Archive for setembro, 2012

Dificuldade para Dormir? É a radiação das Telas dos Eletronicos!

domingo, setembro 30th, 2012

Só faltava mais esta! Um ambiente escuro – seja a noite, o quarto com luz apagada, etc. – estimula no corpo a produção de melatonina, um hormonio que atua como mensageiro avisando ao cérebro que é hora de dormir. Mas a luz irradiada pelas telas de monitores, tablets, celulares inibe ou interfere na mensage e depois o sono não vem… Bem, quanto a mim, o que tem acontecido ultimamente, acho que isso parece ser verdade, e vou tentar evitar estas telas à noite, dormir mais cêdo e assim levantar mais c6edo quando então voi paras as telas antes de sair para o trabalho. Seria mais sensato… e saudável. Vejamos o inicio do artigo com esta incômoda noticia no…

STANDARD- EXAMINER.COM

http://www.standard.net/stories/2012/09/29/gadgets-keeping-you-awake

Gadgets keeping you awake?

By Leslie Meredith

Standard-Examiner Columnist

Sat, 09/29/2012 – 11:23pm

Having trouble getting to sleep? It could be your iPad, Kindle or any other screen you use for reading before turning the lights out. New research explains why this happens, but what can you do about it — short of going back to paper?

The Lighting Research Center at the Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute recently published a study explaining how readers’ beloved tablets and e-readers keep people up at night. A dark room triggers the body’s production of melatonin, a hormone that acts as a messenger telling the body it’s time to sleep, and lighted screens interfere with that message.

Any light can make it tough to fall asleep (that’s why many parents with young children bemoan the onset of daylight savings time), but light of shorter wavelengths, such as the bluish tints emitted from LED-backlit screens, suppresses nocturnal melatonin, according to the sleep study. The brighter the light and longer the exposure, the more difficulty it will cause in falling asleep.

The findings come just after Amazon introduced its new Kindle PaperWhite e-readers, which offer higher-contrast backlit displays, an answer to Barnes & Noble’s popular Nook with GlowLight. And multi-purpose tablets — such as the iPad, Google Nexus 7 and the newest high-resolution tablets launched last week by Barnes and Noble — are frequently used as e-book readers. But more vivid screens aren’t necessarily better when it comes to sleep.

“The ones that do not emit light should be better [for sleeping],” Mariana Figueiro, director of the Lighting Research Center’s Light and Health Program, told me.

She offered some tips for getting a better night’s sleep without giving up your e-reader or tablet. Figueiro recommends reducing the brightness of the screen to its minimum (which helps conserve battery life, too). Tablet users can go into “settings” to do this. (VEJA RESTO DO ARTIGO NO ADRESS ACIMA)

https://twitter.com/TheMatrixDNA/status/252350776696004609

Endogenous retroviruses (ERVs): Forte Argumento para a Teoria da Reprodução Biológica de LUCA da Matrix/DNA Theory

terça-feira, setembro 25th, 2012

A observação do ecossistema da selva amazônica durante sete anos por êste autor o levou a uma intuição:  se aplicar o velho método da anatomia comparada entre os conhecidos sistemas vivos e não-vivos será possível conhecer cada um melhor porque pode-se projetar o que se conhece em um sôbre o que está escondido no outro e vice-versa. Como efeito inesperado, o  método o levou a projetar um modêlo do que seria um sistema-link entre vivos e não-vivos supondo-se que tenha havido uma unica linhagem de evolução linear desde o Big Bang até o ser humano.  A analise do modêlo teórico surpreendeu devido sua racionalidade,  lógica funcional, capacidade de predições corretas e a sugestão para se ampliar tudo o que se pensava conhecer até então. Uma das sugestões dos modêlos é que êste teórico link ( denomiando  LUCA: the Last Universal Common Ancestor de todos os sistemas biológicos),  emite informações para a superficie terrestre obedecendo o natural processo da transmissão genética e reprodução. Porem devido ser um sistema meio-mecânico/meio-biológico e muito primitivo, seu “genoma” não é  transmitido encerrado dentro de um envoltório como os cromossomas biológicos, mas sim seus bits-informação são espalhados no espaço sideral e chegam a um mesmo ponto em diferentes épocas do tempo. Isto faria com que um unico sustema se diversifique em milhões de sistemas derivados, todos mutados,  incompletos e mais complexos, quando comparados com LUCA. Por êste modêlo, vírus são pequenos pacotes de bits-informação relacionados com a Função Sistêmica numero 4, a qual consiste em reproduzir sistemas após penetrar sistemas que possuam a Função numero 1.  Em vista disso é perfeitamente possivel que muitos dos casos de “saltos evolutivos” notados por Stephen Jay Gould em sua teoria do “equilibrio pontuado”  sejam causados pelo que na teoria da  Modern Synthesis é denominado ERVs. E assim abrimos aqui mais um campo de pesquisa para a Matrix/DNA começando por uma rápida introdução através da Wikipedia:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Endogenous_retrovirus

Endogenous retroviruses (ERVs) are sequences in the genome that are derived from ancient viral infections of germ cells in mammals and other vertebrates; as such their proviruses are passed on to the next generation and now remain in the genome.

ERVs Virus Incorporados ao Genoma

ERVs Virus Incorporados ao Genoma

Matrix/DNA E A Evolução Proibida

terça-feira, setembro 25th, 2012

A reação rude, às vêzes violenta e ofensiva de ateístas que militam dentro da comunidade cientifica, aos modêlos e teses da Matrix/DNA, a total ferrenha resistência em exercitar o raciocinio quando impactado pela primeira vista aos modêlos deve-se principalmente que esta teoria sugere ser a Vida e o Universo produzidos por prévios designs, não lhes importando o aviso logo a seguir que tais designs são naturais, não tendo sido detectados nenhima interferencia inteligente e/ou supernatural. Embora isto não nos preocupa porque, pois como está explicado nas primeiras fases da introdução ao website, isto é uma teoria filosófica naturalista ( portanto diferente da definição de teoria dentro da academia dos cientistas e mais relativa à definição da palavra “teoria” tal como foi elaborada pelos Gregos da Antigudade), esta teoria não tem a menor pretenção de ser cientifica em relação ao método cientifico da academia, e a visão de mundo sugerida por esta teoria – apesar de ser a mais naturalista e portanto racionalista na opinião do seu autor –  não é acreditada nem pelo seu autor, o qual é agnóstico cético a respeito do conhecimento real possivel ao limitado cérebro humano ainda, e que  se limita a colecionar evidencias a favor dos modêlos teóricos enquanto procura um unico fato real comprovado que os destruam para sempre.

Mas a Matrix/DNA não está sózinha nesta lista negra dos ditos ateístas, e como exemplo registro aqui um caso que tem tido certa repercussào pela importanica religiosa/filófica do seu assunto:

Forbidden Archeology: The Hidden History of the Human Race by Michael A. Cremo and Richard L. Thompson quickly became a best selling underground classic, with over 200,000 copies sold and translations in more than 13 languages. This massive work spawned waves of resistance and wonder amongst the scientific community, with over 900 pages of well-documented evidence suggesting that modern man did not evolve from ape man, but instead has co-existed with apes for millions of years!

Michael Cremo lectures to academic, popular, and scientific audiences around the world in a continuing challenge to Darwinian evolution.

http://www.forbiddenarcheology.com/

The knowledge filter and scientific suppression

One of the prominent themes introduced in Forbidden Archeology is the phenomena of “knowledge filtration.” This is the process by which scientists and others routinely accept evidence that supports their preconceptions and theories while rejecting, either consciously or unconsciously, other evidence that does not uphold their views. This process of suppression of evidence is illustrated by many of the anomalous paleoanthropological findings discussed in the book. This evidence now tends to be extremely obscure, and it also tends to be clouded by a series of negative reports, themselves obscure and dating from the time when the evidence was being actively rejected. Thus, evolutionary prejudices held by powerful groups of scientists act as a “knowledge filter” which has eliminated evidence challenging accepted views and left us with a radically altered understanding of human origins and antiquity.

Pareidolia: Auto-Análise Psicológica do Autor da Teoria da Matrix/DNA. Qual o Meu Teor de Pareidolia?

domingo, setembro 23rd, 2012

Tenho sido criticado como sendo mais um caso de “pareidolia”. Eu me defendo dizendo que todos os seres biológicos, com sua posição especifica como unico observador sutuado num ponto especifico do tempo/espaço, obrigatóriamente sofre de pareidolia, e a forma de medir a quantidade dessa dusfunção só pode ser  a quantidade de predições acertadas ou erradas do pareidólico. Ao expor o produto da minha pareidólia a continuos testes dce predictabilidade, estou eu mesmo medindo e tentando corrigir munha pareidolia. Pior é que poucos fazem isso e pagamos elevado preço em baixa qualidade de vida devido a pareidolia reunir pessoas em grupos que muitas vêzes estão no poder social. Mas posso estar errado e minha teoria totalmente errada, assim como a teoria da evolução ou da gravitação universal podem ser totalmente modificadas.  Apenas reais fatos naturais irão decidir isso.

Abaixo transcrevo um comentário de um interlocutor no vídeo do Youtube “Bill Nye: Creationism is Not Appropriate for Children”, e minha primeira resposta. Depois transcrevo a explicação de pareidolia pela Wikipedia mesmo porque é um recurso para memorizar este fenomeno, nunca esquecê-lo para estar sempre policiando minha Razão. Porem ressalto primeiro uma brilhante tese de Carl Sagan:

O físico Carl Sagan aventou uma explicação no livro O Mundo Assombrado pelos Demônios:

Os humanos, como outros primatas, são um bando gregário. Gostamos da companhia uns dos outros. Somos mamíferos, e o cuidado dos pais com o filho é essencial para a continuação das linhas hereditárias. Os pais sorriem para a criança, a criança retribui o sorriso, e com isso se forja ou se fortalece um laço. Assim que o bebê consegue ver, ele reconhece faces, e sabemos agora que essa habilidade está instalada permanentemente em nossos cérebros. Os bebês que há 1 milhão de anos eram incapazes de reconhecer um rosto retribuíam menos sorrisos, eram menos inclinados a conquistar o coração dos pais e tinham menos chance de sobreviver. Nos dias de hoje, quase todos os bebês identificam rapidamente uma face humana e respondem com um sorriso bobo.Como um efeito colateral inadvertido, o mecanismo de reconhecimento de padrões em nossos cérebros é tão eficiente em descobrir uma face em meio a muitos outros pormenores que às vezes vemos faces onde não existe alguma. Reunimos pedaços desconectados de luz e sombra, e inconscientemente tentamos ver uma face.

XXX

Post no Yotube:

I’ve seen your website, which is why I say that you don’t have a theory, but an overactive case of pareidolia. You see two things that strike you as similar, and you throw it in without worrying about facts or even making sense.

I am trying to help you by telling you that none of this will ever make a difference. Nobody will care, nobody will pay attention, because nothing you write has any basis in biological or cosmological fact. You should spend your time doing something more productive.

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

But…all biological beings has pareidolia! What do you think “evolution” is? Who can guarantee that we aren’t watching an ex-machine process of reproduction through steps that “seems” evolution? Worst: blind evolution, random Natural Selection ? An obsession with an idea feeded by repetition of parameters which becomes truth in the mind of an observer, despite the supreme advice that nobody can know the truth of a system standing inside it. How do you explain the predictability of Matrix/DNA?

TheMatrixDNA in reply to Nullifidian 1 second ago

Causas das Grandes Explosões Solares Podem estarem Nas Cavidades da Corona Solar

sexta-feira, setembro 21st, 2012

Bem… astronomos estão intringados porque existem elevadas emissões de energia que pode afetar a Terra e estas emissões parecem vir de cavidades na coroa solar das quais nada se conhece ainda. O modêlo astronomico acadêmico mais moderno em nada prevê estas cavidades, elas não são previsiveis a partir da sua teoria da formação do Sol. Por seu lado, o Modelo Astronomico da Matrix/DNA não apenas previu a 30 anos atrás como sugere ser inevitavel que existam cavidades com tais emissões. Elas seriam as ultimas remanescentes das cavidades dos gigantescos vulcões que existiam no astro quando ainda era pulsar e se umplodiu tornando-se supernova e chegando ao atual estágio de seu ciclo vital. Como me falta tempo agora para ler tudo a respeito e anlusar melhor isso tudo, deixo registrado links das noticias:

Roots of huge solar explosions may lie in ‘coronal cavities’

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/science/2012/09/21/roots-huge-solar-explosions-may-lie-in-coronal-cavities/#ixzz279jAJWfx

Published September 21, 2012

Space.com

NASA’s STEREO…Solar Streamers Too Hot To Handle, No Dentist For These Cavities

http://www.satnews.com/cgi-bin/story.cgi?number=491056196

Astronomers try to predict huge solar blasts by studying coronal cavities

http://www.zmescience.com/research/studies/coronal-cavity-study-for-solar-blast-prediction-04123/

Incrível Descoberta Genética no Cérebro para a Busca da Solução ao Misterioso Aparecimento da Auto-Consci6encia

sexta-feira, setembro 21st, 2012

( Isto é muito interessante para as pesquisas da Matrix/DNA por isso será temporariamente copiado aqui para ser analisado item por item.)

A primeira rápida impressão que tive ao ler o artigo foi que “parece que” o mecanismo sugerido pela Matrix/DNA para a Natureza corrigir os desvios da Macro-Evolução, que envolvem processos da termodinamica dos sistemas, entropias, etc., foi aplicado aqui. Sugere que o primata na África à 2 milhões de anos atrás conseguiu um status de vida priviliegiado e se acomodou, super-especializando numa forma provisória da Evolução, fechando as portas à esta, e assim foi descartado como beco sem saída. Porem ocorreu um momento de evolução ao reverso, pelo método de redução de genes, justo daqueles recem-adquiridos e responsaveis pelos atributos do novo estilo de vida. Esta redução se dá pela fusão de genes, então genes foram fundidos enquanto os outros genes que vinham no caminho certo antes da espécie alcançar a super-especialização foram reforçados com cópias extras e estimulados a se expressarem. Desta maneira, retornando a uma espécie inferior, a Evolução pôde reencetar sua marcha progressista. Lembre-se que a Evolução em si mesma não tem propósito algum, porem o que estamos descrevendo e assistindo são os meros passos gradativos de um grande processo de reprodução universal. Ok, por enquanto é a primeira impressão…

Human brain shaped by duplicate genes

Ewen Callaway – 03 May 2012

http://www.nature.com/news/human-brain-shaped-by-duplicate-genes-1.10584

NATURE. COM

Humans walk on two feet and (mostly) lack hair-covered bodies, but the feature that sets us furthest apart from other apes is a brain capable of language, art, science, and other trappings of civilisation.

Now, two studies published online today in Cell12suggest that DNA duplication errors that happened millions of years ago might have had a pivotal role in the evolution of the complexity of the human brain. The duplications — which created new versions of a gene active in the brains of other mammals — may have endowed humans with brains that could create more neuronal connections, perhaps leading to greater computational power.

The enzymes that copy DNA sometimes slip extra copies of a gene into a chromosome, and scientists estimate that such genetic replicas make up about 5% of the human genome. However, gene duplications are notoriously difficult to study because the new genes differ little from their forebears, and tend to be overlooked.

Evan Eichler, a geneticist at the University of Washington in Seattle, and lead author of one of the Cell papers, previously found that humans have four copies of a gene called SRGAP2, and he and his colleagues decided to investigate.

In their new paper, they report that the three duplicated versions of SRGAP2 sit on chromosome 1, along with the original ancestral gene, but they are not exact copies. All of the duplications are missing a small part of the ancestral form of the gene, and at least one duplicate, SRGAP2C, seems to make a working protein. Eichler’s team has also found SRGAP2C in every individual human genome his team has examined – more than 2,000 so far – underscoring its significance.

“Ten years after the human genome was sequenced and declared done, we’re still finding new genes in new places that are really important to human brain function and evolution,” says Eichler.

Eichler’s team calculates that SRGAP2C appeared roughly 2.4 million years ago, around the time that big-brained species of Homo evolved in Africa from smaller-skulled Australopithecines, and around the time that stone tools appeared in the fossil record. These ancient hominins eventually gave rise to Homo erectus, which were the first human ancestors to wander beyond Africa, roughly 1.8 million years ago.

Boosting brains

According to a second study, also published in Cell2, the emergence of SRGAP2C could have helped our ancestors to boost the power of their bigger brains, which may have been created by other, unknown changes in the genome.

“It’s got to play some important function,” says Franck Polleux, a neurobiologist at the Scripps Research Institute in La Jolla, California, and senior author of the second paper in Cell.

Surprisingly, the SRGAP2C protein blocks the action of the ancestral protein, Polleux’s team discovered, effectively rendering humans as ‘knockouts’ for the ancestral SRGAP2 gene. The team then expressed the human form of SRGAP2C in the neurons of developing mice. The change didn’t cause the mice brains to enlarge, but their neurons produced denser arrays of brain cell structures, called dendritic spines, that forge connections with neighbouring neurons.

“If you’re increasing the total number of connections, you’re probably increasing the ability of this network to handle information,” Polleux says. “It’s like increasing the number of processors in a computer.”

In mice, the gene also increased the migration speed of neurons across the developing brain. Polleux’s team speculates that this trait could also have helped neurons to travel long distances in the enlarged brains of human ancestors.

“One has to be cautious about putting too much emphasis on the role of one gene in brain evolution,” says Genevieve Konopka, a neuroscientist at the University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center in Dallas. But she thinks that the two papers make a good case that duplication ofSRGAP2 influenced human cognition.

James Sikela, an evolutionary geneticist at the University of Colorado, Denver, adds that theSRGAP2 duplications are likely to be one of a multitude of genetic changes that moulded the human brain. His team has identified dozens of duplicated genes unique to humans3, many of them expressed in the brain. “Finding the genes that make us human may be challenging,” he says, “but the resources we now have to ask such questions are unprecedented.”

