Archive for agosto, 2012

Luz: Fótons de Frequencias Negativas – As estranhezas reais dêste mundo

quinta-feira, agosto 30th, 2012

(Indispensável artigo para aprender mais como se dá a interação entre luz e a matéria comum, vai aqui copiado para ser traduzido e memorizado.)

Para recordar nossa formula da Luz como código do ciclo vital:

Light - The Electro-Magnetic Spectrum as The Code for Systems and Vital Cycles

Como seria uma lampada emitindo luz negativa, portanto escurecendo tudo?! Não estranhe: é quase certo que a “luz negativa” existe, que é abundante justo aqui e agora onde existimos! O nosso problema é que nosso complexo sensorial ainda é muito grosseiro e atrasado e com sua evolução vão surgir importante aspectos da realidade que vão mudar nosso atual estado de existência para novos estados inimagináveis a êste nosso pequenino cérebro. Nunca me esqueço do meu xamã na selva amazônica que quando tomava suas beberagens de ervas e mudava de personalidade dizia que estava vendo o mundo todo iluminado por uma luz diferente. Imaginei que “se isso fôr verdade”, o normal do mundo não é o escuro que vemos e sim o mundo iluminado: nós vemos escuro porque esta luz é como um repentino choque dos faróis de um carro em nossos olhos, vivemos como cegos para a realidade. Mas conjecturas à parte, a Luz se tornou o ultimo principal ponto de interêsse para as pesquisas da Matrix/DNA na sua ãnsia de buscar mais entendimentos dêsse mundo, quando percebemos que a divisão de um espectro de radiação eletro-magnética (luz) em sete diferentes frequencias corresponde às sete diferentes principais formas de um ciclo vital, portanto, levando-me à estonteante suspeita de que a Luz pura, natural, contem o código da Vida, ou seja, ela imprime Vida à matéria.  Agora êste artigo fala em energia negativa, luz negativa?! Já era de se suspeitar, pois tudo nêste Universo vem aos pares, mas esta nova informação é incomputável pelo meu fraco cérebro. Vejamos:

http://arstechnica.com/science/2012/08/the-dark-side-of-light-negative-frequency-photons/

ARS TECHNICA.COM

The Dark Side of Light: Negative Frequency Photons

The impact of something we thought couldn’t exist has now been detected.

by  – Aug 24 2012, 9:00am EDT

Cashed page by Google: http://arstechnica.com/science/2012/08/the-dark-side-of-light-negative-frequency-photons/.

Link Adress: http://arstechnica.com/science/2012/08/the-dark-side-of-light-negative-frequency-photons/

Tradução:  O Lado Escuro da Luz: Fótons com Frequencia Negativa

Comentários Importantes no Artigo:

Nwambe | Wise, Aged Ars Veteranreply7 days ago

S’what I love about ars. If I don’t understand the article, I *will* understand the comments. To the commenter who made the point about the cannonballs…. Thank you.
It makes so much more sense at that point. I was imagining ‘anti-light’, some sort of waveform that will render an entire area dark. Reading your analogy really cleared it up. Cheers.
Isto nos lembra como é importante não apenas ler os “papers” cientificos, mas tambem os artigos em blogs, mais devido aos comentários de experts que ajudam a esclarecer/aumentar as informações
xxx
Três pessoas (A,B,C) segurando uma corda. Pessoa A chacoalha a corda produzindo uma onda que vai a B e se êste não for uma resistencia ao movimento a onda continua para C. Isto é energia positiva. No fim pode ser que alguns fotons estejam voltando na onda, de B para A. Êles não alteram a onda mas criam uma onda superposta com direção contrária. Isto é energia negativa.
Polama | Wise, Aged Ars Veteranreply7 days ago

Is this a reasonable analogy?

Let electrons be people, and let them all hold a rope representing some unit of the electromagnetic field. Have person A shake the rope (corresponding to the excitation and release of an electron). This creates a wave in the rope (a photon) that travels to person B. If the person B’s arm offers no resistance it’ll rise and fall and the wave will continue down the path to person C. If there is some resistance, though, then part of the energy will raise the arm and create a weaker photon that travels forward to the person C, and part of the energy will go back down the rope to person A. If person A is moving there arms in a steady pattern, eventually person B’s resistance will be compensated for and you’ll have a fixed wave pattern traveling along the rope from A to C and it’s like there’s no retrograde motion. Thus for steady photon waves the retrograde energy from B will cancel out and not be seen, but with a short burst of movement you have discernible photons coming back from B to A (although net-net, energy is being transferred forward from A to B). This energy traveling back from B to A is negative, since it’s moving against the main flow of energy.

To describe the situation on the rope between A and B fully you’ve got 4 vectors like the 4 solutions: A backwards to the previous electron (let’s say…Z?), A forwards to B, B backwards to A, B forward to C. Two forward, two retrograde, two occurring on the rope and two draining energy from this section of the rope.

xxx

Dois Planetas Orbitando um Par de Estrelas-Gêmeas ! Como Seriam os Seres Vivos em tal Sistema?

terça-feira, agosto 28th, 2012

Two alien planets found with twin suns

By Charles Q. Choi

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3033063/ns/technology_and_science-space/

Esta informação abaixo fornece uma curiosidade a ser pensada pela Matrix/DNA:

” The inner world completes an orbit every 49.5 days, while the outer one takes 303.2 days, giving it the largest known orbit for any transiting exoplanet. The stars themselves whirl around each other every 7.5 days.”

Notei que a proporção matemática entre 7,5 e 49,5 é igual a 7… e entre 49,5 e 303.2 tambem é +- 7. E 7 são as funções universais de qualquer sistema natural. Portanto é plausivel que na fórmula, a distancia entre as particulas-funções sejam iguais, mas que justamente estas distancias repetem cada uma a medida da totaslidade do sistema é algo curioso. Isto vai merecer maior atenção se tempo houver.

Comentários postados pela Matrix/DNA no artigo acima:

Ok. In this stellar system configuration – if are there life in these planets – it is made of right handed molecules as suggested by the astronomic models of Matrix/DNA Theory. If so, will be hard for us to recognize living systems.

Biological systems arises by the right convergency of 50% informations from a star ( inside photons radiation) and 50% informations from the planet’s nucleus. Planets provides the informations for a nucleotide of RNA and the left nucleotide in the DNA’s stream and stars provide for the right nucleotide performing a base-pair (which is the fundamental unit of information in DNA). The models suggests that is hard difficult a right-handed molecule triggering a life form because it is the field where entropy is strong. But maybe there is an unknown catalyst.!

Reply#3 – Tue Aug 28, 2012 8:41 PM EDT
xxx
Resposta:

life always finds a way…

Reply#4 – Tue Aug 28, 2012 8:52 PM EDT
xxx
xxx

“The inner world completes an orbit every 49.5 days, while the outer one takes 303.2 days. The stars themselves whirl around each other every 7.5 days.”

There is a mathematical proportion between 7,5 – 49,5 – 303,2 … which is 7. This rate can be merely random, but, for Matrix/DNA models, 7 is just the sum of universal systems functions, and maybe is not casualty, maybe something is repeating the sacred geometry of number phi. While I will investigate this detail, someone here has any information, comments, about? Thanks.

Reply#5 – Tue Aug 28, 2012 9:13 PM EDT
xxx
Resposta:

You are assuming a decimal numbering system. There are others. For example, I visited an Anasazi cave with seasons depicted that was based on 8. It is about the cosmological constant ratios and fundamental physical constants, not the numerology. Right idea though, nature tends to emerge from the microscoptic to the macro: For example, the Archimedes spiral is evident everywhere throughout nature.

Reply#6 – Tue Aug 28, 2012 9:29 PM EDT
xxx

DavInDnvr , Thanks by the comment and I will get time for learning about these informations ( Anasazi cave and Archimedes spiral). But I know the difference between fundamental physical constants and numerology. My approach is not based in numerology but the physical constants can be resumed to numbers due the natural hierarchy among natural systems. The number phi seems to be magical/beautiful because it is the physical point in any natural systems that links the left face with the right face, that reproduces the first formed left side into the right side, as happens in DNA reproduction. It is the point in the systemic circumference circuit responsible by bi-lateral symmetry. I will not be surprise if a twin-solar system’s configuration obeys this physical constant. By the way, it is just a hypothesis. that deserves an investigation. Sheers…

#6.1 – Tue Aug 28, 2012 10:18 PM EDT

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

sábado, agosto 25th, 2012

Vídeo bombástico torna-se viral e faz pessoas a já quatro dias e noites ligadas no computador discutindo o destino dos Estados Unidos!

http://www.youtube.com/all_comments?threaded=1&v=gHbYJfwFgOU

Bill Nye: Creationism Is Not Appropriate For Children

( Bill Nye, o segundo Carl Sagan: Religião não é Apropriada para Crianças)

Video publicado no Youtube por Bill Nye,  conhecido a muito tempo como o “science guy” está causando  a maior celeuma nos USA. Abaixo do vídeo, na seção “comentários”  está contecendo dois posts acrescentados por segundo e já passou dos 100.000 participantes e três milhões de visitas! É assunto da Matrix/DNA por isso estamos tentando contribuir com meus dois centavos, mas onde estão os brasileiros, se o assunto tambem é do Brazil? Vai lá… veja meus posts e me tucuta…

Ultimos posts da Matrix/DNA e os outros mais interessantes:

xxx

JungleJargon 49 seconds ago

Biologists should be on top of the origin of the programming of life forms and they hardly even know what that is.

…so much for the “peer-review” system.

They merely *assume* life started and they *assume* that life restarted, recalibrated and reprogrammed itself billions of times over without a reason!

Their belief just has no relationship with any part of reality.

Matter only does what it’s made to do and proves you have a Maker.

PROOF OF GOD in less than 10 seconds…

watch?v=_hLWx0cgOps

TheMatrixDNA in reply to JungleJargon 1 second ago

Yes, I have makers but they did not use intelligence for doing me.Why not the same for the first biological system ( aka “life”) and for this Universe? Why are you changing the proof you can see here and now by a maker nobody saw?! Why are you betraying your Nature?

What’s your scientific argument against the rational and mathematically established Godel’s theorem: nobody can know the Truth about matter and a system standing inside the matter and the system? Then, how you say you know it?

xxx

GapWim in reply to marksmith1116 (Show the comment) 43 minutes ago

[…] more amino acids in Millers own experiments?!?!

That’s incorrect. Using the new data for a prebiotic earth there is a much higher energy/mass ratio for the conversion into organic molecules and a far wider range of molecules have been found. Among those is Adenine, one of the four basic components of DNA. Adenine was not found during Miller’s original experiment.

TheMatrixDNA in reply to GapWim – 7:36 AM , Tuesday, September, 04

Only food for thought – They never will get the forces and elements that produced the process of (a)biogenesis because they are focusing Earth alone and forgetting the system it belongs. If no sun’s energy no life, which should be indicative, and what about cosmic radiation? What’s coming with it? In another hand, we have no good model of galaxies as system, the connections and origins are unknown. See the models in Matrix/DNA Theory as sample how this is important.

xxx

8:08 PM monday, september 03.

Dawkins can’t say that based in Science. Natural selection drove evolution, that’s a fact. There was a purpose? Nobody knows. If I was a microscope bacteria inside a fertilized egg I was watching an evolutionary process, but is I decided that evolution is everything I was wrong: those outside the egg knows that the steps of evolution are merely steps inside a bigger process of reproduction. So, who can prove that this Universe does not work in the same way?

wtf are you talking about, because it sure as hell isn’t evolution.

Whatever natural selection is, the final evolutionary result here and now was decided by the sum of informations choose by natural selection. So, natural selection drove the process. It not means that natural selection has a purpose, but nobody can say, based in the real scientific data, that it has not.

xxx

Scientists stretch science beyond its capacity when they claim that God does not exist because He does not register on scientific instrumentation. If there is a God,He is supernatural, which means He exists above and outside nature and thus beyond the reach of scientific investigation. It is presumptuous for scientists to claim that science alone is capable of giving us a complete tally of all that exists.Where data is not available,they should suspend judgment and remain open to possibilities.

You have a good point, I agree. But the same is true for those that had not suspended judgement, appealing to supernatural theories, and wants kids absorbing their presumptions. Just an opinion.

They do that with their own ideas: “For evolution to be disproved is actually remarkably easy. You only need a single fossil to be discovered in the wrong place in the fossil record timeline. Just one. One fossil out of place geologically in the many era of the world.” Science never really closes debates. They just give an answer and replace it when it is shown ineffective.

Science does not give answers, Science does not says anything, Science is merely a collection of real data. Scientists has personal opinions and does not give answers, only suggests their theories, it is all right.

xxx

matter and energy are eternal. next?

For to prove it you need go beyond the eternal, verifying that has no end, and then, coming back telling it to us.

xxx

Did you created yourself?

Can you reverse your flesh from decomposing?

When you become like Gods, then perhaps you will be in a Godly position to tell me these things. Until then, you’re a dupe for satanists, who are the main cause for all the world’s ills.

Don’t blame God for giving you Freewill, a soul, & Conscience.

I think you’re souless, & you may take it as a compliment

God, satan, soul?! What are you talking about? Explain to me how your natural sensors had discovered these suggested things, how is the connection between your real body and yours suggested things? Maybe your sensors are better than mine?

xxx

Dude, Only what is natural can be repeatably tested, or independently observed. I’m not switching cause and effect. Science sets out to explain the natural world naturally. The standards science set for what could be studied eliminates unnatural and supernatural phenomena from the outset. And no one is allowed to propose supernatural explanations in science. Hence the ID issue we have today. Naturalism is the filter by which you view reality therefore it is true to you.

Agnostic Matrix/DNA Theory opinion = ” And Science need be kept in this way, a collection of real data, tentative of connecting those data into elaborated “scientific” theories, experimentation. But need be aware that the human sensors and its technological artifacts are very limited, so, our limited sensors works as natural selectors of data. It choose ones and discard others, which results in a wrong final board. See for instance the Matrix/DNA models how ToE can be changed.

xxx

MoheekTV: Your question is rational: how the stupid matter of this lost planet could invent the extraordinary engineer of two bodies separated in space and producing a third body?! No God, no man had solved this puzzle. But, the comparative anatomy between living and non-living systems discovered a surprise solution: the way the building blocks of astronomic systems are organized and working, two flows of energy are the ancestors of X and Y chromosomes. See Matrix/DNA Theory.

xxx

TheMatrixDNA 1 second ago

The word “theory”is being used a lot in this debate but it seems that different people has in mind different definitions. Result? Total confusion. The word was coined by ancient Greeks but is has being appropriated by new cultural/professional branches, like the scientific discipline, that has changed the original definition. I think nobody is the owner of the word “theory” then, must be kept the Greek definition, described in Wikipedia: Theory is a contemplative and rational type of abstract ..

xxx

wmpratt2010 30 minutes ago

What about the rest of us that don’t support current evolutionary theory but are not creationist either?

MegaAtheistman in reply to wmpratt2010 17 minutes ago

It means that you don’t understand it. It means you are ignorant on the subject. It means you don’t except something that all of the experts around the world say is their understanding of how life arrived at its current state and how it continues to change. You have your blinders on and thats what religion does to you. It dumbs you down.

TheMatrixDNA in reply to MegaAtheistman 1 second ago

You don’t know about the natural forces acting over biogenesis which logically continues acting over biological evolution. That’s why ToE is not the science of evolution. Either Creationism and atheism can not prevail and be the guide of human destiny. Both should conquer Earth and aliens civilizations with a power based in slavery, murder and so on. Those don’t recognize that the microscope human knowledge can not reach the Truth are not prepared for govern. “Free thought” is “free everything”

MegaAtheistman in reply to TheMatrixDNA 15 minutes ago

Not sure what planet your from but your drinking the same coolaid as the rest of the numbnuts who can’t accept reality.

TheMatrixDNA in reply to MegaAtheistman 1 second ago

No, I can’t accept the kind of natural reality surrounding us, then, I am here for change it, at least in my space. Our home is inside the body of a very primitive ancestor ( a planet that is part of a system, the Milk Way) far from perfection. The biosphere is salvage and chaotic, which indicates is product of chaos. I want my home in a ordered system. And the modern human socials system (theist and atheist) and technologies are mimicking the rules that govern the chaos, what is no good.

MrWiseinheart in reply to truvelocity (Show the comment) 4 hours ago

A theory is still a theory scientific or not its not a fact. My theory (belief) is that God crated the heavens and the earth. And its not a blind faith, there was the great flood which we see the runes till this day, where the dinosaurs were wiped out and for which we have the fossils, the Bible has answers its just people are to lazy to read. Bill is attaching creationist so I’m defending its stand, why is Bill doing that I don’t know he could of just did a lesson on evolution instead.

sn0wchyld in reply to MrWiseinheart 2 minutes ago

you clearly do not understand the difference between scientific theory and ‘laymens term’ theory.

TheMatrixDNA in reply to sn0wchyld 1 second ago

Science is not the owner of the word “theory”.Theory is a contemplative and rational type of abstract or generalizing thinking, or the results of such thinking. Depending on the context, the results might for example include generalized explanations of how nature works, or even how divine or metaphysical matters are thought to work. The word has its roots in ancient Greek. If creationists want saying they have a theory, they have the right to say that.

joe1234567890i in reply to TheMatrixDNA (Show the comment) 2 minutes ago

LOL. I love your argument, it made my day. So Science doesn’t “own” the word? Yeah, and science doesn’t own the word gravity, but there’s a secondary, non-scientific definition for that word too?

In this case, which definition you use is extremely important. I usually don’t like to engage in semantic battles, but it is impossible because of the underlying assumptions that people have about the phrase theory, disregarding which one is actually meant.

