirit.

caycug1 in reply to TheMatrixDNA 28 minutes ago

If God wanted that you – human creature – know him as spirit, he should not create you as fresh meat and this material world for you to discover him. He did you and nature in this way for you studying here, learning here. Trying to escape from here and going straight to the spiritual realm is escaping from the classroom. Scientists are more god sons of God than creationists.

TheMatrixDNA in reply to caycug1 (Show the comment) 14 minutes ago

“God is a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth.” (John 4:24)

caycug1 in reply to TheMatrixDNA (Show the comment) 27 minutes ago

John was wrong and God showed it when not attending his prayers for to save the women and childrens at Cezar’s arena by being eaten by lions.

TheMatrixDNA in reply to caycug1 (Show the comment) 11 minutes ago

And Jesus Christ, like John, learned that it is not good deviating humans minds towards spirituals imaginations through the hard and painful way. This is phrase at the crux: “Yahveh, Yahweh, why had you abandoned me?” Answer from Yahveh should be: “Humans’ brains are not made and not able to grasp the infinite dimensions. You were lying and prejudicing their evolution. As are you doing now when teaching creationism to children that will face evolution at school. Just my humble opinion.

TheMatrixDNA in reply to TheMatrixDNA (Show the comment) 1 second ago


““We talk about the ‘march from monad to man’ (old-style language again) as though evolution followed continuous pathways to progress along unbroken lineages. Nothing could be further from reality…..Moreover life shows no trend to complexity in the usual sense — only an asymmetrical expansion of diversity around a starting point constrained to be simple.”

–Stephen Jay Gould

odinata in reply to John Heininger (Show the comment) 7 hours ago

Gould was very smarter discoverying puntuacted equillibrium, but he had no knowledge of data for understanding how and why evolution makes biological system to progress towards complexity. In fact there is a parameter for approving Gould: division of DNA. When the left side builts the right side. The new right molecule seems an asymmetrical expansion of diversity around a starting point, simple, as is the chemical soup. But, as science can change pigments and making pink babies, Nature does it.

TheMatrixDNA in reply to odinata (Show the comment) 1 second ago

“If there is no increase in complexity, you have no genetic increase or evolutionary assention,..”


Stephen Jay Gould notes that MOST evolution is not in a direction of “increased complexity”.

odinata in reply to John Heininger (Show the comment) 7 hours ago

Gould was right referring to biological systems if they were the drivers of their evolution. The complexity is in the environment, the informations for complexity are in the air, coming from the Newtonian cosmological mechanics. Everything here are forced to mimicks the sky, the larger system that Earths belongs to. That’s why organisms works as machines, insects societies works as machines, and we are building the mechanical social system of “The Brave New World”. But “mind” is a mutation.

TheMatrixDNA in reply to odinata (Show the comment) 1 second ago


““There is no progress in evolution. The fact of evolutionary change through time doesn’t represent progress as we know it. Progress is not inevitable. Much of evolution is downward in terms of morphological complexity, rather than upward. We’re not marching toward some greater thing. The actual history of life is awfully damn curious in the light of our usual expectation that there’s some predictable drive toward a generally increasing complexity in time.”

–Stephen Jay Gould

odinata in reply to John Heininger (Show the comment) 7 hours ago

Gould was analyzing biological evolution as a biological observer located at this biological biosphere. No such observer will grasp the final results of evolutionary process, because, as established by Godel’s theorem, nobody can understand a system or process standing inside it. And this is just the biggest mistake of all evolutionists, when separating biological from cosmological evolution. You see progress in evolution if you go out from here as observer, as did Matrix/DNA Theory

TheMatrixDNA in reply to odinata (Show the comment) 1 second ago


“Your world gets complicated when you don’t believe in evolution” Ok, “science” is observation. We never observed dinosaurs, so we have to take REAL science and use it to support our faith, whether it be in a big bang or a big flood. But mr Nye, you would accept math as a nearly immovable science. It is a constant; equasions don’t lie. Look at the probability of a big bang jumpstarting life, and then you shall have your answer. Your belief is just as much a faith-based relief as us “ignorants”

ShunkawakanOkawingha 15 minutes ago

Mr. Shunk, you are right saying that Math is linear, constant. But Evolution is not, it is curve. The line of Evolution of matter organizing systems since the starting point of a Big Bang in a Cartesian Graphic having times and space as coordinates draw a final design. just the image of DNA. At short spaces it seems straight (phosphorus strands), but at larger spaces you see the whole being curved, till reversing, as the strands of DNA do it with its sugars. Math does not interpret evolution.

TheMatrixDNA in reply to ShunkawakanOkawingha (Show the comment) 1 second ago

@”starting point of a Big Bang in a Cartesian Graphic having times and space as”

Stop this word salad nonsense!

How the fuck does SPACE get represented as a CARTESIAN graphic?

emfederin in reply to TheMatrixDNA (Show the comment) 27 minutes ago

“Look at the probability of a big bang jumpstarting life”

Mr. Shunk, please, look at the probability of that microscopic lump at the middle of a “giant”ovule, which lump explodes like a big bang, genes are free and begins the works for producing a new life. The probability should be zero, but you know it happens. If Nature is showing here that it happens ( and if you believes that this Nature was created by a God, it means that God is showing it) why don’t you believe in Nature?!

TheMatrixDNA in reply to TheMatrixDNA (Show the comment) 1 second ago

Ok, my conrade emfederin, brother in the faith of the lovely, tiny, lord PinkUnicorn. Try this:

Draw a single cartesian graphic where a vertical line is transversed by a horizontal line. At the vertical put the name “time” and other will be space. At the exact point of the axis, writes “Big Bang”. Now, begins a third line starting at the point of the axis and applies everything you know about quantum, relativistic, genetic, etc, aspects of matter. You will discover big secrets.Pink bless you

TheMatrixDNA in reply to emfederin (Show the comment) 1 second ago


brownian motion?


I’m tired of tracking down irrelevance here…

Tom Adams in reply to TheMatrixDNA 51 minutes ago

The movements of animals are interpreted as random by those that does not know the movements and forces of particles of atoms that composes the body of animals. Different from random Brownian motions. Brownian motions is part of particles theory which will be, also, known not be random when Science will know better the quantum dimension. But it is not enough to know atomic theory for understanding animals at Amazon jungle: You need know the shower of new laws that these atoms take from Milk Way

TheMatrixDNA in reply to Tom Adams (Show the comment) 1 second ago


whatever science you have is derived from the Holy Scriptures which fostered truth rather than lies…

why do you lie to yourself, anyways?

Tom Adams in reply to TheMatrixDNA (Show the comment) 48 minutes ago

The truth fostered by the Holly Scriptures has produced the monstrous Christians crusades and Inquisition, the maintaining of social systems based on slavery because those scriptures, for five times, says that slavery is God approved, etc. No, my friend, I love my brothers of my species and I want the best for all without any racist discrimination, so, I need another source of truth that fits humans conditions. This source is Nature, but not the chaotic and salvage face of Nature here.

TheMatrixDNA in reply to Tom Adams (Show the comment) 1 second ago


Are you suggesting the ‘everything’ follows the same patterns? Patterns revolving around Phi? Like flowers on a plant that can be reduced to an intricate repeating pattern? Like the face of the Matrix!

Peter van der Meer in reply to TheMatrixDNA (Show the comment) 18 minutes ago

That’s why the method of comparative anatomy among living and non-living systems are suggesting to me. As merely a theory, I could be on the wrong way. If the Matrix formula I had showed at my website is right and really existent ( I am testing against facts) DNA is merely the biological shape of a more deeper universal system (Matrix) that has organized matter into systems applying electromagnetic spectrum of light waves. The problem of these patterns – this formula is under evolution, mutating

TheMatrixDNA in reply to Peter van der Meer (Show the comment) 1 second ago


@”There is another approach for trying to understand the connections, interactions and variations between magnetic fields of planets and stars – projecting what we know about interactions between nucleus and electrons of atoms, but calculating the interferences from Milk Way”

WTF does that even MEAN??? It’s nothing but gibberish. Are you an author who has a book to sell by any chance?

emfederin in reply to TheMatrixDNA (Show the comment) 7 minutes ago

You can’t understand a talk about Orion’s lifeform and civilization without seeing pictures and graphics for clarifying the concepts. It is so different, never imagined before. So, why I am here talking about Matrix/DNA worldvision if I can’t bring the pictures and graphics? Because, like one day you will be obligated to survive with the Orion’s lifeform, and it is better staying prepared for, also at the next corner of paradigms shift, you will be obligated to survive in this Matrix/DNA world

TheMatrixDNA in reply to emfederin (Show the comment) 1 second ago


“Here is the place that every one brings his theoretical worldvision…”

For something to be a theory it has to have evidenciary suport.

Evolution is a Theory.

Everything else being spouted here are as-hoc arguments that remain unsupported

whiteowl1415 in reply to TheMatrixDNA (Show the comment) 7 hours ago

That’s funny! Creationists says that atheists must bring on evidences. Atheists shows millions of evidences and creationists repeats that atheists must bring on evidences. But atheists does the same thing about others theories. They repeats at nauseum asking for evidences, Matrix/DNA Theory brings on thousands of evidences, and they says it is as-hoc arguments without rationally debunking these evidences. War of worldvisions! Beautiful!

TheMatrixDNA in reply to whiteowl1415 (Show the comment) 1 second ago


NASA refutes HTBK.

“NASA has renamed twin satellites, originally known as the Radiation Storm Belt Probes, to the Van Allen Probes in honor of James Van Allen, the scientist who helped launch the field of magnetospheric science. The Van Allen Probes have turned on and tested all instruments and are beginning their prime science mission: observing the giant belts of radiation around Earth in order to understand what causes them to swell and shrink in response to incoming radiation from the sun.”

NuggetKazooie 35 minutes ago

There is another approach for trying to understand the connections, interactions and variations between magnetic fields of planets and stars – projecting what we know about interactions between nucleus and electrons of atoms, but calculating the interferences from Milk Way. The problem for Science now is that they does not know the Matrix/DNA theoretical model of this galaxy for grasping those influences.

TheMatrixDNA in reply to NuggetKazooie (Show the comment) 1 second ago



“evolution as a whole doubtless had a general direction, from simple to complex” – T. Dobzhansky

500 MILLION YEAR OLD BUG BRAIN FOSSIL — “the 3in long fossil shows that insects evolved to have complex brains much earlier than previously thought… The discovery, which is reported in the October edition of the journal Nature, suggests insect brains evolved from a previously complex structure to a more simple one, rather than the other way round, researchers said.”

Alan Clarke 5 hours ago

This is more one evidence for Matrix/DNA Theory. In fact, insects had evolved brains due grasping more bits-informations from environmental photons coming from LUCA, the whole astronomical system here. Why the reversed evolution? Because insects went the wrong way, repeating the sin of Adam/Eve at the Garden Paradise. They became a closed system, the extreme expression of selfishness, and we can see it at the automated social systems of bees and ants, which are exactly copies of LUCA.

TheMatrixDNA in reply to Alan Clarke (Show the comment) 1 second ago


Wiki; In western Classical Antiquity, theism was the fundamental belief that supported the divine right of the state (Polis, later the Roman Empire). Historically, any person who did not believe in any deity supported by the state was fair game to accusations of atheism, a capital crime. For political reasons, Socrates in Athens (399 BCE) was accused of being ‘atheos’ (“refusing to acknowledge the gods recognized by the state”).

Yeah, probably not a good idea to write anything down lol.

mewrenchturner in reply to NuggetKazooie (Show the comment) 1 hour ago

Yes, but then, creationists uses this history for argument that religion from Gods words and rules expressed in the commandments were the source for that morality applied by kings that socialized salvage people into social systems. But how the salvage kings and illiterates bible’s authors had the intelligence for elaborating systems’ rules? Matrix/DNA found an explanation when discovering that salvages natives in jungle ” see” flows of natural systems organizations and applies them socially.