Nature
doi:10.1038/nature.2012.10584

( Êste artigo foi extraído de dois papers cientificos, que preciso comprar para ler:

1) Evolution of Human-Specific Neural SRGAP2 Genes by Incomplete Segmental Duplication

http://www.cell.com/retrieve/pii/S0092867412004618 – ( ver figura no artigo)

  • Highlights
  • Missing SRGAP2 human-specific genes sequenced by using haploid hydatidiform mole DNA
  • SRGAP2 duplicated three times in the human lineage ∼1.0–3.4 million years ago
  • One duplicate is expressed in the brain and is fixed in copy number in all humans
  • The incomplete initial duplication likely antagonized the parent gene at birth

Summary

Gene duplication is an important source of phenotypic change and adaptive evolution. We leverage a haploid hydatidiform mole to identify highly identical sequences missing from the reference genome, confirming that the cortical development gene Slit-Robo Rho GTPase-activating protein 2 (SRGAP2) duplicated three times exclusively in humans. We show that the promoter and first nine exons of SRGAP2 duplicated from 1q32.1 (SRGAP2A) to 1q21.1 (SRGAP2B) ∼3.4 million years ago (mya). Two larger duplications later copiedSRGAP2B to chromosome 1p12 (SRGAP2C) and to proximal 1q21.1 (SRGAP2D) ∼2.4 and ∼1 mya, respectively. Sequence and expression analyses show that SRGAP2C is the most likely duplicate to encode a functional protein and is among the most fixed human-specific duplicate genes. Our data suggest a mechanism where incomplete duplication created a novel gene function—antagonizing parental SRGAP2 function—immediately “at birth” 2–3 mya, which is a time corresponding to the transition from Australopithecus to Homo and the beginning of neocortex expansion

2)

Inhibition of SRGAP2 Function by Its Human-Specific Paralogs Induces Neoteny during Spine Maturation

http://www.cell.com/retrieve/pii/S009286741200462X – Ver figura no artigo

  • Highlights
  • SRGAP2 has undergone two partial duplications, specifically in the human genome
  • One copy (SRGAP2C) is expressed in the human brain and antagonizes ancestral SRGAP2
  • Ancestral SRGAP2 promotes dendritic spine maturation and limits spine density in vivo
  • Human SRGAP2C induces neoteny and leads to higher density of spines with longer necks

Summary

Structural genomic variations represent a major driving force of evolution, and a burst of large segmental gene duplications occurred in the human lineage during its separation from nonhuman primates. SRGAP2, a gene recently implicated in neocortical development, has undergone two human-specific duplications. Here, we find that both duplications (SRGAP2B and SRGAP2C) are partial and encode a truncated F-BAR domain. SRGAP2C is expressed in the developing and adult human brain and dimerizes with ancestral SRGAP2 to inhibit its function. In the mouse neocortex, SRGAP2 promotes spine maturation and limits spine density. Expression of SRGAP2C phenocopies SRGAP2 deficiency. It underlies sustained radial migration and leads to the emergence of human-specific features, including neoteny during spine maturation and increased density of longer spines. These results suggest that inhibition of SRGAP2 function by its human-specific paralogs has contributed to the evolution of the human neocortex and plays an important role during human brain development.

Entropia Genética: Ver esta teoria de John C. Stanford

quarta-feira, setembro 19th, 2012

( Forum no Youtube – Bill Nye)

Genetic entropy is not a term that exists anywhere in genetics. It was invented by creationist John C. Sanford in his book “Genetic Entropy & the Mystery of the Genome”. In it, Sanford proposes that there are very small deleterious mutations whose effects are so negligible that they don’t truly impact fitness in any way but whose cumulative effect is to make the genome “run” down until the genetic load becomes unendurable. Thus genomes were created perfect and only got worse since.

Meu post como resposta:

Promoting the marriage between Creationists and Darwinists: how to understand the language of your partner. For instance, when Darwinists says “genetic entropy” it means “the Fall from the Garden Paradise”. Explanation. There was a perfect closed system called “Milk Way”. This system is a sin due being extremely selfish, and it was created by Adam/Eve as the software (spirit) of this hardware (matter). Entropy attacked the Universal Matrix which falls in shape of DNA. Couple, one kiss, please.

TheMatrixDNA 1 second ago

( Desemvolver esta idéia de promover o casamento entre criacionistas e darwinistas e acrescentar este interessante assinto no livro)

Ninguem me “Cutuca” No Maior Debate da História que Está Acontecendo Agora No Youtube? Brasileiros! Tucuta-me…please! (3)

terça-feira, setembro 18th, 2012

(Vai lá e clique no botão com o polegar prá cima – claro, se você concordar com meu comentário)  Esta é a terceira parte dêste artigo, vide as duas anteriores, numeros 2 e 1) . Foram perdidos muitos posts da Matrix devido uma revisão que desapareceu do blog ( principalmente posts do dia 08))

Ultimos posts da Matrix/DNA:

xxx

The supposed “scientific” objections to evolution “ONLY” come from creationists. This speaks volumes. If evolution had all the holes in it that creationists suggest, all scientists would be debating the issues. Instead the only people who raise objections are doing so because of something unscientific to begin with: their belief in god… Ironically, something that requires no evidence itself.

That’s not important, but I need to say, I am not creationist and I have objections – not to evolution as natural process – but against the Darwinian Theory and its modern shape, Modern Synthesis. The three Darwinian variables – VSI (Variation, Selection, Inheritance) does not fill the gaps of species transformations and macroevolution is not reduced to biological evolution. What is Universal evolution? Which are the links between cosmological and biological evolution? ToE is a science-stopper.

xxxx


Darwin was metaphysical when said: “The big diversification of species indicates they are product of evolution and not created one by one by God”. A thru naturalist philosopher never says the word “god” nor mention something written in mythological books because he can’t having that things in his mind, it works as deviation of Reason, and creates avoidable wars with beliefs that don’t deserve attention. Metaphysics still present in neo-Darwinism believing in blind evolution, as science-stopper.

xxx

Is it possible a mechanical non-living watch giving origins to organisms, internally? Nature did it: the Newtonian watch ( solar system) produced all living beings here. Is that what says the theory of abiogenesis? That’s wrong? Is it right teaching it to children? Which is your opinion?

“Is it possible a mechanical non-living watch giving origins to organisms, internally?”

Are we talking about a metallic watch made up of non-affinitive macro-structures?

Do you really think something like a watch or car or computer is analogous to life? A watch is built using mechanical tooling. So are cars, and computers. So they are not in the slightest bit comparable to a biological system that is built from a single and heritable nucleic acid polymer. If you still don’t get it, just ask.

Jack Hoff in reply to TheMatrixDNA 1 minute ago


You know I am talking about the solar system. You know it is all about Newton’s mechanics. And I already ask: “Inside the solar system, described by Newtonian mechanics, arose life. Was it an evolutionary sequitur or something outside the solar system came here for producing life?

TheMatrixDNA in reply to Jack Hoff 1 second ago


What the hell does “evolutionary sequitur” mean? It’s entirely possible that panspermia occurred and life came here on a meteoroid but that’s a circular answer as we would still have to determine where that life came from. Perhaps life is an emergent property of basic chemistry.

It must be a production of basic chemistry, I can’t see other alternative. But… that chemistry should have the forces and elements for producing biological systems. If these forces and elements were not discovered yet in this solar system ( and forget panspermia) where they came from?! From magic or from nothing? By evolutionary sequitur I tried to say: “life was produced naturally by evolution from its last more evolved ancestor – which only can be this solar system” (or are there another?)

“Newtonian watch”? That’s a metaphor, dipshit. Solar systems are not timepieces. By the way, Newtonian physics were demonstrated as inaccurate by the theory of relativity.

And which were the forces and elements that relativity has discovered, which added to Newronian’s mechanic model, had produced biological systems?

And the Theory of Relativity demonstrated inaccurate by Quantum Theory. You can’t throw out the baby with the bathwater though. Newtonian physics still very much describe how the Universe works even if some things were proved inaccurate by Relativity. The same applies with our understanding of the atomic level and the way that Relativity does not properly describe what we observe. All work together to form the best picture we can until we have a “Theory of Everything.”

Thanks by the intelligent observation. Is this indication that we need re-calculate the reduced atmosphere and the ingredients inside that primordial soup for elucidating the initial mystery of abiogenesis, and by extension, how the process of evolution emerged here? Over the solar system we need apply relativity and quantum mechanics… or were those chemicals elements at Earth entangled with their counterparts at some unknown outsider atomic or astronomical system? What do you think?.

My opinion is, you need to learn some astronomy and biology before you try to wax philosophical about them.

And my opinion is that you focuses over the facts (solar system, Newtonian mechanics, abiogenesis) instead being a psychologist. Be white.

Every lifeform is evolving. Fucking retard.

“salvage monkeys”

So are they going around, gathering what’s useful? And yet you insult them.

Then you have a time machine?! Some lifeform goes to extinction; others are transformed into more complex form. The situation of monkeys today only will be known in the future. Are you a divine prophet? I am sure you are not a great Pink Unicorn prophet because he is all love, his prophets does not insults nobody. It is not insult calling monkeys as salvage: if you don’t do that, they will think you are calling them as “gay”. Stay calm, don’t be furious, think Pink, we all are Pink…somewhere.

xxx

I’m Christian and I believe in evolution. All the facts point to evolution being true and most biblical scholars believe that Genesis’s portrayal of creation is most likely a metaphor.

Tobias, there is hypothesis suggesting the narrative of Garden Eden could be the most accurate account of evolution, ever. This hypothesis emerges from the results of comparative anatomy between living and those ancestors non-living systems (atoms, galaxies). You get a picture of a link system, the state of the world minutes before life’s origins. In that picture there are all symbols used in Genesis: serpent, tree, genomes X and Y (Adam, Eve), the Fall, apple. But… memorized in our DNA!

TheMatrixDNA in reply to TobiasFunke2026 1 second ago – 5:45 AM – Dom – 30

xxx

Did you read my other comments? I believe in a God who is completely just and merciful. No one will be roasting in hell. They will have to pay for their sins if they do not rely on the atonement of the Savior, but they will be given a kingdom of glory. I believe that God communicates with mankind today as of old.

This Bible’s history makes sense, when based in my personal investigation about Humanity’s conditions today. But you know, the Bible was written by men, illiterates, living in a tribal state of salvagery, who said that talked with God, and even they were able to produce the contents in the Bible ( a whole history obeying the same moral patterns), we have lots of other authors able to write fictions in same style. How could the Bible stopping you from doing yours own investigation?!

xxx

Hummm… this debate leads me to suspect that there is no other outside reality than that created by  collective human mind. Our social state just now is the actual result of the eternal dispute between two internal opposite tendencies inherited from something existing before Big Bang: tendency to creationism, to be closed system, inertial, acomodated, female; tendency to evolutionism, to be opened system, progressist, unstable, male. Hystorical experience shows that we must wish noone earns.

TheMatrixDNA 1 second agon – 7:00 PM – Sat – 29

xxx

alfadrone: The universe comprises an evident system of causes and effects, and it is possible to construct theories about them.”

The unique thrutfull source for the best rational theory is Nature, whithout bias. The Universe has been studied and described by Physics in same way that Physics will describes a fecundated ova and embryogenese inside, whithout grasping the biology and meaning. Before the Big Bang that starts the process in ova there was a previous non-intelligent design. No creation

xxx

HISTRUTHBEKNOWN: “It has never been shown that a coding system and information could originate by itself in a material medium”

RNA/DNA is not a code and was not made by some intelligence transmitting a message. DNA is merely a long line of undividuals (nucleotides) of same specie, the ancestor LUCA. As humans beings, every individual has some specific different detail and specialized in specific function, the whole works like a Ford production. See: THE HUMAN COSMIC CODE… IS THE GALAXY’S DNA!

HISTRUTHBEKNOWN: “WHY IS ATP SYNTHASE ANALOGOUS TO AN ELECTRIC MOTOR THAT HUMANS INTELLIGENTLY DESIGNED AND MANUFACTURED?”

ATP Synthase motor is merely the biological shape that evolved from an ancestor mechanical shape, which is the rotational motor of galaxies. If you want to learn about and see the pictures of this evolution – detail by detail – Google: The Cellular ATP Motor came from the Galaxies’ Rotational Motor?! Cherrs…

xxx

” EVERY creature is complete, but still slowly changing, adapting”.

This kind of evidences has not convinced creationists, the proof is their existence and faith after 150 years. Why? Because the mind of creationists was indocrinated to jump to first causes.

” EVERY creature is complete, but still slowly changing, adapting”. This kind of evidences has not convinced creationists, the proof is their existence and faith after 150 years. Why? Because the mind of creationists was indocrinated to jump to first causes.

xxx

That depends largely on the question if our universe is the only one. If there are many universes (which may sound unlikely at first, but actually it is very lilely the case), then it is no surprise that there is one like ours among them. You see the chance to win the lottery is very slim, yet people win quite regularly 😉

But you are correct,the fine tuning of the universe is indeed one of the strongest arguments for design behind this universe, but it says nothing about who/what designed here

felix mai in reply to magical224 (Show the comment) 23 minutes ago

Felix, about source of light, Mandelbrot, Universe tuned, Science in Genesis – these things earn a new dimension if we stop with Physics and Math and go back as human observing Nature with the modern scientific knowledge.The most ancient method – comparative anatomy - now applied for comparison between living and non-living systems is a astounding source of surprises due the results. Light becomes a tiny force that imprints the process of vital cycles into matter (birth, growing, – cont.

TheMatrixDNA in reply to felix mai 1 second ago

maturation, death). So, it is possible that a natural source of light introduced at the Big Bang the code of life modelling all matter – from atoms to galaxies for finally producing life, in the way this light go. The Universe tuned for life remember the womb tuned for babies and the initial quantum vortexes remember bits-information that remember genes, everything suggesting that in this Universe is occurring a genetic reproduction of something ex-machine, but, natural. DNA becomes a univ..

TheMatrixDNA in reply to TheMatrixDNA 1 second ago

universal matrix that is coming under evolution since Big Bang and can be seen modelling from atoms to galaxies. This matrix is a living and evolving Mandelbrot fractal seen at every natural architeture: for instance our hands, the different functions of fingers, fits very well when superposed to a nucleotide, the building block of DNA. Genesis becomes a metaphora that describes corretly the state of the world 5 billion years ago. It is weird, but suggests that our worldview will change totally.

TheMatrixDNA in reply to TheMatrixDNA 1 second ago

If you really want to go into this in more detail i would say PM me to my account. This is hardly the place for a serious detailed discussion about topics that are this complex 😉 We are way to restricted in lenght of the arguments, can´t really work with links etc. So mail me if you are sreious, but be warned, i might need a bit to answer (i should prepare a pecture atm, but i just needed a break ^^)

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

You are right: no way for debating these issues here. My point is that this guy, (magical…) is remembering that the mythology in genesis could be product of people more “natural” than we are today and trying to find answers their imagination sometimes touch next to the right answers. Of course, most of it must be fiction, but, if a theory of everything will be get by Biology instead Physics and Math it will mean that some great theories today had extrapolate reality and could be fiction also.

TheMatrixDNA in reply to felix mai 1 second ago

xxx

you story book god has no concept of real justice does he? How can you condemn children for their parents misdeeds? How can you condemn great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great grand children for those same misdeeds eons ago?

ExtantFrodo2 in reply to Péter Szabó (Show the comment) 11 seconds ago

Hummm…Astronomical punishment takes astronomical time. Our justice condemns a man 50 years old for his misdeeds 30 years ago.The misdeeds of eons ago are from the same spirit/children today. Have you heard about selfish gene? It appeared when the spirit living in this Universe choose to build his own world separated from everything else, a perfect closed system. It was a kind of garden paradise. And it was the building block of galaxies. Hermaphrodite was male and female (Adam and Even). So?

TheMatrixDNA in reply to ExtantFrodo2 1 second ago

xxx

PART 1 OF 2

In 1980, the “Macroevolution Conference” was held in Chicago. Roger Lewin, writing for Science, described it as a “turning point in the history of evolutionary theory.” Summarizing a range of opinions, he said:

The central question of the Chicago conference was whether the mechanisms underlying microevolution can be extrapolated to explain the phenomena of macroevolution.  At the risk of doing violence to the positions of some of the people at the meeting, the answer can be given as a clear, No. Roger Lewin, “Evolution Theory under Fire,” Science, Vol. 210, 21 November 1980, p. 883.

HISTRUTHBEKNOWN in reply to NuggetKazooie (Show the comment) 21 minutes ago

Everything wrong! Evolution is shared into three levels: microevolution, mediumevolution and macroevolution. Micro occurs in individuals or species; medium occurs in biological organization of matter among populations of species; macro is universal, the evolution of a unique natural system that had the quantum-magnetic shape of atoms, the mechanical solid shape of galaxies and here, the liquid-biological shape. Medium evolution works only with micro+macro mechanisms. Tell it to Lewin.

TheMatrixDNA in reply to HISTRUTHBEKNOWN 1 second ago

Oh…, and for you and Lewin two suggestions: 1) Google this article’s title: Physicist Derives Laws of Thermodynamics For Life Itself; 2) See the model of a macroevolutionay system by Google: The Universal Matrix of Natural Systems and Vital Cycles Home

TheMatrixDNA in reply to TheMatrixDNA 1 second ago

xxx

This is just a part of the truth, maybe we should see their side, search for: “Ken Ham Responds to Intolerant Bill Nye Defenders”

Péter Szabó in reply to GreatG0dOm (Show the comment) 2 minutes ago

My Dog! How in the hell I can watch a video-response where the man says: “The reason I answered in that way is because the Bible…”

Is he a retard?

Facts, man, facts…go straight to facts, real natural data! Pleases, refers to any kind of foreign ancient history with their mythological tales that you like to people that says like that too, but we here have no time for waste in it and we don’t like it.

TheMatrixDNA in reply to Péter Szabó 1 second ago

xxx

Tell me how life began as well… I know that according to Darwinism, life began from a single cell. And just correct me if I’m wrong. And you said evolutionary stages is separate… So from that one cell made different types of dinosaurs, trees, plants, and fishes? Thats a lot of variety and made so perfectly. You know what I mean? Like… each living thing has a purpose to either be eaten or not. And… not only that but cells/ organs inside them have a purpose as well….

drawingangel2 in reply to shamanis1227 10 minutes ago

“I know that according to Darwinism, life began from a single cell.”

Supposing that life began from a single cell and supposing that life was created by a supernatural magician, are both, deviation of human reason from its roots – Nature.