TheMatrixDNA in reply to joe1234567890i 1 second ago

Yeah… this misunderstanding has been used against the name “The Matrix/DNA Theory”. I wrote it wrong, I should write: “the scientific community is not the owner of that word”. I think the owner is the ancient Greeks who coined the word, than, prevail their definition.

xxx

Gnodnarb: “God is the way, the truth, and everything. He sent his only son to us and he died for our sins. Let us rejoice and remember the name, Jesus Christ!”

The Matrix/DNA: “If you send your son to be tortured in a salvage tribe I will call you a monster, not a God. There is no love nether rational explanation for this fairy tale.

xxx

TheMatrixDNA 1 second ago

Paladins, when matter is organized as systems, the systems fits in full with the spectrum of light, each part has its light frequency. This is memory, the system registered as light. The system is fragmented by entropy, this memory transferred to new system. In this way, the system called “chicken” is linked with the system called “Milk Way”. Any star incubates its offspring (planets), so it is the instinct that leads the chicken doing the same with its eggs. See pictures in Matrix/DNA Theory

xxx

TheMatrixDNA 1 second ago

JungleJargon : The Maker of the fabrication of time space is not made of or limited by time and space.”

Matrix/DNA Theory: “Time is a ghost, merely a human abstraction as unit of measure for control the natural chain of events in a chronological order. Space is a ghost, as a unit of measure about things that expands in the vacuum or are transferred from locations. Since they are bot, ghosts, non-existent, if there was a creator of them, it would be a ghost, non existent.

TheMatrixDNA 1 second ago

JungleJargon: “Matter can only do what it’s made to do which proves you have a Maker.”

Matrix/DNA Theory: The Godel’s theorem is very clear that nobody can prove the Truth about a system standing inside the system. So, for to prove your affirmation above you need go outside matter… tell us when you came back.

TheMatrixDNA 1 second ago

alfadrone : ” It is important to note that “micro-evolution” is a misnomer, as it implies that “a little” evolution.”

Matrix/DNA Theory: ” Darwin could not look to evolution from a universal perspective. The result is that his mechanisms of evolution (VSI: Variation, Selection, Inheritance) is only three from the real seven variables that acts over macro evolution. One need know atomic and astronomic systems, thermodynamics, relativity, etc., for fulfilling the gaps in ToE.

Gnomefro in reply to TheMatrixDNA 30 minutes ago

In fact, this is one of the reasons why the theory of evolution is so powerful. It transcends all the details you are talking about and provides a high level understanding of what’s going on. The physics are still needed of course, but only to supply the logical building blocks that ToE relies on. They could conceivably be implemented differently, such as is the case with genetic algorithms in a computer.

Gnomefro, Thanks a lot… Your information about genetic algorithms in computers lead me to Google it and finding this great job of Sir John H. Holland which has everything to see with my researches. But, this theory is suggesting models where these building blocks have the blueprint of biological properties, and these properties that were not seen by Darwin and is not seeing by scientists developers of genetic algorithms for computers are just the tools that living organisms uses for solving problems. A question: do you know why Youtube are defining comments like this as spam?

TheMatrixDNA in reply to Gnomefro 1 second ago

Gnomefro, Thanks a lot… Your information about genetic algorithms in computers lead me finding this great job of Sir John H. Holland. But, this theory is suggesting models where these building blocks have the blueprint of biological properties, and these properties were not seen by Darwin and by scientists developers of genetic algorithms for computers. They could be just the tools that living organisms uses for solving problems e evolving. And fulfilling the theoretical gaps.

Gnomefro in reply to TheMatrixDNA 35 minutes ago

“One need know atomic and astronomic systems, thermodynamics, relativity, etc., for fulfilling the gaps in ToE.”

That’s utter bullshit. If that was true, then the entire field of genetic algorithms in computer science would simply not work. However, what we instead see is that such algorithms can be mathematically proven to be general optimization algorithms. The Theory of Evolution is more than complete in the sense of being able to account for organisms.

TheMatrixDNA in reply to Gnomefro 1 second ago

Gnometro, Sir John H. Holland, himself said: ” We still have much to learn about classifier systems”. The proper fact that computer’s hardware is a physical machine indicates the nature of genetic algorithms’programs. They are elaborating programs without inserting knowledge about astronomical systems, for instance, because the hardware already mimics some astronomic mechanical properties inherited by living organisms. By the way, I will study it and hope later we can change fruitful thoughts.

xxx

TheMatrixDNA 1 second ago

Maybe the fundamental key where the Bible really prejudices the student is the contradiction between the data got by the scientific method and the contents in the Old Testament. The New Testament does not emphasizes any focus in creations, only teaches love and morals. I don’t understand why Christians keeps the Old Testament if Christ said that came for fixing its errors (or something like that). Why believing in a foreign and antique mythology, and its cruel God?!

TheMatrixDNA 1 second ago

waksibra: ” mutations can create new “information”.

Matrix/DNA Theory: “No. Mutations can create new hybrid informations resulting from the mixing of two or more authentic natural informations. It is an effect of “fuzzy logic”. The Universe can’t create information from nothing. All information were here at the Big Bang, in shape of quantum vortex, like all information for building a human baby were in the genome at the moment of the Big Bang of the spermatozoon envelope inside an ovule.”

MrRandoTheAmazing in reply to TheMatrixDNA 4 minutes ago

I see why you’re comments are being marked as spam, you have no clue what you’re talking about. You just said it yourself “Mutations can create new hybrid information” the “information” is new, you playing games with semantics will not be able to hide that. I’m sorry, I wasted my time on a dishonest troll like you.

TheMatrixDNA in reply to MrRandoTheAmazing 1 second ago

There is a big difference between hybrid information and authentic information. Authentic is that information got from external world and incorporated in a system for acting externally and hybrid is a information that arises inside a system. If the hybrid matches with external information, it is kept, if not, collapses inside the system. Prove-me you have clue what you are criticizing and not being dishonest…

MrRandoTheAmazing in reply to TheMatrixDNA 19 minutes ago

Ah, now you’re moving the goalposts. First information is already inside the DNA of organisms, and as organisms give birth information gets weeded out. Now you tell me new information can only come from a new external source. Sorry troll, in the real world it doesn’t work that way. DNA gets shifted around all the time, either through random mutation, sexual mutation, or Transcription Error Mutation.

TheMatrixDNA in reply to MrRandoTheAmazing 1 second ago

You misunderstand it. The Matrix/DNA does not models says, as ditto above, information already inside an organism becoming hybrid gets weeded out. Yes DNA get shifted all the time but never can create new information from nothing.

MrRandoTheAmazing in reply to MrRandoTheAmazing 14 minutes ago


This hole MatrixDNA theory is a variation of the panspermia idea. Life started on another planet and that planet broke up and part of it ended up here. It has interesting potential but it does not help the Intelligent Design community. Unless of course they want to tell us that the intelligent designer is actually an alien.

TheMatrixDNA in reply to MrRandoTheAmazing 1 second ago

Nope. Panspermia only transfers the problem to another location. Matrix/DNA introduces a cosmological model where the building blocks of astronomical systems are exactly like the building blocks of DNA. It means that a kind of astronomical genome is spreaded over the Universe as seed of biological systems. Life can arises where the conditions are favorable. Totally different than panspermia and ID.

In just two comments to me you’ve changed your story twice. First new Information can only come from an external source. this source must be outside of our universe, because all DNA was programmed before life even began. DNA can be reshuffled but if it is done within our universe it doesn’t count as new information. The only thing you would consider as new information is DNA from another dimension. Now you tell me that information is not regular DNA, but somehow it’s magical astro DNA . This astro DNA originated when the cosmos began and the hung around in the reaches of space. The when the Earth formed that’s when the astro DNA got into our system. The only way to get new information now is if we somehow magically change this new astro DNA. Not only must our regular DNA change, but now we have to show how astro DNA changes too? Can you seriously get any crazier?

TheMatrixDNA in reply to MrRandoTheAmazing 1 second ago

Nope again. External source in relation to living things is not “outside the Universe”, but, outside the living body, in the immediate environment. It happens that this environment is not resumed to Earth, since Earth is bombarded with informations as cosmic radiation. Nature is the whole galaxies, the whole Universe. Besides that, the informations around living beings are not resumed to our astronomical system as a Newtonian watch because this is a closed system and Nature has the another half informations about opened systems. DNA programmed before life began? Only if the Universe was programmed before the Big Bang. I don’t know if universes can evolve or not. The Matrix/DNA did not got in our solar system: a living genome does not got inside the atoms of the baby. Sorry, it is not that easy.

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

Seriously are trying to prove your nuttier than a squirrel turd, cause believe me I’m convinced you’re nuts. DNA information was programed into us, the universe, the planets, and solar radiation now. We’ve already established that you think information can only come from space sperm, so I’ve been convinced you’re nuts!

TheMatrixDNA in reply to MrRandoTheAmazing 1 second ago

You usually change the words, names, semantics, so, changes the final meanings.Ok, your body is made of sperm and ova information, and your existence is dealing with informations composing the environment. At the day you can create a new information besides those mentioned, show it to to me and I will throw the models to the garbage. Ok? I am suggesting that yours experience as a natural system is equal the experience of all natural systems, from atoms to galaxies. Oooops… the new information can not be hybrid, result of fuzzy logic. Because for being a real new information we will watching if natural selection will approve it.

You are wrong, you are absolutely programmed and you have a Programmer because matter is not able to programme itself!

Proof of God in less than 10 seconds,

Matter can only do what it’s made to do which proves you have a Maker.

TheMatrixDNA in reply to JungleJargon 1 second ago

A new theory suggests that yes, there was a kind of program, the first cell system was designed but the design suffered mutations due new conditions But the designer of the first cell system was not intelligent, it was/ís our primitive last common ancestor (LUCA), more stupid than an amoeba. It does not means that all things were designed by an intelligence, but, if so, it was before Big Bang. See the face of LUCA in “The Universal Matrix/DNA of Natural Systems and Life’s Cycles”

TheMatrixDNA in reply to MrRandoTheAmazing 1 second ago

Nope. Sexual mutation, transcription error mutation, etc., any new DNA that not fits with the blueprint of the environment are the same case. It could be possible that a new different DNA incorporated information from a system hierarchically superior to our astronomic system that produced this biosphere, but then, it should be about consciousnesses, not biological bodies.

xxx

jimmy20i0 1 minute ago

biogenisis is a freakin ridiculous theory when you concieve electrons in their natural state

TheMatrixDNA 1 second ago

xxxx

sn0wchyld in reply to DanThemes (Show the comment) 6 minutes ago

We can observe fossils, genetics, computer simulations, the quantity and breath of proof is huge. and it all points in the same direction – evolution. The fact that it hasn’t been observed directly does not mar its validity

TheMatrixDNA in reply to sn0wchyld 1 second ago

Nope. We don’t know black holes exists as such. We can see effects surrounding something, the following is only theory. And based in things never observed before an any other places, like extreme density. Like atom model changed totally from the first to nowadays quantum model. If one day we will be able to see what is in that place, is possible the model will be totally changed. For instance, just now, in Matrix/DNA models, the same effects suggests a totally different object in that place. And a different process of evolution.

xxx

rch111384 in reply to Philgood391 (Show the comment) 45 seconds ago

I don’t get it. whats the punch line? Orange trees don’t produce apples. Orange trees produce orange trees. Pines produce pines . Oak make oaks etc…. How about you have sex with a monkey and tell me how it work out for you. tell me if she ever gets pregnant.

TheMatrixDNA in reply to rch111384 1 second ago

Yes but apples and oranges begins as a small thing, changes its shapes several times till maturation… everything repeating the process of macroevolution.

xxx

“Evolution is dead”!

Signed: an energetic being evolved from humans.

xxx

TheMatrixDNA 1 second ago

Great America! Please keep in this way, several different beliefs, this is the country where creation and the right natural progress is possible!.What about those countries where prevail one unique belief? Today America is believing that evolution is real ( even because we can watch evolution at any case of embryology, when the shapes changes from fetus to embryos) and is believing in a son of a Creator beyond the Universe ( the steps of evolution could be a larger process of reproduction).

1GODISNOWHERE1 in reply to themanningsjdsjjj (Show the comment) 16 seconds ago

Well stated by themanningsjdsjjj, “EVOLUTION IS A THEORY ABOUT LIFE FROM zero…” Something from nothing. Poof! or Big Bang! or Singularity! or, Magic! Yet, believers in a creator God that would have designed what was created is called silly nonsense and magic that has no evidence to support it. How many more Puff the Magic Dragon fossils will need to be studied before science admits all the known creatures appear in the fossil record fully formed? Talk about a waste of money and life…

TheMatrixDNA in reply to 1GODISNOWHERE1 1 second ago

There is no life from zero since was no origins of life. What you call “life” is “biological system”, a new way for arrangement of matter due the novelty of liquid state of matter at planets. Before that were the half-mechanical/half-biologica­l systems, which are the building block of complex astronomic systems such galaxies. These ones emerged only with gaseous and solid states of matter, but all biological properties are there in a mechanic fashion. See the models at Matrix/DNA Theory

z28west in reply to thelichkingz (Show the comment) 14 seconds ago

That is what we call micro evolution or variations within a kind. No one is arguing that this happens, its observable, its science. We can get big dogs or little dogs. But no one has ever observed a whale becoming a parakeet or macro evolution. Thats when you step from science to your religion.

TheMatrixDNA in reply to z28west 1 second ago

Macro evolution is about systems, natural systems: atom, stellar, galactic, cell, and now, consciousness The whole Universe is suggesting that something inside it is under a process of life’s cycle like we are, and these systems are different shapes of a unique system, like the shapes of fetus, embryo, baby, teenager… are for a unique human body. It is occurring a normal process of universal reproduction. One can see evolution, others can see the birth of God’s son. I don’t know.

xxx

TheMatrixDNA 1 second ago

The scientific data is enough for convince someone about the Darwinian origins of species, although it is hard to prove it scientifically. The problem with ToE maybe will be solved with Matrix/DNA Theory: it takes out from the Earth the last common non-living ancestor, put it in the sky and shows its picture: the building block of astronomic systems. It explains how happens the diversity of species, how everything is reducible to this ancestor, which is the most logical as creator of life.

xxx

TheMatrixDNA 1 second ago

lowend15 : How did sex originate? Asexual reproduction gives up to twice as much reproductive success (‘fitness’) for the same resources as sexual reproduction, so how could the latter ever gain enough advantage to be selected? And how could mere physics and chemistry invent the complementary apparatuses needed at the same time (non-intelligent processes cannot plan for future coordination of male and female organs).

This was answered by the models of Matrix/DNA Theory. Milk Way is the answer

TheMatrixDNA 1 second ago

Is it merely coincidence these two interpretation of the world’s existence has broken the Universal History in two blocks, without any connection between them?! The forces and elements producing biological evolution are not being see in cosmological evolution; the love and forbiddenness of Christ in the N.T. is the opposite of the criminal God of O.T. Between the two blocks there is dark abysmal, which is fulfilled with myths. In Matrix/DNA Theory we found the connections and no myths.

What is the secret of the Bible? Memory is something inherent to matter since its origins, then, the origins of Universe and life are registered into DNA’s memory.Certain altered states of mind makes these memories comes to the brain as confuse flashes. We discovered that the astronomical state of the world before life’s origins described scientifically is the same that described by metaphors in Genesis. The Same for I Ching, Secret Doctrine, etc. See how in the models of Matrix/DNA Theory.

A minimal cell needs several hundred proteins. Even if every atom in the universe were an experiment with all the correct amino acids present for every possible molecular vibration in the supposed evolutionary age of the universe, not even one average-sized functional protein would form. So how did life with hundreds of proteins originate just by chemistry without intelligent design?

TheMatrixDNA in reply to lowend15 1 second ago

The rational answer is: there was a designer, but less complex than the design, and not intelligent, because intelligence is a recent phenomena in nature. See the Matrix/DNA Theory, the design of the designer.

cooljr99 : I have a question for you Bill Nye. How did life as we know it, just, happen? The reason we’re here is God. Here’s another question. Why is there a universe?Well, again, the answer is God.

You need be rational and first of all, looking around the answer that nature is offering.How the life of your body just happen? Natural parents. Why is there a universe containing this life? Simple: why is there an egg containing life? You have real answers facing yours eyes. See Matrix/DNA models


frenchfrys12 in reply to TheMatrixDNA 6 minutes ago

“Reason” “Purpose” “Accident” are philosophies developed by mankind.

There is a Universe because there is one.

The universe is a big-ass place and is billions of years old. You can’t expect something odd never to happen.

TheMatrixDNA in reply to frenchfrys12 1 second ago

Human reason is product of Nature, then, only the creature can understand its creator. Only could happen what the Universe has information for doing it. Information does not comes from nothing. And is more rational that the universe make things ( like biological systems) in the same way he was did.

TheMatrixDNA 1 second ago

Just my dumb opinion: any children educated with fairy tales elaborated by foreign and ancient people have his/her imagination occupied with those fantasies and never will be able to concentrate in the deep details of Nature, like this one: if you are in motion and increases the speed, your body becomes heavier ( Einstein). The imagination need be feed as condition for mental evolution, but lying to a kid that Santa Claus is real makes he no observing the grace of his father.

xxx

TheMatrixDNA 1 second ago

phillipsjoshua30: ” Last I checked massive explosions ( Big Bang) don’t make things, they destroy things.

Have you ever seen a natural explosion (OK, maybe, volcanic?). There are several kinds of explosions, and “explosions” that makes things. Like the “explosion” of the spermatozoon’s envelope inside an ovule, it makes the most complex thing that I know. Now, what’s if the Big Bang’s explosion theory was just a macro-projection of the same fecundation mechanism, making universes? Why not?

xxx

TheMatrixDNA

bawward: Evolution has never been proven in a lab (even under the perfect circumstances!)