TheMatrixDNA in reply to mewrenchturner (Show the comment) 1 second ago


That’s a valid point, Nugget, against the creationist theory. But this broad array of not enough conditions for starting and maintaining/catalysing the primordial processes required for starting life needs a lot of calculations for “how Earth’s primordial soup got all of them”.

But, the rational way is observing how Nature works. Every time she produces a new life she produces an egg inside a womb and inserts seeds. For abiogenesis is missing the knowledge about the seed… the Matrix/DNA

TheMatrixDNA in reply to NuggetKazooie 10 hours ago

What really is the Matrix/DNA theory? Far as I’ve heard it doesn’t sound coherent at all.

My point is valid, since it helps disprove creation because, if the Nebula Theory is true, then it would make sense that there are other worlds that can be hospitable. If the seven days theory is true, then we should see signs we were created, like: We’re the only hospitable place here, Saturn’s rings should be be the same age, etc etc.

NuggetKazooie in reply to TheMatrixDNA 10 hours ago

I am suggesting that the egg could be Earth, the womb could be the solar system. If so, what’s and where is the system, the species, the father/mother, that furnished the seed, where the solar system ( the womb) is located? These questions makes us lifting our eyes and see beyond: the galactic system. But how and why this astronomical system, this hypothetical last non-living ancestor could be similar to the first living being ( a cell system) and how it was transmitted to here? That’s Matrix.

TheMatrixDNA in reply to NuggetKazooie 10 hours ago

So the Matrix/DNA is just a metaphorical theory?

NuggetKazooie in reply to TheMatrixDNA 8 minutes ago

What exactly is the matrix/DNA theory?

NuggetKazooie in reply to TheMatrixDNA (Show the comment) 11 minutes ago

The first living being was a complete system with certain properties, as genetic code, reproduction, metabolism, homeostasis, etc. What has produced this system? Since that this system makes news systems using himself as template, he must be produced by the same process. Then, which was the template that produced this first living system? The template needs to show all those properties, everything less evolved. Then I designed the template: it is a new cosmological theoretical model.

TheMatrixDNA in reply to NuggetKazooie (Show the comment) 1 second ago


Because the teachers of Biology and Neo-Darwinian Theory of Evolution didn’t have answers for my questions. One does not need be a creationist for not agree or not see sense in those explanations. So, I went searching better answers for myself. And I found then at the level where Biology was created: the astronomical level. You never will understand Biology, DNA, life and evolution if you ignores their creator. And with this fault, you never will be able to convince creationists.

TheMatrixDNA in reply to parsivalshorse (Show the comment) 18 hours ago

Really? Well given that there is no such thing as the ‘Neo Darwinian Theory of Evolution’ – how can that possibly be true?

parsivalshorse in reply to TheMatrixDNA 3 minutes ago

This is not a honesty tactic. You know what I am talking about. Names does not matter, facts, yes. If you are supposing that I am not actually informed about every aspect of this scientific theory today you are wrong. Included I have noticed that the interpretations of this natural process called evolution was broken into two parts: cosmological and biological evolution. That’s very wrong because you can’t explains biological evolution without the mechanisms and effects coming from the whole.

TheMatrixDNA in reply to parsivalshorse (Show the comment) 1 second ago

( êste debate foi o mais interessante e perdí todas as cópias quando caiu a luz. voltar a copiar)





HISTRUTHBEKNOWN in reply to emfederin (Show the comment) 3 hours ago

Nope. Yours “God” has designed hermaphrodites too, where there are no biological fathers/mothers and still can produces/maintain the species. But this is an interesting issue. The creators of biological systems at Earth had a hermaphroditic configuration and working mechanism that self-recycles them, which mechanism is the ancestor of sexual reproduction. See Matrix/DNA “photo” of that creators.

TheMatrixDNA in reply to HISTRUTHBEKNOWN (Show the comment) 1 second ago


@”My guess is you didn’t read any of the 61 arguments”

Answering for myself, you’d be right.

Creationist sites offering evidences against various scientific establishments is about as believable a source as “free energy” websites offering evidences against thermodynamics.

When these articles hit the pages of Nature or Scientific American, then they would be worthy of investigation.

Until then, if there’s any real evidences revealed, they’re buried under timewasting crap.

emfederin in reply to Alan Clarke (Show the comment) 20 minutes ago

That’s very bad! What is happening today with the dictatorship of scholar worldvision. This modern mindset that took the controls of human scientific enterprise will leads Humanity to the repugnant “Brave New World under the rules of Big Mother”, like the ants and bees societies, because the scholar staff does not know the natural system that is still driven evolution here, which is like the Newtonian cosmological machine. Creationism makes no sense today but our brain can’t grasp the Truth yet

TheMatrixDNA in reply to emfederin (Show the comment) 1 second ago


@TheMatrixDNA “core of Genesis has the same source of Kekulé inspiration”

What’s more amazing is that if Genesis was derived by a dream, it was a dream like no other:

GENESIS BASED ON A DREAM? (1 of 3) — These are the names of Esau’s sons; Eliphaz the son of Adah the wife of Esau, Reuel the son of Bashemath the wife of Esau.And the sons of Eliphaz were Teman, Omar, Zepho, and Gatam, and Kenaz. And Timna was concubine to Eliphaz Esau’s son; and she bare to Eliphaz Amalek: these were the sons

Alan Clarke in reply to TheMatrixDNA (Show the comment) 17 minutes ago

Alan, that’s non sequitur. The humans interpretations based in that “dream” were the source for the imaginative effort trying to understand the mysteries of past times, like the creation of the world and men.Since that the flashes flowing in their minds were about ancestry registered in DNA memories, and relative to past dimensions (astronomical, atomic, etc) this stranger worlds leads to magical thinking. You are sharing genesis into two: talking about real people at Earth, not initial Genesis

TheMatrixDNA in reply to Alan Clarke (Show the comment) 1 second ago

Adam/Eve were the illiterate interpretations of ancient men still with fresh brains that can bring to memories the ancient times of ours non-living ancestors ( astronomical systems, atoms systems, etc.) Natives in Amazon jungle has the same visions today, as had the hindus/chineses with the same images used for to elaborate the symbols of I Ching. Go read the Secret Doctrine, about Schion ben Jochai, thousands years before the Bible, and see the models of Matrix/DNA, who were Adam/Eve.

TheMatrixDNA in reply to Alan Clarke (Show the comment) 1 second ago


I understand that you are not arguing for creationism or ID, but why is it that your posts always seem to confuse and conflate cosmological notions with biology?

parsivalshorse in reply to TheMatrixDNA (Show the comment) 1 hour ago

Because the teachers of Biology and Neo-Darwinian Theory of Evolution didn’t have answers for my questions. One does not need be a creationist for not agree or not see sense in those explanations. So, I went searching better answers for myself. And I found then at the level where Biology was created: the astronomical level. You never will understand Biology, DNA, life and evolution if you ignores their creator. And with this fault, you never will be able to convince creationists.

TheMatrixDNA in reply to parsivalshorse (Show the comment) 1 second ago


Well you could argue that there should be millions of transitional species in the fossil record but we see none. Of course evo/bios claim there are and put up a few dozen examples but they don’t hold up as proof because of the lack of genetic lineage. The greats facts evo’s use to support their views is the one you’re using and that is “it is fact” and there is no disputing it which is laughable at best.

BigWater59 in reply to Usul573 (Show the comment) 7 hours ago

“lack of genetic lineage”

Is that true? Are you saying that the transitional fossils are enough for believing in evolution, but at genetic level it is proved that there is no genetic sequence? If so, the explanation is clear: there is no genetic lineage in relation to biological systems because they are related to LUCA, the Last Universal Common Ancestor, as described in Matrix/DNA models. Mutations are caused by insertion of new shapes of nucleotides which are LUCA’s related and punctuated.

TheMatrixDNA in reply to BigWater59 (Show the comment) 1 second ago


i was asking for why are commets still here

how can diseases evolve if they are not on there host

patuer disprove the theory of spontaneous generation because darwin thought putting a piece of raw meat into a container and he thought that was proof for spontanius generation.darwin thought insects evolve from bits of food.

jony2jack1 in reply to narco73 21 hours ago

Comets are not created as the Modern Astronomic model suggest, by the oort cloud. They are produced by any old planet becoming a pulsar that has giant volcanoes and no gravity for hold on the magma expelled. Diseases by viruses: virus are a bit of Matrix/DNA genome, corresponding to Function 5, the function of reproduction, they emerge due sun’s energy and if pulled from their environment they attacks cells. Pasteur killed the photons of life in his experiment. ( Answers from Matrix/DNA models

TheMatrixDNA in reply to jony2jack1 (Show the comment) 1 second ago


Speed of Light:

An article in Nature talks about the possibility of the speed of light changing over the history of the universe. Where this stems from is observational evidence that the “fine structure constant” has changed. The fine structure constant determines the exact wavelength of fine structure lines in the spectra of atoms, and measurements of the spectra of quasars suggest that it many have decreased by 0.00072 +/- 0.00018 % over the past 6-10 billion years (ref the Nature article)

DarwinsFriend 6 hours ago

That was suggested by Matrix/DNA Theory 30 years ago and the explanation is very clear. Any wave of light has seven different frequencies. When a wave is absorbed by a inertial portion of matter (like this universe), each part of that matter moves and dance accordingly to its local frequency. But, the whole wave spectrum is just a life’s cycle, so, light brings movement and life to matter. Universe is evolving under the rules of a life’s cycle. The velocity of frequencies decreases over time.

TheMatrixDNA in reply to DarwinsFriend (Show the comment) 1 second ago


Pigliucci, Gould, Long and Eldredge are on a list compiled for ICR by Henry Morris PhD (in hydraulic engineering and he pumps the BS out!). A quick search into talkorigins gives refutations of all these tired creationists talking points.

Gould said the equilibrium was more punctuated than Darwin supposed, so creationist scream “Evolutionists at war!” and “Gould discounted the fossil record” and so on and so forth, ad nauseum. Gould was justifiably pissed off at all the laughable quotemining.

ergonomover 26 minutes ago

For understanding why evolution shows long times of equilibrium and sometimes sharp changes is necessary to know that:1) There is the hierarchy of systems; 2) This hierarchy makes that invisibles systems are interfering upon biological evolution ; 3) The terrestrial biosphere evolves designed by a template, which is an astronomical system ancestor of biological systems; 4) This invisible system is a closed, perfect machine. If does not happen beneficial mutations by chance, the template do it.

TheMatrixDNA in reply to ergonomover (Show the comment) 1 second ago


Couple of questions… 1. Do you seriously think that teaching Kids that they are simply a trillion year old lab experiment and have no purpose in being alive is somehow going to keep them paying attention in school and give they a desire to learn more??? 2. If evolution is true… Shouldn’t there be thousands of transitional fossils all over the world?? Not just one or two apes with human teeth here and there?! I’m just saying you might want to look at this a little more fairly 😉

Godskid7642 3 minutes ago

You are right, we can not agree our kids being exposed to such “science class”. But the hypothesis of we being 13,7 billions years old and the purpose of life is not the purpose suggested in the Bible are well substantiated by factual evidences. Then, what we should chose to our kids? The right teaching: “we don’t know how this Universe began ( it it began one day), and we don’t know what kind of forces leads aminoacids to develop the first living being. I will talk about several theories…”

TheMatrixDNA in reply to Godskid7642 (Show the comment) 1 second ago


question … they say God just is, and some laugh, and I’ve listened about the Big Bang, and wonder where did the hot and dense state which expanded come from? or was it just there? Much like some feel God is?  What if, there is a whole other level of being and our God is just one of many in his realm,and we are just his ant farm and this universe is just his school project? I’m going to go with following Christ just to be safe, because forbid it that man made an error in their thinking

TheRealRussG 12 minutes ago

“I’ve listened about the Big Bang, and wonder where did the hot and dense state which expanded come from? or was it just there?”

The unique faithful and best teacher we have is Nature. Ask this question to Her. I did it and She showed a hot and dense state of a genome coming from my parents and initializing the construction of my body. What it would mean? That’s this universe is like an ova, the Big Bang is like the explosion of envelope spermatozoon at the center of this ovule… No need gods.