Nobody was there, we have lots of experiments suggesting abiogenesis, but abiogenesis by chance is other deviation of reason. Someone have seeing magic creating something? No. Someone have seen chains of accidents creating some working natural system? No.

EXACTLY! So both evolution and religion is based on faith or theory. Right?? But… I can’t explain this… I have met two friends (Jenny, and Jennifer) They have similar names I know, but one day we were having a serious convo about religion. Jenny, whom I met in high school, is not crazy and doesnt do drugs but she said that she became a Christian after God saved her from demonic possession. Jennifer, whom I met in college (shes a pharm student, so very intelligent) said the same thing…

drawingangel2 in reply to TheMatrixDNA 1 minute ago

That’s the point! Any human being that has plenty of control of his/her rationality and his/her brain is hard-wired naturally does not shows silly behaviors. And any observer that loves such people leads them to a doctor. But if someone suggest that the non normal behavior is caused by non natural causes certainly has no natural reason. Only who invented ghosts as demon can invent also ghosts as gods. Everything wrong with Jenny and Jennifer and any bastard that gets profit from their disgrace.

TheMatrixDNA in reply to drawingangel2 1 second ago

xxx

Wrong, Atheist. Life is either product of intent, or life is an unintended byproduct of chance. Atheism is faith that life is an unintended byproduct of chance.

Atheism is also faith that the laws of physics and the laws of nature were formulated by chance.

And another faith of Atheism is that the continuous force which is ordering atoms from energy is being caused chance. Chance is a condition – of disorder.

No creative genius or scientific genius in history was in denial of God’s existence.

onefodderunit in reply to BobLeeSwaggaa 7 hours ago

“Chance is a condition of disorder”

You say that because you don’t know how a new environment (like earth biosphere) is created due internal slow collapse of any natural system ( like entropy of solar system). Initially the new environment is chaotic ( salvage biosphere) but the work of entropic particles trying to rebuild the system ( like genes) lift up a flow of order from the chaos ( biological evolution). Disorder is a determined product of chance, but order is possible, and is stronger.

TheMatrixDNA in reply to onefodderunit 1 second ago – 5:02 AM – Thu – 27

Thanks for remind the great Max, who said: “All matter originates and exists only by virtue of a force which brings the particle of an atom to vibration and holds this most minute solar system of the atom together. We must assume behind this force the existence of a conscious and intelligent mind. This mind is the matrix of all matter”  If you have noticed, my name here is Matrix/DNA so our matrixes bring us to closer. But Plank didn’t know perfect closed systems and that force is natural light.

xxx

Creationists and ToEists have the same problem: reductionism. Nature teaches that always there are three alternatives. If reduction >expansion> equilibrium. Creationists had reduced a possible consciousness-God of zillions of life-forms in zillions of galaxies of zillions of Universes to a man that watch this lost planetary point. ToEists forgets that evolution and natural systems are coming from the unknown darkness beyond Bib Bang. Only Matrix/DNA Theory is trying the expansion.

TheMatrixDNA 1 second ago – 11:54 PM Wed – 26

Matrix is right… unknown darkness. and M theory is based on “extra dimensions” that we cant yet detect

xzel0 in reply to TheMatrixDNA (Show the comment) 1 minute ago

I have often said that reductionism was a problem. I think some forms of physics like m-theory have gone beyond the big bang. Thankfully. Even as a child, I wondered, “how can they think this is the only universe? how can they think life isn’t ubiquitous, look around?” Look up into the sky at night, billions of suns/stars showing you that light shines on many planets.

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

Oh, Honorable Prophet Number One! You are back! I wish…I wish…everything pink for you.

Yes but don’t worry: we are a portion of dense embryos of consciousnesses inside bubbles that are this human head surrounding by the cosmic adult less dense consciousness.From Big Bang we are going to our Big Birth, when our bubble will open and we will be the great ocean. Pink Unicorn came last night with beautiful pink rose in his face ( he is all love) and said that. Think pink! The Universe is pink!

TheMatrixDNA in reply to PinkUnicornIsLord 1 second ago

xxx

Also, what’s the point of acting like there is free will, when God would know the destiny of all his creations.

The Bible also says not even Jesus know when he will return to earth. According to Christianity, Jesus is God but a human version. How could God keep information from himself?

HighCardWins in reply to PinkUnicornIsLord (Show the comment) 38 minutes ago

Free will? In the most possible perfect and happy paradise was living Gods Father and Mother, a lot of sons. One son once time said: I know everything here is good but is missing something:you have more power than me. I will travel and will build my world where I will be really powerful” God said to mother: Let him go. He will built hundreds different worlds, will experiment all, and one day he will make one just like this. He will create a father/mother, just us. Everything will be the same.

TheMatrixDNA in reply to HighCardWins 1 second ago

xxx

The ‘Chicken or the Egg’ question is one that believers in a Creator cling to.

They actually see it as a “got’cha” question that wonderfully mocks evolution. It doesn’t.

Newly found fossils of embryos from the first aquatic reptiles called mesosaurs — along with a pregnant female — may be the oldest known example of birth given to live young instead of eggs. Both mammals and reptiles wrap their developing embryos in protective layers, something that helped the little ones survive on land.

DarwinsFriend 2 minutes ago

Yes, but the evolution from reptiles laying eggs out to mammals keeping eggs in is a challenge to ToE , I think. Why a reptile female should have the wish for keeping the egg inside?! It is a could-blood monster that eats its babies! Or if the impulse for this evolutionary process did not came from inside the reptile, what kind of pressure could exert the environment over that female?! Pregnancy turns into weakness for hunting and survival, should be discarded by natural selection. Or not?

TheMatrixDNA in reply to DarwinsFriend 1 second ago

“the evolution from reptiles laying eggs out to mammals keeping eggs in is a challenge to ToE”

How is it a challenge? We have monotremes, egg laying mammals, we have marsupials, where the baby is not completely formed in the female’s body and we have placental mammal. Heck, it’s been observed that some reptile went from oviparous to viviparous.

You might want to study the subject before saying it challenge a scientific theory,

Atharkas in reply to TheMatrixDNA (Show the comment) 23 seconds ago

I had read enough about these transitional states from reptiles to mammals. The last and best link should be the “cynodont”, I have read. But your answer does not address my problem: natural selection should discard any minor mutation towards mammals pregnancy. A hypothesis is that ToE is not knowing the whole truth about natural selection or the agent behind it – the contemporary environmental model. Do you know there are other theories suggesting a more complete natural selection mechanism?

TheMatrixDNA in reply to Atharkas 1 second ago

Well as it happens this very transition has been witnessed recently in Australia’s yellow-bellied three-toed skink.

google: Evolution in Action: Lizard Moving From Eggs to Live Birth

narco73 in reply to TheMatrixDNA (Show the comment) 3 minutes ago

The transition is well documented, I think, but it only describes the process working, not what is driven the process. Natural selection as believed in ToE should discard the first tiny mutation to mammals pregnancy because it prejudices the female reptile. It suggests that ToE has not grasped the whole mechanism of evolution, yet. Ok, this is my humble opinion and I am biased because I appreciate my Matrix/DNA models that suggests more complex explanation for evolution. Don’t worry.

TheMatrixDNA in reply to narco73 1 second ago

xxx

The God Particle has been discovered by European scientists proving that all things were created from a Super Partner meaning we were created from something that has the same DNA as us. MEANING we were intelligently created and designed. Simply put God created us. Lastly, look at what Bill says in this video…he describes nothing at all. No proof. No evidence.

Archos Archon in reply to narco73 1 minute ago

That’s interesting! Which relations the Higgs boson has with DNA?! Where did you get it? Some link, please? But there is a big mistake in your theory. If we were created by something with same DNA ( and this is next to what my theoretical models are suggesting about the same “matrix”), the process of creation must be the same genetic process, and everybody knows that genetic transmission does not need intelligence. What intelligence applied mother giraffe for creating the baby giraffe?

TheMatrixDNA in reply to Archos Archon 1 second ago

xxx

Light exists. You cannot disprove which is why you resorted to Old Testament . The thesis statement of John is God IS Light. Absolute PROOF

Chakrathazhwar in reply to TheHigherVoltage 7 minutes ago

How is hard-wired your brain in a way that you can not understand what “circular reasoning”” is? Why cannot you understand that words written in a book does not prove the existence of the fact it is saying exists? Of, courses, light exists. But to say that some special light is God you need bring this light here and showing it is able to do magics or talking things. By the way, my theoretical models suggests that natural light is the carrier of vital cycle process. Is it the arm of God?

TheMatrixDNA in reply to Chakrathazhwar 1 second ago

xxx

I have traveled to numerous continents hoping to be proven wrong. What I believed about origins and evolution for most of my life has now crumbled like a house of cards as my enjoyment for travel and post career time is allowing me to look behind the curtain. If I visited the creationist website you accused me of, then please amuse everyone here with the name of that website. You’re wrong. In an earlier post an evolution apologist described our life progression as evidence for evolution.

1GODISNOWHERE1 in reply to AlphaDogmatist 32 seconds ago

Why you had choose theism instead atheism or agnosticism. I did the same (traveled to continents searching for and now looking behind the curtain) and I choose agnosticism. Which were the causes that produced this final difference? The real nature of human beings. The salvage inheritance of salvage ancestors fighting for survival and searching the best accommodation ( wealthy, big house, employees, etc.). You was born as predator, I was born for being slave. You saw a good God. I didn’t.

TheMatrixDNA in reply to 1GODISNOWHERE1 1 second ago

Excellent proposition! My journey was similar to yours, and yet I realized that chasing historical creation theory was more enjoyable than chasing historical scientific theory. Observable, testable, repeatable. It’s worldview and finding one’s happy, or unhappy place. Biblical history, writings, and artifacts supporting it are observable and testable, but hardly repeatable. The Big Bang is none of the above. Shall we start a new thread on 30 degrees vs. 2.7 degrees Kelvin? Predator or servant?

1GODISNOWHERE1 in reply to TheMatrixDNA 4 hours ago

Creation is not a theory. Science has disproven what the bible says happened a long time ago. A lot of religious folk don’t believe in the literal genesis.

What do you mean “the big bang is none of the above?” there are repeatable experiments that can produce evidence for the big bang. Evolution, the big bang, any theory, is not a “worldview” it is the world. They are models that explain and make predictions. The big bang is reasonable just like its reasonable that the roman empire existed.

ArticulatedHypernova in reply to 1GODISNOWHERE1 (Show the comment) 4 hours ago

xxx

Darwinian evolution should be presented AS IT IS. A Natural History theory. IT IS NOT SCIENCE!

Chakrathazhwar 1 hour ago

And the Bible, Quran, etc., should be presented AS IT IS: merely a book written by men about the ancient history of foreign people full of mythological fantasies. IT IS NOT THE HISTORY AND FAIRY TALES OF OUR NATIONS!

TheMatrixDNA in reply to Chakrathazhwar 33 minutes ago

Bible and Quran? Why does scholarly westerners ignore the VAST library of ancient philosophical and scientific literature of India? Try reading Srimad Bhagavatam, Rg Veda, and various Upanishads that describe contemporary cosmology 11 centuries ago.

Chakrathazhwar in reply to TheMatrixDNA (Show the comment) 18 minutes ago

They does not ignore. Einstein had as bed-room book “The Secret Doctrine”, as said his housekeeper, and Newton wrote a lot about esoteric philosophies. In fact, these ancient philosophies had predicted lots of we are discovering today. But why India did not became the superpower and eradicated its larger population from the miseries cycle? Due wrong worldview that emerges from these philosophies/religions.Or not?

TheMatrixDNA in reply to Chakrathazhwar 1 second ago

What is super power? Enslavement to gadgets and the loss of real human personal relationships via spending countless hours on facebook and youtube? We are devolving.

Chakrathazhwar in reply to TheMatrixDNA 1 minute ago

I don’t think so. Contemplative philosophies of Indians’ monks did not eradicated the ideology that underlies its social system: the class division between predators/preys and general slavery. It means the salvage natural inheritance of human species driving the real life, not their religion. Same for Westerners. The spending of time in Internet is indicative that lots of humans are rejecting this traditional salvage systems, and searching other alternative. Internet is relationship among minds.

TheMatrixDNA in reply to Chakrathazhwar 1 second ago

Remember the British presented the west with its universal view of the caste system. The caste system is actually related to the classes of citizens of the Greek Polis and represents a social cooperative body of God on earth. Abuses are always introduced by mayavadis (i.e. impersonalists and atheists) which use try to destroy the harmony of society. The fundamental catalyst for destruction is personal greed and envy, the original sin as described in the book of GaNeSSH er I mean GeNeSiS

Chakrathazhwar in reply to TheMatrixDNA 1 minute ago

It doesn’t matter how British justify social systems, which matters is what this system is. It is mimicking the laws of the jungles: the prey works all day transforming plants into meat while the lions are resting, and when the production is ready the lions came to take it. Isn’t social system for beings that aren’t afraid doing their necessary hard work and loves all human beings. The Bible.Kuran, Tora, approve this animalism and are used by predators instead animal force because it is easier.

TheMatrixDNA in reply to Chakrathazhwar 1 second ago

xxx

If this world manages to survive a couple more centuries, I am certain that it will be the Evolutionist worldview that will have ceased to exist. Of course, mad scientists will be promoting some other utterly unprovable, illogical, rediculous theory on mankind, but there are so many holes in the theory of Evolution that it is nearly at the point of self impolosion, which is probably why the zealots are so desperate to convince us all to believe it. The drive to survive is not unique to species.

Timothy Stout 1 hour ago

The current state of Theory of Evolution will evolve for pairing with the real universal natural process of evolution. It is missing that Biologists grows their focus from biological evolution towards universal evolution. They will discover there are forces and mechanisms in the real creator of biological systems and inside who, biological organisms are driven to evolve that affects the diversification of species, causing puntuaction equillibrium, etc. They will fix Physics/Cosmology by Biology

TheMatrixDNA in reply to Timothy Stout 1 second ago

xxx

You just gotta laugh at darwinist/evolutionists/atheis­ts, no matter how many times they have their collective arses handed to them in any argument they just keep shouting the same old nonsense, “big bang, something from nothing, life from nothing, then man and everything else from ooze” and they call creationist crazy! Now, who has to have more faith in their beliefs?

alfadrone 21 minutes ago

Yours words reveals that your worldview is not appropriate for Humanity. If you see any human being saying things that you think is “nonsense” it means that a human being is infected with something that make it not convenient for the good of Humanity. Then, that person needs help and not laughing. But, prove that it is nonsense showing real facts or show real facts that prove the opposite worldview. If creationism produces laugh against human beings, it is not appropriate for Humanity.

TheMatrixDNA in reply to alfadrone 1 second ago

xxx

I don’t deny that life originated or that gradual change in species happens. I have not claimed to be a scientist. As I previously posted, Bill Nye crossed over into my unscientific realm and I have given some of my decidedly unscientific reasons that I think he is wrong. If nothing else, acknowledging that worldview determines acceptance of his theories will be a major accomplishment.

doctordemando in reply to Nullifidian 1 hour ago

I think is not a worldview, but the immense collection of factual evidences suggesting diversification of species coming from a common ancestor, like the expansion of Universe and diversification of galaxy’s shapes suggests the start from a initial atom/point, or the great diversification of cells shapes and functions of a blastula is known started from a single fecundated ova. But ToE suggests to the mind of children a kind of worldview that’s is a minded-stopper, not appropriate for children.

TheMatrixDNA in reply to doctordemando 1 second ago

xxx

So? Vitalism is long dead. There is no “lifeness”, no elan vital, that keeps living organisms going. It’s all chemistry keeping us far from thermodynamic equilibrium, and there’s no reason to believe that the predictability and regularity of chemistry was any different at the origin of life from what it is today.

That’s why the origins of life is not assumed to be a random process.

Nullifidian in reply to doctordemando (Show the comment) 2 hours ago

I think the problem is “how do you define “elan vital”. Knock down the “mind” as in “fainting”, by the rest of life of a person; it is still alive? I think “not”. Now: DNA works like a code. Code suggests the existence of “message”. Message can be the instructions of the mind for moving the body. So, it suggests that DNA has a kind of “mind”. If so, vitalism is acknowledge that always, from complex molecules to human beings, there is a same vital process. If so, it is not only chemistry. Wrong?

TheMatrixDNA in reply to Nullifidian 1 second ago 3:48 PM Wed 26

Thank you but I don’t think I can break it down any further than that. To say ‘life is inevitable because it exists’ just doesn’t cut it for me.

doctordemando in reply to Nullifidian 1 hour ago

I think we could refute this logic if we find an exoplanet in same conditions of Earth 4 billion years ago without life. It should be the proof that life is evitable. So, this “theory” is scientific because it is falsifiable. But it can not be a scientific statement because for such, one need show where and how the natural forces and elements are determined to converge to a tiny point in time/space and develops to life form. But then, it is not physics/chemistry alone, is Vitalism. Am I wrong?

TheMatrixDNA in reply to doctordemando 1 second ago

xxx

It constantly amazes me how creationists will trot out some piece of 19th century science like the 2nd law of thermodynamics as a refutation of evolution. The 19th century was the time when Darwin actually had scientifically literate opponents. Lord Kelvin wasn’t an idiot–if the 2LoT really and truly precluded evolution, he or some other anti-Darwinian physicist would have said so and we would have nothing to argue about now.

Nullifidian 1 hour ago

Maybe the problem is not Creationism neither evolution, but the theory of

2nd law. Nobody never saw a perfect natural closed system and most of samples mentioned by physicists are process and not systems. I have a theoretical model of a perfect closed system in my website but discovered it by accident: calculating how should be an evolutionary link between the most evolved non-living system and the less evolved living system ( galaxy and cell). It is clear how increased entropy produces order.

TheMatrixDNA in reply to Nullifidian 1 second ago

xxx

So who are these guys?

Sahelanthropus tchadensis, Orrorin tugenensis, Ardipithecus ramidus, Australopithecus anamensis, Australopithecus afarensis, Kenyanthropus platyops, Australopithecus africanus, Australopithecus garhi, Australopithecus sediba, Australopithecus aethiopicus, Australopithecus robustus, Australopithecus boisei, Homo habilis, Homo georgicus, Homo erectus, Homo ergaster, Homo antecessor, Homo heidelbergensis, Homo neanderthalensis, Homo floresiensis, Homo sapiens sapiens.