I don’t understand what do you understand by “evolution”. It is proven naturally all times in a natural lab: the womb. Transformation of an individual as projection of transformation of its population. From blastulae to fetus to embryo… and before that… the morulae mimicking the galaxies, etc. Ooops… you believe that God appears inside the womb creating a new baby, sorry.

xxx

TheMatrixDNA

xxx

Super mistaken, Evolution explain you origin a way from God,that should be clear to everybody.

TheMatrixDNA in reply to YamiYami17 1 second ago

Nope. The process of evolution we are watching here suggests that the problem of creationists is about the “size” of God: is not irrational suppose that outside the Universe and before the Big Bang could exist something like gods producing universes, but such gods never could fit inside a universe for talking to humans or driving evolution. Furthermore, we humans could design softwares where evolution develops by itself. You are reducing the size and the intelligence of possible gods.

By the way kind of hard to evolve into something when there has never been one instance of new information producing a new “kind” of animal. Of course ironically for an evolutionists they don’t have too because to them it would take millions of years of process. How convenient. And yet just one more proof that evolution is a religious position.

TheMatrixDNA in reply to cctman 1 second ago

Informations for new “kind” of animal ( biological systems) are free in the air. We are inside the Newtonian watch that works good and this watch is inside the most perfect machine of all times: a galactic system. It happens that these systems are decaying by entropy so its photons-fragments that reaches a planet surface and penetrates its atoms leads them to reproduce the astronomical system. So, it is not right saying that “has never been one”, because the best exists before life’s origins.

Very fine,Random mutations can’t code a information,and natural selection can’t detect small change ( he doesn’t have a goal) so step by step up,if nothing appears to be functional,noting will be selected,which means natural selection can’t make any system at all. Done

TheMatrixDNA in reply to YamiYami17 1 second ago

Your problem is that has no code, no symbolic message in the DNA. DNA is a pile of sub-systems (base-pair of nucleotides), each one having some detail different, simple like that. In fact, natural selection only discards the bad changes. Evolution here is merely a sequence of steps of a big process of reproduction, so, changes are the same that occurs in embryology, like fetus becoming embryo. But you need to know the picture of the agent behind natural selection for understanding it.

before i say anything, im a deist. dont know what it is? look it up.

i just cant understand how scientists and other intellectuals fail to see the world around them and assume that mankind, in all its perfection, was created by “accident”. look at our bodily systems such as the circulatory and digestive systems. they are WAY too complicated and perfectly made to be naturally created. there are also countless species with distinct color patterns and instincts. not to mention planet earth itself

TheMatrixDNA in reply to epicsaxman2012 1 second ago

But… what I can do if the real world is showing that ancient natural systems have all mechanisms and process enough for evolving into all systems and details of a human body? How could me changing these evidences by a hypothetical invisible creator doing miracles, if I never saw any act of magic and any invisible thing? Now we have pictures of that ancient real world containing those details in the Matrix/DNA Theory, it is easy to see them.

xxx

Hardcorerockerforlif : Abiogenesis is practically us just spontaneously appearing, right? Or is there more to it than that that I don’t know about?

TheMatrixDNA: Abiogenesis is another name for cosmological embryogenesis. The whole process from aminoacids formation to the first cell system ( billions years) was a process of reproduction from this galaxy in shape of living cell. You can see the picture of a cell as a copy of the building blocks of astronomical system in the models of Matrix/DNA Theory.

xxx

TheMatrixDNA 1 second ago

To solve this division in the mindset of this great country, we need avoid the world “origins”. There was no origins of life, no origins of universe. The word “origins” brings on the idea that the normal natural chain of causes and effects was broken due to interference of something non material. Then creationists appeal to “God” and atheists to “randomness”. There were transformations between natural systems, never “origins”.

xxx

TheMatrixDNA 1 second ago

feryqueen – “Evolution is bull crap i’m not teaching that to my kids and i don’t even have one yet”

Feryqueen, God made a version of species’ evolution for you watch it with your own eyes: the 9 months, from a single cell to a baby. The universal evolution from atoms to galaxies to humans is the same process. But evolution is an illusion. You watch in the womb a process of reproduction composed by several evolutionary steps.Go to universal and grasp the reproduction of God’s son, same thing.

TheMatrixDNA 1 second ago Why Darwinian evolutionism is a failing theory? Because in Nature everything get tired, falls, transforms, and lift up again more strong and complex. Darwin observed only biological transformations, which are all about biological systems. This is micro-evolution, another micro-cycle inside a universal macro-evolution process. The real evolution includes all natural systems, from atomic ones to galaxies. We don’t know how works a galactic system, and how it fit the gaps of ToE. xxx TheMatrixDNA 1 second ago tigerade85 : Humans did not “evolve from apes”. Humans and Apes have a common ancestor. Get your facts straight. Have you never learned about the hierarchy of natural systems? Homos Erectus, apes, the common ancestor were produced by biological systems. But biological systems can not produces consciousness. Never learned about Godel’s theorem: “it is impossible to a physical system like a brain to produce the self reflection of any part as a new emergent system.” There is hidden systems. xxx TheMatrixDNA 1 second ago

ScienceResponder : “Over the last 25 years, scientists have discovered a world of nanotechnology within living cells. Scientists have found functioning turbines, miniature pumps, sliding clamps, complex circuits, rotary engines, etc. Could natural selection have produced this appearance?”

Yes. The selector behind natural selection has all these things before life’s origins. We are discovering that all these things can be performed in electro-magnetic and mechanical way. See Matrix/DNA Theory.

xxx

TheMatrixDNA 1 second ago

A question for Intelligent Designer:
I have a pet, a baby giraffe. Everybody knows that the first moment the body of baby giraffe came into existence was through a Big Bang: the “explosion of spermatozoon’s envelope inside an ovule. Everybody knows that the parents giraffes never lived in the Universe of that embryo( the egg ), but they were the designer of the baby. What kind of intelligence the giraffes used in that design? Why the universe needs an intelligent design if Nature can do it?

A question for Intelligent Designer: I have a pet, a baby giraffe. Everybody knows that the first moment the body of baby giraffe came into existence was through a Big Bang: the “explosion of spermatozoon’s envelope inside an ovule. Everybody knows that the parents giraffes never lived in the Universe of that embryo( the egg ), but they were the designer of the baby. What kind of intelligence the giraffes used in that design? Why the universe needs an intelligent design if Nature can do it?

xxx TheMatrixDNA 1 second ago

How reptiles became mammals? Reptiles have no feelings towards their offspring, usually they eat them. So, why happened the biggest heroic sacrifice by the reptile female cyanodont trying to keep eggs inside? It was her own will? No. We discovered in the cosmological model of Matrix/DNA Theory that our ancestor – the Milk Way – already have the two traits: puts eggs out and at the same time, keeps it inside. The photons-genes from the galaxy expressed “eggs inside” in that female.

xxx

TheMatrixDNA 1 second ago

What happened different with the Homo that shared a common ancestor with apes? The hierarchy of natural systems explain it. Homo found a big cave and lived there as a tribe. Babies, children, seniors, got the opportunity to feed the rests of hunting brought by the stronger. Began the first familiar system and human emotions, feelings, empathy. It happens that there is a natural system composed by the substance of consciousness. The substance was attracted to the Homo’s brain. (Matrix/DNA Theory)

xxx

TheMatrixDNA 1 second ago

Why are there different species? The Last Universal Common Ancestor was one and still exists. But instead transmitting its entire genome inside a closed envelope called chromosomal, his genes-bits are spreaded in space and time. If these “genes” meets in some place and time, they have the tendency for linking again at the same sequence. Then arises small packages of genes expressing less organs, different dominant genes, etc. The ancestor is the Milk Way, by the model of Matrix/DNA Theory.

xxx

TheMatrixDNA 1 second ago

Derrickmartell: “Religion is where kids get their values, morals. If take religion away they won’t fear doing something like lying or stealing.” Nope. Kids get their values from their physical state in this physical world. Religion changes the nature of poor kids with lies, for turning them into happy slaves. The best moral values will come from the real knowledge of human and world’s reality, where all kids understands that we are alone and by ourselves as Humanity, as Matrix/DNA worldview.

xxx

813trooper 37 seconds ago

Is that right? So let me get this straight, There was a big boom boom, then after the big boom boom, Ameoba came out from such a cataclysmic event? Then it turned into apes then humans. LolololololoLLLLLL. Okay, I am going to go teach my kid that now.

TheMatrixDNA 1 second ago

Danny Wise: Your body began with a Big Bang inside an ovule. Few days later a human embryo came out from such “cataclysmic event”. Now, with this natural real parameter known here, go making a theory about universe’s origins. You will be surprised by the wonderful results, like I am with my result, the Matrix/DNA Theory.

xxx

Somebody wrote:  “some new findings lead us toward the recognition of evolution as more than a hypothesis”

TheMatrixDNA 1 second ago
Nope. The fact is The Modern Synthesis is being prejudiced by currently non complete and/or wrong astronomic cosmological models. Are increasing new finds of gaps in the evolution theory, but gaps of our poor knowledge does not change reality. The gaps refers to mechanism and process that comes from astronomic systems, as explained by the cosmological models of Matrix/DNA Theory.

xxx

droolaxx 18 seconds ago

At some point in time we humans believed the world was flat, we believed the earth was the center of the universe, and that we would have to sacrifice someone for the sun to rise. Obviously none of those are true, but those world view changes wouldn’t have changed without science. We as humans cannot progress without science. I’m all for religion, but don’t let it blind you from what’s closer to the truth.

TheMatrixDNA in reply to droolaxx ( domingo, 18:55 hs., New Yotk time)

Put it in real terms: those world view changes wouldn’t have changed without new observed empirical evidences. The word “science” is a trap. Then, past experiences have showed that has new observed facts that changes worldviews, and this includes “ours” worldviews, which will be changed. Who guarantee to you that nowadays “science” with its scientific reductionist method is closer to the truth than natural philosophy with scientific systemic method like the worldview of Matrix/DNA Theory?

xxx TheMatrixDNA 1 minute ago

Congratulations America, you still is a open mind what means science and technology will evolves here. The country that has no such debate, no such division between different worldviews is a country where one wrong mindset has established and its population closed their minds. I am proud that I can watch evolution working human minds here at America. Or God, or the primordial soup – I don’t know – blessing you !!!

xxx TheMatrixDNA 6 minutes ago

Opinion of an agnostic: 1) Theory of Evolution is not complete because we don’t have the knowledge of how works a galactic system ( the real creator of life and natural selector of evolution) from where comes some mechanisms acting over differentiation of species; 2) Torah, Bible, etc., caught real facts of the world, connects and organizes these facts in a big board, but the connections are wrong, the missing pieces seems supernatural. The solution is The Matrix/DNA version of evolution.

xxx TheMatrixDNA 1 second ago

darkroadsrec: “I love how he tells parents how to parent in a free country.” You have a good point. But I am sure there are priests, pastors, also telling how to parent. So, if one can do it, the other side can do too. I think that children has natural imagination as extension of their minds, and these imaginations need be feed and used for evolving the mind. If it is not used, it is entropic discarded. Religion is a kind of fantasy that fits this task. What about modern scientific theories?

xxx TheMatrixDNA 15 second ago What about our beloved children? It seems that every people here are advocating his/her worldvision and forgotten the great opportunity and responsibility this issue offers to the best goods to our children. How works the brain’s children? What about imagination? Which are the effects of ours theories, religious or scientific on children? Should be better ressuscitates natural philosophy in schools teaching all worldviews and leaving the child to choose what he want? Keeping the free thought? xxx TheMatrixDNA 12 minutes ago

Noah’s Ark is a strong fairy tale because the Ark is the symbol of chromosomal envelope and the animals inside is the symbol of the genes inside.It is a metafhor that fortunately reproduces a real past event occurred in biogenesis. It not makes truth that Noah have existed.
xxx

DYNASTYBASSMASTA20 5 minutes ago

As a Christian I have a question for all atheist and nonbelievers and I honestly empathize if you refute against it and even try to disprove my faith. If we are just biological creatures who serve to procreate and sustain life on the planet for ourselves and our offspring; what is emotion, or faith in your fellow man, trust, hope, morals and values and standards, or hate and jealously? How can these things exist in mere biological creatures?

xxx

TheMatrixDNA 12 minutes ago

The method of education need be inverted: kids be educated as free thinkers and as adult  choose what to believe. The tool is philosophy teaching the evolution of thought, paganism, religions, scientific method. They need know all theories, like Darwinian evolucionism, Intelligent designer, I Ching, etc. Imagination is the extension of the mind and need be feeding . The fairy tale of religions and myths is doing this job. ToE has no fantasies yet, but Matrix/DNA Theory have it.

xxx Zakariye Hassan 1 minute ago

200 million fossils refute evolution.

xxx

Watergun6850 23 seconds ago

  • Modern science has shown that there are genetic limits to evolution or biological change in nature. Again, all biological variations, whether they are beneficial to survival or not, are possible only within the genetic potential and limits of a biological kind such as the varieties among dogs, cats, horses, cows, etc.
    TheMatrixDNA in reply to Watergun6850 1 second ago
    Wrong.  What’s genetics? Is the science of genes, heredity, and variation. So, genetics is the name of a scientific discipline and Science can’t put limits in evolution. Whats is biological change? Is the change in the inherited characteristics, namely, in the genes. What is genes? A gene is a molecular unit of heredity of a living organism. Gene is stored data. What is the limit for increasing data? The environment. But the environment is the galaxy, the universe. So, no limits.
    xxx

    Watergun6850 3 minutes ago
Evolutionists claim that the genetic and biological similarities between species is evidence of common ancestry. However, that is only one interpretation of the evidence. Another possibility is that the comparative similarities are due to a common Designer who designed similar functions for similar purposes in all the various forms of life. Neither position can be scientifically proved.
TheMatrixDNA in reply to Watergun
Oooops…! You are touching the biggest secret of Nature. Congratulations! The models of Matrix/DNA Theory are suggesting the picture of the designer, but, coincidentally, he is just the common ancestor. His name is “Milk Way”.
  • How do you know if your computer was created ?! from a scientific view ?!,yep,it’s the same way we know how your brain was created,sure not ‘Nature did it’, So if Evolution can’t make systems and can’t account for information,we conclude that you were created ! and we conclude that evolution is not even logical,so it’s can’t be a scientific theory! do you understand this ?!
    TheMatrixDNA in reply to YamiYami17 1 second ago
    Wrong. Computers were not created from nothing but man reproducing nature.
  • Nature can make systems. Natural light plus mass from Higgs field made lighters atomic systems ( See Matrix/DNA models), which made stars. Stars made galaxies and galaxies made biological systems, till apes. We don’t know the source of natural light, but, saying that it is god, is saying nothing. Upon apes something unknown in Nature brought consciousness, and we don’t know what’s it.

    xxx

    YamiYami17 in reply to whereismymascara (Show the comment) 1 minute ago

    Appeal to authority :) A lot of theories where accepted once from the overwhelming majority of scientists yet they failed,that proves the the appeal to scientists is a failed argument!
    xxx
    fawkUtube in reply to PizzaBlade17 (Show the comment) 3 minutes ago

    DNA could also be proof of a designer and the fact that we can manipulate this DNA to create our own versions of species then it is apparent we are nothing more than selfreplicating computer programs but instead of 1’s and 0’s we have A’s T’s C’s and G’s
    xxx

    BlackBeardDelight187 22 minutes ago

    “Almost no one attempts to educate themselves on the basics of science and technology, yet our society is based on these. TV takes up far too much of our time and is apparently much more attractive to most of us than the beauty and wonder of science. This is a prescription for disaster. We might get away with it for a while, but sooner or later this combustible mixture of ignorance and? power is going to blow up in our faces.”

    xxx

    Melanth89 in reply to cowman1970 (Show the comment) 8 minutes ago

    Now continue that process over a longer timescale using the same gene pool. Preserve one of your original stock. After a few million years clone your original stock and try to breed between them. You will find that they are not the same species anymore.

    This is what you fail to understand. Macro and micro evolution are the same thing- the only variable is timescale.

    xxx

    WitnessOfNewLaodicea 10 minutes ago

    You cant appreciate any theory without teaching its alternatives. Anyone who advocates the censorship of ideas is an enemy of intellectualism and truth. You teach knowledge by contrasting it with ignorance, good by contrasting it with evil, freedom by contrasting it with slavery, and so on. Whenever you hear anyone saying “you may not teach that” or “you may not believe that,” you are listening to a fascist. Teach both sides, let the truth arise in each mind, which it will.

    xxx

    Religious: They went from comic books as children, to bibles as adults; from modern-day comic books, to ancient comic books. They never grew up.

    How did the USA become great? Science: The Manhattan Project, Hubble telescope, Space shuttle, The internet, Human genome project, etc., etc. Whether you’re religious or not, you need to recognize that science is what made us great. Stop denying things that are well beyond your knowledge. Scientists aren’t out to destroy religion, they are out there trying to improve make life better for all mankind. If you want to see a country that rejects science, look at Afghanistan.

    xxx

    Curta e correta explicação do que é “speciation”

    AlphaDogmatist in reply to REPAIRMN1 (Show the comment) 2 minutes ago

    “you can mutate all you want within a “species” but until it jumps into a new “species” it isn’t the “evolution” I was taught in school”

    This is incorrect. What you are referring to is “speciation” when so much change occurs the two can no longer interbreed. They may still be able to breed and be different.

    xxx

    Prova de Criação de Novas espécies?


    you’re talking about microevolution, not macro. And your statement is false — we can observe the creation of new species. What do you think happens with disease, for example, when you don’t finish all your antibiotics? the stronger bacteria survive. Over time they change dramatically as they hop from person to person. Because the lifecycle is so much shorter you can watch the process quite easily.

    xxx

    Alguem chegando perto da Matrix, comparação entre womb e evolução


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

    Friend,

    Its interesting to notice the similitude between the Darwin evolution(the primordial cell to the man) and the micro-evolution in every pregnant women womb.