TheMatrixDNA in reply to TheRealRussG (Show the comment) 1 second ago


Just my opinion on the religious dying to express themselves without being asked:

There’s a little guy at the gym I go to every morning that’s the official greeter. He professes to be a devout Catholic and must know everything about everyone – all the time – every time. Inane questions for everyone. If you get new socks – nobody else will notice, but Pepe’ is right on the story. He tells you about the socks he’s purchased in his life, prices, stores he’s shopped for socks in, and every single one of the people that he’s encountered going there, while there, and everyone he saw and talked to on the way home.

Really? Is that living?

It’s just a question, but Pepe’s routine is alien to my species (coherent – productive – time conscious human being) and I view him as an emotional vampire.over-emphasizes little things that happen to them all the time, but some folks, like my little gym buddy, make a science out of it.

Now when he approaches – I send him immediately on his way to his next victim. He never works out – he just talks, and talks and talks. That’s what his belief system has given him.

(This old bastard says “Fuck That.”)

Is that what true Communism is all about? Being totally obsessive about saying hi to everybody like a Wal-Mart greeter, asking them how their doing, how their dog’s toenail problem is coming along and sharing every thought (like I’m doing now?) that comes into tour scull? WTF?

DarwinsFriend in reply to DarwinsFriend 3 hours ago

My sorry, you are in bad situation at your gym with such guy. I can’t support them, either. So, since I am reduced to live outside academic environment, I went losing all friends. And I arrive to a point that I can’t support friendship with women also, because they never talks an issue that I am interested. That’s bad, I went to a wrong way. The human intellect has two first ways: extreme expansion or extreme introspection. The right one for surviving better should be a middle term. Right?

TheMatrixDNA in reply to DarwinsFriend 1 hour ago

Yes – that is right.

My bitch is that some religious folks have zero boundaries.

Even common wolves have boundaries. They’re conscious of borders they don’t cross – territory that’s forbidden. Step across a certain line – get bit. I was raised to respect others space.

I’m not promoting being anti-social, but walking up on me with your gigantic bullshit line is just fucking rude.

DarwinsFriend in reply to TheMatrixDNA 2 minutes ago

So, it seems we have a new theory: Every person has the tendency to expands towards two extremes. If one does not control the expansion of an imaginary supernatural worldview ( like creationism, bible) it can not control the belief that he knows the truth about each factual detail, which means no control of introspective tendency. If one ( my wrong experience) can not control the expansion towards macro and micro dimensions of Nature, he can’t control the escape from factual immediate details(?)

TheMatrixDNA in reply to DarwinsFriend (Show the comment) 1 second ago


Name the “imaginary model” of DNA that you reject.

Is it the Double Helix?

IS it that it contains genetic information?

Is it that it is inherited?


marksmith1117 in reply to John Brown (Show the comment) 1 minute ago

DNA is not a code, in the sense that genes should be operating symbols of a living message. DNA is merely a pile of building blocks (horizontal par of nucleotides) which is merely the material configuration of a universal formula for natural systems. Each nucleotide-pair has something different, derived from the first, like happened in cell’s diversification starting with a single cell. The first came from Earth and the system it belongs to. And there is lots more wrong concepts about DNA.

TheMatrixDNA in reply to marksmith1117 (Show the comment) 1 second ago


@whiteowl “[Genesis should not be taught] in a science class”

I don’t disagree with that. However, if a person gets a scientific idea from the Bible, or a dream (Friedrich Kekulé, principal founder of the theory of chemical structure, discovered the ring shape of the benzene molecule after having a dream of a snake seizing its own tail), he should be allowed to present & test his hypothesis in a science forum without having his source of inspiration ridiculed.

Alan Clarke in reply to whiteowl1415 (Show the comment) 31 minutes ago

You got a point. The fundamental ideas-core of Genesis has the same source of Kekulé inspiration and I discovered it after watching natives in Amazon. Kekulé had not a dream: the formula came as flash of images to his consciousness produced by DNA at his brain after extreme effort searching it. Benzene is a ring with 6 carbons that is just the configuration of a nucleotide which is the configuration of the world before life’s origins. Jochai, the Bible’s inspirator, had the same experience.

TheMatrixDNA in reply to Alan Clarke (Show the comment) 1 second ago


SECULAR RELIGION — “ideas, theories or philosophies which involve no spiritual component yet possess qualities similar to those of a religion. Such qualities include DOGMA, a system of indoctrination…designated enemies… The secular religion [fills] a role which would be satisfied by a church or another religious authority.” – Wikipedia (emphasis mine)


@XGralgrathor “There is only one scientific theory”

@jjukil “there is only the one theory, and no competing explanations”

Alan Clarke in reply to XGralgrathor (Show the comment) 1 hour ago

Stating facts is not dogma, ignoring facts is. Both your examples are just plain truth not dogma. Is 1 + 1 = 2 dogma to you?

Kenith Adams in reply to Alan Clarke (Show the comment) 59 minutes ago

Stating facts saw here and now by human beings as observers as foundations for general theories, natural laws, creates dogmas. For instance, we know here the chaotic state of Nature, its production is this salvage, bad-designed biosphere. But, Reason suggests that this is only 33% of the final Truth, because must have the state of order and the third state, which is the result of interactions between the two extremes. And we can see only from the perspective of two frequencies of light.

TheMatrixDNA in reply to Kenith Adams (Show the comment) 1 second ago

how nice you cut out the middle portion. but like we keep saying by all means. jjukil say there is the one theory and no competing explanations. but there COULD be. please provide evidence for one!

tsub0dai in reply to Alan Clarke (Show the comment) 59 minutes ago

Any new theory that will revolutionize the worldview suggested by Modern Darwinism will be rejected by you and all scholar staff. It will take one hundred years accumulating evidences and will wait a big discovery that will make to notice the theory. There is now the Matrix/DNA Theory: “The configuration model of the building block of primordial galaxies, considering astronomic bodies under life’s cycles, is just the ancestor of the configuration of nucleotides, so, DNA is a universal Matrix.”

TheMatrixDNA in reply to tsub0dai (Show the comment) 1 second ago

“There is now the Matrix/DNA Theory”

Since there is no such thing as a Matrix/DNA theory but a mere hypothesis that no one takes seriously and has no evidence to back it up, why are you making a false claim?

Atharkas in reply to TheMatrixDNA (Show the comment) 12 minutes ago

That’s just what I am saying: a new theory, without accurate analysis, will be rejected by the academic staff. Example? There is a website for this theory with hundreds of deeper insights as evidences and hundreds more for being added, every day a new scientific paper or a Hubble’s photo is revealed as new evidence. The indoctrination by the reductionist method is such that you forgot that the word “theory” outside this method has other definition: keep the original Greek definition.

TheMatrixDNA in reply to Atharkas (Show the comment) 1 second ago

Your whole comment is nothing but a giant assertion fallacy with no foundation in reality. None of your claims are backed by evidence ergo reason does not suggest any of it.

Kenith Adams in reply to TheMatrixDNA 24 minutes ago

This is just a “creationist religious response”. It is not different the way Tom Adams are here criticizing the worldview created by Darwinism. Our “reality”is merely a fraction of the whole and if you can not see it, that’s indicative some fantasy is working your mind. This chaos around “human reality”is just what is being projected by people like Hawking upon Nature in the ordered cosmological state and theorizing ghosts black holes, cannibal galaxies, explosive Big Bangs, etc. Wrong way…

TheMatrixDNA in reply to Kenith Adams (Show the comment) 1 second ago

*pat pat*

Look, your hypothesis has no relevance to reality, it’s alright.

A website do not constitute a peer review basis. Hypothesis are shred all the time in science when they cannot stand the scientific method. It’s alright, it was an idea, but it failed, that is all.

Atharkas in reply to TheMatrixDNA 2 minutes ago

The “peer review system” is based upon the reductionist method, which reaches only 33% of real Nature. For instance, the “systemic method” was killed after Bertalanffy “General Theory of Systems” by theoretical Mathematics. The staff of medieval Church was applying the same peer review biased system over Science. But the Matrix/DNA idea is also theoretical, so it could fail. Not while it is becoming stronger every day based upon peer reviewed papers, despite they are limited to reductionism

TheMatrixDNA in reply to Atharkas (Show the comment) 1 second ago

Thank you for showing you don’t know what peer review is.

Come back when you have an actual argument.

Atharkas in reply to TheMatrixDNA (Show the comment) 4 minutes ago

At my website there is a lot of articles of scientists and students against the peer review system. Come back when you get knowledge about them.

TheMatrixDNA in reply to Atharkas (Show the comment) 1 second ago

Wow, people who failed to have their study pass the peer review being against peer review…

I would have never imagined it!

Atharkas in reply to TheMatrixDNA (Show the comment) 29 seconds ago

Nope. It is several examples of approved peer-review that later was proved to be false, and lots of rejected peer review of studies that later was proved to be correct…Don’t you know that?!

TheMatrixDNA in reply to Atharkas (Show the comment) 1 second ago

So? It’s still the best way to test the different hypothesis. Sorry, but no one takes seriously your idea due to it’s lack of evidence and explanatory power of observable phenomenon, get over it.

Atharkas in reply to TheMatrixDNA 38 minutes ago

So that the peer review scholar system is not the parameter for analyzing new theories and those occurrences prove it. I am waiting in the last 30 years any observable natural phenomenon that could not be explained by Matrix/DNA models. Bring on one, please… and then, no problem, I will trow them to the garbage.

TheMatrixDNA in reply to Atharkas (Show the comment) 1 second ago


So ID failed before it established a single example of irreducible complexity, or even got as far as formulating a testable hypothesis. There is no ID theory, there never was an ID theory.

parsivalshorse in reply to Dylan Alexander (Show the comment) 3 hours ago

Ok. What do you think about this news at:

Science Daily – Avalanche of Reactions at the Origin of Life

The scientists says:

“Life arises when, subsequently, a whole cascade of further couplings takes place.

As opposed to the notion of a cool prebiotic broth, the first metabolism was not dependent on accidental events or an accumulation of essential components over thousands of years.”

Ins’t it irreducible complexity? Vulcanic flow + minerals + organic elements. Reduced to Earth?

TheMatrixDNA in reply to parsivalshorse 1:53 AM – Tue – 06 – Nov

No that isn’t irreducible complexity. Nor did scientists ever argue that organic chemicals form by accident in the first place. Neither chemistry nor evolution are random processes. Most of those reactions in the cascade you refer to have been observed to occur naturally.

parsivalshorse in reply to TheMatrixDNA 2 minutes ago

At earth, for life begins was need: vulcanic flow, water for producing minerals from rocks, the exactly mineral catalyst, carbon… A star at the right age, a planet at the right distance and orbit… Several details coming convergent to the same point at time/space. And maybe the right location of solar system in relation to the galaxy. So, it is reducible to what? The Universe?

TheMatrixDNA in reply to parsivalshorse (Show the comment) 1 second ago

To be blunt – I can’t even imagine why you would think that that article is in any way relevant to irreducible complexity.

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

For getting the final result ( aminoacids and ability to replicate and diversifying) you need a cosmological configuration. That’s why Oparin elaborated the theory of reduced environment and Miller tried to compose it. But the pieces that composes this configuration comes from different parts, so far away as terrestrial vulcanic flows and stable/old solar system, which is determined by galaxies. If there is no ID you need to show the element beyond the galaxy that can produce this configuration

TheMatrixDNA in reply to parsivalshorse (Show the comment) 1 second ago

That’s not irreducible complexity – that’s the ‘fine tuning’ argument. And given the size of the universe the probability of all of those conditions being met at some point over the last 13 billion years is very, very high indeed.

parsivalshorse in reply to TheMatrixDNA (Show the comment) 10 minutes ago

I have not understood the difference between ID and fine tuning argument (FTA) . FTA is the supposition that all those conditions are derived from elements that were present one minute after the Big Bang. The Big Bang was an event that separated everything condensed in a dense point. If those conditions developed separated and converged here for production of life, and you try to reduce those aminoacids to ancestors, everything is irreducible. Or not?