DarwinsFriend in reply to Tom Adams (Show the comment) 1 hour ago

Alls these guys were great workers preparing the landscape and red carpet for arrival of human species. But all these guys were commanded by the Great Mithy Tiny God Pink Unicorn. Think Pink. The Universe is Pink.

TheMatrixDNA in reply to DarwinsFriend 43 minutes ago

xxx

Evolution ISN’T random because it’s driven by natural selection, which is non-random. Answer.com explains why.

“Natural selection acts on the genetic diversity of a population, where the best traits for survival and reproduction increase in frequency over time. Since natural selection pushes a population’s traits in an advantageous direction, it’s not random but rather predictable, since we know its purpose.”

NuggetKazooie in reply to YesYouNeedJesus (Show the comment) 2 minutes ago

This makes no sense. If natural blind forces pushes a natural process’s traits in an advantageous direction, and the trait called “natural selection” was selected by those blind forces for survival over time, natural selection is product of randomness, which reverts over evolution as product of randomness. Or not?

TheMatrixDNA in reply to NuggetKazooie 1 second ago

How is it random? Didn’t I explain why? Maybe you should Google it.

NuggetKazooie in reply to TheMatrixDNA 4 minutes ago

Why only is there universes that has natural selection? Can not have worlds without natural selection? Is there something or someone determining that all worlds will have natural selection? Nope. Then, natural selection is product of randomness, and in its track, so is evolution.

TheMatrixDNA in reply to NuggetKazooie 1 second ago

xxx

@fangednekoyasha Evolution is an idea that DOESN’T PAN OUT. Changes/adaptations/mutations? Yes, but no new information SPONTANEOUSLY appearing. EVER.

John Brown 4 minutes ago

“no new information SPONTANEOUSLY appearing. EVER.”

Despite the fact you makes sense ( this Universe can not create information from nothing) evidences suggests that new informations had appearing in organisms. How do you explain this paradox? I am waiting and will advance the best solution I have found:hierarchy of natural systems – by which, informations from a larger system, sometimes invisible or not fully known to human beings, penetrates its internal subsystems driven their mutations.

TheMatrixDNA in reply to John Brown 1 second ago – 6:05 PM- Tue – 25

xxx

The “same designer” argument does not explain why such patterns of shared traits only ever follow a single nested hierarchy. This hierarchy is also confirmed in genetic patterns such as the pattern of shared ERVs.

Onithyr in reply to Darren Spill (Show the comment) 4 minutes ago

The “same designer” fully explains ERVs if described as the model in Matrix/DNA Theory. But..then, this designer in not supernatural neither intelligent, merely an ancestor that has been ignored by ToE: LUCA – the Last Universal Common Ancestor of all biological beings. The model shows the real creator of life, LUCA, as the building block of astronomical systems that is coming evolving since the Big Bang. So, take care when avoiding the idea that the first life came from previous natural design

TheMatrixDNA in reply to Onithyr 1 second ago – 4:42 PM – Tue – 25

xxx

My Dog! I am being hard bitten here by the “stupid monkeys cult” and sametime by “stupid ghost in the sky cult”! Please my Great Protector Might and Tiny Pink Unicorn, save me! Where is your first honorable prophet the Number One PinkUnicornIsLord? I am falling but I am loud: We are all pink…somewhere. The Universe is Pink! Think Pink!

TheMatrixDNA 1 second ago

xxx

Fun little question for you: If the big bang created the entire universe’s matter from energy, where did the energy come from and where did the empty space the energy was located in come from? More to the point, isn’t the big bang’s existence just as impossible to prove as a intelligent being having created the universe? If that is the case, then for what reason is “God” laughed at by some scientists but the big band theory isn’t laughed at just as much?

Permafry42 in reply to DNAunion 15 hours ago

Why are you so extremely based in dualism? Experience suggests that always there are third alternatives in the middle of two extremes, and generally, is this hidden alternative where lays the wisdom. A third alternative cam be the models of Matrix/DNA Theory: mass and energy are derivations emitted from two different frequencies of electric-magnetic spectrum of any natural light wave advancing over opposite light wave that generates dark energy. And Light can be a tool of God for creation or not

TheMatrixDNA in reply to Permafry42 1 second ago

While i believe there to be some type of high power out there (whether he/she/it created the universe is impossible to prove or disprove), I neither believe in science nor faith as a solution to the answer of the universe. All theories and theologies have the problem of infinite regress, meaning it’s impossible to prove or disprove any theory or belief about the creation of the universe.

Permafry42 in reply to TheMatrixDNA 3 minutes ago

Yes, I also think that this two groups ( one defending the existence of gods and other the non-existence of gods but coming with no better explanation) are ingenious. But it seems that we disagree in something: it’s impossible to prove or disprove any those theories but our knowledge is advancing and we need to keep the hope that one day we will be finally free from this ignorance of our existence. This hope is the cause I tried a new method of investigation and elaborated new theory. Cheers…

TheMatrixDNA in reply to Permafry42 1 second ago

xxx

You can trace time as far back as you would like, but It had to start somewhere by some uncaused cause. Call that cause what you want, but I see no evidence to state that there is no uncaused cause that started it all. Atheists please prove me wrong, I am open to opinion. Also, because you cannot emperiologically prove something to be correct does not mean that it is not. There is no emperiological evidence for gravity, yet if one denied the existence of gravity one would be considered insane.

Eating2Bananas in reply to TheOfficialPSPHacker 16 hours ago

You never learn? Don’t you know that human beings solely with their real knowledge and hard-wired brain can not solve problems beyond this observed material Universe? Universe from nothing or supernatural eternal creators gods are products of imaginations that has no foundations in humans’ nature and real knowledge. If we will solve this problem, there is an unique method: starting from what we know and can perceive here and now and trying to amplify our horizons. We can not jump to the Truth.

TheMatrixDNA in reply to Eating2Bananas 1 second ago

xxx

Neo-darwinism is on its way out and will soon be the next scientific theory believed by 99% of scientists, yet obviously false. Anyone remember spontaneous generation? The problem with atheists and evolutionists is that they always assume there MUST be a naturalistic explanation for something. When your initial assumption is wrong, good luck to you. There is not always a naturalistic explanation for evidence. Mt. Rushmore was not created by random, natural processes. Life is information based!

Will Duffy 2 minutes ago

“If you want know ME, came through studying my job, which is my link with you: Nature.” That is what said my Great God Pink Unicorn. Suppose that God said it, really. You would making a terrible mistake conditioning the mind of your children if, instead obeying God, you are obeying ancient foreigns and their mythology, like Bible, Kuran, etc., which leads your children ignoring Nature and dealing with the supernatural. All life that you know is based in natural information. Poor children!

TheMatrixDNA in reply to Will Duffy 1 second ago – 2″44 PM Tues – 25

xxx

That wasn’t Nye’s point. He said, “Parents can believe in evolution, but please don’t teach evolution to your kids because we need engineers”. This statement uses a false logical exclusion. Engineers can be creationists. Both evolution and creationism use the same facts, but make different interpretations of those facts, depending on worldview. Remember, peer reviews don’t eliminate bias, but confirm that the bias that is present is accepable by the mainstream. That is all.

cjbasye in reply to BlueScreenLife (Show the comment) 55 minutes ago

You are right. Peer review are made by biological beings and they are specific observers located in a specific point in time/space with limited sensors capability. This kind of observer selects subjectively some data and discriminates/ignores other data that are invisible to them. It is absurd that any rational being believes that his current and limited scientific method can reach the truth about any real material body. But we have no alternative and this is the way we will evolve.

TheMatrixDNA in reply to cjbasye 1 second ago

“Remember, peer reviews don’t eliminate bias, but confirm that the bias that is present is accepable by the mainstream.”

Bullshit. You completely miss the point of peer review. Peer review, by its very nature in examining methodology and seeing whether the study has posited alternative explanations to the main hypothesis being put forward, etc., works to eliminate bias.

Creationism fails miserably on this account, and you want to lecture to people here about “bias”? Bullshit.

BlueScreenLife in reply to cjbasye 2 minutes ago

xxx

Science is not infallible and men are not omniscient. The history of science is fraught with examples of disagreements, even among colleagues in the same field. You say spin or hype, that may be true, but it might not be the case at all. Just because we have not discovered a use for what is called “junk DNA” does not mean it is useless or truly junk.

Steven Rowitt in reply to Nullifidian (Show the comment) 54 minutes ago

Scientists are humans and makes errors when interpreting real data. The wrong concept of “junk DNA” is due scientists in the field of biology has accepted the dominance of theoretical concepts coming from the field of Physics and has not questioned the astronomical model furnished by astronomers. Then.biologists are not going further into the state of the world when appeared the junk DNA because Physics suggests it came by chance. The “junk” is non-expressed potential functions of past times.

TheMatrixDNA in reply to Steven Rowitt 1 second ago

“Physics suggests it came by chance. The ‘junk’ is non-expressed potential functions of past times.”

– junk DNA no more pertains to a ‘non-expressed potential function of the past’ than a large rock pertains to a ‘non-expressed potential wheel of my car’.

types10000 in reply to TheMatrixDNA (Show the comment) 4 minutes ago

Totally wrong your analogy. DNA is a system, all about systems, and rocks are not systems, only constituents of parts of systems. Constituents of parts can be inertial mass, not performing any function than being mass for fulfill empty spaces. As a system and encoded data DNA possess memory of functions of its ancestors system which has no practical use now, so, junk as potential functions. Remember the pieces in a junk car for selling because they can be useful yet.

TheMatrixDNA in reply to types10000 1 second ago

xxx

Now how the universe with its “clockwork” functioning of natural laws came into existence… that’s another question. I’d say its valid to consider it may have been created by an intelligent entity.

Doug Bane 9 seconds ago

Yes it is wonderful how this Universe works perfectly as the best machine.But searching for causes that produced the Universe in this way out of nature is not rational. And Nature shows to us just here other beautiful micro-universe “with its clockwork functioning by natural laws” and producing a new biological system, a new “life”: the womb of a pregnant woman. Nature does not play dice with us. The womb came to existence from a previous non-intelligent design: genome. Why not the Universe?

TheMatrixDNA in reply to Doug Bane 1 second ago – 3:17 PM – Mon- 24

xxx

THE ABSURD NOTION OF BIOLOGICAL EVOLUTION FROM NONLIVING AND MINDLESS CHEMICAL ELEMENTS DEFIES THESE SCIENTIFIC LAWS, PRINCIPLES OR THEOREMS:

1st & 2nd LAW OF THERMODYNAMICS [CONSERVATION OF ENERGY; EVER INCREASING ENTROPY/BIOLOGICAL ENTROPY RESP.]

LAW OF BIOGENESIS [LIFE FROM NONLIVING IS IMPOSSIBLE I.E. ABIOGENESIS]

INFORMATION SCIENCE & THEOREMS

MENDELIAN GENETICS

BREEDING LIMITATIONS [VARIATION LIMITED TO WITHIN KIND, NO CROSS BREEDING BETWEEN KINDS]

HALDANE’S DILEMMA

CHEMICAL LAWS

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

Of course it is absurd. It would be the same notion of human embryo evolution from the punch of atoms grouped in molecules inside a fecundated egg. But how a rational being think when facing this mystery of life’s origins? Don’t apply any kind of imagination or intellectual inquiry before searching the solution that Nature is showing. How Nature do it? The final baby comes from a natural designer: parents belonging to human species. I have found my “natural designer” for life.Search it yourself.

TheMatrixDNA in reply to HISTRUTHBEKNOWN 1 second ago

Thermodynamics: The net entropy of a system will increase, but units within the system may become more ordered without violating this.

Biogenesis: We aren’t talking about spontaneous generation, but chemical reactions that can produce the key molecules that make life possible. See the Miller–Urey experiment.

Information science: What? How on earth does evolution contradict information science?

(con’t)

Renbirde in reply to HISTRUTHBEKNOWN 1 minute ago

Are you saying that the tendency of non organic matter getting ordered in the way that creates aminoacids. proteins and finally a complete biological system is product of an entropic event? But… entropy of what?! Which kind of entropy was occurring when the Earth surface was nude of life?!

TheMatrixDNA in reply to Renbirde 1 second ago

My knowledge is that the aminoacids produced by Miller-Urey experiments are not those that constitutes the building blocks of biological systems. And why the aminoacids of Miller-Urey did not follow the natural steps of evolution, towards the next phase, the production of proteins, membranes, RNA. etc.? Of course, the answer can be one and unique that: there were hidden variables or ingredients in that soup of reduced atmospheric that Miller and scientists today does not know.

TheMatrixDNA in reply to Renbirde 1 second ago

“And why the aminoacids of Miller-Urey did not follow the natural steps of evolution, towards the next phase, the production of proteins, membranes, RNA. etc”

a). evolution explains the diversity of life NOT IT’S ORIGIN, it’s a seperate topic

b). the reason Miller-Urey experiment didnt demonstrate ‘the next stage’ is because it wasnt meant to (it was beyond the scope of the experiment), HOWEVER the ‘next stage’ WAS DEMONSTRATED in subsequent experiments.

types10000 in reply to TheMatrixDNA 4 minutes ago

The exact aminoacids got by Miller-Urey becoming automatically peptides and those complexes molecules for proteins?! Please give me the link for the “paper” or at least some theory about, please… I know that ToE is not related to abiogenesis, my answer for Renbirde is due his talking about abiogenesis.

TheMatrixDNA in reply to types10000 1 second ago

“My knowledge is that the aminoacids produced by Muller-Urey experiments are not those that constitutes the building blocks of biological systems”

– that really depends on what you define as ‘the building blocks of biological systems’ in anycase the experiment demonstrated the formation of organic matter from inorganic matter and provided a testable prediction for abiogenesis (one the best forms of evidence in science).

types10000 in reply to TheMatrixDNA (Show the comment) 1 minute ago

Of course, the building blocks (not talking about atoms) are those 20 aminoacids seen in all life’s forms. I know the great contribution of Miller-Urey experiment for advance our reason and knowledge in the right track. The problem is that the Miller’s reduced atmosphere was based on the Pavlov calculations who had focused Earth alone and forgot that earth is merely a part of a big system and the sun’s energy is 50% of the whole history. Then, the hidden variables missing in that experiment.

TheMatrixDNA in reply to types10000 1 second ago

“The exact aminoacids got by Miller-Urey becoming… ”

– what the experiments have shown is that amino acids are fully capable of forming increasingly complex chemical structures, and that these structures can form increasingly complex structures .etc. Which provides EVIDENCE in the form of TESTABLE PREDICTIONS (one of the best forms of evidence in science) that the steps you mention can occur via naturalistic means.

That is why abiogenesis is the best and most well evidenced explanation

types10000 in reply to TheMatrixDNA 4 minutes ago

Yes, the existence of cars have shown that from them we see increasing complex structures, as roads, bridges, GPS. Which provides evidences in the form of testable predictions that the steps of increasing and diversified complexity occurs in Nature. You have not furnished the links for papers affirming that Miller aminoacids did it alone as I can not suggest real data that cars do it alone. We don’t need ID for abiogenesis if we see that longtime process as cosmological embryogenesis.

TheMatrixDNA in reply to types10000 2 seconds ago

“The problem is that the Miller’s reduced atmosphere was based on the Pavlov calculations…”

– incorrect, whilst the earliest Miller-Urey experiments were conducted under the conditions you mention the later ones were not and they also were shown to produce amino acids.

– That combined with the later experiments by Joan Oro indicates that the circumstances necessary for amino acid formation are not particularly rare.

types10000 in reply to TheMatrixDNA 4 minutes ago

You have no teaching me how the Miller’s aminoacids gave alone the next evolutionary step and it seems that this process never was proved in lab. Yes. the circumstances necessary for amino acid formation are not rare if we take as base the models of Matrix/DNA Theory suggesting that instead abiogenesis there was cosmological embryogenesis with big mutations due the new state of matter ( liquid) and emergence of organic chemistry. By the way, thanks for mentioning Joan Oro, I will Google it.

TheMatrixDNA in reply to types10000 1 second ago

A first and quickly look to Joan Oró work showing production of adenine ( this yes, a real aminoacid for life) from hydrogen cyanide suggest that I am right: HCN has been detected in interstellar medium and Miller did not include any photons radiated by cosmic radiation in its experiment. My models are suggesting that the hidden variables for producing aminoacids with capability for next steps of abiogenesis are informations in shape of photons about the building block of astronomical systems.

TheMatrixDNA in reply to types10000 1 second ago

xxx

Why the Bible must be wrong. We have tons of data that can be proven in lab: aminoacids (not exact those chosen by life) can be produced from inorganic matter. Molecules can replicate. All these things fits in a big board if we suppose that one shape (aminoacid) could evolve towards the next more complex shape. We are hard-wired for believe it: if you see 7 photos of different shapes of one person, you know that there is a sequence of one shape producing the other. And nobody see God doing it.

TheMatrixDNA 1 second ago – 1:58 PM – Mon – 24

you admit that life has not been created by evolutionists…

QED

Tom Adams in reply to TheMatrixDNA 2 minutes ago

Wait. As a naturalist philosopher I think that the Darwinian three variables – VSI: Variation, Selection,Inheritance – are not enough for explaining the natural process of evolution. But this fault is not enough for invalidate evolution and does not indicates the interference of any Intelligent Designer. The problem with ToE is that there are more hidden variables to be added over those three, and these variables are relative to the real creator and designer of biological systems: galaxies.

TheMatrixDNA in reply to Tom Adams 1 second ago

xxx

well, the only evidence I have seen presented is miller urey and some outfit peddling a virus that they put together on the beach in La Jolla…

evolution is so well established that, after a century of trying, they moved the first evolution elsewhere, so they could continue what they had already done without inconvenient truths countering their claim…

has evolution devolved in the Department of Genetic Reverse Engineering?

I don’t lie, comrade goebbels…

Tom Adams in reply to panguite (Show the comment) 1 day ago

Tom, look here where lays your problem. We have tons of data that can be proven in lab. Aminoacids (not exact those chosen by life) can be produced from inorganic matter. Molecules can replicate. All these things fits in a big board if we suppose that one shape (aminoacid) could evolve towards proteins and RNA. We are hard-wired for believe it. Because if you see 7 photos of different shapes of one person, you know that there is a sequence making one shape producing the other. Or did God?!.