    Because everyone must pass through this micro-evolution (womb) to be here.

    Rumi in XIII century talked about spiritual-biological evolution long before Darwin:

    ‘I died as a mineral and became a plant, I died as plant and rose to animal, I died as animal and I was Man. Why should I fear?’

    xxx

    ojideagu 43 seconds ago


    RELIGION IS THE MATRIX. TAKE THE RED PILL.

    xxx

    HazeGreyAndUnderway 23 minutes ago

    If and when I have kids, I won’t pressure them to believe or not believe in a God, I know that with certainty. I myself believe in evolution, and that there is some supreme being out there. But the one thing I don’t like that comes from both sides of the topic is the offensive way they go about telling each other off. Why do you have to care what I believe, and then hold that against me for whatever reason? I certainly don’t care what you believe. People are arrogant.

    But you’re a blessed exception…you can hold true to your beliefs without pressuring others to confirm to them. Can’t really say the same thing for the people who allow religious beliefs to influence the policy our government follows.

    You are right. People are arrogant. And while you are raising your kids with no real direction on spirituality and God, one of those arrogant people in the form of a friend, neighbor, teacher, relative, coach or the like will fill your kids with their views. Kids don’t just come up with their views. They get them from someone and it might as well be you. Yes, they are free to accept or reject them, but if you don’t do your job, someone will do it for you.

    xxx



    Part 1) Out of all of the knowledge in the entire universe I would estimate that the total that mankind possess is less than 0.0001%. Yet, some have the audacity to claim that, with this minuscule bit of information they can proclaim that “THERE IS NO GOD”. Making a conclusive statement like that after gathering just 0.0001% of the data is lunacy. Or should we call it for what it is, the religion of atheism. 

    Part 2) let’s say that I give an atheist a revolver with 10,000,000,000 chambers in it and he could look only into one of the chambers. He sees that there is no bullet in that one chamber. Assuming that the other 9,999,999,999 chambers are as empty as this one, is not only bad science, but is paramount to something most would call blind faith.

    Part 3) The fact is, there is a lot more we don’t know, than what we do know. And it is very conceivable, and most likely, that the massive amount of information we don’t know, could prove what little we think we know, to be completely wrong. So, go ahead atheist and demonstrate your faith in all that knowledge that you DO NOT have by placing that gun to your head and pulling the trigger, let’s see how lucky you are. Part 4) It takes just as much faith with the information we now possess to proclaim there is NO God as it does to proclaim there IS a God. It is A Faith either way. So you should continue searching until definitive proof is found or until you die, then you know for sure.

    “Condemnation without investigation is the height of Ignorance” Albert Einstein – GSpotter63 in reply to gjford (Show the comment) 3 minutes ago

    Do you know me? Do you have even the slightest bit of information about me? Where I live? My education? How can you, despite the extremely small amount of information you poses of me, make that last statement?

    Nonsense? You must not realize how big the universe is. Let me break it down for you. There are over 300,000,000,000 stars in our galaxy and there are over 250,000,000,000 galaxies in the universe. Again, the chances of conditions being suitable for life in many many many many places in the universe are exactly 100%.

    If I’m wrong, maybe you could explain why the most religious countries in the world are also the worst shitholes with the highest crime rates; and why the most non-religious countries in the world are the most successful, with the highest standards of living for their population?

    xxx

    I asked my 9 year old what he thought and he said ” Daddy, if we came from monkeys and there are lots of monkeys in Africa then shouldn’t we see half monkey half people running around somewhere?”. I had a hard time explaining why there are no half monkey half man people in the zoo…


Vai lá… veja o post e me tucuta… prometo que no seu aniversario te mando um pirulito de presente, sabor tutti-frutti…

Nova descoberta da Matrix/DNA: A Fábula da Arca de Noé é Forte Porque Descreve Cromossoma e seus genes!

sexta-feira, agosto 24th, 2012

Descobrí isto agora por acaso lendo o debate no Youtube: http://www.youtube.com/all_comments?v=gHbYJfwFgOU&page=1 – e postei o  seguinte comentário:

TheMatrixDNA 12 minutes ago

Noah’s Ark is a strong fairy tale because the Ark is the symbol of chromosomal envelope and the animals inside is the symbol of the genes inside.It is a metafhor that fortunately reproduces a real past event occurred in biogenesis. It not makes truth that Noah  existed.

xxx

Post foi em resposta ao seguinte post:

Bill, I had a lot of respect for you, but come on. There are quite a few religions out there and do you know what they all have in common: A great, sentient being created everything. Want proof of a Biblical tale being true? Noah’s Ark. Every culture has a story similar to it.

H4CK3R117 27 minutes ago

xxx

Manter isto registrado, analizar melhor, e incluir na tese da explicação da Biblia.

Seu Corpo Não é Seu, A Maior Parte Pertence às Bactérias: Veja as Recentes Surpreendentes Descobertas!

quinta-feira, agosto 23rd, 2012

Apenas muito recentemente se descobriu que em cada dez células que constitui um corpo humano, nove são bactérias unicelulares e apenas uma pertence e pode ser controlada pelo cérebro! Nós somos um ecossistema que caminha! E isto vem corroborar uma frase que gritei no meio da selva amazônica a 30 anos atrás numa madrugada quando acordei com uma nova intuição: “O Universo cheio de galáxias é apenas um nosso ancestral, um fóssil a ser extinto! O Homem é o Real Universo que adquiriu pernas e agora caminha!”

Agora virou moda no meio cientifico da quimica e biologia, e existe uma verdadeira correria competitiva, buscando mais informações devido a êste novo surpreendente quadro do corpo humano, principalmente pelas industrias farmacêuticas, pois suspeita-se que muitas das doenças milenares como cancer, diabetes, etc., estejam relacionadas com esta fauna complicada de  bactérias. E eu aqui com a fórmula da Matrix/DNA estou muito excitado e ao mesmo tempo me remoendo de raiva por não ter tempo de acompanhar as novidades, vê-las confirmando as previsões da fórmula, e sugerindo soluções.

Foi publicado um artigo relacionado o qual copiei a seguir para analizar item por item, se tempo houver):

LabSpaces

http://www.labspaces.net/122871/Research_boosts_bacterial_understanding

Research boosts bacterial understanding

Thursday, August 23, 2012

Bacteria image Courtesy of Shutterstock

Bacteria image Courtesy of Shutterstock

(Obs: A fórmula da Matrix me conduziu a identificar cada detalhe na fascinante e robotizada sociedade de abelhas e formigas como sendo cópias biológicas de cada detalhe eletro/magnético/mecânico de um sistema galáctico, sugerindo que a Vida aqui é produto de uma direta linhagem evolucionaria do sistema astronomico que a criou. Por exemplo, a abelha rainha sobe no ar a seis metros do solo, chama os machos que se põem em fila, copulam com ela, e cada um vai caindo morto! Porque? Porque no céu, um ancestral, desde há 10 bilhões de anos atrás, tem um buraco negro dentro de uma bela quasar, que é a rainha do sistema, e ela paira no espaço, atrai pulsares, os quais emitem cometas em sua direção que a penetram, e imediatamente os pulsares “morrem” explodindo como supernovas e o quasar gera nova ninhada de estrêlas! Podes ver isso claramente no desenho da fórmula, em azul, aqui nesta Home Page. Tenho artigos nêste website explicando isso, só que não sei onde, … tem que procurar. Veja agora como os novos detalhes descobertos sôbre formigas continuam se encaixando nas previsões da fórmula.

Mas perceba como o mundo se torna curioso e inteligivel quando se conhece a fórmula. No artigo um cientista diz: ” Esta descoberta faz parecer que cada planta e animal na Terra, incluindo humanos, recebem uma multitude de beneficios de suas comunidades de micróbios.” O cientista desconhece a Matrix/DNA por isso ainda tateia no escuro percebendo que algo existe, sem saber o que é,  e distorce um pouco da realidade recorrendo a nomes da cultura humana que não faz sentido aqui, como a palavra que êle usou, “beneficios”. Ao conhecer exatamente o que é uma galáxia, o que é a Via Láctea, qual o processo pelo qual ela se miniaturiza e se projeta na matéria da superficie terrestre, e como surgem os seres vivos desta projeção, temos um quadro muito mais inteligivel para entender num relance o que está acontecendo. A principal diferença entre evolução cosmológica e evolução biológica está no fato que, enquanto os seres vivos se transmitem genéticamente mantendo seus genes encerrados dentro de saquinhos cromossomicos, galaxias transmitem seus fotons-genes de forma aleatória, espalhados dentro dela. Essa chegada na Terra dêstes genes semi-vivos em diferentes lugares e tempos é o que gera esta enorme diversidade de espécies e esta riqueza da biosfera, mas é preciso ver que a biosfera inteira, a soma de todos seus elementos, desde plantas, animais, oxigênio no ar, etc,  é uma fase intermediaria de um processo maior, que visa no final reproduzir da melhor maneira possivel um unico grande quase-organismo, o criador que jaz no espaço. É isto que me fêz perceber que a Humanidade tende a caminhar na direção de construir na Terra o Admiravel Mundo Novo de Huxley, sob as ordens de uma Grande Mãe, que seria igual à Abelha Rainha, ao Big Brother de Orwell. Somos dirigidos por fôrças naturais inconscientemente para êste destino, mas a prresença da auto-consciencia aqui, uma coisa que a galaxia não tem, fomenta uma esperança que teremos chance de mudar esse destino. Fica claro que a sinbiose entre organismos e seres unicelulares não ocorre por ação dos organismos, porque isto os beneficia, pois organismos “de per se”  nada fazem com seres que seus sentidos não percebem como os micróbios, mas sim porque os seres unicelulares são portadores dos fotons genes que devem ser incorporados aos organismos neste processo de reproduzir a maquina celestial ancestral. De fato, a nova visão de mundo sugerida pela fórmula da Matrix eleva o homem a um novo e espetacular entendimento do mundo em que existe.)

Vamos ao artigo da LabSpace:

Findings published today in Ecology Letters show how researchers applied a strategy used by insurance companies to understand how animals and plants recruit beneficial bacteria. ( Tradução? Descobertas publicadas hoje no Ecology Letters mostram como pesquisadores aplicaram a estratégia usada pelas companhias de seguro para entender como animais e plantas recrutam batérias benéficas.)

Comentário da Matrix/DNA:

Isto é o que se chama de evolução por tentativas e êrros, pois estão aplicando uma estratégia certa vinda de uma idéia errada mas que produz o resultado certo! Nem cérebros nem mentes em plantas, em animais, e em corpos humanos, recrutam e absorvem conscientemente bactérias do meio-ambiente. Você consegue fazer isso, autonômamente? Para entender melhor isso, notamos que esta é uma situação análoga ao que está acontecendo aqui nos Estados Unidos em relação aos imigrantes trabalhadores nos serviços pesados. Os americanos evoluíram e hoje precisam se envolverem em profissões administrativas, pesquisas cientificas e tecnológicas, não podem perder tempo lavando banheiros ou cozinhando. Em relação aos Estados Unidos, os poucos descendentes dos habitantes na época dos Founder Fathers quando isto se tornou uma nação, que seriam os mais autenticos americanos, são como as poucas células genuínas de seu corpo. A grande massa de bactérias trabalhando na industrialização e aproveitamento dos alimentos, ou nas limpezas dos poros da pele, etc., são imigrantes, alguns tão absorvidos pelo sistema social americano que são legais, outros ainda ilegais, e muitos criando doenças no corpo social, como os atos criminosos. A propósito, êste deslumbrado autor desconhecido, é um imigrante já legalizado, que trabalha duro no pesado até 70 horas semanais, recolhe mensalmente seus impostos, e não tenho nenhum problema em me auto-comparar com bactérias, quando já descobrí que não passo de um vírus em relação a êste imenso Universo e que se pergunta se êste Universo é amigável ou não a mim, se me aceitará ou não como bactéria benéfica. Pois sinto satisfação e orgulho de  estar ajudando a fazer a História desta admirável nação e dêste fascinante Universo. O que existe por trás dêsse movimento de bactérias entrando e se alojando no corpo humano? O que produziu esta situação de imigração para os Estados Unidos?

Na evolução da Vida, o que ocorre é um processo de simbiose entre compostos moleculares, onde atuam até mesmo as fôrças de atração e repulsão entre átomos. Isto pode se dar a nivel bruto e cru, a nivel da quimica e da fisica, pois a biologia só aparece no quadro total do ecosistema quando se tornam os organismos vivos. Mas seria esta simbiose um produto do mero acaso, e o ecossistema vivo seria um inevitável produto da seleção natural atuando para manter as simbioses benéficas e descartando os parasitismos maléficos? Não acredito, pois isto seria acreditar na hipótese de que a seleção natural tem um propósito projetado no futuro! Caso contrário, nenhum composto molecular manteria uma experiencia benéfica a ponto de passa-la hereditariamente a novos compostos, e tôdo novo composto molecular que repetir essa experiencia,  o que significa que a evolução teria estagnado nos compostos moleculares, ficando aí patinando eternamente sem sair do lugar, sem dar o próximo passo evolutivo. É por issso que o composto formado pelos ingredientes de Miller/Urey – aquêles primitivos aminoácidos – nunca conseguiu dar o próximo passo evolutivo e se tornar proteínas e fazer florescer dentro do laboratório uma nova réplica do RNA-World.

Então temos um grande problema para resolver e vamos tentar outra alternativa. Considerando-se que cada organismo é um sistema, e todo sistema tem uma identidade própria, a qual emerge da soma de tôdas as informações de todas suas partes, mais as informações geradas pelas conexões entre as partes, seria de se esperar que o sistema seria o agente selecionador de bactérias. Mas nos organismos muito primitivos sem sistema nervoso diretor ou com sistema nervoso ainda muito difuso – indicando que o organismo ainda não tem uma identidade sistêmica –  já ocorre esta seleção. E no tôpo da evolução o ser humano sabe que não é êle que faz esta seleção. Mas tambem a outra alternativa apontada, a do mero acaso, não é para minha curta inteligencia e pouco conhecimento, nem lógica nem racional, quando refaço na memória a versão que conheço da História da Evolução.

Tenho um problema em que a solução tem que ser uma terceira alternativa. E esta surge quando me volto para os teóricos modêlos da Matrix/DNA. Êles sugerem um quadro composto por uma vasta hierarquia de sistemas naturais. Particulas estão dentro de átomos, átomos dentro de células, células dentro de organismos, organismos dentro de sistemas estelares, seistemas estelares dentro de sistemas galácticos, os quais estão dentro de universos… Os organismos vivos são produzidos e controlados por elementos de um planeta mais a energia de uma estrêla que perfazem um sub-sistema de uma galáxia.  A galáxia, assim, desponta como sendo um sistema maior que estaria encriptado no genoma dos organismos ao mesmo tempo que estaria produzindo a biosfera que os envolvem. Êste sistema maior e real criador dos organismos estaria no lugar da identidade de sistema que está faltando para solucionar êste caso, estaria atuando no lugar do seu cérebro e quiçá, da sua mente, que não percebem o que seus átomos e células percebem. Êste sistema maior é quem está escolhendo os nove vizinhos para morarem na quadra onde cada célula sua mora. Êle está ajeitando as coisas para que um americano da NASA tenha imigrantes (“legais” – não os comprometemos com as leis), à sua volta fazendo os serviços de suporte. Ora, êste sistema maior, como indica a fórmula da Matrix, quando ela se encontra na sua forma etária astronomica, é a maquina mais perfeita que pode existir naturalmente. Então os sistemas biológicos, ou organismos vivos, tendem a se configurarem como cópia á imagem e semelhança do seu criador, o qual é uma máquina perfeita. Mas enquanto o criador foi feito apenas com os estados gasoso e sólido da matéria, e no espaço gravitacional sideral, o útero que gera os organismos biológicos é uma paisagem diferente e contando com um novo estado da matéria, o líquido, o que provoca mutações nêste processo meramente genético reprodutivo. A máquina não pode ser reproduzida tão perfeita como é sua máquina criadora, muitos bits-informação da máquina criadora ficaram espalhados no espaço, na forma de bactérias, e como são informações indispensaveis no corpo material da maquina, a própria matéria aqui é dirigida no sentido de re-agrupar estas informações. Isto acontece pela ação dos fotons-genes vindos principalmente do Sol, que adentram átomos terrestres como agentes subversivos adentraram a Coréia do Norte, assumiram a maquinaria celular, e condiziram estes átomos a se recombinarem compondo um novo regime social… o regime da galáxia, do relógio newtoniano. Eu acho que esta é uma solução racional, guardadas as devidas precauções sabendo-se que a fórmula da Matrix seria uma espécie de software natural e como tal dificil de ser captada pelos nossos sentidos e portanto de ser comprovada, apesar das milhares de evidencias a seu favor. Mas esta solução não seria inutil se puder-mos ter em mente a possivel formula da Matrix quando estamos trabalhando no laboratório, inclusive sugerindo novas experiencias.

Voltemos ao artigo:

The research brings scientists closer to understanding the human body’s relationship with bacteria, which account for nine cells out of every 10 in our bodies.