TheMatrixDNA in reply to parsivalshorse (Show the comment) 1 second ago

Parsival, this is not a creationist argument, neither I belief in ID. I am only trying to justify that my theory, which suggests a LUCA as being the building block of astronomical systems, makes sense. Thanks by this kind of testing the rationalization of this theory.

TheMatrixDNA in reply to TheMatrixDNA (Show the comment) 1 second ago


Jesus was Jewish, all of the apostles were Jewish. The bible is a Jewish book. People have always had false notions that are not in the bible. Christianity can not take responsibility for false assumptions. No man could take Jesus life he laid it down willingly. That is why he came, to die for mans sins. That being said, evolution is still just a false religion, and not a science.

illegalconspiracy in reply to Carrie Coco (Show the comment) 2 minutes ago

If you have power, could you permit the drug dealers around the school of yours children? God permitted the serpent around his sons, so, he has no power. Would you have the courage for sending your son to be tortured and killed by salvage tribes? God did it, so he is a monstrous. That’s why a book written by hewish and from salvage times does not can be accepted by western mindset: its different moral, ethics, culture.

TheMatrixDNA in reply to illegalconspiracy (Show the comment) 1 second ago

God allows free will, just like he allows you to believe the farce of evolution… He will not force you to believe anything. It is your choice, and mans choices that we will be judged for. That is what scares evolutionist they don’t want any kind of accountability.

illegalconspiracy in reply to TheMatrixDNA (Show the comment) 6 minutes ago

It is the same saying that you permit the drug dealers around the school of yours children because you allows free will… I don’t. That’s why you believe in the bible and I will never be able to accept it.

TheMatrixDNA in reply to illegalconspiracy (Show the comment) 1 second ago

You accept that NOTHING CREATED everything you should be able to accept just about anything, but the truth. That is your right. God will not force you to believe anything. That is your choice. Notice how you choose to believe what you will.

illegalconspiracy in reply to TheMatrixDNA (Show the comment) 11 minutes ago

No, I am agnostic, I don’t believe, I have no believes. My brain can not process a world that had a begin or a world that had no begin. Same for gods. And there is no third alternative. So, I am convinced that I will die without know the thru, if there is one. Now, that someone comes to me saying that talked and saw gods… that’s absurd!

TheMatrixDNA in reply to illegalconspiracy (Show the comment) 1 second ago


falling behind?

such extremism!

please document your mythology

creation will always be an option

because we can’t even prove primordial stew (or snot) to any real standard other than it might work real soon now

the deadly rsn…

imagine the unverse as a network capable of transmitting signals from star to star…

signals which could trigger radiation that could cause genetic mutations…


there is a scenario that is equivalent (actually superior) to the primordial stew superstition…

Tom Adams in reply to herschalshep (Show the comment) 7 minutes ago

My Dog! Tom has enunciated a deeper secret of Nature, which neither Science knows yet! How Tom got it?! That’s revelation? God is talking here through Tom Adams? Really, in the Universe there is an astronomical system with a network that is the ancestor of the first cell system. And that network is irradiated towards planets’ surface from stars. At least is what are suggesting the models of Matrix/DNA Theory.

Where did you get this idea from, Tom?

TheMatrixDNA in reply to Tom Adams 6:19 Pm – mon – 05


Amphibians are Proof of evolution.

As the world started to oxygenate plant life took hold on land. Since there were no predators life started to branch out to exploit the plants on land. Dew to stronger effects of gravity animals evolved vertebrate and lungs.

People are made of mostly water, and water is the most vital source of life, not to mention all the diversity in the oceans.

Animals are’t made from stone, they are made of soft tissues that can acclimate to the forces at work on

MrButtlettuce 22 seconds ago

That’s a theory. Since there were no vertebrates neither fossil of those primordial plants in the ocean, there are no scientific statement, yet. Matrix/DNA Theory suggests that life began somewhere at the beach, just upon the frontiers of rocks/water. Some kinds went to land, others to water, others. like amphibians stood at the same point. For life begins is necessary the convergence of all physics/chemistries forces of the Universe to a unique spatial/temporal neutral point.

TheMatrixDNA in reply to MrButtlettuce 5:58 Pm – Mon – 05


1. Mutations happen (as well as natural variation) but this is not evolution. Mutations cannot cause a creature to gain new genetic information that wasn’t already in the overall genome to begin with.

2. You can prove scientific theories by experiment and observation. ideas alone are not science.

3. Donkeys and horses are different species but they’re still the same kind. no experiment has ever shown one creature turning into a new kind.

4. Evolution is a very intrinsic yet impossible idea.

quest4reason in reply to NuggetKazooie (Show the comment) 3 days ago

1. Mutations happen (as well as natural variation) but this is not evolution. Mutations cannot cause a creature to gain new genetic information that wasn’t already in the overall genome to begin with.”

You are right, this Universe can not create information from nothing. But the biological genome is not the complete universal genome, then, still there are informations disponible in the air, for new beneficial mutations. See the univ. genome at Matrix/DNA Theory.

TheMatrixDNA in reply to 5:57 PM, Mon, 05,


RogerS4JC 3 days ago

@XGralgrathor “Gould was wrong about that. His understanding of the evolutionary model was less complete than that of an evolutionary biologist today.”

Then let’s look at a more up-to-date understanding:

‘The Movies in Our Eyes’, Scientific American, Mar 2007

“For decades, scientists have likened our visual-processing machinery to a television camera: the eye’s lens focuses incoming light onto an array of photoreceptors in the retina.

Pg 1. Continued>

·in reply to XGralgrathor(Show the comment)

RogerS4JC 3 days ago

Pg 2 continued>

These light detectors magically convert those photons into electrical signals that are sent along the optic nerve to the brain for processing. But recent experiments by the two of us and others indicate that this analogy is inadequate. The retina actually performs a significant amount of preprocessing right inside the eye and then sends a series of partial representations to the brain for interpretation…


·in reply to RogerS4JC

Louis Charles Morelli 1 second ago

Preprocessing! That’s just the prevision suggested by Matrix/DNA formula 30 years ago, before this paper. But, the preprocessing process does not sends different interpretations of wholes, only partials (like 44 chromos?). So why reprocessing if there is no variations? Because the whole process uses the same mechanism of recycling and embryogenesis used in that formula. ( See the systemic circuit between F7 and F2). The image may have the same distortion between parents and a new baby

·in reply to RogerS4JC(Show the comment)

Louis Charles Morelli 1 second ago

The image “dies”at the retina, due entropy attacking the light wave carrying the image. These are the processes at the retina. Then its “cadaver fragments” are transported as electrical signals to the brain. At the brain occurs the process of recycling, when the image borns again. It is the same process by which stars and babies are born from previous similar templates.


Alan Clarke 3 days ago

@whiteowl1415 “We have an evolutionary path for the eyes”

I noticed you used “path” in the singular. Wikipedia says, “complex image-forming eyes evolved some 50 to 100 times.” Nature can build crystals but the idea of non-directed, non-intelligent processes (following physical laws) building an eye from scratch out of earth’s elements seems unlikely. To say it happened 50 – 100 times strains the limits of credulity.

CREDULITY – a tendency to be too ready to believe that something is real or true

Louis Charles Morelli 1 second ago

Alan, the evolution of biological eyes becomes clear and acceptable if you know the evolution of a universal natural system since the Big Bang. Aren’t you a builder of electronic sensory systems? If you know the universal formula for natural systems (see it at Matrix/DNA Theory) you can have good ideas for innovation. 10 billions years ago there were astronomical “bodies”performing the function of primitive eyes or vision: all information and images of a system pass inside the big eye at F1.

·in reply to Alan Clarke(Show the comment)

fowzie777 3 hours ago

here’s why evolution is false. its simple. ready?

at the heart of evolution is this basic, irrational claim.

“randomness produces increasing order and complexity.” in order to prove this statement true, intelligent people set up very structured, (non-random), experiments to show that it required no intelligence in the first place. I’d say that at the best that is circular reasoning and at worst its pretty close to the definition of insanity.

Louis Charles Morelli 1 second ago

“randomness produces increasing order and complexity.”

If someone said that based in neo-Darwinian theory I agree with you: it seems highly improbable when facing evidences here and now. But it does not mean that the natural process of evolution does not occurs, it suggests flaws in those theoretical mechanisms. The Matrix/DNA evolutionary theory is suggesting others mechanisms that shows, when a random mutation occurs it is selected or discarded accordingly to cosmological reproductive purpose

in reply to fowzie777(Show the comment)

Vote Down


MrButtlettuce 3 hours ago

Polar bears, arctic foxes, all have white fur.

Why are kangaroos only found in australia?

Why if you introduce a foreign species from Asia it’ll totally screw up the Eco system in America.

Awnser: Because different adaptions are needed for particular environments and animals took off in different branches due to isolation.

Louis Charles Morelli 1 second ago

Ok. Is this answer a proof that had no previous design for different shapes? Still not because there is a most real evidence suggesting previous design. Embryogenesis is an accepted natural real parameter happening in short time that could be the copy of a process happening at longer time. At blastula we see different elements ( proteins, chemicals reactions, etc.) emerging from particular environments (cells diversifications). It is due a previous design hidden in the genome. Why not?


OldaurGold 27 minutes ago

Could someone clarify the miller experiment? did the miller experiment produce only a few amino acids or all 20 amino acids and nucleotides?

Louis Charles Morelli 1 second ago

Go to Wikipedia and type “Miller–Urey experiment”. But don’t worry if you prefer the idea of previous and non visible design driven the experiment, still it is possible. And the real scientific facts leaves open the possibility that this design is coming from before the Big Bang from an unknown source. The problem is for biblical creationists and for Intelligent Designer, because evidences suggests it has been a natural process of cosmological evolution, no evidences of intelligence and magics.


Nullifidian 1 day ago

All right. In that case, what is your refutation of *all* the evidence that has been adduced to demonstrate evolution and common descent? In order to demonstrate that evolution is a “fallacy”, it seems like this is a necessary prerequisite.

I’ll give you a head start: how do you explain the 100,000 base translocation from chromosome 1 to chromosome Y that is shared between chimps and humans, but not gorillas, macaques, monkeys, orangs, etc. (who only have the sequence on chromosome 1)?

Louis Charles Morelli 1 second ago

Great, Mr. Nullifidian! Yours question produced another question and I did again a quick view in those chromosomes and elaborated more one hypothesis inside Matrix/DNA Theory, about the emergence of human consciousness: this fusion means that, first time in all universal evolution, the aspects of software and hardware presents at any natural system were most fused, most closely mixed, and this event made that the software became almost material like the hardware, being strong expressed. Great!

Nooohhh… if this hypothesis is real fact, it means that the aspect of software was “sleeping” all past time in those primates with 24 chromosomes. Just at the 24th. Comparison with our computers, the 24th chromosome should be the piece of hardware where the diagram of softwares are projected. And suddenly, this computer’s software piece splits among all pieces, It does not needs any more the mind of Bill Gates for evolving. If this event is possible, will be here the starting of AI? Hells…


TrueVerdicts 2 hours ago

Evolution understands life in a whole different way; and in an effort to legitimize the original mistake, scientists continue to make claims that are extremely nonsensical. There is not ONE WAY of understanding the Universe, and science’s original evolutionistic approach to it is not THE uncontested truth of The Universe told us by s/he/that/those who made The Universe (if any) — Evolution is quite flawed.

parallelsdumaurier 1 hour ago

You said. Evolution understands life in a whole different way? Different than what?

Science is a roll up your sleeves endeavour. That’s why religion and philosophy have been so inadequate at explaining the true nature of reality. You can’t understand reality just by sitting in your comfy chair and imagine it all into existence.

Eventually your going to have to get up of your arse and go and search for the answers.

Arguments from ignorance are for the lazy and the weak minded.