TheMatrixDNA in reply to Tom Adams 1 second ago

xxx

I understand all the theories of evolution and of a creation free universe, and they make sense! However, the sun and the moon both appear to be the same size in the sky. The chances of that happening on ANY planet are staggering. If you add that probability to the probability of life evolving on its own, and the numbers become too large to handle. Unless a sun and moon of the same apparent size are necessary for intelligent life to evolve, I can’t think of any explanation other than creation.

octospidersrock 2 minutes ago

The probability calculus does not apply for calculating the probability of emergence of biological systems (aka life) at some galaxy. The reason is the same that the probability calculus never could be applied for calculating how will be the shape of your grandson. Nature is tuned for producing your grandson in the shape of human specie. Same way, galaxies are natural systems tuned for producing biological systems, everywhere.

TheMatrixDNA in reply to octospidersrock 1 second ago 6:20 AM – Mon – 24

xxx

Oh help me Mr Witchdoctor tell me what to do,

We don’t know how life started and my brain is in a stew.

Without a known beginning,

How can we be sure,

The morality of sinning,

And other things obscure.

There is no way of knowing,

If the god I love is real,

So I pin my case on ignorance,

And make THAT my appeal.

ExtantFrodo2 50 minutes ago 3

We don’t need to know anything else than what Nature is showing: the immediate purpose of Evolution here and now is the development of consciousness through the efforts for getting a more evolved brain. Do everything towards this supreme goal. Try to identificate what is good and what is bad in relation to this purpose. Drive your life fighting for the good ones and against the bad. At least, you will be in tune with Nature’s rhythm. It means to be monetary poor but rich in health and wisdom.

TheMatrixDNA in reply to ExtantFrodo2 1 second ago

xxx

Well you see, eating food in the same hole required to breathe and sustain life, is just something that occurred AFTER the fall of man from original sin and blah blah blah.

God created two holes to separate food from lungs, but one disappeared and now we need a flap to direct from one hole.

God also made child birth painless in women, but alas, hungry hungry humans ate the pomaceous fruit of an apple tree, and now these bitches gotta hurt when making babies. <3 God

confettibrains in reply to ExtantFrodo2 (Show the comment) 43 minutes ago

The worst thing here is that this wrong design maybe is related to the fall of our ancestors – if I didn’t some mistake when applying comparative anatomy between biological and astronomical systems. This event (fall of ancestor) is recorded in our memory (in the region of Junk-DNA). The narrative of Genesis is product of altered states of mind, when flashes of this memory came to mind. The whole mythological narrative is due the ignorance of those authors about modern cosmology and genetics.

TheMatrixDNA in reply to confettibrains 1 second ago

xxx

Ask yourself who would design a critical air intake to be co-axial with the food intake passage unless the intent was to make a jet engine. Do you know how many creatures (mankind included) that die each year from this one “intelligent design” alone?

ExtantFrodo2 48 minutes ago

Well…Why not to know the model of a theoretical designer that is the result of a different approach? Life is biological systems which appeared inside and made by the Newtonian mechanical astronomical system (NMAS). Anything wrong here? If right, the designer and who still drive evolution here is NMAS. And NMAS should be LUCA – the Last Universal Common Ancestor of all biological systems. Right? But…in LUCA there is only one “organ” for “breathing and eating”. It is the previous design.

TheMatrixDNA in reply to ExtantFrodo2 1 second ago

Are you attributing intelligence to NMAS? What evidence do you claim supports this if you do (and you seem to because you call it “a designer”).

ExtantFrodo2 in reply to TheMatrixDNA (Show the comment) 24 minutes ago

Nope. The previous design for biological systems – from archaea to gorillas – is NMAS, but it is not an intelligent designer. It is the same process that results in our bodies: it was previous designed genetically inside our creators (our parents), but our parents did not applied intelligence for doing the design. Everything happens naturally. You need only a simple astronomical formula-design for getting all diversification of biological species, and all complexity seen in a biological organism

TheMatrixDNA in reply to ExtantFrodo2 1 second ago

Whether the mind can be uploaded to a silicon or other non-biological substrate which is less prone to damage, can be engineered with multiple redundant backups, remains to be seen. I suspect that a slow (neuron by neuron) replacement process would be the least disruptive to the mind presently hosted by a biological substrate. This would require mature nanotechnology to design and implement.

Wisdom is good regardless whether you are meat or machine.

ExtantFrodo2 in reply to TheMatrixDNA (Show the comment) 30 minutes ago

If you do that – the perfect substrate for the best welfare of the mind – you could fall in the hell eternally. Every animal that got a super-specialized way of life was condemned to extinction (dinosaur, eagle, gorilla. etc.). Mind is merely a new evolutionary shape, product of this same lineage, why do you think that mind would get a different destiny? I believe that natural evolution will lead us to the right alternative: our body will be more and more energy, less mass, the best substrate.

TheMatrixDNA in reply to ExtantFrodo2 1 second ago

mind/intelligence may find the same fate. There’s no guarantees. You can not be pure energy. Energy radiates and dissipates. Matter is cohesive and by many estimates able to emulate the human brain in a space less than a sugar cube. Most of our brain is taken up by maintenance of the cells. The actual computing and connections space is miniscule in comparison. Small brains like those could fit in very small robot bodies (and of course not require vast resources for survival and maintenance)

ExtantFrodo2 in reply to TheMatrixDNA (Show the comment) 11 minutes ago

I have solved this problem of energy dissipation: light wave as closed system. And you have ignored my mention about the dangers of specialization. I think I understand your subliminal intention supporting the choice you made: it is the normal course of human being fighting for survival in the best way possible, but, this fight is driven by a specific world view, which can be the unique right world view. I will give up because my choice is based in a different world view, which you don’t know.

TheMatrixDNA in reply to ExtantFrodo2 1 second ago – 6:44 AM – Mon – 24

xxx

Life is nothing more than animated matter. Mind (the software running on the substrate of animated matter: is what we cherish. The body is a piece of crap that is very fragile, poorly designed, badly powered, insufficiently self maintaining & this is all obviously due to the default effects of evolution. We are presently limited to the one substrate for existence of our minds. This is unacceptable. So we invent gods when we should be inventing a more durable substrate.

ExtantFrodo2 28 minutes ago

Congratulations, ExtantFrodo2, you have reached smart conclusions without making the sacrifice I did for getting the same. Have you noted that these are two extreme asymmetric alternatives: or a better material substrate or the jump to a spiritual elevation (it can be the search for God, or the freedom of mind from any kind of substrate)? And do you agree that the wisdom is always a third alternative? Which should be the third hidden alternative? The Admirable New World but minded free?

TheMatrixDNA in reply to ExtantFrodo2 1 second ago – 4:54 AM – Mon – 24

xxx

CAN ANYBODY TELL ME!!!!

Why Z + W bosons have mass but Photons and Gluons Don’t!?!?!

No really, I want to know. lol.

ArticulatedHypernova 32 minutes ago

In Matrix/DNA Theory it is fully explained: photons are the result of fragmentation of light waves which are the responsible by quantum vibrations which creates the Higgs field and hence, giving mass to Z + W. The electric magnetic spectrum of any light wave shows seven different frequencies, states, the first being high energetic and dynamical, the last entering in state of inertia. In another words: becoming mass. Ok, it is only a theory you can see the spectrum at Matrix/DNA website.

TheMatrixDNA in reply to ArticulatedHypernova 1 second ago

xxx

Please come celebrate with me. Join my channel to experience the wonders of the lord. Our pink unicorn made evolution. Now you can all get along. Evolutionist, we admit evolution is an observable fact. Creationist, we admit that our lord made everything from nothing and he is beyond space and time because he is pink and invisible at the same time. MatrixDNA, you are welcome to come join. We will try to fit your theories into our model, as well. Please listen when the lord doth call.

PinkUnicornIsLord 7 hours ago

Can we forgo fitting MatrixDNA’s ‘theories’ into the IPU theistic evolution model until MatrixDNA makes his ‘theories’ fit reality? He still hasn’t gotten back to me with an answer about where, if having sex chromosomes is one of the traits of the last universal common ancestor, any sex chromosomes can be found in prokaryotes.

Nullifidian in reply to PinkUnicornIsLord 6 hours ago

Nullifidian: Sorry, only now I am seeing your question. Prokaryote is merely an intermediate phase in the long, astronomical, process of LUCA reproduction, which end was the first cell system totally working. Binary fission already was a mechanism existing in LUCA (the flow of energy/ínformation once time made one side of LUCA’s face as complete structure, can reproduce it as right face, and split it resulting in two structures). Thanks, that’s what I need for developing/testing the theory.

TheMatrixDNA in reply to Nullifidian 1 second ago

That is fine. MatrixDNA needs to first make sense of what he is saying, get it peer reviewed, publish… then we will work on accepting his vision of universal unity. Do you think perhaps that he is trying to create M-theory, yet doesn’t know someone else has already?

Honorable prophet Number One of Almight Sacred Pink Unicorn: I was in our office when arrived new message of our God. He says creationists are wrong calling us “the monkeys cult” but we have been wrong also, we are “The Physics Cult”. He says we need be “The Biology’s Cult” because we are biological beings and the Universe is alike a living cosmic egg inside the eternal living Pink Unicorn. So, our papers can not be peer-reviewd by the current establishment.The Universe is Pink! Think Pink!

TheMatrixDNA in reply to PinkUnicornIsLord 1 second ago – 7:46 PM – Sun – 23 Sept.

PinkUnicornIsLord in reply to Nullifidian 6 hours ago

No, I honestly think he’s just seeing things. He takes superficial resemblances as evidence of some deep homology (for example, he once claimed that cilia evolved into vertebrate limbs) and doesn’t know enough or care enough to make sure that it’s consistent with what we know of biology and cosmology and actually makes sense. He’s like one of those people who sees the face of the Virgin Mary in a grilled cheese sandwich and then spend their lives obsessing about the miraculous apparition.

Nullifidian in reply to PinkUnicornIsLord 5 hours ago

Nullifidian: the systemic function that produced bacterial flagellum, cilia, is the function with the mechanism that gives motions to systems. Limbs, wings, comets’ tail, the trail left by pion inside atoms nucleus, all of them has the same universal function. If you can waste one minute of your time, see the software formula, the blue picture of systems and the picture of Human Cosmic Code in Matrix/DNA website. Understand the supreme formula for natural systems and its functions is all we need

TheMatrixDNA in reply to Nullifidian 1 second ago

“Sorry, only now am I seeing your question.”

I don’t mind a delayed response, but though you’ve now seen your question, I *have not* seen your answer. Nothing in that pile of incoherent rubbish comes close to addressing the issue of where sex chromosomes are in prokaryotes if possessing sex chromosomes is the ancestral trait, according to your ‘theory’. Your failure to answer this is not surprising, as your ‘theory’ is rubbish and has no basis in reality. You’re seeing patterns that don’t exist.

Nullifidian in reply to TheMatrixDNA (Show the comment) 33 minutes ago

I have answered it. I said that prokaryotes does not need possess sex chromosomes or can possess it, the theory is safe any way. The evolutionary step from LUCA ( the top of evolution before life’s origins) till the formation of the first living being was made by a process where the genome is splitted in space/time instead the linear biological process where the genome is transmitted enclosed in envelope. LUCA is a thermodynamic closed system, so, think about the effects of entropy.

TheMatrixDNA in reply to Nullifidian 1 second ago

XXX

Please come celebrate with me. Join my channel to experience the wonders of the lord. Our pink unicorn made evolution. Now you can all get along. Evolutionist, we admit evolution is an observable fact. Creationist, we admit that our lord made everything from nothing and he is beyond space and time because he is pink and invisible at the same time. MatrixDNA, you are welcome to come join. We will try to fit your theories into our model, as well. Please listen when the lord doth call.

PinkUnicornIsLord 6 hours ago

XXX

How a scientist projects his worldview upon the evidence: Sample: Stephen Hawking.

The Universe began with Big Bang ( also, the first machine began with a explosion in a motor); The Universe is eternal re-cycling, it expands and contracts ( also the supreme meaning of existence of a machine is the gear that comes and goes); Black holes devour whole worlds (also, the machine exists for devouring prime matter). The History of the Universe is the same of that produced the electric-mechanical brain.

TheMatrixDNA 1 second ago – 10:22 A.M – Sun 23 – Spt.

Computers. It is not a history narrated by human biological brain. Why? Hawking has no human sensory complex. The mechanical brain is feeling the world for him. Then, first time Hawking did a software furnishing informations to computer, this managed his sensors adapted to macroscope and microscope apparatus and went to explore the invisible real. This brain brought new informations for Hawking, used for re-programming the computer. Finally the electric mechanical brain is driven the process…

TheMatrixDNA in reply to TheMatrixDNA 1 second ago

of knowledge. They are two different observers, two different intentions. If there is something alive in the Cosmos the mechanical sensors can not grasp it. Each observer selects an array of natural phenomena that fits the same organization of matter of his sensors, and discriminates others. This is projecting itself over evidences. Unfortunately, the electric-mechanic brain has dominated Hawking biological brain. There are no such ghosts as black holes, merely rotational vortexes. I am wrong?

TheMatrixDNA in reply to TheMatrixDNA 1 second ago

The recycling idea has gone out of favour in cosmology over recent decades, they tend to describe a continuos expansion followed by heat death. So not so much like a machine – more like a flower blooming and withering.

parsivalshorse in reply to TheMatrixDNA 8 hours ago

xxx

Cont.

Evolution doesn’t happen by chance as it is mainly driven by Natural Selection. Natural Selection isn’t random because a certain animal HAS TO adapt to the environment. This animal can mate with any animal and get the same scenario. HAH.

Now onto Abiogenesis.

NuggetKazooie in reply to NuggetKazooie (Show the comment) 1 minute ago

Yes but Natural Selection happened by random, it was produced by chance since that the Universe had trillions of other alternatives. By default, evolution happens by chance. The problem is that atheists does not know the real process of evolution, which has a purpose. This Universe is merely the sum of fossils of an ancestor: galaxies. Evolution is occurring inside these fossils carried by biological systems and the purpose is to reproduce be-it-what-is that generated the Big Bang.

TheMatrixDNA in reply to NuggetKazooie 1 second ago

Ya know I was trying to debunked that 40,000th power argument and I was explaining if abiogenesis did happen, The odds would be on our side. I made no note of Miller-Urey or the first cell.

NuggetKazooie in reply to TheMatrixDNA (Show the comment) 9 hours ago

Actually, it’s not random. Here’s why.

“Natural selection acts on the genetic diversity of a population, where the best traits for survival and reproduction increase in frequency over time. Since natural selection pushes a population’s traits in an advantageous direction, it’s not random but rather predictable, since we know its purpose.”

Answers.com

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

No, natural selection IS the default. Evolution is a process. It has no purpose. Purpose is assigned by some intelligence. Reproduction is not a purpose. It does not have a purpose. It is a process. It is strictly mechanical.

ExtantFrodo2 in reply to TheMatrixDNA (Show the comment) 8 hours ago

@”Evolution is occurring inside these fossils carried by biological systems and the purpose is to reproduce be-it-what-is that generated the Big Bang”

And with that, I realized that there was no point wasting any time reading further.

emfederin in reply to TheMatrixDNA (Show the comment) 8 hours ago

But natural selection isn’t chance, it’s selection.

parsivalshorse in reply to TheMatrixDNA 8 hours ago

xxx

Cont.

Abiogenesis sort of does happen by chance, but the odds are in our favor.

Primordial soup: Ammonia, Methane, Hydrogen, and Oxygen

At the time, these were common, putting the “chances” in our favor

With the right conditions, with the soup, the sun, and the and the young atmosphere, we get abiogenesis. But with that, Anywhere the conditions are met, Abiogenesis could take place. That could be ANYWHERE. Half the Earth. Still feel like using that dumb 40,000th power argument?

NuggetKazooie in reply to NuggetKazooie (Show the comment) 1 minute ago

For saying that these ingredients alone produced the right aminoacids which were able to jump to the next evolutionary step building proteins, which produced the RNA-world, we need do it in lab. The Milley/Urey aminoacids are not those chosen by life and they never built a protein. What about Matrix/DNA Theory? The first cell was not produced by abiogenesis but by cosmological embryogenesis where Nature applied nanotechnology for reproducing biologically the building block of galaxies.

TheMatrixDNA in reply to NuggetKazooie 1 second ago

xxx

what are the mathematical odds, “by chance” a man evolves and develops with reproductive organs, and then eureka! “by chance” a woman evolves with a womb capable of sustaining life to the baby for a 9 month period until delivery, “by chance” her breast somehow develop life giving milk for the baby until he or she is able to start digesting food. Evolution “a lot of chances” and impossible mathematical odds. Its a dead, decaying, dying stupid theory.

jimmyriche 40 minutes ago

You are right criticizing the idea that an unguided Natural Selection drive a blind evolution and if we are so beautiful and complex we should be product of lucky by chance. These people lost the control of their Reason. But you are wrong if belief that a possible creator of this Universe comes here dealing with us and designed human reproductive organs, etc. They also lost the control. Everything will be clear for you when our space exploration will show who is Milk Way, the real designer.

TheMatrixDNA in reply to jimmyriche 1 second ago

xxx

Okay…. Then if the earth is billions of years old, why is it only 2012? Are humans only 2012 years old? Explain AD and BC, which the whole world refers to when speaking of time.

marjie114 in reply to NuggetKazooie (Show the comment) 2 minutes ago

Marjie, Science has the power for given longlife to you. For instance, do you know that now you are at least 3,5 billions years old? And more: you are more older than your grandmother! We are DNA, and there is an unique kind of DNA which was born 3,5 billions years ago. When he reach 3,49997 years, your grandmother was born, she take her DNA and left the principal. When the principal reached 3, 4998 you was born. Then your DNA is older than her. But, you are younger than your son, yac…yac…

TheMatrixDNA in reply to marjie114 1 second ago

There is a problem with my Mathematics. The Matrix/DNA Theory discovered that DNA is merely the biological shape of a universal formula that Nature has used for organizing matter into systems. The same formula for atoms, galaxies, living beings. And the formula has the same configuration/functionality of DNA. Then, DNA is variation of this formula, called “Universal Matrix”, which was born with the Big Bang. But, it means that you has not only 3,5 billion: you are 13,7 billions years old..sorry.