The research has been carried out by Dr Douglas Yu from UEA’s school of Biological Sciences and Dr István Scheuring from Eötvös University in Hungary.

Dr Yu said: “It looks like every plant and animal on earth, including humans, receives a multitude of benefits from their microbial communities. The good bacteria in our bodies help digest our food, protect us from infections, and perhaps even prevent some cancers.

“The selection of symbionts can’t be random. Hosts appear to choose beneficial microbial partners out of a huge pool of candidates. But until now, it hasn’t been known how successful partner choice evolves. This is now one of the leading questions in biology.

“One great example is the leafcutter ant – they have a lot of nice bacteria on them that make antibiotics, which kill pathogenic moulds on the fungus that they farm for food.

Comentário da Matrix/DNA

Porque às formigas foram agregados antibióticos? Nenhum detalhe, nenhum fenômeno, dos corpos dos seres vivos, de seus instintos e comportamentos, e mesmo de suas invenções e sistemas sociais, surgiram aqui por mero acaso e nem caíram de céu por mágica. Estamos conseguindo reduzir toda essa complexidade calculando a involução ao inverso e depois de descobrir-mos que tudo já existia nos sistemas simples astronomicos, parece-nos agora que tudo se resume a uma grande população de  simples vórtice imateriais que jé em si eram sistemas. contendo as setes fôrças brutas da Natureza que se materializam em partículas e corpos materiais tornando-se as sete funções sistêmicas universais. A fórmula da Matrix serve para isto tambem: tôda vêz que nos deparamos com um detalhe na Natureza devemos nos perguntar: de onde vem isso? como? quais foram seus ancestrais, desde agora até o Big Bang? Ao menos até agora ela tem explicado tudo e dentro de uma unica lógica evolutiva, tudo como produto de uma unica cadeia de causas e efeitos, sem nenhuma interferencia supernatural. Se existe o supernatural êle apenas pôs tudo naqueles vórtices antes das origens da matéria, e a coisa se desenvolveu por si própria. Mas e então, qual a relação entre formigas+bactérias+antibióticos?

A solução veio com uma informação do Dr. Yu: ” E uma vez que a superficie do corpo da formiga é coberta com antibióticos…” . Uma das sete funções universais é responsável por construir paredes protetoras em todos os sistemas naturais. Se será uma parede forte, impermeável, ou fraca, permeável, ou mesmo difusa, dependerá do material e circunstancias que ela tem para trabalhar. Ela constrói as cascas dos troncos e galhos das arvores, as peles dos animais, as membranas das células, a camada aureolar de poeira estelar que circunda os nucleos galácticos, o Cinturão de Belt no sistema solar, ela porá dois eletrons na ultima camada superficial dos átomos  girando a tão alta velocidade que o átomo parecerá ter uma casca inteiriça. Pois as formigas foram uns dos seres vivos mais dóceis e submissos à autoridade do comando reprodutivo que vem da máquina celestial, basta notar que seu sistema social é exata cópia do sistema celeste. Portanto tôdas as fôrças e suas funções do ancestral astronomico possuem liberdade para atuar entre as formigas, abelhas, etc. Mas elas estavam com um problema: vivem em cima de fungos que possuem venenos mortais para elas. Ora, o criador não poderia admitir isso para  seus filhos mais fiéis, os quais ainda mereciam uma recompensa por seu comportamento exemplar. A coisa funciona automaticamente: um sistema fechado em si mesmo tenderá à perfeição nesse fechamento e auto-proteção. Então a função das paredes protetoras expressa-se dominante e com fôrça, identifica o inimigo, e como no ancestral existem todas as dualidades, todo o bem e todo o mal, todo agente e seu anti-agente,  ela produz o tipo de tijolo antídoto e tudo faz para com êstes tijolos cercar seu tesouro. Bactérias são apenas ferramentas nêste trabalho.”

Voltemos ao texto: ( mas… infelizmente só depois que eu voltar do trabalho braçal… he…he..he…)

“We argue that the ant host has evolved living conditions under which antibiotic-producing bacteria have a competitive advantage for the ant niche.

Comentário da Matrix/DNA:

A Ciência acadêmica reducionista descobre um fenômeno, observa-o anotando todos os detalhes até ter uma descrição completa do fenômeno aqui e agora, e procura saber “como” o fenômeno acontece, seja para elominar sua causa ou para copiar seu processo na forma de tecnologia. A filosofia naturalista busca estas informações fornecidas pela Ciência prática, pergunta-se o “porque” do fenômeno existir, qual seu significado existencial, e tenta encontrar as conexões entre os detalhes, quando então monta o quebra-cabeças. mas como sempre faltam informações pois sempre há mais detalhes desconhecidos, sempre falta peças para completar o quebra-cabeças, por isso o quadro fica cheio de brechas, por isso ao inv;és da verdade ultima, 6estes quadros são chamados de mod6elos teóricos. Êles sugerem o que deve existir no lugar das brechas, com isso retorna à Ciência aplicada com sugestões de pistas e experiências, para isso servem as teorias. Acontece que tem muitas pessoas que não querem se dar ao trabalho árduo do filósofo naturalista e tira conclusões apressadas da descrição fornecida pela Ciência. Na frase acima, estas pessoas simplesmente deduzem que a formiga nota uma substancia na sua pele, observa que essa substancia a livra do veneno dos fungis, aí descobre que a susbstancia é produzida por uma espécie de bactéria, e então convoca uma equipe diplomatica que vai às bactérias oferecendo alojamento, alimento, proteção em troca de seus serviços. Como países procuram imigrantes trabalhadores. Ora… com’on ! Assim o Dawkins está acreditando que genes, um mero amontoado de átomos, tem propósitos futuros e inteligentes, como o de se reproduzirem o mais possível para se perpetuarem… O antibiótico aparece ali porque a máquina está se re-organizando, nem formigas nem bactérias sabem o porque.

“To do this, we applied the same sort of strategic thinking that insurance companies use to identify high-risk customers. For instance, car breakdown insurers differentiate customers with bad cars from those with good cars by forcing drivers to pay more if they also want their cars rescued at home, known as the ‘homestart’ option.

“If homestart is priced high enough, mostly drivers with bad cars will choose it because they have a greater fear that their car won’t start in the morning. Their choice reveals the kind of car that they have, which lets the insurer avoid costly inspections and still ‘screen out’ bad-car owners from the cheaper policies.

“We argue that a host can also ‘screen out’ bad bacteria and ‘screen in’ good, antibiotic-producing bacteria, even if a host cannot tell the bacteria apart.

“Our model shows that if the host produces a lot of food for bacteria, it fuels fighting via antibiotics. It’s the reason bacteria produce antibiotics in the first place – to kill competitors. And once the ant’s surface is covered in antibiotics, it becomes intolerable for non-antibiotic-producing bacteria, the freeloaders, because they tend to be less resistant to antibiotics. If the host sets the right conditions, the bacteria screen themselves, just like the car owners.”

It is hoped that the findings will also advance our understanding of the human body.

“The same logic can be used, for instance, on the human vaginal microbiome, which provides high levels of carbohydrates, glycogen, for its beneficial bacteria, Lactobacillus. Some of that glycogen is turned into lactic acid, producing an acidic environment that deters the growth of pathogenic bacteria.

“A bonus feature of our model is that it naturally creates ‘alternative stable states,’ which are distinct communities of bacteria. In the gut they are called enterotypes, and people all around the world belong to one of a few different types.

“The invasion resistance of these alternative states, their ‘stability,’ is why it’s difficult to make a permanent shift from one enterotype to a different, possibly healthier, one – despite eating the right foods and drinking pro-biotic drinks.”

University of East Anglia: http://comm.uea.ac.uk/press ( ver êste paper)

Thanks to University of East Anglia for this article.

xxx


Wall Street Journal: Quem Desenhou Imagens da Vida em Marte? The Matrix/DNA Explica

quarta-feira, agosto 22nd, 2012

Imagens de face humana, de aves, elefantes, na matéria superficial de Marte tem ocupado a imaginação de muitos humanos. Agora a presença do robot “Curiosity” em Marte enviando fotos nunca vistas de um mundo a 100 milhões de kilometros faz um conceituado jornal como o WSJ publicar uma repotagem, inclusive informando que há pessoas agarradas a computadores esperando impacientemente tais fotos na esperança de identificar obras de vida inteligente extra-terrestre. Mas os modêlos cosmológicos e biológicos da Matrix/DNA Theory sugere uma surpreendente e racional explicação do porque deve existir em todo Universo porções de matéria formando imagens que parecem retratar coisas vivas.

O artigo interessante pode ser visto em:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10000872396390443855804577599851584093374.html?KEYWORDS=earthlings+look+for+signs+in+new+photos

    Updated August 21, 2012, 10:19 a.m. ET –

    Earthlings Look for Signs in New Photos of Mars

    Face Humana em Marte

    Face Humana em Marte

Eu estava  imóvel, recostado numa árvore na selva amazônica, meditando, quando ví um animal pequeno, parecido com um esquilo, descendo pelo tronco da árvore à minha frente. Chegando ao solo, o animal deu alguns passos para a esquerda, parou, moveu a cabeça olhando tudo à volta, cheirou o ar, e voltou a mover-se mais uns passos ainda à esquerda, mas fazendo uma curva para a direita. Parou, repetiu o mesmo ritual, novamente movendo-se para a direita… até que retornou ao tronco de onde tinha descido, e só então saiu correndo embrenhando-se na espêssa folhagem e desaparecendo de minhas vistas. Me perguntei: “Por quê? Qual o sentido nêsse tipo de comportamento? Parece haver um propósito inteligente na maneira como o animal desenhou exatamente um círculo, assim deveria fazer um sentinela num pôsto de observação. Mas no final, para o animal, não houve um resultado coerente, lucrativo… êle poderia ter descido, caminhado em frente alguns passos e feito tudo o que fêz num só ponto. Não é uma tendência da Natureza economizar energia? Então para que este desperdicio, se havia como fazer o mesmo gastando menos? ”

A imagem formada pelo rastro do animal no solo ficou dançando na minha mente como a imagem do benzeno ficou dançando na mente do Kekulée carregado pela carruagem. Até que de repente dei um salto, maravilhado: era a mesma imagem da fórmula universal da Matrix!  A formula que há 13 bilhões de anos atrás fêz os átomos da nebulosa primordial construírem as primeiras galáxias, depois, há 3,5 bilhões de anos fêz os ingredientes de uma sôpa terrestre construírem moléculas e a primeira célula viva, e mais recentemente desenhou a face humana! Não havia duvidas: os passos do animal (observe a fórmula abaixo) representam o avanço do bólido contendo o fluxo de informações que se propaga como ondas do tempo e na fórmula são representadas pelas setas; os pontos de parada do animal representam exatamente as posições do bólido quando as ondas se tornam particulas do espaço ! Então entendí tudo. O tronco da árvore é onde tudo começa, pois êle representa o eixo rotacional do circuito esférico, e quando a fórmula se aplica ao Cosmos êste eixo é o buraco negro no nucleo galáctico,mas quando se aplica à célula é o nucleo contendo o DNA. O cérebro do animal em nada dirigiu o corpo do animal naquele ritual. Êle não faz aquilo conscientemente. Foram as fôrças dos átomos que constituem o corpo do animal, as quais fazem com que projetem no corpo grande que constituem, as suas preferencias de movimento no seu pequeno mundo.  O corpo do animal apenas se deixou levar, automaticamente, instintivamente. Mas seus rastros desenharam uma imagem que ficou gravada no solo. A configuração dessa imagem será encontrada em todo lugar do Universo formado por átomos. É a Natureza, a autora artista destas imagens, e ao mesmo tempo, a criadora de todos os sistemas naturais, os quais são baseados num unico mesmo estilo artistico.

As figuras surgem espontaneamente na matéria porque esta é constituída de átomos os quais possuem fôrças que os forçam a se auto-combinarem de maneira que o resultado final destas combinações seja uma reprodução do sistema atômico. Porem, devido às circunstancias ambientais esta reprodução pode ser mutada em detalhes, e quando uma nova reprodução de reproduções anteriores ocorrem, observa-se a evolução destas imagens no sentido da maior complexidade.  Existe uma fórmula geral que pode ser util na detecção da ação das fôrças naturais em imagens naturais, que é a fórmula da Matrix.

Os átomos construíram as várias formações e configurações dêsde rochas às nuvens, mas tambem são mesmos os átomos que constituem os corpos vivos, portanto não existe nenhuma surprêsa que um punhado de rochas ou particulas atmosféricas apresentam o mesmo padrão de imagem de um elefante, ou de um cavaleiro, um cavalo e um dragão, lado a lado, de maneira que o imaginario humano suspeite ser São Jorge na Lua combatendo um dragão. Estas imagens são produtos portanto de um prévio desenho, um projeto, surgem devido a um propósito, mas o prévio desenho foi feito pela Natureza e não por alguem vivo e inteligente… a não ser que o Universo todo seja resultado de um prévio projeto programado por algo inteligente que existiria alem do Big Bang.

A forma da face humana é uma projeção evoluída da figura do sistema celular, o qual é o building block do corpo humano. Cada detalhe na face humana, desde os olhos, a bôca, o nariz, etc., é projeção evolucionaria de cada detalhe na célula, desde suas organelas e suas funções sistêmicas. Isto se pode ver claramente tendo a fórmula da Matrix Universal em mãos.  Se fixar-mos o cérebro da cabeça humana e o nucleo da célula ambos na posição da Função 1, veremos que os demais orgãos da face e organelas da célula seguem o mesmo alinhamento das particulas e funções do mesmo circuito sistêmico, conservando uma unica imagem padrão.

A forma do sistema celular é uma projeção evoluida da figura de um par de nucleotideos, o qual é o building block do DNA que mais contribuiu para configurar o sistema celular. Se fixar-mos um dos açucares na haste do DNA e o nucleo celular, ambos na posição de F1, vemos que as bases nitrogenadas do nucleotideo segue o mesmo alinhamento circuital que segue as organelas da célula. Ao mesmo tempo percebemos que a fórmula atomica matricial dos 20 tipos de aminoacidos que foram incorporados pelos sistemas vivos, tendo o carbono “C” no centro, apresenta a mesma imagem do sistema celular, do sistema nucleotideo, bastando para tal percepção realizar os calculos reducionistas da evolução ao inverso.

Mas se reduzir-mos ainda mais o processo da evolução, vamos ver que nucleotideos e aminoacidos são imagens fiéis das imagens dos building blocks formadores das galaxias. É um gigantesco salto entre dimensões tempo-espaciais, mas já sabemos que isso para a Natureza não é nenhum problema, já que ela domina a arte da nanotecnologia muito antes do hoem surgir, basta ver como ela reduz todos os destalhes de um corpo humano adulto dentro de um microscópico saquinho cromossômico. E seria muito mais fácil construir uma miniatura de galaxia do tamanho da cabeça de um alfinete do que construir uma miniatura de um corpo humano na mesma dimensão, porque a galaxia tem bilhões de vêzes menos informações que as necessárias para o corpo humano.

As galáxias tambem foram construídas por átomos, seus ativos buiding blocks, e surprêsa seria se a cria não fôsse á imagem e semelhança do criador. É fato que os modernos modêlos cosmológico e atômico acadêmicos sugerem que  a forma de uma galaxia qualquer nada tenha a ver com a forma de um átomo qualquer. Mas tambem não se deve esquecer que os mesmos modêlos acadêmicos sugerem que as formas de atomos e galaxias nada tem a ver com as formas dos primeiros sistemas biológicos vivos, portanto, segundo êles, a vida teria surgido por acaso e o acaso gerou suas formas. Na verdade, nem átomos nem galaxias podem serem vistos nas suas realidades de sistemas em funcionamento, portanto, qualquer modêlo da átomo e galáxia será apenas teórico, e teorias são feitas para serem refeitas e completadas. Se pensar-mos fora do padrão das universidades e suspeitar que os sistemas biológicos vivos surgiram como reprodução evolucionaria daqueles sistemas naturais anteriores, como fizemos com os modêlos da Matrix/DNA, os átomos e galáxias ganham novas configurações com maior riqueza de detalhes que podem explicar cada detalhe posteriormente surgido dentro dos sistemas vivos. De maneira que então vemos o mesmo padrão estrutural de arquiteturas como face humana, sistema celular, sistema nucleotideo, sistema astronomico, sistema atomico, alem de ser um padrão constante universal existente de fato, coincide com a imagem e funcionalidade de um vórtice qualquer como teria sido os vórtices quanticos que surgiram com o Big Bang e construiram as primeiras particulas materiais. Qualquer vórtice, qualquer redamoinho que possa surgir no quintal de sua casa, apresenta o mesmo ciclo vital de um corpo humano ( nasce, cresce, morre), as mesmas funções ( se divide e se reproduz, come, defeca, se move, etc.), e as mesmas sete fôrças da natureza que movem galaxias e humanos. Então… a forma padrão de todos os sistemas naturais, que surgem assim explicada até em Marte, e quiçá por todo o Universo, vem de algum ponto e tempo antes das origens dêste Universo, e aí tudo se torna possível, até mesmo a hipótese de que exista algum deus criança e inteligente, que na eternidade, na falta de coisa melhor para fazer na vida, passa o tempo criando softwares vivos com bits como vórtices quanticos que espalhados no espaço do quintal de sua casa lá fora, reagem entre si criando universos como êsse nosso… e nós aqui pagando o pato por defeitos existentes nêstes projetos.

Vamos encontrar muitas imagens interessantes à medida que avançar-mos na conquista do Cosmos, algumas mesmo nos farão arrepiar a pele como se sentindo a presença de algum e.t. invisivel… mas não nos esqueçamos que o artista craidor daquela imagem é o mesmo artista-átomo co-criador dos nossos corpos. E todo artista sempre tem um estilo unico pessoal.