Louis Charles Morelli 1 second ago

You said: “Evolution understands life in a whole different way?” And a user asked – ” Different than what?”

My answer would be: Different from the real life, which is not different from the Cosmos that produced it. ToE has shared Universal History in two separated blocks without any evolutionary links between two blocks. The abyss between Cosmological Evolution and Biological Evolution that ToE created has been fulfilled with mystic, like absolute randomness and blind evolution.


Kenith Adams 2 hours ago

LOL so now you know where the garden of eden was?

in reply to artem991

Louis Charles Morelli 1 second ago

That’s funny! Are you suggesting that this Nature we see here is not the job of God? And that the job of God was the perfect garden of Eden? And you conclude that I will never understand god ( if he exist) studying Nature here? You are almost right because Nature here is half-Nature, his face’s side of chaos> There is another half face – the state of order – we can’t see here. Maybe this hidden face is the garden, why not? If you read Matrix/DNA models you will see the garden and what it means.


TrueVerdicts 14 minutes ago

You and I have been able to genuinely debate, and agree to disagree. Which is great. My premise is that Humans are beyond just biological; and evolution does not begin to explain the intangible capabilities of Humans. Thus, one is within his/her right to entertain different possibilities. And, I reject the notion that one who does not subscribe to Evolution is an imbecile; because it’s quite imbecilic to say that ‘atom’ causes one to ‘envy’? <=That’s just one example.

Louis Charles Morelli 3 seconds ago

Yes, and thanks because I have learned with you. When you say “I do not subscribe to evolution” we disagree. I subscribe to the process of natural evolution, but does not in relation to neo-Darwinian theory about this process because I think that my personal investigation studying natural systems in Amazon jungle for 7 years with the modern scientific knowledge about genetics, cosmology,etc. that Darwin did not have when in Galapagos, suggested a more complex theory and deserves be tested.

Louis Charles Morelli 1 second ago

You said: “My premise is that Humans are beyond just biological”

It is just what are suggesting my theoretical models and results. But when a new human being is developing inside a womb, the shape of embryo shows properties and elements( as brain and wishes) that its own shape as blastula did not showed. From where the fetus got the ability of intelligence? From a superior ex-machine system that is not visible inside the womb, but is encrypted into fetus’ DNA, which has evolved from a matrix.


TrueVerdicts 21 minutes ago

I unequivocally disagree. It is simple reasoning… and any study which attempts to prove that they are, is bias and in error. ‘Atom’ has no bear on ‘morals’ or ‘greed’ or ‘hatred’ or ‘laughter’. Absolutely none!

It’s a simple equation: If all things are physics/biological, then why do all things NOT display these attributes but Humans? Do you see the discourse? There is an intervention which took place allowing for these abilities in Humans.

in reply to Louis Charles Morelli

Louis Charles Morelli 1 second ago

“If all things are physics/biological, then why do all things NOT display these attributes but Humans?”

When I have a question like that, my best and faithful professor is Nature. Ask it to Nature. I did it and saw new attributes being displayed facing my eyes, inside the womb of a pregnant woman. Who else I could believe if not on Nature? In the fetus emerges consciousness, but the parents are not inside the womb doing interventions, neither used intelligence for making babies. Wombs=Universes

Louis Charles Morelli 1 second ago

Once time I read a phrase, I think that it is in the Bible: “If you want know Me, study my job because the personality of an artist is projected over his creation”. I am seeing Science studying Nature and my creationists friends neglecting Nature because they have all answers. If is there a God and if this Nature is his product, scientists are obeying God and going straight to real understanding about how he thinks than those that think are smart and can jump to conclusions with no homework.


TrueVerdicts 8 minutes ago

First, what you are witnessing in your examples are the results of certain Universal Laws.For example, the ‘killing of other pieces/substances for the good of that system’ you talk about is a result of either Self-Protect or Self-Nourishment which all living entities follow. These are Universal Laws.They don’t do it because they know that it’s “bad vs good”.Lions don’t kill for the good of life; they kill under the law of Self-Nourishment. & black hole cleaning galaxies is an unproven hypothesis

in reply to Louis Charles Morelli

Louis Charles Morelli 1 second ago

I think you are projecting your specific position as observer which is bio-intelligent centrism over the Universe for the sake of seeing beyond the Universe a metaphysical intelligence creating those universal laws and hence humans life and intelligence. If I am right, you need know that I am not against your worldview, I have no knowledge of real scientific proved facts denying yours world view. But my worldview suggests an ex-machine system acting naturally.


TrueVerdicts 1 week ago

2) If you’re looking for something PROFOUND about what I’ve been saying, it is that: if you were just biological/evolved, you would not have instinctively known this law. It would’ve been foreign to you as it is to a tree or a lion or any other entity you can think of.

in reply to Onithyr

Louis Charles Morelli 1 second ago

Nope. Non-intelligent and even non-living systems shows their pieces, elements, parts, killing other pieces/substances for the good of that system. Samples? The liver cleaning the organism, the lysosomes cleaning the cell system, a black hole cleaning the galaxy. Lions are the biosphere’s system function ( cleaning the system) that produced livers, lysosomes, black holes at another naturals systems. In the Matrix/DNA universal formula for systems this is the Function number 7.

Onithyr 1 week ago

“you would not have instinctively known this law”

Wow, so you just completely ignore one of humanities greatest evolutionary advantages, that is the ability to work in cohesive groups. I mentioned the very biological source of empathy, we have a name for people who are born without it, they’re called psychopaths.

Oh, and humans aren’t the only social animals of this type. Even piranha’s know not to kill each other.

in reply to TrueVerdicts

Exactly. Cohesive groups. These groups are the merely natural graduated steps for formation of a new system, in this case, human social system, family system, etc. TrueVerdicts is advocating the idea that only humans have intelligence because intelligence has a metaphysical source, then, we are not apes. I am not against this hypothesis, I have no proof against it, but he does not know that biological instincts are merely evolution from physical forces responsible for matter into systems.

in reply to Onithyr(Show the comment)

TrueVerdicts 1 week ago

2) Lastly, the fact that piranhas don’t kill each other is an instance of another universal law. There are many universals laws decreed by Time-Space. The 3 main ones being: Self-nourishment, Self-protection, Procreation — which all living beings do instinctively.

in reply to Onithyr

Louis Charles Morelli 1 second ago

Universal laws are natural physical forces. And you can see the origins of the seven natural forces popping up from any natural vortex, included those appearing at yours yard. I already said why time and space are not “entities” per se, they are units of measurement created by human beings. Time and Space does not decreed anything. Brute natural forces are the counterpart of tribal primitive agreements and universal complex laws are the counterpart of modern social complex legislations.

Kenith Adams 44 minutes ago

There are four natural “forces”

Louis Charles Morelli

Louis Charles Morelli 1 second ago

You are right and you must do not change what had learned in school. Here we are talking about theories. My theoretical models are suggesting at least seven forces, not proved yet. For example, the process that fragments a closed system, creating internal chaos, re-arrangements of its bits-information, mutation, and lifting up order from chaos with a new system employs other forces than the strong, electromagnetic, weak, and gravitational. Theories…


TrueVerdicts 1 week ago

2) What tree do you know of that knows that those things are bad, or what rock, or what dolphin, or what star? Yet, they, and everything, are all physics/biological, right? To conclude: These laws that you NOW take for granted are not an act of physics. Someone will be thinking in bed tonight, when this will hit him!

Louis Charles Morelli 1 second ago

They are an act of Physics. Morals, altruism, selfishness, what’s right or what’s wrong, all of these things are visible in natural systems existents prior of life, practiced by atoms or stars. For understanding why and how they are physics forces you need know the universal template upon which all shapes of natural systems are naturally built ( the matrix diagram/software showed in Matrix/DNA website). If is there something metaphysical, ex-machine, it is beyond this Universe.


BigWater59 1 hour ago

I am not against evolution but every argument leads back to intelligence. For example if environmental stress is forcing a change on a species how does natural selection know what direction to change or what to change? It could be that a species needs fins or doesn’t legs then we have to assume NS is going to make the correct change which only leads to intelligence driving NS. If it was totally random then NS could devolve any species it wanted causing continues mass extinctions.

Louis Charles Morelli 1 second ago

From Matrix/DNA Evolutionary Theory: “Natural Selection is the immediate environmental selection acting by stress guided by natural designers which are non-immediate natural systems, occupying the systems’ hierarchy at sequential inferior and superior levels.” This process goes back and before the Big Bang, triggered by an ex-machine natural system that contains consciousness. If you are a theist and want to call this natural system “God” know that it creates as do humans’ father and mother.


TrueVerdicts 12 minutes ago

A user here named whiteowl1415 whom I’ve deemed below me, to whom I will not respond, suggested that he has come to know of other animals that innovate — meaning they’ve engineered something, and have subsequently made it better over time for their societies — such as the way humans have turned chariots into sophisticated automobiles. I’d like to know if others here support that and can give examples. Please don’t say monkeys use tools, as this is invalid

Louis Charles Morelli 1 second ago

What do you think about bees and ants social systems? They are not social systems? And were there any kind of social systems before living beings, even before bees? If not, do you agree that they engineered the first social system, or, at least, they made better a system that is subsequent advancement from symbioses of cells’ organelles?

Atharkas 19 minutes ago

Do you mean, per instance, the fact that ants actually use agriculture to grow mushrooms for their consumptions?

TrueVerdicts 2 minutes ago

They’ve always done that since ants were ants. Try again!

Humans used to use shovels and picks, now we use robotic machinery.

in reply to Atharkas(Show the comment)

Louis Charles Morelli 1 second ago

Yes but any other species less complex (I will not say “less evolved”, if you are a creationist) than ants were not applying less complex agriculture. If you are creationist you will say that God created ants with knowledge of agriculture, and then, I am out from debate. I see ants as the first to discover this “technology” ( of course, we can see something in bacterias, corals, but let’s us keeping here)

TrueVerdicts 19 minutes ago

They’ve always done that since ants were ants. Try again!

Humans used to use shovels and picks, now we use robotic machinery.

in reply to Atharkas(Show the comment)

Louis Charles Morelli 1 second ago

And maybe humans will stop at robotic machinery with artificial intelligence for agriculture. But it is possible that other most evolved specie can making arrangements of atoms from a chair into arrangements of lettuce, only using mind’s forces and light waves. Why not? This most evolved specie can be a transcendent shape of an evolutionary lineage that had human specie as ancestor. So, humans sensors have technological limits, which explains the technological limits of ants also. Or not?


OldaurGold 6 minutes ago

Mind is an abstract, immaterialish thing. these things can’t evolve, but physical features can to a certain extent

Louis Charles Morelli 1 second ago

Wrong. Mind is the natural counterpart of biological system correspondent to what’s software in artificial computational system. And softwares are evolving. Just my opinion. By the way, if mind was abstract, immaterialish thing, how could you making affirmations about its properties, as “it can’t evolve”?


PinkUnicornIsLord 2 minutes ago

I won’t worry. I know our lord is just and wise. Praised be his Neighs. They ring through the heavens, and are the actual cause of background red shift.

Louis Charles Morelli 1 second ago – 10:23 PM – Wed -24

Since you mentioned CMB ( I was thinking that this background sound was due our Lord falling in love with Tom and saying “ooooooommmm…”) what if we change thoughts about meanings of human existence? Is it in topic here? My theory: Our scientific tools (optical telescope) are grasping the microwave region of the radio spectrum and not all regions because this tools are projections of our natural limited sensors. Universal evolution will go from BIg Bang (red) towards Big Birth (Y ray). No?



HISTRUTHBEKNOWN in reply to T8fgzz (Show the comment) 2 days ago

All such chemical elements are already found IN biological evolution, we’re composed of molecules. Everything in this planet came from star formation. Common knowledge in physics.To deny that is simple idiocy. There is no reason to think chemicals have to be “mindful” and “think” in order for biochemistry to take effect. Biochemistry is simple chemical reactions. There is no law of biogeneisis that says life can’t come from increasing complex molecules. Enough with your ignorance.