TheMatrixDNA in reply to TheMatrixDNA 1 second ago

xxx

Evolution is not a process of accidents or random chance, it is a process driven by natural selection. Can you cite one verifiable lie that science has told, or are you just speaking creationist talking points as a means to apologize away scientific explanations of the natural world?

americannightmare76 in reply to JungleJargon (Show the comment) 2 hours ago

Natural Selection drives Evolution which drives Natural Selection? Yes…why not? Natural Selector is the environment, the whole. When she selects one (like once time did with dinosaurs, now with human specie) this one change the environment ( dinosaurs ate all vegetation, humans causing global warm and destroying forests), and it means changed the last Natural Selector, turning it more complex, evolved. The nest one to be selected will need be more evolved (like I am…). Feed-back, my friend.

TheMatrixDNA in reply to americannightmare76 1 second ago

Feedback? Okay, try forming coherent sentences so your argument actually looks like it’s meant to make sense. Exactly where in my previous comment was I being redundant? Exactly what are you talking about when you reference “she” and what evidence do you have that dinosaurs (vaguely implying all) consisted their diets of strictly vegetation? What are you talking about?

americannightmare76 in reply to TheMatrixDNA 4 minutes ago

A few things: 1) You said: ” Evolution is a process driven by Natural Selection (NS)”. I thought about it and saw a bigger board: NS was composed by less information when was selecting reptiles or bacteria than is now, selecting mammals. It is debatable, but deserves more studies. The Universe goes from simpler to complex, environments change, so, must change the complexity of NS. But, living beings changes the environment (bacteria producing oxygen, etc.), so, contributes to evolution of NS.

TheMatrixDNA in reply to americannightmare76 1 second ago

2) I do not agree with the hypothesis that a meteorite was the cause of dinosaur extinction. The Matrix/DNA Theory suggests that the process of Darwinian biological microevolution is not complete, it is more complex, since inherited mechanisms from universal macro cosmological evolution. These extra mechanisms explains better dinosaurs extinction, one of them being the devastation of vegetation. 3) My sentences are coherent in my native language, sorry.

TheMatrixDNA in reply to TheMatrixDNA 1 second ago

If English is not your first language, fine, I can accept that, but it still makes even trying to discuss this matter extremely difficult. If English is your first language…dear christ on a fucking pogo stick hoping his way over to that holy three way orgy with Mary and Joseph what the fuck?

Nothing in that entire comment made any sense to me, and I dare not try and spend too much time deciphering it. Just research what evolution actually is, if I can understand it everyone should be able to.

americannightmare76 in reply to TheMatrixDNA (Show the comment) 3 minutes ago

That’s funny! Atheists went running for assuming the ownership of Darwinian Micro Biological Theory of Evolution because the theory is a good weapon against theism. And now they requires creationists just research what evolution is. But this theory does not explains the natural process of Evolution. Evolution is a universal process that began at the Big Bang, built atoms systems, astronomical systems, went through Cosmological Evolution. Now they don’t want research what real evolution is…

TheMatrixDNA in reply to americannightmare76 1 second ago

That piece of Hovindish drivel is neither accurate nor honest. To claim that the Big Bang is inherent in evolution is hardly credible. It is true only insofar as the Big Bang is also an essential element in basic maths, all architecture and in the composition of a great symphony.

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

Do you think that evolution was invented by stupid matter of this lost planet? I don’t know Hovindish, I am talking about the final results of a new method of investigation: comparative anatomy between living and non-living systems. And those results suggests new models of atoms and astronomy that fits with biological systems inside a big universal process of evolution. It is merely a new theory ( already compiled thousands of evidences and right predictions), but here we are debating theories.

TheMatrixDNA in reply to ozowen 1 second ago

xxx

Micro-evolution is where animals slightly change and happens quickly. Macro evolution is where things change a lot. If we evolved from apes, We would have to evolve into a whole different species. We can’t do that. Niether can any other animal. It requires a ton of change in cellular structure.

UltraShadic100 in reply to uriituw (Show the comment) 2 hours ago

You have a good point that I need know for my personal investigations. Transformation of “something-like-ape” into human would require changes in cellular structure? It seems probable. Despite the possibility that human specie could be the top of one lineage developed by its own since reptiles – the cellular changes shouldn’t be important. You are affirming “there are no different new specie”. It means that you know there are a ton of change. Please, do you have a link to any source/study?

TheMatrixDNA in reply to UltraShadic100 1 second ago – 3:58 PM – Sat – 22

xxx

Since that all creationists fled in disarray under the weight of facts, I have a question to atheists here. Do you have scientific confirmation from psychology or neurology doing experiments with children educated by atheism world vision and following his/her life till death, that resulted in the best healthier, citizen, successful and happy adult (as all of us wish to be our kids) that we can do facing our modern knowledge and resources?

TheMatrixDNA 1 second ago

What the fuck is an “atheism world vision“?

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

Thanks… you made me learn now that English does not use the name “world vision” as Latin, but the name “world view”. Oh… I think that an atheist is a man with an Occam’s razor at hand always alert waiting any mention about supernatural deities, for cutting if off . As suggests Dawkins: it is too much complicated thinking in a God before the Big Bang; thinking there was the “nothing” is less complicated. The problem with atheism is ignoring that every singularity is produced by complexity

TheMatrixDNA in reply to fangednekoyasha 1 second ago

xxx

Dear honorable prophet of the Great Pink Unicorn: my life is very happy since yesterday when you said your Almighty Dog accepted me. I am voluntary to joining with you for writing the Sacred Book of pinkiunicornism. First you know we need debate how will be the genesis of everything. I think the Universe is a turtle, self-recycling through quantum vibrations and we, living beings, are like those billions of bacterias inside the turtles body. The turtle is Nature and Nature is conscious (cont.)

TheMatrixDNA 1 second ago

Since Nature is conscious think about a human body: the mind or consciousness is somewhere but can not see and has no control over organs and the bacterias living in this body. Nature+ consciousness =God=Pink Unicorn. Each bacteria has a bit of the total consciousnesses, then, the sum of all forms of life of all galaxies is the whole consciousness. When a bacteria dies, his bits became part of the whole consciousnesses and when a region of consciousness makes a sin, became bacteria. Is it good?

TheMatrixDNA in reply to TheMatrixDNA 1 second ago

xxx

Stupid atheist monkey cult. You can’t explain why we still have apes if we evolved from them. You can’t explain how the earth is older than 6001 years old. You know they changed the classification of the fish, and there are no transitionals. We all know that the earth and sun are in the perfect place or we would all perish. Why would and elephant evolve into a lemon tree. The competitive dna should have kiilled the other species so why are their frogs and birds? Answer me that. We are all pink.

PinkUnicornIsLord 18 minutes ago

That’s easy! 1) Evolution kept apes for our fun in zoos.2) I can: the Bible did not account the periods the time was resting, vacations, holidays; 3) They did with Spanish fishes for keeping their prices in market and saving the euro: 4) Perfect place? Sun and Earth has no established place, they are moving with the galaxy; 5) Why would Sadhan Hussein evolve into a president? Accidents occurs, my Pink brother; 6) After extinction of dinosaurs, DNA’s got the Cambrian Peace Treatise. Think Pink!

TheMatrixDNA in reply to PinkUnicornIsLord 1 second ago

xxx

RoccoP777 said: ” No not yet present information enters the mix of an existing gene pool as the theory of evolution claims.” and ” you have to appeal to science fiction”

The problem with Toe is reductionism and ID is uncontrollable expansionism. No human being can understand evolution standing inside biological evolution or flying to outside the Universe around the first causes. Your opinion: which is the right point in time/space for an observer to watch and understand biological evolution?

TheMatrixDNA 1 second ago – 4:33 PM – Fri – sept – 21

xxx

If I offered to pay you to build a mobile robot with facial recognition software, so that it could walk through a mall and instantly recognize my friend George within one second, could you build it for me? What would you need for this project? Would it require detailed plans? You are more complex than a mobile robot and you have facial recognition software. If logic tells you that a robot requires one or more intelligent designers and builders, what does that say about yourself?

Angela Pearce in reply to pontecanis (Show the comment) 1 hour ago

But…but…Angela!!! Are you not seeing that I – this complex being – was made by my parents and they didn’t use intelligence for doing me?! All that is need is the free course of Nature. How much intelligence mother giraffe applied for doing that beautiful baby giraffe? Ok, there was a previous design – the giraffe’s species. We are discovering that all natural systems had a previous natural non-intelligent design, from humans to Big Bang. There was any intelligence before Big Bang? Prove it.

TheMatrixDNA in reply to Angela Pearce 1 second ago

xxx

Humans came from apes? Most physical and DNA evidences suggests it, but some scientists suggests that biological brains could not give the jump for consciousnesses. The physical body came from apes but not the mind, so, what happened? The answer must be in two details:1) hierarchy of systems, where superior unknown systems furnishes informations for mutations/evolution of sub-systems; 2) In this Universe occurs a genetic reproduction of something natural and conscious. What do you think?

TheMatrixDNA 1 second ago – 6:21 AM – Fri – 21 – Sept.


Our ape cousins demonstrate a full range of emotions, problem solving skills, self-recognition, self-identity, language ability, memory and learning and everything else associated with consciousness.

As do many mammal we’ve studied so far.

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

TheHigherVoltage: it’s good going to Wikipedia and reading “apes” and “consciousness” for debating this topic. I did not say that consciousness fell from the sky over the human primate ancestor abruptally, such transference of informations are realized in the superior system dimension of time. Bees and ants societies are more evolved than any animal/human society since there are no internal conflict of class but you know insects have no morals/counciousness, that’s instincts from natural orders.

TheMatrixDNA in reply to TheHigherVoltage (Show the comment) 3 minutes ago

Human beings not only COME from apes, they ARE apes. And our brains are typical mammal brains, only with an enlarged prefrontal cortex.

MomoTheBellyDancer in reply to TheMatrixDNA (Show the comment) 36 minutes ago

I think that physically it seems that the body of humans came from the bodies of apes. But… in this Universe is occurring the evolution of a unique primordial system, which was in shape of atoms systems, evolved to stars systems, galactic systems, cells systems, brain systems and the new last shape is consciousness system. The jump from galactic to cell system was spectacular due emergency of new state of matter – liquid. Same is the jump from brains to consciousness, a new state of matter.

TheMatrixDNA in reply to MomoTheBellyDancer 1 second ago

xxx

I could tell you, but you wouldn’t believe me. You’re inside the darwin monkey cult as deeply as Stephen Hawkings mind is inside a black hole in distant space. I cannot help you.

Angela Pearce in reply to Onithyr (Show the comment) 28 minutes ago

“Stephen Hawkings mind is inside a black hole in distant space”

You are right, the ghost invisible black hole is a mathematical exercise and computer simulations that went away off the beam. My personal cosmological models suggests that at that place, instead the Hawking’s black holes there are merely vortexes created by stars dust under galactic rotation. But before the Hawking’s mind falling into black holes he fell under the mechanical machine’s brain interpretation of a biological Universe.

TheMatrixDNA in reply to Angela Pearce 1 second ago

xxx

So basically your saying that evolution exists, but you don’t believe we all evolved from a single celled organism as our common ancestor? That’s absolutely ridiculous. We have a proven method that explains how life diversified; why the hell would anyone assume that it was by some other method that we haven’t proven possible? That’s saying that the Earth revolving around the Sun now, doesn’t mean it wasn’t the other way around in the past.

TheBloodyBlackJackal in reply to ironjamesvane (Show the comment) 4 minutes ago

Hummm… let’s thinking about yours suggestions. Do you know the proven method used by Nature for producing the diversification of life? Then, logically, this must be the method used by Nature for leading the first single celled organism to producing the diversification of cells for to build the first multicellular organism. Must be the same method for leading a single zygote cell to diversify into morula. Have you applied “variation, selection, inheritance” over a zygote and got a baby?

TheMatrixDNA in reply to TheBloodyBlackJackal 1 second ago

xxx

Actually, it’s a group fighting with sharpened stick helped them survive against a single tiger. Do not forget that us, homo sapiens, are social animals.

Atharkas in reply to FreakShop94 34 minutes ago

You have given me a new idea just now, thanks. When was the first time this phenomena appeared in Nature? What made animals to be social animals as when attacking in groups? Are there any sample of unicellular organisms attacking in groups? About monkeys, apes: they attacks in groups? I think that the primate human ancestor adopted this natural mechanisms due caves: a tiger attacking a cave full of Australopithecus produced a counter-reaction in group because one couldn’t escape. Convergence?

TheMatrixDNA in reply to Atharkas 1 second ago

Actually, the rise of multicellular from unicellular is a sign that working as a group helps the survival of many. Same with several unicellular living in a symbiotic relationship to the point they are considered a single life form (example : Mixotricha paradoxa).

If those more sociable survive, that traits will be passed on. It’s that simple.

Atharkas in reply to TheMatrixDNA 2 minutes ago

You right but your sample does not help my investigation about first causes and universal meanings. Where is coming the tendency for social groups from? Where are the ancestral forces for this phenomena in the non living world? Seven kinds of astronomical bodies (pulsars, stars, etc.) are grouped symbiotically as systems, each one supporting the existence of all. Same for atoms systems. I don’t understand these people debating creationism/evolution without inquiring the others’ universal meaning

TheMatrixDNA in reply to Atharkas 1 second ago

xxx

I worry more about the darwin monkey cult poisoning the minds of students with lies and frauds that cause them to act like monkeys. When people are taught they are made in the image and likeness of God, they are more likely to act like children of God. But when they’re told they’re monkeys, they will act like monkeys. Silly Willy is a case in point that proves my theorem that darwinism causes mental retardation, frauds, and lies in the name of science.

Angela Pearce in reply to ismashudie (Show the comment) 48 seconds ago

I think you are right if children are conditioned to believe strictly in Darwinian theory of evolution. There is no way in that theory for hidden the supposed salvage ancestry of monkeys. But conditioning children to believe and following the morals of the Bible or Kuran is same thing as bad. Those gods and morality are salvage, bloodthirsty, slavery and keeps the societies shared between predators and preys. There are new theoretical models of evolution suggesting better ancestry, as Matrix/DNA

TheMatrixDNA in reply to Angela Pearce 1 second ago

You’re on the right track. Science should embrace Intelligent Design and religion should embrace proven scientific principles for living correctly.

Angela Pearce in reply to TheMatrixDNA 3 minutes ago

It means that Christian religions should forget the Old Testament full of bad morals and only spreading the thoughts of Jesus Christ, which are most good morals principles? Why Science should embrace Intelligent Design if all observed and known natural phenomena are coming from non-intelligent previous design? Do you know even one that I have not found a rational suggestive previous non-intelligent design? Maybe this chain of design-effect-design was triggered by some intelligence, but not here

TheMatrixDNA in reply to Angela Pearce 1 second ago

Look inside the one cell organism for the intelligent programming required for DNA replication; this shows what Bill Gates called, “more intelligent programming than all Microsoft products.”

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

Nope. I have looked already and concluded that in fact there is a software program in the first cell. Then I went after the producer of this software and found another less evolved natural software. No intelligence was found here. But, the software I found as producer of the first cell is not here at earth. This software is visible as the building block of astronomical systems. It means that Darwinian evolutionists, reduced to earth landscape, does not have the complete theory. Neither ID’sts.

TheMatrixDNA in reply to Angela Pearce 1 second ago

“I have looked already and concluded that in fact there is a software program in the first cell.”

Wow, that is just amazing, seeing as there isn’t one.

“This software is visible as the building block of astronomical systems.”

Really? Constealtions unravel and reproduce like DNA?

At least creatinists have a book of lies to support them. You just make crap up

whiteowl1415 in reply to TheMatrixDNA (Show the comment) 4 minutes ago

Yes, you are right. The software that is your mind working the hardware that is your brain has no evolutionary link with the software that is the commander of instructions of  DNA hardware, and both appeared by magic here. My friend, the human consciousness was sleeping in quantum dimensions, dreaming in galaxies, began waking up in animals, and is awakening in you. This is the natural evolution of a universal software, which creates its own hardware for getting informations for self-evolving.

TheMatrixDNA in reply to whiteowl1415 1 second ago

xxx

There’s nothing perfect about the way evolution works, or the life forms that have evolved. If we were perfectly designed, we wouldn’t have so much back trouble, nosebleeds, cancer, strokes, etc.

The creationist perspective apparently makes it very difficult for people to understand the realities of evolution.

ge556 in reply to reifsneider (Show the comment) 4 minutes ago

Yes but the other way around is also truth: after 150 years of Darwinian theory about evolution, we wouldn’t have so much back trouble, nosebleeds, cancer, strokes, etc. – if the theory was the right and complete one. Reason suggests there are more than “variation, selection, inheritance”, more hidden variables. The very fact that all living being were previous genetically designed points to the reasonable conclusion that the first was also. Be minded opened to new evolutionary theories.

TheMatrixDNA in reply to ge556 1 second ago

xxx

What is appropriate for all of us, including children, is the TRUTH, definitely not myths. If you are a truth seeker, search for “Truth Contest” in Google and click the top result, then open “The Present” and read what it says. This is truth you can check, not religious nonsense or any other BS.

LivingRealityNow 19 seconds ago

Do you really think that introducing this “Truth Context” as the “truth you can check” I will go there? Don’t you know the immense space/time and light waves’ dimensions you can not see and reach with your little brain and poor sensory apparatus? Don’t you realize that the “Truth” ( if does exist one) can not be known by humans in this lost little planet? Please, comm’on. If you say: “I have found a theoretical solution that seems the best today…I have a theory..” that’s ok, I will see it.

TheMatrixDNA in reply to LivingRealityNow 1 second ago

xxx

THE ONLY REASON WE ARE ALIVE TODAY, IS BECAUSE WE USED A SHARPENED STICK TO KILL TIGERS AND BEARS. REMOVE THAT STICK, WE WERE OVERPOWERED (TECHNOLOGY BEING THE STICK) TO REMOVE THE STICK, IS TO REMOVE HUMANITY FROM THE FACE OF THE EARTH

herald potter 34 minutes ago

But…but… the predators (tigers) still exists and hidden behind walls waiting the labor of preys transforming glass into food, and attacking every time that the prey becomes fat. The very truly fact is that today and now, there are 95% of world’s population being tortured as slaves, the “scientific products” only has helped predators taken the liberty and happiness of Indians natives in the jungle. People walking in the streets seems zombies. Have you thought what is going wrong?