Matriz DNA Universal E a Forma dos Sistemas Naturais

Matriz DNA Universal E a Forma dos Sistemas Naturais

The  Universal Formula of MatrixDNA as Software/Closed System

The Universal Formula of MatrixDNA as Software/Closed System

xxx

Comentário postado no WSJ:

These images are created by natural atomic forces, the same that created elephants, human faces, etc. That’s not surprising, but how it works? For understanding the formation of these images and learning how to detect it at every place in the Universe, you need to know the universal matrix formula of natural systems. You can read the article “Wall Street Journal: Quem Desenhou Imagens da Vida em Marte? The Matrix/DNA Explica”. Sheers



Debate: Design (Rabbi Maverick) x Chance (PZ Myers)

terça-feira, agosto 21st, 2012

Há 50 anos atrás não havia conhecimento de uma explicação racional para a incrivel complexidade dos organismos multi-celulares, nem mesmo como e porque uma unica célula original se reproduz em multiplas diferentes células com diferentes funções. Mas a busca de conhecimento continuou avançando e com isso foi-se descobrindo mais detalhes dentro dos seres que possuem apenas uma célula – os protistas. Então percebeu-se que um simples e primitivo detalhe do protista, pode ter sido o ancestral primitivo de um complexo e moderno detalhe de uma destas modernas células diferenciadas. De maneira que se acredita hoje que todos os tipos de célula diferenciada o é porque nela um detalhe do protista que não era dominante se tornou dominante em relação a todos os outros detalhes. Então a passagem do primitivo ser unicelular para o complexo organismo multicelular foi um simples processo de projeção ampliada em todas as possíveis direções.

Mas ainda continua o grande enigma de como a primeira célula original já possuindo incrivel complexidade e riqueza de detalhes funcionais apareceu num mundo de matéria não viva que não apresenta essa complexidade. Êste enigma mantem a Humanidade dividida entre dois grandes grupos: os que acreditam que êsse evento se deu por acaso e os que acreditam que êsse evento foi produzido por um Intelligent Designer.

Quanto a mim, em particular, estou dentro e fora dos dois grupos, pois resolví investigar êsse enigma quando estava vivendo no meio de elementos naturais que foram testemunhas das origens da vida, ainda intocadas nas virgens regiões da selva amazônica, e descobrí que existe uma terceira alternativa lógica e racional que é um mixto entre as duas crenças acima. Esta alternativa chama-se Teoria da Matrix/DNA e sugere que o mesmo processo ocorrido entre protistas e organismos multicelulares ocorreu tambem entre os sistemas naturais existentes a 4 bilhões de anos atrás e os primeiros protistas.

O problema era o mesmo dos mais antigos que pensavam ser um protista algo muito simples: agora pensava-se que o mundo não-vivo,  tambem seria muito simples, tal como foi explicado pela Física. Ledo engano. Com os modêlos fui descobrindo detalhes e mais detalhes dos sistemas atomicos e astronomicos, a tal ponto que hoje estou mostrando, para cada detalhe existente na célula original, o detalhe ancestral primitivo não-vivo dentro dos sistemas astronomicos e atômicos. Isto não siginifica que descobrí a Verdade e que acredito nesta teoria, apenas a considero digna de ser testada perante os fatos reais. Mas como sou “bicho do mato” e vivo isolado, e devido a que esta teoria sugere uma visão do mundo que abalaria as duas crenças dos dois grupos, apenas os cêrca de 800.000 visitantes dêste website ( sim, oitocentos mil, segundo meus awstats), tem alguma informação de sua existência.

Enquanto isso, vejamos como se dá um debate na civilização, fora da selva,  sôbre êste tema…

Em 2009 o professor de biologia PZ Myers deu uma palestra no “Atheist Alliance International 2009” conference in Burbank, CA, que está filmada nêste vídeo, intitulada “design x Chance”:

Design x Chance

Esta palestra motivou uma resposta de um dos defensores da teoria do Intelligent Designer:

Seriously, Aren’t Atheists Embarrassed by P.Z. Myers?

http://www.algemeiner.com/2011/05/29/seriously-arent-atheists-embarrassed-by-p-z-myers/

MAY 29, 2011 3:01 PM

By: Rabbi Moshe Averick ( he is an ordained orthodox rabbi and educator for over 30 years.  He is the author of Nonsense of a High Order: The Confused and Illusory World of the Atheist)

….

A qual motivou a seguinte réplica de PZ  Myers:

I am lectured in logic by a man who believes in invisible magic men in the sky

http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2011/05/29/i-am-lectured-in-logic-by-a-ma/

Posted by PZ Myers on May 29, 2011

….

Que foi seguida pela resposta do Rabbi….

http://www.algemeiner.com/2012/08/19/a-belated-reply-to-dr-p-z-myers-3/

A Belated Reply to Dr. P.Z. Myers

AUGUST 19, 2012 1:21 AM

Rabbi Moshe Averick

Agora vou tentar arrumar tempo, copiar cada artigo aqui e comentar os itens pertinentes.

1) A Belated Reply to Dr. P.Z. Myers

In May of 2011 I wrote an article critiquing a lecture given by outspoken atheist advocate P.Z. Myers at theAtheist International Alliance (2009) in Burbank, California. Dr. Myers, a biologist at the University of Minnesota-Morris, had attacked Intelligent Design (ID) theory by claiming that there are many “complex” structures that appear naturally. That is to say, that despite the “complexity” of the simplest living bacterial cells, there is no need to invoke an intelligent designer because “very complicated” phenomena occur through natural, undirected processes. Myers put it this way: “We biologists will freely admit that things are really complicated inside the cell…Don’t we have to resort to a Creator? We say, of course not. There’s lots of things that are very complicated [and aren’t the result of an intelligent creator.]”

As evidence to support his assertion, Myers used the example of a large pile of driftwood that had accumulated solely due to natural forces on Rialto Beach in upper Washington State: “You find these walls of driftwood…very complicated walls. It has been constructed, who did it? We know the answer, natural forces did it. We don’t need a designer to build this kind of wall. This is complex, you simply can’t deny it. If I turn the projector off would you be able to draw it? No.”

Obs da Matrix: A falha deste argumento, o motivo porque este fenomeno da pilha de madeira não pode ser evidencia racional na questão de como tem funcionado a História Natural é que a pilha de madeira não faz parte das arquiteturas naturais que suportam os fenomenos naturais complexos da atualidade. Na linguagem dos evolucionistas, a pilha não faz parte do tronco da arvore da evolução. É um fenomeno que surgiu e por enquanto a ci6encia não tedm provas de que será incorporado como necessário para suportar algo mais complexo.

My critique revolved around the obvious flaw in his argument. While it may be true that the pile of driftwood is “complicated” in the sense that there is no simple mathematical algorithm that could describe its structure, the same could be said about a pile of garbage in a garbage dump. However, no matter how “complicated” no one would be foolish enough to mistake it for anything other than what it is: a random collection of garbage. The critical difference between piles of junk and a bacterium is not their “complexity,” but rather theirfunctional complexity. Piles of junk don’t do anything, they perform no discernible function. “Functionality” is the difference between the complexity of an M1A1-Abrams battle tank and the complexity of a pile of scrap metal. “Functionality” is the difference between the complexity of a log cabin on a bluff overlooking Rialto Beach and the complexity of the pile of driftwood on the beach below.

Obs da Matrix: Se P.Z. Myers apresentou um argumento falho como evidencia, o rabbi não ficou atrás, apresentando doius fenomenos igualmente falhos: ambos exemplos não fazem parte da História natural responsável pelo estado do mundo complexo hoje, são ambos artefatos artificiais feitos pelo homem com sua inteligencia e não pela natureza com sua possivel ou não inteligencia. A inteligencia aplicada ao tanque de guerra não prova que a complexidade de uma célula é produto de inteligencia aplicada assim como im embriào de girafa é super complexo mas não houve aplicação de inteligencia da girafa para produzir ele.

Mas… FUNCTIONAL COMPLEXITY… O Rabbi acertou no cerne cruccial do problema. Vejamos como ele aborda isto…

In both of these cases it is the functional complexity of the former that makes them instantly recognizable as being the result of intelligent design, while the lack of functional complexity is what makes the latter instantly recognizable as being the result of random, undirected forces. It is the astounding level of functional complexity of the simplest bacterial cell and its genetic code that lies at the heart of ID theory.

Obs da Matrix: Sim, as operações resultantes das estruturas celulares são surpreendentes considerando-se que são construções da Natureza. Não conheço nenhum exemplo na natureza que apresente tal complexidade e utilidade operacional que tenha sido resultante de mero acaso. Mas tambem nem na muito mal e incompleta conhecida história passada da natureza antes de surgir a primeira célula, nem ali dentro da célula, vejo presença de alguma força ou substancia inteligente, no sentido que damos à inteligencia humana. Porem a minha inexistencia de conhecimento de evidencias, tanto na hupotese do acaso como na hipotese da inteligencia, não é prova da ausencia real de evidencias. Apenas tenho ima forte evodencia a ser lembrada em relação `1a complezxaidade operacional da célula: a existencia de embriões, apresentando a mesma atordoante complexidade operacional, sobre o qual tenho evidencias colmprovadas de não foram produto do acaso nem da aplicação de alguma inteligencia e sim, produto de um prévio desenho ou projeto natural sem aplucaçào de inteligencia pelos produtores imediatos do fenolmeno. Em vista disso, creio ser mais racional segurar com força a teoria de que a complexidade funcional da célula seja produto de previo desenho no qual o desenhista não é inteligente ou não aplicou a inteligencia. Por isso fui buscar um modelo de estado atomico e astronomico do mundo que explicasse racionalmente a existencia de uma arquitetura natural produtora da primeira celula, que fôsse ao mesmo tempo, um projetista que nunca apresentou nenhum trabalho sob inteligencia que resultasse na obra final denominada “sistema celular”. Sinto que o Rabbi está tendo sua Razão desviada da sintonia com a realidade natural.

On 5/29/11, Dr. Myers responded to my article with a post on his Pharyngula blog entitled, “I am lectured in logic by a man who believes in invisible magic men in the sky.” (I actually don’t, but I am very clear about the existence of God) Although I did read it at the time, it recently dawned on me that I never responded to his blog-post, hence the title of the article. The gist of Myer’s response is that I misrepresented or misunderstood his point:

“Nowhere in that talk do I claim that a pile of driftwood is analogous to a cell. I think there’s a rather huge difference between a cell and a pile of debris…I was making a different point.”

Up until this point in his response we are in total agreement; a pile of driftwood is clearly not analogous to a living cell and the cell has nothing in common with piles of debris. The next thing that appears in his post is a reproduction of the famous Nike “Swoosh” logo. He goes on to explain that theSwoosh is “very, very, simple” and is “most definitely designed.” So far, so good. It is from here on that things get very confusing:

“Is it clearer now? We have complicated things that are not designed, and we have simple things that are designed. We also have complicated things that are designed, and simple things that are not. The message you should take away from these examples is that complexity and design are independent properties of an object. One does not imply the other. You cannot determine whether something was designed by looking at whether it is complicated or not.”[emphasis in original]

What is so confusing here is that there never was a disagreement about the existence of “simple” things that are intelligently designed; there are endless examples besides the Swoosh that illustrate such a principle. There never was a disagreement regarding the existence of “complicated” things – like piles of driftwood or garbage – that are not designed, but are the result of natural, unguided forces. There are endless examples of those also. The only point of contention; I repeat, the only point of contention is whether or not functionally complex structures – like the battle tank, log cabin, or living cell – can arise through natural, unguided forces, or is their very existence the undeniable evidence of the intelligent, creative force which was the cause of their formation? In fact, Dr. Myers addresses this point:

Obs da Matrix: O embrião de giraffa é um fenomeno natural onde nenhuma das duas alternativas se aplicam. Não é produto de forças cegas imediatas nem de projeto inteligente. Existe uma terceira alternativa: é produto de não-inteligente existente prévio projeto. Porque o Rabbi não traz esta alternativa à mesa de discussão? Esta alternativa é meio-termista entre as duas alternativas extremistas, é a alternativa do equilibrio, mais indicativa de como deve ser uma esturutra natural que foi fixada como suporte na história natural para aleicerçar os resultados complexos que existem aqui e agora.

“Also familiar, I’m afraid, is the usual indignant waffling [by ID theorists] about it being specified complexity…I have never seen it [i.e., specified complexity] operationally defined.”

I am at a complete loss as to why the concept of “specified” or “functional” complexity is so puzzling for Myers. It’s the difference between the driftwood and the cabin; it’s the difference between a pile of scrap metal and a tank; it’s the difference between a batch of sludgy chemical goo and a living bacterium. What is so difficult about that to understand? What is even more perplexing is that in the original Atheist International Alliance lecture, Myers himself explains the obvious difference between a structure which is “functionally unspecified” and one which is “functionally very specific.” At 12:30 minutes into his lecture a picture of an expertly built brick wall appears on the screen of his Power-Point presentation. Myers elaborates:

“On the other hand we are familiar with this kind of wall. So this is also a wall, it’s one that we can recognize that has a specific purpose, that was built by human agents, and I’d have to say that of these two wall, which one is simpler? The human built one…When we look at natural walls [driftwood] what we discover is natural things…are functionally unspecified,there’s nothing that says that a pile of driftwood is a wall…Artificial walls [the brick wall] are built with intent, they are functionally very specificand relatively simple.” [emphasis mine]

I couldn’t have said it better myself. The brick wall, due to its specific purpose, or being “functionally very specific” is instantly recognizable as being the result of intelligent design. (This is true even if we accept Myers’ characterization of the wall as being “relatively simple.” It is certainly functionally complex enough to be recognized as being the result of intelligent, creative causation.) On the other hand, the “functionally unspecified” nature of the pile of driftwood (no matter how “complicated” it is), makes it instantly recognizable as being the result of random, undirected forces. Only one question remains: Is the simplest living bacterium “functionally very specific” in the way that Myers described the brick wall or is it “functionally unspecified” like the pile of driftwood? The answer, of course, is obvious.

Obs da Matrix: Se vamos falar de paredes ( walls) como questão para discernir como sào produzidas as paredes “naturais”, temos que nos ater às paredes naturais, não a paredes feito por humanos. Segundo temos que nos ater as paredes naturais que estão afixadas como suporte na natureza para a complexidade observavel aqui e agora, como sào as paredes das ceílas – as membranas – ou as paredes dos anumais e vegetais, como a casca da tartaruga, a pel humana, a celulose ou casca dos vegetais, etc. Qual a história anterior que produziu estas paredes naturais? Elas são simples ( como cascas de tartaruga), ou são muito complexas (como a membrana celular). Creio ser evidente que as “simples” não foram produtos do acaso e sim do esforço de sobrevivencia de uma arquitetura natural ( os ancestrais da tartaruga) que se utilizou de um mecanismo disponivel na natureza, aquele relacionado aos esqueletos sólidos que acompanham matéria mole. Mas este esforço tambem não foi produzido por inteligencia e isto vai valer enquanto não se provar que os ancestrais da tartaruga aplicaram um tipo de inteligencia. Quanto às paredes complexas construídas pela natureza, como é a membrana celular, ainda poucos dados cierntificos existem da historia natural anterior que construiu estas membranas paras se determinar que foi por acaso ou pela aplicação de inteligencia. Ã primeira vista a complexidade das membranas é tào espetacular que parece ser uma obra inteligente, de algum agente construtor fazendo algo com um proposito, almejando um resultado conveniente futuro. Mas o que “parece à primeira vista” não é suporte para o conhecinento responsavel e honesto, de fato. Pode ser valido como uma teoria indicadora de pistas a serem investigadas, apenas isso. Justamente este motivo – o de que o fenomeno produz uma hipotese racionalmente possivel e tem tudo para se construir uma boa teoria foi o motivo que me estimulou a buscar uma teoria e que terminou com o resultado da teoria da matrix/DNA. Nesta teoria existe um modelo teórico de como seria o estado do mundo momentos antes das origens das primeiras membranas celulares, de maneira tal que aquele estado de mundo, se seguindo a mesma teórica direçào evolucionista que vinha seguindo antes, teria evoluido de um estado simples para um mais complexo, ou seja, teria transformado uma existente parede natural mais simples numa mais complexa. Qial a parede natural mais simples existente naquela epoca? segundo o m odelo te;orico é o chamado “horizonte de eventos” que circunda os nucleos galacticos. Seria a camada aureolar de poeira estelar e fragmentos que circundam os nucleos das galaxias. Tal parede – segundo ainda a teoria – já era em si uma arquitetura mais complexa desenvolvida a partir da parede dos anteirores sistemas estelares, como no caso do nosso sistema solar é o cinturão de Belt, o anel de detritos, meteóritos que está na ultima fronyeira do sistema solar. Segundo nosso modelo teorico cosmologico, a camada aureolar que circunda os nucleos galacticos apresentam mecanicamente diversas funções, muito simples, ao sabor das piras forças naturais, porem sào justamente as fincões mecaniscas necessarias e suficientes para serem transformadas diretamentes na s fincões das membranas celulares se, nos estados solifdo e gasodo da materia que construiram a parede galactica for acrescentado o estado liquido da materia, como aconteceu quando surgiu a parede membranosa celular. Por esse ponto de visrta a surpreendente complexidade funcional da membrana celular não foi mero produto do acaso e nem produto de uma inteligencia intervencionistga ditretament e aplicada na pordução das primeiras paredes membranosas celulares. Tudo isto continua nos notificando que alem das dias teorias, de mayers e do Rabbi, existe uma terceira teoria igualmente a ser considerada.