T8fgzz in reply to HISTRUTHBEKNOWN 1 hour ago

Question: Since everything in this planet came from star formation, why would be not possible that the observed chemical processes in abiogenesis were just the same process that Nature had applied before for getting formation of stars? Why would not be possible that those chemical reactions contained hidden variables driven the process towards cell’s formation? Chemical reactions are based atoms, which purpose is getting eternal thermodynamic equilibrium, so aren’t they a chemistry-stopper?

Louis Charles Morelli in reply to T8fgzz (Show the comment) 1 second ago

stars are not chemical processes, they are nuclear ones.

ExtantFrodo in reply to Louis Charles Morelli (Show the comment) 54 minutes ago

You are right, I should be clear that I am talking about physical processes, which can be chemical and nuclear. The evolution from pure physical nuclear reactions to the novelty of physical organic chemical reactions was based merely over the fact that astronomical bodies were made with only two states of matter (solid and gaseous) and organic molecules/systems were made with a new state, the liquid. At least it is what is suggesting the models of Matrix/DNA Theory.

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


Hey everyone! Bill needs brainwashed children who can’t think for themselves. He needs children to conform and “accept” that there is no God and they are part of an everlasting “evolution” which has never been proven. The evolution Bill is talking about is in fact a fantasy theory, no one has ever observed a plant turning into an animal, no one has ever observed a star being born, there are no fossils that have ever been found of a species turning into another species. Bill needs a slap!

thekiwicloud 5 hours ago

I don’t think Bill said “there is no God”. He is against biblical creationism, but it does not means that is not possible a great intelligence creating universes with computer/genetic programs included for these universes developing forms of life and intelligence. You are right: somewhere in evolution theory suggests that first came plants and from them came animals but did not explain how. Matrix/DNA Theory explains it very well. It is about the origins of animal and vegetal cells.

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

“no one has ever observed a star being born”

You are right, and never Humanity will see it, since that these cosmological processes takes millions years. Then, the maximum that we can do is elaborating theories with gaps, holes, but under a unique logics that suggests what shapes must be the missing links. Modern Nebulae Theory suggests the processes of stars formation from nebulae of dust under rotation, but this is spontaneous generation. Matrix/DNA Theory suggestion is more rational.

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

“there are no fossils that have ever been found of a species turning into another species”

Ok, let’s suppose that the millions of similar fossils are not enough for proving a jump from one shape into other. We will abandon the neo-Darwinian theory of evolution? There is no known rational acceptable alternative. There is Matrix/DNA Theory that brings “punctuation jumps”+ mechanisms of cosmological evolution that produces mutations/muscles/cartilages and a new fossil. This is an alternative.

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


Red Herring.

Nice attempt to divert from the presented fact that Life becomes tuned to its enviroment through natural selection not the enviroment is tuned to life.

Earth’s early atmosphere was nihospitable to most life we see today.

Plant life developed ad did just fine for a LONG time bfore animals were even possible.

Photosynthesis alterd the atmosphere and animal emerged in the NEW enviroment

Enviroment isn’t fine tuned it is in constant flux

whiteowl1415 in reply to RogerS4JC (Show the comment) 21 minutes ago

That’s funny! What’s truth? Life becomes tuned to its environment or the environment us tuned to life? My wise grandfather always said: “You must suspect of any two extremes alternatives. The right one is a third, hidden, equilibrium alternative”.That’s just the case here. Plants’ life becomes tuned to earlier reduced environment, plants changed this environment in the way for this environment to be tuned to animals life. Plants were copies of astronomical closed system, animals are opened ones

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

Some day when you have evidence of this copy of the system crap let us know.

As to what is truth…

In some cases you grandfather’s advise holds true, but not others.

If I say the sky is blue and another says it is yellow that doesn not equate to it being green.

Life tunes to enviroment: FACT

Enviroment is altered by amany factors including the impact of Life: FACT

Life adapts to the new enviroment: FACT

These are as demonstrably true as the sky being blue.

It is non-negotiable

whiteowl1415 in reply to Louis Charles Morelli (Show the comment) 11 minutes ago

You said: “If I say the sky is blue and another says it is yellow that doesn’t not equate to it being green.”

But…but… the sky is not blue neither yellow, the color is in the eyes of the observer. This Universe obeys evolution by the same process your body changes shapes ruled by the process of life’s cycle. This process comes from the life’s cycle of a light wave, having seven colors, but as observer you see only from the perspective of one wave’s frequency. The sky is white, my friend.

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

You said: ” 1) Life tunes to environment: FACT”. 2)Enviroment is altered by many factors including the impact of Life: FACT; 3) Life adapts to the new enviroment: FACT.

That’s just what I said. The problem is with yours first proposition. What kind of pre-existent life tuned to environment? At abiogenesis? If the theory says that life came from non-life? But, still you are right. There was no life coming from non-life, but biological systems coming from Newtonian system machine. No miracles.

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


RogerS4JC: “Information quantity & density? in a single cell is TOO MUCH DATA, beyond the possibility for abiogenesis apart from a source of intelligence.”

So, while atheists are seeing evidence for blind evolution you are seeing evidence for supernatural intelligence? I can understand these reasoned deviations far away of Nature due human consciousness is still a baby that was born minutes ago in relation to universal nature’s time, like any baby transforms every object in tolls/phantasies.

Louis Charles Morelli8:10 PM – Tue – 23


Do not tell me that my beliefs are wrong and I’ll do the same…whether you think the Bible is a big book of stories put not…its your opinion and that’s great but don’t tell me what I believe is wrong:)

tiffani ross-bean 52 minutes ago

Resposta em 5 posts não publicada

Tiffani, these people here inquiring you does not understand yours healthy mind, I am sorry. I will tell a history about the writers of the Bible. A long time ago, humans were more naturals than we are today, their minds was like an empty book ( I know this because I lived 7 years in Amazon jungle among apes and natives studying their instints and psychology). They had a special sensitivity for grasping things we have lost. Then, monges from China, India, Hebrews, were having flashes of (cont.)

… memory from our past, long, long time ago, when our ancestor was a kind of spirit and his body was a whole galaxy. These flashes comes to mind due a strong event that happened with that ancestors, called “The Fall”.  But, the shapes of our ancestors and their world were totally different ( I have the pictures at my website), and the non continuous flashes were like symbols, they made those writers thinking a lot, trying to identificate what their dreams were about. They told the dreams to students, disciples, and they tried also to solve the dreams.

Now I was designing those revelations from natives and I got the real picture showed by those flashes. About 4 billions ago, there was the Garden Paradise. It was a selfish astronomical closed system, the original galaxy. There were two beings in shape of flows of information (softwares? spirits?), one male, other female –  Adam and Eve. They built the selfish Paradise suggested by a “Serpent”. Now, look to the pictures.  The Serpent swalling its own tail is a shape of that system’s circuitry, but if you see the Paradise from other angle (cont)

it seems a Tree, like any spiral vortex galaxy. But if you see from above it seems an Apple, despite it is just the world in shape of that Serpent and also a tree.  The center of that system was a quasar containing a black hole, which is the astronomical symbol for hardware as female and her anatomy. Like the beam queen, the female ruled that system while Adam had as anatomical hardware in shape of a Pulsar containing giants volcanos (male sexual organ) emitting magma (his genome) that flyies in space like comets (spermatozoons) towards the female quasar.

The garden paradise was built by Eve who convinced Adam it was the best world. But it was the extreme selfsness, a closed system, that broaken comunication with everything else, and closed the doors to their evolution. Then, entropy attacked the system, the Garden Paradise. It began to be fragmented in its surfaces bits of information, running towards the center. The system was collapsing into itself. These bits fail over planets surfaces and worked like genes, re-organizing themselves luke the shape of the old paradise, but the new enviroment was hard, made mutations, they lift up as opened systems. The time wasted from the Fall of that ancestor till the time of life’s origins was known as “abiogenesis”

And the thing that lifted up was the first living cell system. Now, why the scenes saw by sparsest non continuous flashes of memory were transformed in the genesis account? wrong interpretations of what we see but can not understand, they are things from other worlds and times. The disciples of Schimeon Ben Jochai, the hebrew that told his visions were the founders of judaism, esoterism, cabalism, etc.



In a scientific study just released by the University of Copenhagen, and funded by the Templeton Foundation. A 150 year sampling of devoutly creationist brains has yielded some surprising results. Observations and analysis have concluded that creationist’s brains are diminishing both in interconnections and cognitive function. The findings have been attributed to a loss of mass, and predictions indicate that within 300 years creationist’s brains will become vestigial.

parallelsdumaurier10:31 PM – Mon – 22

Be evolution totally blind or obeying some ex-biological purpose, what we see here and now is that all Nature’s efforts are being applied to the development of human brains. And through human brains is developing consciousness. The models of Matrix/DNA Theory suggests an explanation. Biological systems are product from the entropic decay of something called “Newtonian machine”, a closed system, spreaded in bits-informations and delivered to new environment (planets’ surfaces). These (cont.)

bits are diversified, each one having a unit of the ancestor’s selfishness. 7 billions of  bits of a big selfishness = human beings today.  Facing one another, conflicting, will cure this sin and all of us will be one, an opened system. Then, my first purpose in this life is helping Nature’s efforts to develop brain and its product, consciousness. Yours news is the worst. We need doing all efforts for the freedom and welfare of humans, because all of them are indispensable for our own success.

Louis Charles Morelli in reply to parallelsdumaurier1:34 am – 23 – Tue

Not at all – there are millions of other organisms evolving along with us. We are by no means the focus of Nature’s efforts – if anything micro-organisms dominate the biosphere.

parsivalshorse in reply to Louis Charles Morelli (Show the comment) 52 minutes ago

Good point. We need making comparisons between micro-organisms development and apes/humans DNA development. My last informations is that human species DNA is evolving faster. Maybe the DNA’s micro-organisms are merely arriving to a final limit permitted by this modern environment/atmosphere. Or maybe at any planets where life emerged, all micro-organism will evolve into humans and when they gets consciousness, all leaves the planet… finding better places in the Universe. What do you think?

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

Yes they do and that is why we ask where do we see any of them “evolving” UP??? we do not. they all continue to remain basically the same.

we can witness this with amber we find that contains mosquitos and many other forms of life. They look no different from todays, although, some were larger but nonetheless the same.

living fossils that have not changed.

JoelMckay69 in reply to parsivalshorse 3 hours ago

the fact you think that evolution has anything to do with up is beyond me.There’s no such thing as up in evolutionary terms you think insects have remained the same? by all means find me dragonflies with a 2ft wingspan. just because a mosquito looks the same?…really? are you gonna tell me we’re gonna find t-rexes and smilidon’s roaming around? and giant sloths?

tsub0dai in reply to JoelMckay69 (Show the comment) 3 hours ago

Well we do see other organisms evolving, scientists have observed speciation events (macro-evolution) many many times. Organisms evolve according to selective pressures, some slowly and some quickly – but there is no end point to evolution, and no reason to think that it is a process that has stopped.

parsivalshorse in reply to JoelMckay69 (Show the comment) 3 hours ago

The domination is not measured by quantities, and yes, by increased complexity. Matrix/DNA explains it. The diversification of stars are like the diversification of cells in a blastula. Each star has a bit differential, which is responsible by its unique function in this Universe’s system. When a star radiates its bits-information for evolution of biological systems, which accounts is their small differential bits, the resting are merely mass. The Sun is like anion, each time radiates a layer

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

Well where did you get that ‘latest information’ from? It sounds like it came from a layperson who thinks that there is some kind of imaginary limit to how much DNA can evolve?

parsivalshorse in reply to Louis Charles Morelli (Show the comment) 3 hours ago

I said “human DNA is evolving faster than micro-organisms DNA”, and thinking about the increased size of DNA since the apes DNA. Not said that microorganisms stopped evolving, I don’t have information about that. You don’t need an imaginary limit to how much DNA can evolve, only think about this: micro-organisms evolved at early atmosphere and environment, these things has changed, so, it is probable that their speed of evolution has changed also. Human increases in DNA is about brains. Or not?