TheMatrixDNA in reply to herald potter 1 second ago

M SAYING WE NEED TO ADOPT REASON AND SCIENTIFIC DISCOVERIES. WE CANT WITH ASSHOLES TRYING TO STOP PROGRESS. IF YOU STOP PROGRESS, YOU CONDEMN HUMANITY TO EXTINCTION, THAT IS THE ONLY REASON WHY WERE ARE ALIVE TODAY. WE WERENT BORN WITH CLAWS, OR A SUFFICIENT BITE FORCE. WE WERE BORN WITH THE ABILITY TO CREATE. TO REMOVE MANS SHARPENED STICK TO HUNT IS TO KILL HIM

herald potter 37 minutes ago

I think you are 50% right and 50% wrong.Right saying we need science, technology and progress, wrong saying the currently progress should be the right one. There are several alternatives for progress. Who is the judge? The very fact that today 95% of worlds population are slaves, being tortured under this social systems shared between predators and preys. Science is doing good job by itself, but given power to predators.

TheMatrixDNA in reply to herald potter 1 second ago

6.6 billion people are not currently tortured slaves.

Wilbey Burns in reply to TheMatrixDNA (Show the comment) 2 minutes ago in playlist More videos from bigthink

Go work as employee 50 hours a week closed in a small space that you are not the owner… then, come back saying what you said. Don’t forget that tomorrow in the morning, the salvage human of any Amazon jungle tribe will wake up having the whole world free for him to chose what he want to do. He is not the right way of living, of course, but is useful for this comparison.

TheMatrixDNA in reply to Wilbey Burns 1 second ago

You’re just mad because you’re unemployable.

Wilbey Burns in reply to TheMatrixDNA 1 second ago

Yes, I am not voluntary slave. I have created my own free job for producing what I am consuming and paying my taxes to Uncle Sam. But things could be better in this whole world if all societies were not mimicking the salvage rules of jungles, still shared between predators and preys.

TheMatrixDNA in reply to Wilbey Burns 1 second ago

xxx

I still await the recipe for primordial stew…

lazy-bones pseudo-scientists like to think they don’t have to actually prove it to endorse their atheism, but that’s why they make you actually prove things…

now flat-earthers, they resisted the need to prove things too…

and also the biblical scriptures’ descriptions of the universe…

and look where it got them…

The exclusion of intelligent design from the discussion is rather stupid, eh?

Tom Adams in reply to 88Keyz102 (Show the comment) 32 minutes ago

I still await the recipe for primordial stew…

No, you are not waiting it because you already got it grateful, without any kind of rational work: God did it by magics. These is the problem of creationism: never doubt about the first causes. Newton, Einstein, etc., doubted it because their curiosity motivated reading philosophical occultism. All science produced by creationists are works around effects, never first causes. But Humanity never will get control of life/material world in your way.

TheMatrixDNA in reply to Tom Adams 1 second ago

And the human scientific enterprise has not got the recipe for primordial soup due the fast advancement of reductionism and total disregard of systemic scientific method. Reductionism leads to delusion that the world is ruled by Physics laws when they applies only to the skeleton, ignoring the soft systemic biological rules covering the physical skeleton. The first real living being was a system, so, its creators must be a less evolved system. It was the hidden instructions in that soup.

TheMatrixDNA in reply to TheMatrixDNA 1 second ago

xxx

The morality of the Bible creates a society that murders only when threatened…

The first four commandments give us our freedom that derives from the Great God…

The next six are good ways to live, which most atheists I know agree with…

The Golden Rule covers exceptions and shysters…

Tom Adams in reply to Angela Pearce (Show the comment) 2 minutes ago

That’s stupidy! The morality of the Bible is racist, to the “elected by God” is permitted taking more land than necessary for survivor and slaving the landless. When a born-to-be-slave does not agree and fight back he is thieve. The electeds says they are threatened. You “people of the Bible” can delude yourself, but never deludes God. How are you hard working just now producing your bread and everything else you are consuming? I am.Or are you a predator vampirezing the energy of “employees”?

TheMatrixDNA in reply to Tom Adams 1 second ago

xxx

“Males have the X-Y chromosome & Females only have the X-X chromosome which confirms that Eve was taken out of man/Adam.”

Brilliant deduced. It’s the most astounding breakthrough in cytogenetics since Albert Levan perfected karyotyping.

I promise to tack this up on the notice board at my university (giving you full credit of course) for other scientists to marvel at your wisdom.

Nullifidian in reply to HISTRUTHBEKNOWN (Show the comment) 1 minute ago

It is ironic! It’s just the fact females having only X chromosome a reasonable suggestion that abiogenesis was driven by a previous design which suggests that evolution is real and the previous design was not intelligent. As I wrote in my thesis-website “Origin Of Sex Chromosomes The first CELLS inherited the hermaphroditic state from LUCA” and you can see in the matrix formula, X was the entire circuit of LUCA’s systems, Y was only half circuit. So, X contains Y but Y does not contains X.

TheMatrixDNA in reply to Nullifidian 1 second ago – 6:49 PM Wed, 19

xxx

Random errors in a recipe will usually make it worse, but sometimes they will improve the product. The same is true in reproduction. It’s called evolution. Lots of detrimental changes get selected out, a few advantageous changes get kept.

It’s only “playing mind games” if you don’t understand your own analogy.

ge556 in reply to mariowh (Show the comment) 3 minutes ago

Hummm…who will decide that the new cake is “improved”? A person using its “flavor”. This is the agent behind the natural selection applied over the cake. Now, let’s go to the history of evolution. What agent was behind natural selection when a female reptile kept their eggs one day more than all others females? Certainly was not the environment approving a new way of adaptation because that female was sadly prejudiced for hunting, self-defense, etc. Nave you any idea?

TheMatrixDNA in reply to ge556 1 second ago

xxx

(cont.) and then they could run experiments showing how by random, undirected processes certain colors in the painting could arise by tossing the various paint colors on the canvas — and then extrapolate, how the whole process can create such a painting via natural processes. Their explanation will woefully incomplete if they refuse to recognize the Master painter. Only by recognizing the Master can one get past the “how” and move on to the “why” and the purpose and meaning of the masterpiece.

RoccoP777 in reply to RoccoP777 (Show the comment) 3 hours ago

Maybe you are wrong. Till today, all known natural architecture, be it living or non-living system, were made by a previous existent “master”, here you are right. Now, try changing the human as observer of Mona Lisa by an alien observer of an embryo inside a womb. How atoms came to make a liver, a brain? Should the alien be right if concludes there is a master, supernatural and are using intelligence for doing the embryo? Nope. All previous masters found in Nature are natural systems.

TheMatrixDNA in reply to RoccoP777 1 hour ago

When one has to start dipping into science fiction to support a theory, then he’s at the end of his rope. The Mona Lisa really does exist, that is observable, testable.

RoccoP777 in reply to TheMatrixDNA 1 minute ago

Nope, relativism is not science fiction but a useful tool to correct one mind’s myopia. When you are believing in some suggested results of any investigation, before betting in it, try to be another observer in a different time/space. Several mistakes in my theoretical models were surprisingly corrected by this method.You should experiment other’s suggestion before believing in the suggestions of Bible’s authors. Of course Mona Lisa does exist and its creator was not supernatural.

TheMatrixDNA in reply to RoccoP777 1 second ago – 5:29 PM – Wed, 19

xxx


There is a big difference between simple ORDERING and ORGANIZATION — unfortunately many sem to think they are the same. If I have a messy office and open a window and a strong blows and pushes all my loose papers w, which were previously scattered all over the room into one corner, that is ordering. But to put those scattered paper in a file shelf in alphabetical order, that is organization — that’s on a whole different level and purposeful and planned. What we see in living organisms is not simple ordering of matter as you would observe in a snowflake or forming of a crystal, but complex organization which is purposeful and designed.

RoccoP777 in reply to BlueScreenLife (Show the comment) 1 minute ago

You said: “What we see in living organisms is complex organization which is purposeful and designed.”

Yes, the purpose is to reproduce a previous design. The recipe for a cake was written because someone made a cake and approved. But if your woldvision is based on ” what we see in organisms” and everybody are saying the re-organization of previous material natural, non-intelligent design, what’s hell are you seeing as intelligent design?! Where and when did you go away off the beam?

TheMatrixDNA in reply to RoccoP777 1 second ago

xxx

I didn’t claim that! However long term experiment with e-coli bacteria and Drosophila (fruit flies) which breed very rapidly have demonstrated that a living organism does not evolve out of its family group in tens of thousands of generations. All their variations keep them firmly WITHIN their family group. No macro-evolution observed even here.

RoccoP777 in reply to scottpastry (Show the comment) 6 hours ago

Rocco, comm’on, you can not compare the results of experiments made now and by humans with the results produced by the long chain of causes and effects in the opened Universe. My theoretical models, for instance, are suggesting that the natural informations in that lab experiment isn’t 50% of all informations disposable in Nature’s space/time. For instance, the photons coming from the sun today are not the photons/informations from the last million years.

TheMatrixDNA in reply to RoccoP777 1 second ago

xxx

Correct me if I’m wrong — the strategie for genetic rescue is to recombine an isolated gene pool with the original gene pool to replenish it. Nothing new, just get it back to its roots, the foolness of it’s original richness. Dog races which are over-breed get a genetic boost again, if they get recombined with a mongrel (mix breed). That’s why mongrel races of dogs are much more robust than the overbreed, isolated breeds.

RoccoP777 in reply to Nullifidian 3 hours ago

If we can suppose by a moment that evolution is real, there is no final degeneration in biological evolution, since that the last top result of this evolution is the human brain and consciousnesses. There were no such things in the original gene pool, and it is clearly an advancement in complexity. You are confusing closed systems (isolated species or species super-specialized going to extinction) with opened systems ( species at relationships under evolution).

TheMatrixDNA in reply to RoccoP777 1 second ago

xxx

(cont.) were created at the beginning and since then only diversifying, giving rise to variations WITHIN the bound of these families is taking place. We should therefore not expect to see totally new families/orders arising. In fact we would expect to see a net loss of families, genus and species due to genetic depletion (selection culling takes its toll) and extinction – with no new life form to replace them. In the Bible it is stated that all of creation is under “futility” and (cont.)

RoccoP777 4 hours ago

You said: “We should therefore not expect to see new families/orders arising.”

There is a new model (theoretical yet) of LUCA – the Last Univ Common Ancestral of all biological systems – suggesting how a unique creature could be splitted in millions of others with different phenotypes. The solution is simple: you are right suggesting limits inside species because the genome is transferred closed inside an envelope. But LUCA transfers its genome spreaded in time and space: diversification

TheMatrixDNA in reply to RoccoP777 1 second ago

xxx

(Cont.) Dr Scott Todd, an immunologist at Kansas State University confessed:

‘Even if ALL THE DATA POINT to an intelligent designer, such an hypothesis is excluded from science because it is not naturalistic’. Hear that, even all the scientific data (facts) must subservient to ideology.

If a chemist and physicist were to take the Mona Lisa apart and could tell you what chemical compounds comprise the pigments, how the spectrum of light can produce colors — all the material features  and then they could run experiments showing how by random, undirected processes certain colors in the painting could arise by tossing the various paint colors on the canvas — and then extrapolate, how the whole process can create such a painting via natural processes. Their explanation will woefully incomplete if they refuse to recognize the Master painter. Only by recognizing the Master can one get past the “how” and move on to the “why” and the purpose and meaning of the masterpiece.

RoccoP777 in reply to RoccoP777 (Show the comment) 20 minutes ago

RoccoP777. It seems that you are thinking that nature is only possible if ID and there are scientists avoiding this hypothesis due the ideology of naturalism. If I am right, I need to call your attention for other hypothesis: all life come from prior life and the first cell system (first living being) came from a natural system less evolved. So, Nature is suggesting that previous design is the rule. But all these designs were transferred without intelligence, naturally, genetic transmission.

TheMatrixDNA in reply to RoccoP777 1 second ago 3:37 PM Wed, 19

xxx

“don’t you want justice?”

Not if it involves eternal torment at the hands of an arbitrary and capricious tyrant. I’m not even happy about my government using drone strikes and torturing detainees at Guantanamo Bay, Kandahar, and at CIA “black sites” around the globe, even though they sometimes let people go.

I guess I just must be less bloodthirsty than Christians are, especially the saints Tertullian wrote about, to whom the cries of the damned tormented in Hell would be like sweet music.

Nullifidian in reply to Daracon1010 (Show the comment) 58 minutes ago

What have you smoking/drinking/reading lately that produced such moral?! It’s the most beautiful moral and human intention I have seen! If I could talk in name of human kind I should say; “Thank you! You are may real lover and brother, my real universal family.What kind of philosophy have you being educated by the school, parents, authors, etc.? I need know because that is the world vision that I want for my children. Thank you and add me for following your flag. Any other will be discarded.

TheMatrixDNA in reply to Nullifidian 1 second ago

xxx

Chromosome in humans is likely to be a fusion of chromosomes that occured in an ancestor? Ahhh, if only science could be proven by ifs, buts, maybes and likelys… but it can’t. I can say that it is likely that I will die tomorrow, but it does not make it so. I could say that it is likely that this universe was created by God. Would you agree? I doubt it. Saying something is likely because it supports your worldview is not going to help you at all.

Darsaan in reply to BlueScreenLife (Show the comment) 6 hours ago

The fusion is supported by Reason that knows the mechanisms in this event. Chimpanzee made the big mistake of accommodation in a wrong life behavior, closing the doors to the advancement of evolution and was discarded by natural selection. Same thing with dinosaurs, whales, birds: any species that takes a different pathway than the universal purpose and specializes in good life became a branch going to extinction. Nature attacks with entropy as this event, or go back, electing another specie.

TheMatrixDNA in reply to Darsaan 1 second ago

xxx

I am here to spread the gospel. The flying spaghetti monster loves u all and wants u to have fresh beer. If u deny him, no fresh beers for u. The FSM loves u all and has bigger balls

MCDirdyBirdy 1 hour ago

MCDirdyBirdy is lying people! He did not say that FSM does not exist anymore because “He” became addict for spaghetti and ate himself…

TheMatrixDNA in reply to MCDirdyBirdy 1 second ago – 2:39 PM – Wed, 19

xxx

Orceloi:  “the universe seems to expand both outward and inward toward infinite. ”

– My answer:  You can’t expand inward – that is a contradiction in terms.

parsivalshorse in reply to Orceloi (Show the comment) 4 hours ago

If you take everything literally, then better not study. I was not being literal, it was figurative, your not going to explode from this inward expansion i speak of . I meant that you can keep delving deeper and deeper, to smaller and smaller, and still you find more observable things. One question that has yet to be answered is where did the material for the big bang come from. If it just was there, then maybe we should just worship this god thing, cus he is just there…..

Orceloi in reply to parsivalshorse (Show the comment) 4 hours ago

You are right with your question: where did the material for the Big Bang come from? Universe has mass with positive energy and the zero mass will happen when this mass will facing the negative energy from the gravitational potential. But, Physics is the study of the skeleton of the Universe, which has a more complex structure, the soft meat, which Physics can not perceive. The solution is same facing your eyes: your body began in state of singularity, mass was the placenta. Think about.

TheMatrixDNA in reply to Orceloi 1 second ago

xxx

The only way we see things is by photons bouncing off of items, bouncing a photon off an electron to measure its position will change its momentum. So any time a photon hits anything it moves it.

budd1475 in reply to Orceloi (Show the comment) 4 hours ago

There is something about light and its fragments, photons, that is key for a beautiful theory that can be real. The screen image of electric-magnetic spectrum of a light wave shows seven different frequencies, colors. The spectrum performs a normal vital cycle, like the human vital cycle, from blastula (Gamma-ray) to baby (X-ray), etc. So, light is the carrier of a force that imprints into matter the code of life and vital dynamics. Each photon is a carrier micro-wave. Think about that.

TheMatrixDNA in reply to budd1475 1 second ago

xxx

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)

mariowh in reply to parsivalshorse (Show the comment) 45 minutes ago

The ancestral of sex – About 5 billion years ago, the evolutionary top system was the building block of galaxies. A perfect machine, half-biological because every life’s properties were beginning to express, in mechanic-Newtonian fashion. The system was composed by a nuclear quasar containing a black hole which emits spherical babies-stars; old planets with giant volcanoes emitting magma that becomes comets. Here, black holes modeled female organ and volcanoes, male organ. Comets are spermat..

TheMatrixDNA in reply to mariowh 2 seconds ago

ozoons. That’s the simplest pathway of evolution.Women are attractive? Quasars are the most beautiful bodies and attracts comets flying in the event horizon. Inside a quasar there is a conic black hole? Every female have it. Volcanoes ejaculates magma.The complementary apparatuses were written in the sky, but if you look right the most primitive ancestor in at atom nucleus, where proton makes the male, neutron, female, and “pion” the sperm. And go down you will find them in two quantum vortex.

TheMatrixDNA in reply to TheMatrixDNA 1 second ago – 12:59 AM -Wed, 19

Well sexual reproduction offers a greater chance at genetic diversity, and so is an aid to adaptation – so many primitive creatures that could reproduce asexually began to reproduce sexually whenever possible. That is a biology question – what has it got to do with god or atheism? You do realize that the equation ‘I don’t understand _____, therefore god!’ is just an argument from ignorance I hope?

parsivalshorse in reply to mariowh (Show the comment) 39 minutes ago

The division of an ancestral hermaphrodite in two separated sex was caused by entropy attacking the ancestral. It was kept by natural selection due the separation created two opened systems, while the ancestral was closed system, discarded by evolution.Problem is that the ancestor is unknown by humans: LUCA, the Last Universal Common Ancestor of all biological systems did not leave at Earth surface: it is hidden in our galactic system as its building blocks. See his face at Matrix/DNA website.

TheMatrixDNA in reply to parsivalshorse 1 second ago

Don’t be silly – the last common ancestor of all biology would have come long before sexual reproduction.