I’m sorry to have to lecture you in logic Dr. Myers, but your response is as logically incoherent as your original presentation. In order to effectively refute the thesis of my article you would need to give examples of functionally specified or functionally complex structures – like your brick wall – that are the result of unguided processes. You fail to provide even one such example and for a very good reason; there are no such examples.

Obs deste autor:  No. Ausencia de evidencia não é evidencia de ausencia. isto em relação ao conhecimento real de um cérebro ainda demasiado pequenino para captar todas as evidencias existentes no universo e quiçã, fora dele, como são o meu c;érebro, o do Myers, e do rabbi.

I do applaud the fact that you understand the issue well enough not to have invoked crystals and snowflakes. We both agree they are non-sequiturs. As Australian microbiologist and geneticist, Dr. Michael Denton, has put it: “Between a living cell and the most highly ordered non-biological system such as a crystal or a snowflake there is a chasm as vast and as absolute as it is possible to imagine.” We also both understand that examples from Darwinian Evolution – accepting its truth for argument’s sake – are irrelevant. Darwinian Evolution and natural selection cannot occur until a fully functioning, DNA-based living cell is in place. Once the fantastically functionally-complex molecular machinery of life is operating, fantastic things can potentially happen. But then, of course, the notion that fantastic machinery can do fantastic things was never in dispute.

How was the enormous gap between non-living, non-organic chemicals and the simplest living bacterium crossed? It is this baffling enigma that you must address in any intellectually honest confrontation with ID Theory and it is this very enigma that you failed to address in both your original lecture and in your response to my article. If I have not yet convinced you of the profoundly flawed nature of your position, I would challenge you (and anyone else for that matter), to debate the issue in a public forum. I’m certain the student body at the University of Minnesota-Morris would enthusiastically support such an event.

In order to ensure that we maintain focus on the truly essential issues and not get lost in confusing sidebars, I offer the following protocol (which is open to revision, based on discussions between the parties):

Agreed that:

The topic under discussion is not the truth, accuracy, or interpretation of the creation story in the first chapters of Genesis. For the purposes of this debate we will accept the standard scientific model that the universe came into being roughly 14 billion years ago in what is commonly called “The Big Bang.” How this “Big Bang” happened or who or what caused it is not a topic under discussion in this debate.

  1. For the purposes of this debate we will accept the standard scientific model that the Earth formed roughly 4.5 billion years ago.
  2. For the purposes of this debate we will accept the standard scientific model that the earliest known life began no later than 3.7 billion years ago. The earliest known living organisms are some form of bacteria.
  3. While it is possible that there was life earlier than 3.7 billion years ago there is no conclusive scientific evidence one way or the other. Due to the effect of heat on early rock formations it may never be scientifically possible to ascertain how long ago life began on Earth.
  4. At the present time there is no conclusive evidence to support any particular scientific theory which would explain how the gap between non-organic chemicals on the early Earth and the first living bacterium was crossed.
  5. The fact that at present there is no plausible scientific theory to provide a naturalistic explanation of how life emerged from non-life does not, in and of itself, mean that it did not happen and does not preclude the possibility that such a theory will be discovered in the future. Almost all origin-of-life researchers believe that one day such a theory will be discovered.
  6. The fact that such a scientific theory does not exist, does not in and of itself lead to the conclusion that life was created by some sort of intelligent creator.
  7. Even if, for argument’s sake, we would agree that the origin-of-life required an intelligent creator outside of the physical universe, that would not in any way imply the truth or falsehood of any claim of divine revelation. Such a claim would require separate evidence and would also require an entirely different discussion.
  8. The only topic which is being debated is the following: What is the most reasonable explanation for the origin of life on Earth: An intelligent creator or an unguided, naturalistic process?

xxxx

Interessantes comentários vistos nêstes artigos:

http://www.algemeiner.com/2011/05/29/seriously-arent-atheists-embarrassed-by-p-z-myers/

alex
December 26, 2011
10:27 am

He used the wrong anaolgy.

Heres a better one:

An Ectopic pregancy.

When the fertlized egg moves slowly or is blocked it can not reach the uterus(womb) through the fallopian tube, so then divides/grows in the either the cerivx, ovaires or abdomen. Ectopic preganices are dangerous due internal haemorrhage. It can lead to death.

Thus, an almight (intelligent) creator would not be so careless as the allow births to occur like this i.e. he would have NOT desgined the vagina in this way. The agrument for intelligent design is flawed.

There are many examples, more intelligent examples than drift wood Dr. Meyers.

xxxx

Comentários postados pela Matrix/DNA:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ba2h9tqNYAo

TheMatrixDNA 1 second ago

Multicelular organisms were previous designed in protists. Protists were previous designed in the primordial soup. The primordial soup was previous designed by this astronomic system. And the cosmological model of Matrix/DNA Theory explain how and why. Any kind of life came from a previous non-intelligent design. The transmission of the design can be an event by chance selected by the designer or introduced by designer’s entropy. But… maybe there was an intelligent designer at the Big Bang…

TheMatrixDNA 1 second ago

Rage Against the Machine: Opinião da Matrix/DNA Postada no Vídeo

sábado, agosto 18th, 2012

YOUTUBE:

TheMatrixDNA 1 second ago in playlist Top Tracks for Rage Against the Machine

Fight against the machine? They don’t know what is “the machine”, where it come from. The machine is natural and created this biosphere, all living beings, it is encrypted inside our genome. Only Matrix/DNA Theory discovered the machine’s before life’s origins. These social human systems under state’s machine are produced by its own citizens, unconsciously, driven by natural laws. Fighting the machine needs a knowledge at the level of consciousnesses, impossible without Matrix/DNA worldvision.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B1T8xgHdMEM&feature=list_other&playnext=1&list=AL94UKMTqg-9CiBvQXU7Ws1pvZnD8GxBf2&ytsession=wIJ9uw4unswdYvYuoDlL0Hx0vgWN6d8khCO9VbUyYkYR2TeLMgUagyAwIDx6IHTAOAezl1VCchgBzw6YqDgxgf4D8laMZSb6V9e9vH_90iRretbtT9l_-aJBfk39ZyYFczpcPfq_UXHUBzJutVFd0Odme5PhQJwfJbDzwsB7wjy8uZAjewndXj3PY51Me2r1kahnMC5tBA2QNeVoF5-gh9JuI2-gef3epLn6CneDGX86gY8gzkNW1A3SHghAfj9EBXsTu4l0XTxJq21eD88av8i_9dIADgW88ZGVgZloVk5kHcCBTDZ0qma1vCimgPE5hy2CFtArPSChKmMAzUzeFOsbTGXrT4A5usSb-ZvZWo-UCKdPwG24-xurVvwz5sDxSQnRwkoFEAMbPowAQ5uph90JcX-Z_iGA022JVPiWJf_bEvf2ajEGcoRmqLcBtKM4NMsZRSvgv934l7AfafiWt1V_OuRRzvpFvs7AUbPhXkUtTDFYddIzyDnEixXniaIPspe0HOXo8TbxzbzeQNRBtq43EWjQ_yLP-EUgHU66miCOPi2eK1zhFw7KBowKSgS7BhFpAuvPS-84uGCAcfyhgF9BU7J-LrnzG0FemAvC_GWXHpcNvatktg

Prisão das Três Roqueiras na Russia: Um Show de Êrros por Todos Envolvidos

sexta-feira, agosto 17th, 2012
xxx
Êste caso me repugna porque mostra uma das principais feridas dos sistemas sociais humanos. Os juízes se alteram emocionalmente e descarregam tôda sua ira quando ocorre uma perturbação na ordem do sistema, porem, os seus intimos interesses inconfessáveis – como suas práticas de obtenção de privilégios economicos a começar por seus salarios predatórios em relação aos demais trabalhadores reais da sociedade – fazem com que apenas captem algumas perturbações, mantendo-se cegos à outras, muitas vêzes, piores para a saúde do sistema social. Quem é o pior criminoso? O comerciante que entrou nas casas do povo através da mídia enganando crianças e incautos com publicidades mentirosas ou estimulantes de comportamentos doentíos, o politico que entrou nestas casas prometendo o que não está cumprindo no mandato, ou três pessoas que entraram na sede de um sub-grupo social fazendo aquele protesto? A prioridade dos juizes deveria ser atacar primeiro o pior. Se as três pessoas foram punidas com dois anos, com quantos anos devem ser punidos os piores perturbadores da saude do sistema? Mas sabe porque os juizes são cegos a serviço dos agentes mais nocivos? Porque escaparam imoralmente e desonestamente  da condenação que a Natureza impõe a cada ser humano antes dêle nascer: comerás o teu pão com o suor de teu rosto. São alienados na realidade da vida humana.  Eu tambem queria (desonesta e imoralmente), ao invés de ir para a roça pegar na enxada aos dez anos, e carregar pedras para a construção aos 14 anos, ser sustentado no paraiso que é estudando direito numa universidade. Isto está tudo errado! A prisão das três meninas é apenas mais um galho pôdre produzido por uma árvore que tem uma doença nas suas raízes.
Mas os êrros vieram de todos os lados, e tento destacar alguns nos meus comentários postados na Internet:
PAULOPES.COM.BR :
http://www.paulopes.com.br/2012/08/russas-sao-condenadas-a-prisao-por-protesto-em-catedral.html?showComment=1345234291635#c873340485705101727
Louis Morelli17 de agosto de 2012 17:11

Algumas idéias motivadas por êste caso:

1) Penso que estas heróicas militantes erraram o alvo pois deveriam fazer a manifestação na frente do edificio do Estado alertando-o para não atender à uma bandeira religiosa por que seria conceder privilégio a um sub-grupo dentro de um sistema, o que deve ser rigidamente proibido. Qual a correta estratégia: impedir a tentativa de intromissão e influencia religiosa no govêrno (como um pastor acenando com a bandeira religiosa pedindo voto ao presidente) ou impedir o govêrno de dispor o Estado e seus pertences publicos ao usufruto de uma religião? Penso que a segunda é correta, o govêrno deveria ser o alvo das manifestantes, e não a igreja, porque todos tem direito a pedir ao govêrno. Se elas fizeram isso contra aquela igreja, tem que fazer contra cada lobista, cada corporação do mercado, time de futebol, banda artistica, etc., que tente conexões de privilégio com o govêrno.

2) Os opositores devem investigar urgente quem é essa juiza, Marina Syrova, e os jurados (se houveram), na vida privada. Se for provado que é religiosa dessa igreja ou frequentou alguma vez essa igreja, ela não pode julgar o caso.

3) Apesar de repugnante, o pior não é a influencia religiosa no Estado e sim na Justiça. O Estado pode ser corrigido e punido pela Justiça, mas a esta, quem pode punir? Como filhos de reis são educados desde a infancia para serem reis, juizes deveriam ser educados para serem juizes:sem ideologias, religiões,etc. Enquanto isso, temos que checar os regulamentos para admissão de juizes, se lá está expresso que juiz não pode ser fanatico e expressar religião na função.

4) Êste caso me lembra o estudo da Justiça pelos filósofos gregos: como uma nação poderia elaborar uma correta constituição judiciária se nenhum homem conhece qual é a Justiça do Universo?!Tôdas as justiças nacionais existentes são risíveis, produtos dos interêsses de seus internos predadores economicos.As justiças humanas miram-se na meia-face caótica da Natureza que produziu esta biosfera e a espécie humana e seu animalismo, enquanto a meia-face ordeira astronomica é pouco conhecida e esquecida, e a face superior completa, a sabedoria, se oculta para alem do Universo. Aos amigos das militantes, como eu, uma sugestão: sempre questione e vigie o seu poder judiciário, com coragem.

5) Se estiver correto que as manifestantes erraram o alvo, qual seria a causa do êrro? A cultura superficial reinante na juventude moderna, incapaz de se aprofundar nas raízes primeiras dos fenômenos.Abandone os chats e dialogos de meias-palavras e grunhidos e force sua mente a evoluir nos foruns de longos e completos textos que enquadram maiores horizontes.

Leia mais em http://www.paulopes.com.br/2012/08/russas-sao-condenadas-a-prisao-por-protesto-em-catedral.html#ixzz23q0h7pq2

Biocentrismo, Físicocentrismo e Conscientrismo: De Qual “Centrismo” Se Pode Ver a Verdade? Uma Nova teoria do Universo.

quinta-feira, agosto 16th, 2012

(Publicada uma nova teoria do Universo, que aqui será analizada pela Matrix/DNA. Copiei aqui o artigo abaixo para analiza-lo item por item e depois elaborar meu artigo)

Tese da Matrix/DNA inspirada no ensaio:

THE AMERICAN SCHOLLAR

http://theamericanscholar.org/a-new-theory-of-the-universe/ – ESSAYS – SPRING 2007

A New Theory of the Universe

Biocentrism builds on quantum physics by putting life into the equation

By Robert Lanza

While I was sitting one night with a poet friend watching a great opera performed in a tent under arc lights, the poet took my arm and pointed silently. Far up, blundering out of the night, a huge Cecropia moth (mariposa)swept past from light to light over the posturings of the actors. “He doesn’t know,” my friend whispered excitedly. “He’s passing through an alien universe brightly lit but invisible to him. He’s in another play; he doesn’t see us. He doesn’t know. Maybe it’s happening right now to us.”
—Loren Eiseley

The world is not, on the whole, the place we have learned about in our school books. This point was hammered home one recent night as I crossed the causeway of the small island where I live. The pond (poça dágua, charco) was dark and still. Several strange glowing objects caught my attention on the side of the road, and I squatted down to observe one of them with my flashlight. The creature turned out to be a glowworm, the luminous larva of the European beetle Lampyris noctiluca. Its segmented little oval body was primitive—like some trilobite that had just crawled out of the Cambrian Sea 500 million years ago. There we were, the beetle and I, two living objects that had entered into each others’ world. It ceased emitting its greenish light, and I, for my part, turned off my flashlight.

I wondered if our interaction was different from that of any other two objects in the universe. Was this primitive little grub just another collection of atoms—proteins and molecules spinning away like the planets round the sun? Had science reduced life to the level of a mechanist’s logic, or was this wingless beetle, by virtue of being a living creature, creating its own physical reality?

The laws of physics and chemistry can explain the biology of living systems, and I can recite in detail the chemical foundations and cellular organization of animal cells: oxidation, biophysical metabolism, all the carbohydrates and amino acid patterns. But there was more to this luminous little bug than the sum of its biochemical functions. A full understanding of life cannot be found by looking at cells and molecules through a microscope. We have yet to learn that physical existence cannot be divorced from the animal life and structures that coordinate sense perception and experience. Indeed, it seems likely that this creature was the center of its own sphere of reality just as I was the center of mine.

Although the beetle did not move, it had sensory cells that transmitted messages to the cells in its brain. Perhaps the creature was too primitive to collect data and pinpoint my location in space. Or maybe my existence in its universe was limited to the perception of some huge and hairy shadow stabilizing a flashlight in the air. I don’t know. But as I stood up and left, I am sure that I dispersed into the haze (névoa, bruma) of probability surrounding the glowworm’s little world.

Our science fails to recognize those special properties of life that make it fundamental to material reality. This view of the world—biocentrism—revolves around the way a subjective experience, which we call consciousness, relates to a physical process. It is a vast mystery and one that I have pursued my entire life. The conclusions I have drawn place biology above the other sciences in the attempt to solve one of nature’s biggest puzzles, the theory of everything that other disciplines have been pursuing for the last century. Such a theory would unite all known phenomena under one umbrella, furnishing science with an all-encompassing explanation of nature or reality.

We need a revolution in our understanding of science and of the world. Living in an age dominated by science, we have come more and more to believe in an objective, empirical reality and in the goal of reaching a complete understanding of that reality. Part of the thrill that came with the announcement that the human genome had been mapped or with the idea that we are close to understanding the big bang rests in our desire for completeness.

But we’re fooling (enganando, iludindo) ourselves.

Most of these comprehensive theories are no more than stories that fail to take into account one crucial factor: we are creating them. It is the biological creature that makes observations, names what it observes, and creates stories. Science has not succeeded in confronting the element of existence that is at once most familiar and most mysterious—conscious experience. As Emerson wrote in “Experience,” an essay that confronted the facile positivism of his age: “We have learned that we do not see directly, but mediately, and that we have no means of correcting these colored and distorting lenses which we are or of computing the amount of their errors. Perhaps these subjectlenses have a creative power; perhaps there are no objects.”

Biology is at first glance an unlikely source for a new theory of the universe. But at a time when biologists believe they have discovered the “universal cell” in the form of embryonic stem cells, and when cosmologists like Stephen Hawking predict that a unifying theory of the universe may be discovered in the next two decades, shouldn’t biology seek to unify existing theories of the physical world and the living world? What other discipline can approach it? Biology should be the first and last study of science. It is our own nature that is unlocked by means of the humanly created natural sciences used to understand the universe. Ever since the remotest of times philosophers have acknowledged the primacy of consciousness—that all truths and principles of being must begin with the individual mind and self. Thus Descartes’s adage: “Cogito, ergo sum.” (I think, therefore I am.) In addition to Descartes, who brought philosophy into its modern era, there were many other philosophers who argued along these lines: Kant, Leibniz, Bishop Berkeley, Schopenhauer, and Henri Bergson, to name a few.

We have failed to protect science against speculative extensions of nature, continuing to assign physical and mathematical properties to hypothetical entities beyond what is observable in nature. The ether of the 19th century, the “spacetime” of Einstein, and the string theory of recent decades, which posits new dimensions showing up in different realms, and not only in strings but in bubbles shimmering down the byways of the universe—all these are examples of this speculation. Indeed, unseen dimensions (up to a hundred in some theories) are now envisioned everywhere, some curled up like soda straws at every point in space.