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

For chrissake! You STILL don’t get it!!!

Things don’t HAVE to evolve. And just because a mosquito today looks exactly like a mosquito eons ago doesn’t mean that some mosquitoes in a different environment didn’t evolve into something completely different.

The fact remains: Today we have mosquitoes, humans and rabbits, when eons ago there is no record of ANYTHING but single-celled creatures.

How do you explain THAT? The implications are undeniable.

emfederin in reply to JoelMckay69 (Show the comment) 3 hours ago

What do you mean by ‘the diversification of stars’ – do you mean fusion shifting elements further up the periodic table? Stars don’t ‘radiate information’, information is something that you learn from something – not a physical property. For example – you can get information by examining tree rings, but tree rings are not information.

parsivalshorse in reply to Louis Charles Morelli (Show the comment) 3 hours ago

You need remember that this is not a debate among scientists, it is between Bill Nye and us, common fathers/mothers. So, the definition of words like “theory”, “information” that you were trained in scientific fields need be forgot and looking for the definition that the common person are using. Good see Wikipedia here. To me, information still is the old Latin definition in its turn derived from the verb “informare” (to inform) in the sense of “to give form to the mind” which is physical (cont

Information appeared in this Universe in shape of half-material vortexes containing 7 brutes forces that evolved to natural forces known today and after that to the seven life’s properties. Each vortex has a specific number resulting from the mixing of expression, intensity of those forces. So, information are bits, real and concrete physical bits that gives forms to particles, matter, systems. Stars transmits its own body and history through radiation, so their emitted bits are informations.

Louis Charles Morelli in reply to Louis Charles Morelli 6:02 – AM – Tue – 23

Sure it is information on the age of the tree and what environments it has gone through in the past.

BigWater59 in reply to parsivalshorse 3 hours ago

@”Sure it is information on the age of the tree and what environments it has gone through in the past”

He’s referring to the technical definition of the word “information”, you illiterate dickwad. All you just did was prove parsi’s point that you can extract information from informationless elements.

emfederin in reply to BigWater59 3 hours ago

To me makes no sense saying that star is “information less elements”. By the way, the problem maybe is about different definitions of “information”as I suggested in the post above. For instance, how we know a star’s age and is lights- years away? Who is sending that information? And what is the substance of this information? Symbols? Code? No, it is physical bit belonging to the star’s body. Or not? By the way, Matrix/DNA Theory is suggesting that stars are more alive than we think.

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

What do you mean “nature efforts”?

BigWater59 in reply to parsivalshorse 3 hours ago

You need to ask Louis, it was his term.

parsivalshorse in reply to BigWater59 (Show the comment) 3 hours ago

Maybe the words “Nature’s efforts” are wrong here. I should say “the last Nature’s evolutionary bias” has been observed lately. My readings have saying that human DNA has increased its size faster than apes, lately. If it is right, what is being registered in this DNA? I think that apes as working functional bodies are better developed than humans bodies. What’s being evolved is sensors systems and psychology, all about brain and consciousness. Wrong?

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

What a crock. If this was true creationist would have diminished their brain capacity a long time ago by these standards. Creationism has been around much longer than modern science and yet we still move forward in all areas of development.

BigWater59 in reply to parallelsdumaurier 1 hour ago

What on earth has the size of DNA got to do with anything? DNA is a polymer – there are sponges with longer DNA strands than us. Please tell me why DNA size is in any way relevant?

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

Let me think myself. DNA is a pile of different copies of a unique system. If any specie keeps the size of its DNA, in any way it is evolving, because it means no new information are being added. It this specie is changing, it is not evolving, only mixing existent informations by fuzzy logics. If any species has increased the size of DNA it could mean that the added information is not new information but only more bits of same junk mass. But, there is no evolution if not increased non-junk DNA

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

“in shape of half-material vortexes containing 7 brutes forces that evolved to natural forces known today”

Incorrect. To the best of our knowledge, all of the fundamental forces of nature derive from one single force. This has been demonstrated experimentally for all three forces except gravity.

“the seven life’s properties”

Define please.

“Stars transmits its own body and history through radiation”

Stars don’t “transmit” anything through radiation except energy. False analogy.

Joshua White in reply to Louis Charles Morelli 47 minutes ago

You said: “Stars don’t transmit anything through radiation except energy.” Ok, let’s see that. We have different theoretical cosmological models, and my models suggests that initial astronomical bodies had life’s cycles and a star contains all information of those different seven shapes of astronomical bodies. The whole galactic system is encrypted inside a star and radiation due entropy makes those informations being emitted as photons. That’s what creates life at planetaries surfaces.Theories

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

You said: “the seven life’s properties, define please.” The initial quantum vortex at the Big Bang were divided in two big groups: those spin right and those left. This is about phenotype. besides that division there were the diversification of all them, due each one having a final number resulting from the mixing of that properties. One was curved motion, the other was rectilinear motion: one was fast, the other slow, and so on. This is genotype. Digestion, sex, metabolism all life’s properties

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

You said: “all of the fundamental forces of nature derive from one single force”. That’s what I said. But the unique force can be a quantum vortex. Only when you try to analyse deeper what’s a quantum vortex you find, theoretically but rationally, that all natural forces are encrypted into that unique force. Matrix/DNA models suggests that the production of these vortexes are waves/rays of light. Any spectrum shows seven different frequencies – which are the projection of vortex’s forces.

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

No, not at all – I completely and utterly reject your claim that scientific terms and their meanings should be dispensed with – this thread is about science education.

parsivalshorse in reply to Louis Charles Morelli (Show the comment) 50 seconds ago

Bill Nye is saying: “fathers/mothers don’t tell creationism to yours kids”. It is about general education, at home and at school. And most fathers/mothers does not speak scientific definitions. It is not the case for dispensing scientific definitions, it is the opposite: this is an opportunity for scientific education included scientific meanings. But does not try to dispense the common traditional definitions because science had appropriated these terms. Science is not the owner of these words.

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

“My readings had saying that human DNA has increased its size faster than apes, lately.”

Citation please.

If human DNA was to change substantially the result would no longer be human. Period.

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

Then… what? Are you saying that human shape are/will not change?! Are you suggesting that human is the last shape possible for evolution? You don’t know the E.T. I have hidden at home. He is almost pure energy, he is like a ball, almost only “head”. And he said that thousands years ago their ancestors, in their planet, were humans like we are today. Of course, we are a provisional shape… and so, our DNA. DNA is merely the biological shape of a universal no-biological Matrix, my friend…

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

you are wrong. Human generations span decades whereas micro-organisms reproduce every 20 minutes. Greater populations means much more diversity which ultimately means bacteria have faster evolution.

ExtantFrodo2 in reply to Louis Charles Morelli (Show the comment) 3 hours ago

The environment causing mutations, natural selection and finally evolution of human beings is different from the environment of micro-organisms. And thanks God…(ooops, my fault, sorry) – thanks Nature that it is in this way. Have you thought what would happens with our bodies if those millions of microorganisms inside our bodies evolved fast? Spaceships crossing the space among our cells, species acquiring the size of dinosaurs? My God…(ops…excuse-me again). We don’t know this issue yet.

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

“Let me think myself. DNA is a pile of different copies of a unique system.” – No Louis, it is not.

“If any specie keeps the size of its DNA, in any way it is evolving, because it means no new information are being added.” – No Louis, DNA is not information, information is not a property of matter.

No offence Louis, but a few basic biology lessons and then you will at least know what DNA is and understand the basic principles behind evolution.

parsivalshorse in reply to Louis Charles Morelli (Show the comment) 2 hours ago

You said: “DNA is a pile of different copies of a unique system.” – No Louis, it is not.”

Parsi, we are debating theories, not real knowledge. You are based in abiogenesis theory, where nucleotides should be product of long evolution of chemicals reactions and DNA the result of nucleotides replications. Am I right? I am based in Matrix/DNA Theory which suggests a model of building blocks of non-living systems (atoms, galaxies) driving those chemicals, exactly like nucleotides. Who knows?

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

You said: “No Louis, DNA is not information, information is not a property of matter.”

Again. difference between theories and definitions of words. My theory is suggesting that the process by which the half-mechanical/half-biologica­l system productor of biological systems at planetaries surfaces is a genetic process where a kind of systems’ software is transmitted to models the new biological hardware. DNA as hardware is not information but the genetics instructions are physical information

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

You said: “No offence Louis, but a few basic biology lessons and then you will at least know what DNA is and understand the basic principles behind evolution.”

Thanks by no offense, I know it is hard to heard these weirds things. I had studied Biology, Evolution, Physics, Geology, Astronomy, all scientific fields and reading thousands of papers for 30 years, every day. I know I am not debating real scientific proved facts, only different interpretations of those facts. Maybe my theory is wrong.

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

Please define “quantum vortex”, because what you’re describing is definitely not a quantum vortex as understood in contemporary physics. Without that, I cannot address the rest of your post.

Joshua White in reply to Louis Charles Morelli (Show the comment) 1 hour ago

What’s “quantum vortex”? Two things: 1) all matter is reduced to particles, all particles are reduced to ghost vortexes; 2) The processes of atomic’s nuclei between protons and neutrons, as interpreted by the Nobel Hideki Yukawa, if such processes are projected over those ghost vortex, watching the results of vortexes interactions and development towards quarks, leptons, light, etc, we got all life’s principles, all natural forces and the universal formula of natural systems. They are “genes”

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

1. Quantum spin is a solely quantum mechanical property and is not “left” or “right”. It has no analogous counterpart in classical physics.

2. You again bring up quantum vortices, and demonstrate that you don’t understand what a quantum vortex is.

3. Your use of the terms “genotype”, “phenotype”, “digestion”, “sex”, and “metabolism” in this context all belie your purported understanding of cosmology and quantum physics.

Joshua White in reply to Louis Charles Morelli (Show the comment) 1 hour ago

You: 1. Quantum spin is a solely quantum mechanical property and is not “left” or “right”.

In physics, a quantum is the minimum amount of any physical entity involved in an interaction. Behind this, one finds the fundamental notion that a physical property may be “quantized,”. Maybe in QM it has other meaning, but QM is not the owner of the word “quantum”. The last non-matter unit are vortex, they have physical forces, they rotates and produces waves of light in two reversal directions…

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

You: “2. You again bring up quantum vortices, and demonstrate that you don’t understand what a quantum vortex is.”

Please, separates the words “quantum” and “vortex” because I think you are very literate in quantum mechanics and forgot the origins and common usage of those words. Now you can go Wikipedia and read the chapters of those two words. I know I am wrong, but there is no way when connecting data with new method if not using existent words. Think about vortices forming in dark matter…

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

You: “3. Your use of the terms “genotype”, “phenotype”, “digestion”, “sex”, and “metabolism” in this context all belie your purported understanding of cosmology and quantum physics.”

Exactly and thanks by wasting yours time with me. It is a hard testing for my models also. Those words are biological centered. I have projected “biocentrism” over cosmology and Physics’ phenomena instead modern scientific method of projecting Physics, Mathematics, Cosmology, over biological phenomena. Two theories

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

Citation please.

Joshua White in reply to Louis Charles Morelli 1 hour ago

Ok, Joshua, the topic here is what we think is the best for teaching to our kids. I think first of all we need teaching the real scientific proved facts and i know you agree with that. But then the kids makes deeper questions about the whole existence, we have no facts known yet, we have theories. I make sure they know the scientific theories but I also talk about my own theory which has one citation: The Universal Matrix of Natural Systems and Vital Cycles (if you Google it )

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

There is no life force within a star, let alone a conscious one. And no Stars do not fucking create life on planet surface. There is no theory as we know it does not happen.

Jack fauen in reply to Louis Charles Morelli (Show the comment) 1 hour ago

Yes, no conscious one, of course, the future forces used for formation of consciousness were not expressed in stars, yet. “Life force” is a wrong name, the right should be “natural forces”. “Life” is a wrong word, the right is “biological systems” for separating the systems’ shapes we have here from the systems’ shapes that are our ancestors (atoms, galaxies, etc.) Stars does not create life because there is no origins of life. Everything is a continuous chain of events coming since Big Bang.