Today’s preoccupation with physical theories of everything takes a wrong turn from the purpose of science—to question all things relentlessly. Modern physics has become like Swift’s kingdom of Laputa, flying absurdly on an island above the earth and indifferent to what is beneath. When science tries to resolve its conflicts by adding and subtracting dimensions to the universe like houses on a Monopoly board, we need to look at our dogmas and recognize that the cracks ( fendas, frestas) in the system are just the points that let the light shine more directly on the mystery of life.

The urgent and primary questions of the universe have been undertaken by those physicists who are trying to explain the origins of everything with grand unified theories. ( Por exemplo: onde estavam, nos 10 bilhões de anos da evolução cosmológica, as fôrças, as leis, os processos, os mecanismos, que mais tarde afloraram como propriedades vitais tais como sexo, metabolismo, reprodução, ciclo vital, pensamento, já que a Vida não pode ter surgido do Nada, e seja por acaso ou dirigido, hoje a Vida é um resultado real mostrando que o Universo estêve tunelado para produzi-la?).  But as exciting and glamorous as these theories are, they are an evasion, if not a reversal, of the central mystery of knowledge: that the laws of the world were somehow created to produce the observer. And more important than this, that the observer in a significant sense creates reality and not the other way around. Recognition of this insight leads to a single theory that unifies our understanding of the world.

( Bem,… aqui está um ponto de discordancia entre nós. Em que a mariposa cria sua realidade, ou seja, a dimensão do mundo que seus sentidos percebem? isto poderia ser meia-verdade se falar-mos de humanos, porque humanos são operativos, fôrças que transformam ao menos sua realidade imediata… mas mariposas não. Elas são passivas, do jeito que encontraram seu nivel de realidade vão deixá-lo como está. Elas foram criadas pela realidade e serão eliminadas pela realidade. Humanos surgiram na biosfera terrestre, a qual foi produzida pelo sistema astronomico ao qual a Terra pertence. Humanos percebem partes da realidade maiores que as mariposas, como os eventos reais do passado, a previsão de que o sol vai nascer no futuro amanhã, que alem do oceano existe a Europa, etc. Porque? O corpo biológico da mariposa apenas produz um complexo sensorial capaz de perceber matéria á volta, corpos pequenos na dimensão do tamanho dela. O corpo biológico humano tambem produziu os mesmos sentidos, porem, o cérebro humano produziu um novo sentido, que é a consciência. As partes da realidade maiores que humanos percebem e mariposas não, são invadidas e capturadas por este novo sentido de percepção. Então o que criou a realidade fisica que criou o humano foi o sistema astronomico. Então nêle tinha que existir de alguma forma, expressando-se já ou ainda apenas em estado de potencial latente, os recursos fisicos para produzir as qualidades biológicas. Porem, a Ciência humana liderada pela Fisica e a Matemática  captava até a poucos anos um sistema astronomico e atômico apenas como sistemas eletro-magnético ou mecanico. Ultimamente está iniciando a captar mais complexidades naqueles sistemas, no que se denomina “nivel quantico”. E em nenhum dêstes níveis captados se vê a presença obrigatória das fôrças que evoluiram para a Biologia. Mas elas tinham que estarem lá porque foram estes sistemas que criaram a Vida, foram êles que modelaram sua matéria num novo nivel de complexidade, organizando-a no novo patamar que denominamos de “biológico”. Se o fisico matemático aceitar esta racional imposição, êle será levado a suspeitar então que estas fôrças nada produziam, estavam ali porem totalmente ocultas, apenas como potencial latente. Porem, pensando assim, imediatamente vem as questões: a) estavam ali no Big Bang, mas como, e vindas de onde? – b) Estavam ali antes, no que produziu o Big Bang, mas como, e vindas de onde?  c) Estas fôrças são eternas ou então o que e quando no passado algo introduziu estas fôrças na matéria, e no estado de inércia? d) O que nos garante que estas fôrças “vitais” não se expressaram no momento do Big Bang, o que indicaria que nosso entendimento atual do Big Bang está incompleto? nenhuma evidencia cientifica nos pode garantir isso ainda, assim como nada pode nos garantir que estas fôrças não tenham se expressado antes inclusive do Big Bang, e que elas podem terem sido as dominantes naquela época, o que determinaria que tôda a fenomenologia fisica subsequente, atômica, astronomica, tenha sido produto da Vida, e não o inverso, como a Fisica tem nos levado a acreditar.

A teoria da Matrix/DNA é um modo de pensar lógico porque se baseia numa suscessão de modêlos interconetados que montam uma versão da História Universal sensata para explicar o resultado funal da realidade observada hoje, aqui e agora. Ela até concorda com a Fisica  quando esta sugere que  o Sistema Solar funciona pelo processo da mecânica newtoniana.  Mas quando chega no sistema galáctico ela sai da avenida pavimentada pelo agente mecânico e toma uma estrada lateral pavimentada poi uma agente meio-mecânico e meio-biológico. Aqui ela vê as fôrças ocultas que criaram os fenômenos despertadas, começando a acordarem e já de alguma maneira atuando nas origens e formação das galáxias. Ela olha esta galáxia, gosta do que vê e por isso, ao invés de retornar para a avenida e continuar a seguir com os fisicos,  ela resolve ir adiante, solita’ria, por esta estrada lateral. Acontece que tanto a estrada quanto a avenida não são retas, elas se encurvam uma na direção da outra e se encontram no Big Bang. É impossivel abarcar com a vista, os sentidos humanos, e a consciência, o grande quadro do Big Bang, mas o humano tem necessidade de tirar alguma conclusão, e essas conclusões são sempre versões incompletas do quadro real, são tendenciosas, porque baseadas em experiencias de vida. Então a experiencia de vida dos fisicos na avenida quantica>eletro-magnética>mecanica>biológica, é diferente da minha experiencia de vida na estrada quantica+vitalismo>eletro-magnética+vitalismo>mecânica+vitalismo, biológica+vitalismo. Eu ainda não sei qual a interpretação dos Fisicos sôbre o significado do Big Bang, só sei o significado que despontou como minha conclusão: Big Bang na origem do Universo é igual ao brusco rompimento do invólucro espermatico em meio a um óvulo na origem de um corpo humano. O meu Big Bang  é quantico, fisico, eletro-magnético, mecânico, pode acontecer por acaso ou segundo a vontade de algo mais, porem, é acima de tudo, regulado por um processo vital.

Quando Mr. Robert Lanza se aproximou com sua lanterna do verme brilhante, o verme deve ter sentido uma forte fôrça e pressão no ar, assim como nos sentiriamos se de repente se um gigantesco  buraco negro viesse em nossa direção. Minusculos nós não teríamos  visibilidade para compreender qual a forma, qual a constituição, daquele corpo.  Ficaríamos em estado de alerta, aguardando, o imprevisivel. Mas suponhamos que o buraco negro parasse bem ao lado da Terra e nada fizesse nela, como Lanza parou ao lado da minhoca. Daria tempo para nós processar-mos algumas informações captadas no ar sôbre o buraco negro, e cientistas teóricos correriam a projetar um modêlo geral de como deve ser a coisa. Qual a chance do verme descobrir o modêlo real do que é o corpo humano ao seu lado e entender sua realidade, sua verdade? Nenhuma.  Assim estamos nós perante o Universo.  O verme iria fazer um modêlo projetando a sua realidade conhecida e coisas como “consciência”, se aparecesse no modêlo ( se um verme tiver algum grau de consciencia), jamais iria sequer se aproximar do que é na realidade a consciência humana. Mesmo os humanos versados em Fisica que possuem um consideravel grau de consciência não a conseguem inserir no seu modêlo teórico do Universo! O Universo dos Físicos é um corpo sem auto-consciência. Eu não consigo acreditar nisso. A alternativa que me resta é apostar na existência de uma auto-conciencia existente maior e alem do Universo.

Mas aqui a Teoria da Matrix/DNA ( cujos modêlos sugerem um Universo gerado não apenas pelo vitalismo mas tambem pelo consciencialismo) deixa de discordar com Mr. Lanza quando êle diz que nossa consciência é quem cria nossa realidade. Tambem, nêste caso, a Matrix e o Lanza vinham caminhando juntos numa avenida filosófica, se separaram devido a um desacôrdo quando encontraram uma bifurcação, mas as duas estradas se encurvaram e ambos se encontraram no mesmo ponto final… com uma pequena diferença de interpretação do que consiste essa auto-consciencia, deviso as diferenças nas experiencias diferentes proporcionadas pelas duas estradas. Na minha experiencia, a nossa realidade foi criada pelos atomos e pela galaxia. Creio que estamos nesta galáxia como a mariposa está no palco do teatro, sem entender nada do pouco que está captando. Mas a minha estrada mostrou uma galaxia semi-viva e a estrada do senhor Lanza mostrou a galaxia pela ótica da escola, mecânica. Minha estrada sugeriu que a Vida existe alem do Universo. Ora… se a vida aqui produziu a consciência, a vida antes e maior que o Universo deve tê-la produzido tambem. Se existe uma consciencia e sua inteligencia operativa fora do Universo, é possível que ela tenha produzido o Universo e sua realidade, que é a nossa realidade. É possivel que ela tenha criado isso numa simples distração quando brincava desenvolvendo softwares, ou quando têve alguma relação amorosa, com uma outra consciencia, ou com ela mesma, se for hermafroddita. É possivel que ela criou isto num esboço geral, sem muita preocupação com os pequenos detalhes e pequenos eventos produzidos ao funcionar dessa coisa. E nós, humanos seríamos um destes pequenos detalhes, assim como a mariposa que apareceu no palco talvez nem tenha sido notada pelo criador da peça que assiste sentado numa poltrona. Mas como temos auto-consciencia microscópica, seríamos como pequenas bolhas que se condensam a partir da auto-consciencia cósmica. Se somos parte da consciencia cósmica, e se a consciencia cósmica criou a realidade que nos cerca, conclue-se que nós, enquanto fragmentos da auto-consciência cósmica, criamos essa realidade. Assim encontro-me com o senhor Lanza no final de nossas estradas.

Mas tudo isso pode ser apenas mero exercicio intelectual, e como tal, assim como está acontecendo com os Físicos Matematicos, em algum ponto saímos fora da longa inexorável cadeia de causas e efeitos naturais e começamos a imaginar coisas inexistentes. Porem, certeira ou errada, essa conclusão me conduz a exercer um maior esforço no sentido de ampliar minha consciencia e ser uma bolha maior, mais reintegrada na consciencia cósmica. E só existe uma maneira de fazer êste esforço: é ampliar o conhecimento de mais porções da realidade, ampliar meu horizonte de percepção. Mas quando faço isso, recebo automaticamente uma recompensa: minha ciência evolui, e como efeito, evolui minha tecnologia, e como resultado, obtenho melhores condições de vida.

xxx

Modern science cannot explain why the laws of physics are exactly balanced for animal life to exist. For example, if the big bang had been one-part-in-a billion more powerful, it would have rushed out too fast for the galaxies to form and for life to begin. If the strong nuclear force were decreased by two percent, atomic nuclei wouldn’t hold together. Hydrogen would be the only atom in the universe. If the gravitational force were decreased, stars (including the sun) would not ignite. These are just three of more than 200 physical parameters within the solar system and universe so exact that they cannot be random. Indeed, the lack of a scientific explanation has allowed these facts to be hijacked as a defense of intelligent design.

Without perception, there is in effect no reality. Nothing has existence unless you, I, or some living creature perceives it, ( não concordo) and how it is perceived further influences that reality (concordo).  Even time itself is not exempted from biocentrism. Our sense of the forward motion of time is really the result of an infinite number of decisions that only seem to be a smooth continuous path. At each moment we are at the edge of a paradox known as The Arrow, first described 2,500 years ago by the philosopher Zeno of Elea. Starting logically with the premise that nothing can be in two places at once, he reasoned that an arrow is only in one place during any given instance of its flight. But if it is in only one place, it must be at rest. The arrow must then be at rest at every moment of its flight. Logically, motion is impossible. But is motion impossible? Or rather, is this analogy proof that the forward motion of time is not a feature of the external world but a projection of something within us? Time is not an absolute reality but an aspect of our consciousness.

Acho que êste paradoxo se explicaria se a flecha, assim como os fótons, tambem apresenta propriedades de ser uma onda e uma particula ao mesmo tempo. Para isso me baseio no circuito da formula da Matrix. O que existe, em essencia ultima, é informação em movimento. Ísto é o que constitui o fluxo dinamico do circuito. Porem, na formula, onde existem os espaços indicados por setas, o fluxo de informação avança como uma onda, e onde existe um corpo visivel, ocupando o espaço, significa que a onda se colapsa na forma de uma particula. Mas como o fluxo prossegue e carregando o corpo sólido, isto significa que o corpo é onda e particula ao mesmo tempo durante todo o trajeto do circuito. Assim seria a flecha em seu trajeto. Mas como nosso complexo sensorial só percebe  o aspecto “particula” da informação, o ser humano teria razão em crer que o movimento não  existe, que seria apenas uma ilusão gerada quando corremos os olhos por uma sucessào de pontos parados. Acontece que a informação é ao mesmo tempo “uma onda que se propaga”, o que atesta que movimento existe na realidade. Acho que esta produção do Zeno de Eléa foi lida pelo Sr. Lanza quando era ainda muito novo, e isto o umpressionou, tomando lugar de destaque em todo seu exercicio intelectual inquiridor posterior, e o conduziu erroneamente á conclusão final que a realidade externa não existe sem im observador vivo. Quando ele na ultima frase inclui a palavra “tempo”, substituindo com ela a palavra “movimento” acho que comete outro êrro. Tempo nada tem a ver com o paradoxo do movimento.

This paradox lies at the heart of one of the great revolutions of 20th-century physics, a revolution that has yet to take hold of our understanding of the world and of the decisive role that consciousness plays in determining the nature of reality. The uncertainty principle in quantum physics is more profound than its name suggests. It means that we make choices at every moment in what we can determine about the world. We cannot know with complete accuracy a quantum particle’s motion and its position at the same time—we have to choose one or the other. Thus the consciousness of the observer is decisive in determining what a particle does at any given moment.

Einstein was frustrated by the threat of quantum uncertainty to the hypothesis he called spacetime, and spacetime turns out to be incompatible with the world discovered by quantum physics. When Einstein showed that there is no universal now, it followed that observers could slice up reality into past, present, and, future, in different ways, all with equal reality. But what, exactly, is being sliced up?

Space and time are not stuff that can be brought back to the laboratory in a marmalade jar for analysis. In fact, space and time fall into the province of biology—of animal sense perception—not of physics. They are properties of the mind, of the language by which we human beings and animals represent things to ourselves. Physicists venture beyond the scope of their science—beyond the limits of material phenomena and law—when they try to assign physical, mathematical, or other qualities to space and time.

Return to the revelation that we are thinking animals and that the material world is the elusive substratum of our conscious activity continually defining and redefining the real. We must become skeptical of the hard reality of our most cherished conceptions of space and time, and of the very notion of an external reality, in order to recognize that it is the activity of consciousness itself, born of our biological selves, which in some sense creates the world.

Despite such things as the development of superconducting supercolliders containing enough niobium-titanium wire to circle the earth 16 times, we understand the universe no better than the first humans with sufficient consciousness to think. Where did it all come from? Why does the universe exist? Why are we here? In one age, we believe that the world is a great ball resting on the back of a turtle; in the next, that a fairy universe appeared out of nowhere and is expanding into nothingness. In one age, angels push and pummel the planets about; in another age, everything is a meaningless accident. We exchange a world-bearing turtle for a big bang.

We are like Loren Eiseley’s moth, blundering from light to light, unable to discern the great play that blazes under the opera tent. Turn now to the experimental findings of modern science, which require us to recognize—at last—our role in the creation of reality from moment to moment. Consciousness cannot exist without a living, biological creature to embody its perceptive powers of creation. Therefore we must turn to the logic of life, to biologic, if we are to understand the world around us.

Space and time are the two concepts we take most for granted in our lives. We have been taught that they are measurable. They exist. They’re real. And thatreality has been reinforced every day of our lives.

Most of us live without thinking abstractly about time and space. They are such an integral part of our lives that examination of them is as unnatural as an examination of walking or breathing. In fact, many people feel silly talking about time and space in an abstract, analytical way. The question “Does time exist?” can seem like so much philosophical babble. After all, the clock ticks, the years pass, we age and die. Isn’t time the only thing we can be certain of? Equally inconsonant is the question of whether or not space exists. “Obviously space exists,” we might answer, “because we live in it. We move through it, drive through it, build in it, measure it.”

Time and space are easy to talk and think about. Find yourself short of either or both—late for work, standing in a stalled subway car packed with riders—and issues of time and space are obvious: “It’s crowded and I’m uncomfortable and my boss is going to kill me for being late.” But time and space as our source of comprehension and consciousness is an abstraction. Our day-to-day experiences indicate nothing of this reality to us. Rather, life has taught us that time and space are external and eternal realities. They bound all experiences and are more fundamental than life itself. They are above and beyond human experience.

As animals, we are organized, wired, to think this way. We use dates and places to define our experiences to ourselves and to others. History describes the past by placing people and events in time and space. Scientific theories of the big bang, geology, and evolution are steeped in the logic of time and space. They are essential to our every movement and moment. To place ourselves as the creatorsof time and space, not as the subjects of it, goes against our common sense, life experience, and education. It takes a radical shift of perspective for any of us to entertain the idea that space and time are animal sense perceptions, because the implications are so startling.

xxxxx

Ver outro artigo aqui na categoria biocentrismo