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

That sounds remarkably like garbage.

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

As said a creationist in 1872 when read “The origins of Species” first time.

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

No Louis, none of those things are information – you could gain information by studying them – but they are NOT information.

parsivalshorse in reply to Louis Charles Morelli 2 hours ago

Maybe you are only thinking about packages of bits of information… Information, from the viewpoint of my theory, starts with those bits that triggered the Big Bang. They are the unique thing ex-machine existent inside this Universe, since they came as bits from a fragmented system that was existing before the Universe, maybe another universe. Working like genes today (which are package of zillions of bits information) they works building this Universe towards I don’t know…

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

Exactly Louis – most fathers and mothers do not understand science, and so should NOT interfere with the science curriculum. Bill Nye is right BECAUSE most parents do not understand enough about science.

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

I think should be a good idea watching this vídeo: Kent Hovind – Debate 13 – Dr. Hovind vs. Professor of Anthropology Dr. Robert Trivers (Round 1). I think yours strategy is the same of Dr. Robert Triviers, and it was a bad strategy. Dr. Triviers knows he is right about evolution but tried to impose a new and weird information quick and fast, without previous appropriate preparation, to fathers/mothers modeled by wrong information. In the eyes of those fathers/mothers, Hovind earned.

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

I have skimmed the website you indicated. All I can say is, if you have evidence to back up your assertions, submit your papers for peer review. That’s where the real test of your idea’s mettle will be.

Joshua White in reply to Louis Charles Morelli (Show the comment) 37 minutes ago

Thanks for doing that. If everything is wrong, at least it shows that one can explains every natural phenomena and event saw here if applies the reverse logics in relation to the logics applied by Physics when searching a theory of everything.Physic-centrism or biocentrism? The Universe is merely the result of moving physical forces or is tunelled for life and so, like a biological egg? Or like an ancestor’s body and we are the bacterias living inside its body? I will test it till my death.

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

Exactly who conflates cosmology with biology? The two disciplines have nothing to do with each other. I think you’re confused if you really believe that biologists have anything to do with cosmology. As for physics and mathematics, well, mathematics is a tool used in *every* scientific discipline, and biology and biochemistry follows the physical laws, so that argument is kind of moot.

Joshua White in reply to Louis Charles Morelli 1 hour ago

Joshua, cosmology and biology are words invented by humans. The separation between the natural phenomena related to Earth and the system it belongs to and natural phenomena related to those things created by Earth and its system is only a human behavior not a Nature behavior. I think that it is rational thinking that this astronomical system created the first cell system by the same process of evolution that reptiles created mammals. Biologists want understand mammals without knowing reptiles?

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


Because there is obvious evidence around us. I’m not too good at explaining it at the moment. If you want to know more, go to wwwDOTreasonsDOTorg

Unless you haven’t noticed, evolution can easily be disproved, way easier then they try to disprove Creationism.

God put it there… And isn’t it kind of amazing how our Earth is JUST the right distance from the Sun to support life and have water?

SpockLover27 in reply to DarwinsFriend (Show the comment) 2 hours ago

You said: “And isn’t it kind of amazing how our Earth is JUST the right distance from the Sun to support life and have water?”

Sorry but there is other website than suggesting that the reverse is the right one: a pre-life put the Earth at the right distance from the Sun for walking free here, like humans beings makes roads for better walking. The problem of is that they does not know the real pre-biological system that the Sun and Earth belongs to.

Louis Charles Morelli in reply to SpockLover27 (Show the comment) 1 second ago

No Louis – as I have repeated;ly explained to you, information is not a property of matter at all. We get information from examining things, but the things we examine are not information. I realise that you are not using english as your first language, so please let me assure you that you are just using the word ‘information’ innappropriately.

parsivalshorse in reply to Louis Charles Morelli (Show the comment) 31 minutes ago

No Louis – as I have repeated;ly explained to you, information is not a property of matter at all. We get information from examining things, but the things we examine are not information. I realise that you are not using english as your first language, so please let me assure you that you are just using the word ‘information’ innappropriately.

parsivalshorse in reply to Louis Charles Morelli (Show the comment) 31 minutes ago

You are based in string theory or any modern theory, then, you could be right. But… all these theories are projection of Physics-centrism, where the Universe is forced to be modeled and explained by Physics alone. My theory was elaborated doing the reverse way over the same evidences/facts: biocentrism forcing the model of this Universe. Here the final results suggests that “information is not a property of matter” as you said, but matter is a property of ex-machine “natural” information

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


Posts Contra Creationism:

Such transitional forms are beneficial. Without them there is too huge of a gap to leap in a single bound.

I started as a Young Earth Creationist, moved a bit to become an Old Earth Creationist, moved a bit more to become an Intelligent Design Proponent, moved a bit more to become a “quasi-directed Panspermia” proponent, moved a bit more to become an evolutionist, and finally moved a bit more to become an atheist.

DNAunion in reply to parallelsdumaurier (Show the comment) 21 hours ago

In a scientific study just released by the University of Copenhagen, and funded by the Templeton Foundation. A 150 year sampling of devoutly creationist brains has yielded some surprising results. Observations and analysis have concluded that creationist’s brains are diminishing both in interconnections and cognitive function. The findings have been attributed to a loss of mass, and predictions indicate that within 300 years creationist’s brains will become vestigial.

According to wikipedia

A 2009 poll showed that almost a quarter of Australians believe “the biblical account of human origins” over the Darwinian account. 42 percent of Australians believe in a “wholly scientific” explanation for the origins of life, while 32 percent believe in an evolutionary process “guided by God”. A 2010 survey conducted by Auspoll and the Australian Academy of Science found that 79% of Australians believe in evolution (71% believe it is currently occurring, 8% believe in evolution but do not think it is currently occurring), 11% were not sure and 10% stated they do not believe in evolution

narco73 in reply to narco73 (Show the comment) 3 hours ago


Esclarecendo a Teoria da Evolução

That is another of the Laws within The theory…Natural Selection.

The Theory is composed of….

Law of Evolution: Things change

Law of Natural selection: Things suitable to the enviroment surive while the nonviable do not

Law of Gradualism: Changes are extremely slow

Law of Multiplication of Speicies: New species develop

Law of Common Descent: Life shares ancestory.

They get grouped into the theory and creationists over look the laws often =(

whiteowl1415 in reply to XGralgrathor 8 hours ago



Besides the fact that women are not brood mares for other women, her’s some statistics about adoption not working NOW.

There are at least 400,000 children in foster care in the US at all times. childtrends(dot)org UNICEF estimates the number of orphans at 210 million in the world today. 86 million orphans in India 44 million orphans in Africa by 2010 10 million orphans in Mexico 35,000 children die everyday from hunger and malnutrition.

geezusispan in reply to RogerS4JC (Show the comment) 2 days ago


Contra Criacionismo:

It is inevitable that the current worldview of delusional Christians will evolve until it finally ceases to exist, just as Christianity will cease to exist. Humans now have unrestricted access to knowledge and scientific facts that previous generations did not. The Christian Church became all powerful and all consuming through keeping knowledge and facts away from humans. It swelled its ranks by forcing millions to convert or be murdered. The Church can no longer control humanity in these ways.

Reality4Me 6 hours ago in playlist New Releases


Novas Informações:

@parsivalshorse “There simply is no competing theory”

“A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it.” – Max Planck

Alan Clarke in reply to parsivalshorse (Show the comment) 1 hour ago

Como Esta Geração Vai Descobrir a Verdade Oculta Entre Evolucionismo e Criacionismo

segunda-feira, março 21st, 2011

Psiu! Criança Pensando!

Do website da ” The Everyday Champions Church”, in Newark,  Inglaterra,  extraímos esta jóia:

“Creationism will be embodied as a belief at Everyday Champions Academy, but will not be taught in the sciences,” said its leader Gareth Morgan. “Similarly, evolution will be taught as a theory. We believe children should have a broad knowledge of all theories in order that they can make informed choice.”

Resumindo e traduzindo: ” Crianças devem terem um amplo conhecimento de ambas as teorias científicas (Evolução e Intelligent Designer) para que elas possam fazer uma escôlha estando bem informadas”.

Esta também é a sugestão desta terceira visão do mundo que descobrimos e denominamos “A Teoria da Matriz/DNA”.  

A evolução existe de fato, assim como a blastula evolui para feto, o feto se transforma para a forma do embrião, o adolescente evolui para a forma de adulto. O que está ocorrendo dentro dêsse enorme ôvo cósmico denominado de Universo é simplesmente um processo de reprodução daquilo ou D’Aquêle que existia/existe além do Universo, portanto a evolução está dentro de um processo criacionista e o criacionismo está dentro de um processo mais amplo de evolução além dos universos. A História Universal, como a Ciência está a demonstrar e qualquer rato ou girafa nos ensina, não emprega inteligência para se realizar. Tudo é e resume-se à Natureza.

Na multiplicação e diversificação de uma célula parental original, mecanismos e sub-sistemas são construídos paralelamente mas distantes entre si, e depois se reunem num unico corpo. Há pré-design em qualquer reprodução genética acontecendo sob nossos olhos, há irreductível complexidade em relação ao corpo gerado se desconsidera-mos os corpos dos pais e seus cromossomas, mas nenhum dos pais, sejam inteligentes ou não, não empregam inteligência para se reproduzirem. 

Portanto, este conflito atual entre criacionistas e evolucionistas, deístas e ateus, entre os quadros imaginados pelo livre fluir contenplativo da intuição humana que cria as religiões e os quadros teóricos matemáticamente calculados pelo método científico que induz ao ateísmo é necessário, inevitável e salutar. A Humanidade sempre quando se depara com um mistério, oscila e divide-se em dois extremos de opiniões, sendo que cada qual contém 50% de êrros e 50% de acêrtos, e quando se encontra a final solução percebe-se que ela estava justamente no ponto de equilibrio entre os extremos. Foi assim na famosa discussão entre os vitalistas representados por Pasteur e os químicos positivistas representados por Leibniz…, quando hoje estamos descobrindo que realmente a vida é resultado de processos quimicos porem tambem que na sôpa quimica estavam ingredientes provindos de algo vivo que os quimicos julgavam não-vivo. Se for provada a nova teoria de movimento rotativo das galáxias cujo resultado surpreendente mostra que de certa forma o Sol também gira em tôrno da Terra, a solução final entre os auto-conflitantes modêlos do geocentrismo e do heliocentrismo terá reunir ambos. Qual o certo para a humanidade? Capitalismo selvagem ou proletarismo selvagem? Nenhum nem outro, o certo será um meio-têrmo socialista. A fôrça negativa extrema da morte destruidora se duela com a fôrça extrema positiva do nascimento construtor, mas é dos ciclos resultantes das ações das duas fôrças que surge a definitiva alternativa: a transformação com evolução infinita. E assim por diante, a sabedoria sempre estará no ponto de equilíbrio. 

O que está faltando para que ambos, criacionistas e evolucionistas, se encontrem no pico da montanha a qual os dois vem escalando por lados opostos? Que os criacionistas devolvam ao seu Deus a grandeza e magnitude que Êle possui depois que os homens antigos e de pouca sabedoria tentaram ao máximo reduzi-lo ás imagens e semelhanças da ainda pequenêz humana. Deus cria Universos e está além dos Universos e não aqui se envolvendo em conflitos entre tribos humanas. Mas também falta aos cientificos intelectualizados ateus superar as barreiras do imediatista método reducionista e saltar para absorver a visão de mais amplos horizontes, o que é possível aprendendo-se a lidar com o método cientifico sistêmico. A verdade ultima diz respeito à matéria organizada em corpos vivos e funcionais e não em partes mortas e desconectadas. 

A frase acima faz parte da noticia “Free schools will not teach creationism, says Department for Education” no site… 

noticia esta que relata mais um dos embates entre as duas correntes de pensamento opostas.