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

Don’t be silly – there was no origins, no invention, no creation, of sexual reproduction, neither before, neither after LUCA: Sexual reproduction is a name invented by humans for describing a natural mechanism that is coming evolving since the first system at the Big Bang. Can’t you see this mechanism in the nuclear glue linking protons and neutrons and emitting pion, described by Hudeki Yukawa, for which job earned the Nobel Prize for Physics?

TheMatrixDNA in reply to parsivalshorse 1 second ago

Beautifully so. Every observable object in the universe has a degree of complexity and suffering. Nature transforms naturally. Even the smallest of stars so simple at an early stage have more life than us. The ants that bother me are more efficient, not necessarily more evolved, but less suffering nonetheless. As a true society we would minimize suffering and conceive much greater significance. But we all need to relate with a central ambition first. Oh, tradition, you dream-killer.

AspiringCommentor in reply to TheMatrixDNA (Show the comment) 2 hours ago

Agree. There is a detail facing our eyes that people does not pay attention – .an adult human body is very, very complex, but it was a point of singularity in the first moment of his life, a microscope ball.Now we are discovering that all complexity can be gradually reduced to the singularity at the Big Bang. But the beautiful is:who produced the human initial singularity were his parents, complexes. So, is rational to infer that before Big Bang there was something alike, complex and natural.

TheMatrixDNA in reply to AspiringCommentor 2 seconds ago 4:05 AM – Sept, 19

“Here, black holes modeled female organ and volcanoes, male organ. Comets are spermat..”

Seriously dude, WTF are you talking about?!?!?!?

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

Talking about universal evolution of a natural mechanism which humans called “sexual reproduction”. Do you believe that at any moment in this 13,7 billions years had an event emerging this phenomena? It would be magic, even by chance. You need know the “non-living”system that evolved to biological systems: all life’s properties, all organs, included sexual ones, were there, naturally designed and working. If had any “origins” it happened before the Big Bang, because in this Universe, never.

TheMatrixDNA in reply to BlueScreenLife 1 second ago

are these facts OR are these just-so-STORIES?

mariowh in reply to TheMatrixDNA 2 minutes ago

Theoretical models of astronomical and atomic systems suggested by the calculations when applying the method of comparative anatomy between all natural systems, living and non-living. My business now is searching for evidences a favor of these models (amount one thousand um my website) and evidences against, or any scientific proved fact that could destroy definitively the models ( there is none till now). But i am curious: ins’t you able to see those notable coincidence of shapes/functions?

TheMatrixDNA in reply to mariowh 1 second ago

if you claim so much, blablablabla, you still have got to show people what evidence did you really get. Since you are giving no one evidence, I can only assume that you are lying about evidence you don’t have, and believe that theories are HISTORICAL therefore true.

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

Thousands of evidences, each one is a well elaborated long text of several pages, it is impossible to fit in 500 characters ( they are in my website and copyrighted at National Library of Congress. You are assuming it wrong.

TheMatrixDNA in reply to mariowh 1 second ago – 6″23 PM Wed 19

xxx

Evolutionist would have us believe that all life evolved from a “soup” of water billions of years ago, that some single celled organisms eventually evolved into all the various forms of life on this planet. Some became grass while others became elephants and still others became humans.

alfadrone 2 minutes ago

But maybe they are half-right. That soup could be receiving cosmic radiation+sun’s energy+earth nucleus radiation through volcanoes vents. These things comes in shape of photons, which are bits of light, which is the carrier of a force that imprints dynamics to inertial matter, in shape of vital cycles. Three radiations coming from all sides of this galaxy which can be the building blocks of DNA, if Matrix/DNA cosmological models are the right ones. Inside that soup there was a…divine design.

TheMatrixDNA in reply to alfadrone 1 second ago

xxx

@TheMatrixDNA

google shows links that reference the movie matrix, do you have a link?

alfadrone 18 minutes ago

The Universal Matrix of Natural Systems and Vital Cycles. But explanations are in the page “home” and the evidences are being inserted in Portuguese version only. First of all, put the palm of your left hand over Function 1 at the matrix-formula ( also the pregnant woman) and begin to understand how the matrix design all things. Your little finger will be the “baby” the thumb will be the “senior”. Non-intelligent previous natural design under universal evolution.Good theory.

TheMatrixDNA in reply to alfadrone 1 second ago

xxx

Darwinists claim we evolved from the simplest form of bacterial life to ever more complex forms of life. The most basic bacteria had less than 500 genes; man has over 22 thousand. In order for bacteria to evolve into man, organisms would have to be able to add genes. But there is no genetic mechanism that adds a gene. (Mutations change an existing gene but never add a gene.) This means there is no mechanism for Darwinian Evolution and this is a fatal flaw in the Theory of Evolution.

alfadrone 5 minutes ago

Good point. The explanation is: LUCA, the Last Universal Common Ancestor of all biological systems. Who is LUCA? Where emerged biological systems and which system made them? There were atoms and astronomical systems. Could not be atoms, they are too much simple, it would be a impossible jump. Then, remains only “astronomical systems”. This is LUCA, and Earth is merely part of it. LUCA is almost a perfect machine, all life properties are performed in mechanical fashion. Bacterias are parts also.

TheMatrixDNA in reply to alfadrone 1 second ago

No mechanism you say? Viruses actually physically insert their genes into the host’s genome.

budd1475 in reply to alfadrone (Show the comment) 6 seconds ago

xxx

Darwinists themselves seldom notice that to use the term “evolution” at all in the context of what they interpret to be just a random set of events is an oxymoron. “Evolution” implies that there was some goal or plan involved before the process started. In common usage, something can be considered to be “evolving” only if it’s going somewhere. So, encountering this contradiction right at the “front door”, any newcomer to the issues of evolutionary theory is bound to get a headache in a hurry.

alfadrone 2 hours ago

Natural evolution has an initial goal for every new emergent system, but this goal always is mutated. The “plan” is to reproduce a prior natural design ( life can only come from other life, system can only come from other system). It happens that the prior design is a sub-system inside a larger hierarchy of systems, and the prior-prior system affects the process of reproduction, causing the final mutation. This explains the evolutionary steps between galaxies and cell systems.

TheMatrixDNA in reply to alfadrone 1 second ago – 2:36 PM Tuesday – 18

” life can only come from other life”

Life has only been observed to come from other life.

“This explains the evolutionary steps between galaxies and cell systems.”

No it doesn’t. It does help explain mutation a bit.

Wilbey Burns in reply to TheMatrixDNA (Show the comment) 6 seconds ago

It explains satisfactory for me, better than any other explanation. But then, you don’t know the theoretical model of the building block of galaxies, which has the same configuration/functions that has the building blocks of DNA. The mutations you are telling about – between galaxies and cells – were due galaxies were made only by gaseous and solid states of matter, while cells were the galaxies being reproduced with the liquid state also, wich brought organic chemistry. Theories, my friend.

TheMatrixDNA in reply to Wilbey Burns 1 second ago

Matrix is a wing-nut whose screwy ideas are of no benefit here.

pontecanis in reply to Wilbey Burns 4 minutes ago ( Da patrulha Ideológica)

xxx

“Darwinism” was transformed in the early years of the 20th Century into the mechanistic, reductionist theory of “neo-Darwinism”. Combine the idea of favorable mutation occurring by chance and being preserved in the majority of offspring, with the natural selection process, and you’ve got the theory that is taught everywhere in the world today. Neo-Darwinism implies, “that living creatures are machines whose only goal is genetic replication — a matter of chemistry and statistics.”

alfadrone 1 minute ago

Yes, Neo-Darwinism and Creationism are errors produced by recently borne human consciousness. Every new natural system (consciousness included) begins its existence shared in two extremist alternatives. In this case, one half shows the tendency to implodes, self-reducing, the other has the tendency to explodes, self-dissipating. One focuses beyond the macro, another focuses inside the micro. The right is Matrixism, from Matrix/DNA, that stands at the middle.

TheMatrixDNA in reply to alfadrone 1 second ago

What is Matrixism?

alfadrone in reply to TheMatrixDNA (Show the comment) 8 minutes ago

A new way for connecting real data or known natural phenomena trying to get the big board, different from the reductionist and creationist method. It was born when applying the ancient method of comparative anatomy between living and non-living natural systems. The results suggests that DNA is merely a biological shape of a universal formula, called “matrix” existing as mechanical, electric-magnetic and light waves shapes, also. Only a new theory, a new world vision, being tested against facts.

TheMatrixDNA in reply to alfadrone 1 second ago

xxx

Conrad Waddington, a Professor of Biology at Edinburgh University, said, ‘Natural selection, which was at first considered as though it were a hypothesis that was in need of experimental or observational confirmation, turns out on closer inspection to be a tautology, a statement of an inevitable although previously unrecognized relation

alfadrone 5 minutes ago

If you are creationists you and Mr. Waddington are being contradictory. If had once time a Garden Paradise for Adam and Even, and they fell due a sin, why not God is keeping their turning back to His paradise through driven the process by the mechanism of Natural Selection? Could you imagine a more intelligent way for driven this possible than this one? God keeps the free will of Adam/offspring being hidden, invisible as the agent behind natural selection. Adam doesn’t know he is driven back.

TheMatrixDNA in reply to alfadrone 1 second ago

xxx

  • What the heck is genetic entropy? I’m a geneticist and I’ve never heard the term

    tsub0dai in reply to Nullifidian 1 hour ago

  • It’s not surprising, because it’s not a term that exists anywhere in genetics. It was invented by creationist John C. Sanford in his book “Genetic Entropy & the Mystery of the Genome”. In it, Sanford proposes that there are very small deleterious mutations whose effects are so negligible that they don’t truly impact fitness in any way but whose cumulative effect is to make the genome “run” down until the genetic load becomes unendurable. Thus genomes were created perfect and only got worse since

    Nullifidian in reply to tsub0dai 53 seconds ago

xxx

THE ABSURDITIES OF DOGMA

In 1905, a 25-year-old patent clerk named Albert Einstein demolished the 200-year-old certainty that Isaac Newton knew all there was to know about basic physics. In a technical paper only a few pages long, Einstein sent a huge part of his current “reality” to history’s dustbin, where it found good company with thousands of other discards large and small. In 1905, though, Newton’s discard was about as large as the bin would hold.

alfadrone 3 minutes ago

“the 200-year-old certainty that Isaac Newton knew all there was to know…”

The problem is that Newton cosmology was resumed to stellar systems where things like black holes, pulsars, quasars, have no place. These things emerges only in galactic systems, then, Einstein amplified Newton investigations from stellar to galactic. But the larger system always affects its sub-systems, then, Newtonian models need be replaced. Now Darwinism had resumed universal evolution into biological evolution.

TheMatrixDNA in reply to alfadrone 1 second ago – 12:44 AM – 18

xxx

Darwinists immediately try to brand anyone who questions Darwinism a “Creationist”, they pull another subtler, less logical trick: They claim we have no basis to argue against Darwinism unless we can adequately replace it. “However wrong the current answer may be, it stands until a better answer arrives. It is as if a criminal defendant were not allowed to present an alibi unless he could also show who did commit the crime. How does strategy squares with any notion of “scientific inquiry”

alfadrone 1 minute ago

Are you copying and pasting again? Stop strawmanning you ass. The way science works is that you propose an idea, or a hypothesis will you, to explain a given phenomenon. The burden of proof is on the person who proposed the idea, and said idea goes under a very rigorous process of fact-finding and peer review. Should it pass these hurdles, it is accepted. When further evidence later disputes this finding, the process begins again! Do you understand how science works yet dimwit? ( Não é assim. Einstein disse que ninguem tem de provar sua teoria, apenas mostrar que ela faz sentido. Porem é preciso demonstrar porque ela não faz sentido)

BlueScreenLife in reply to alfadrone (Show the comment) 2 hours ago

Lol… this is a wonderful analysis. I am experiencing this problem just now, since I am suggesting new models that transforms the concepts originated by neo-darwinism. And I am suggesting who is the criminal, but since they never had suspected him because they don’t know the hidden traits of his personality, they don’t hear the defendant.Who are the losers if I am right? The kids and themselves.

TheMatrixDNA in reply to alfadrone 1 second ago – 12:32 AM Sept, 18

XXX

Darwinists themselves seldom notice that to use the term “evolution” at all in the context of what they interpret to be just a random set of events is an oxymoron. “Evolution” implies that there was some goal or plan involved before the process started. In common usage, something can be considered to be “evolving” only if it’s going somewhere. So, encountering this contradiction right at the “front door”, any newcomer to the issues of evolutionary theory is bound to get a headache in a hurry.

alfadrone 3 minutes ago

Yes, but “creation” means someone creating something in the best way possible to him and the carnage seen here does not fit this concept.

TheMatrixDNA in reply to alfadrone 1 second ago – 12:17 – Tuesday, sept., 18

XXX

Theists who support evolution are in conflict with their beliefs. Theism contends god created us in the form we are now. Evolution claims the evidence shows everything evolved from simple one cell creatures.

allanhill1 52 minutes ago

Both are wrong. Is not rational believing in imaginary constructions of a consciousness that emerged only minutes ago, in relation to the natural universal time, because we know, all babies transforms the real things they see around in tools and fantasies. The unique trustful thing we have for trying to keep our mind synchronized with Nature is using the things and process we see here in our medium dimension for infer how is the macroscope, microscope dimensions and the the past. (cont)

TheMatrixDNA in reply to allanhill1 1 second ago – 10:56 AM Tuesday, sept, 18

Evolution is the proved process that things goes from the simpler to the complex ( every human body begins with a singe microscope ball and triggers the path to complexity), but “evolutionism” forgets that every initial singularity are produced by a prior high complex “natural” design without using intelligence (parents producers of that single ball). Creationism “feels” the hidden prior complexity but as children they imagines the natural invisible agents as ghosts and talking to them.

TheMatrixDNA in reply to TheMatrixDNA 1 second ago

Evolution is the proved process that things goes from the simpler to the complex

No it doesn’t. Period. More often it trims away things. Viruses, like rabies virus has a whopping 5 genes.

tsub0dai in reply to TheMatrixDNA (Show the comment) 13 seconds ago

Nope. Evolution goes through the trunk of a tree and branches, like viruses, are lateral effects. By the way, since you don’t know how works the high complex natural system that produced abiogenesis ( this astronomical system called Milk Way) you don’t know the causes and origins of viruses. At biosphere viruses are biological shapes performing the functions of comets in that “creator of life”, the function number 5. See the picture of that system in Matrix/DNA Theory models.

TheMatrixDNA in reply to tsub0dai 1 second ago

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

Contra ToE:

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

But I thought you were rolling in cash. According to creationists I’ve talked to, the only reason scientists accept evolution is because it keeps that sweet, sweet grant money flowing in, because there’s naturally no end of money available to study evolutionary biology, and you don’t have to account for how you spend it or show any results! It’s perfect!

Nullifidian in reply to tsub0dai (Show the comment) 5 hours ago

xxx

It would be more accurate to make a distinction between different kinds of theory. There’s deductive theory and inductive theory. There’s deductive theory, like the theory of gravity. Gravity is an observable phenomenon, and a theory is reached deductively to explain what is seen. There’s also inductive theory, like the theory of evolution (or creation), which explains what the evidence as a whole might suggest, not what is actually observed (e.g. spontaneous creation or special creation)

culpritification in reply to marksmith1116 1 minute ago

xxxx

The Scientific Method involves testing hypotheses using repeatable experiments.

If there is a scientific explanation for the origin of life, it must depend entirely on natural, repeatable processes.

If life originated by a natural process under certain specific conditions, it should be possible to create life again under the same conditions. Obviosly evolution is not science. Truth hurts — especially if it’s funny

You will know you have spoken the truth when you are angrily denounced

alfadrone 4 minutes ago

xxx

Milton summarized some of the myths referred to in the title of his book, ” myth of the age of the Earth; myth of radiometric dating; myth of the gradualist fossil record; myth of beneficial mutations, which just haven’t been found; the myth of natural selection; the myth that evolution is blind; the myth of the beak of the finch; the myth of vestigial organs; the myth of homology; the myth of the missing link. There’s a whole long long list of myths. Add them altogether and you get Darwinism.”

alfadrone 30 minutes ago

xxx

“Darwinism” was transformed in the early years of the 20th Century into the mechanistic, reductionist theory of “neo-Darwinism”. Combine the idea of favorable mutation occurring by chance and being preserved in the majority of offspring, with the natural selection process, and you’ve got the theory that is taught everywhere in the world today. Neo-Darwinism implies, “that living creatures are machines whose only goal is genetic replication — a matter of chemistry and statistics.”

alfadrone 1 minute ago

xxx

Darwinists themselves seldom notice that to use the term “evolution” at all in the context of what they interpret to be just a random set of events is an oxymoron. “Evolution” implies that there was some goal or plan involved before the process started. In common usage, something can be considered to be “evolving” only if it’s going somewhere. So, encountering this contradiction right at the “front door”, any newcomer to the issues of evolutionary theory is bound to get a headache in a hurry.

alfadrone 3 minutes ago

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

Bom para ToE e/ou Current Scientific Method

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

Cientistas Supõe Que Origens da Voda Não é Produto do Acaso:

  • If emergence of life isn’t presumed to be random then….what is it presumed to be?

    doctordemando in reply to Nullifidian 11 hours ago

  • It is presumed to be the result of chemistry and physics, and these reactions are not random. Run a spark through a mix of hydrogen and oxygen gas, and you’ll get a big explosion and H2O as a result, not H43O729 no matter how many times you do it. If it were really believed to be random, then no scientist would have wasted even a minute’s worth of time trying to replicate any part of the process in the lab

    Nullifidian in reply to doctordemando 6 hours ago


XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

Bom Para Matrix/DNA:

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

See how your “scientific proof” that the fish to man story must be true is because a religion believes in it? I rest my case.

It’s not about creation versus evolutionism – it’s about NO origin (of life, of universe, or of biological diversity of life) belief can be called science. No such belief can be backed up with an observation showing it to even be possible.

Evolutionism maligns science – can’t be shown to be possible and instead relies on attacking religion to “prove” it. Not science.

We haven’t observed an electron in actionso by your argument, every understanding we have about electricity is not science but a belief. Your computer is operating on a religion of faith.

Same with gravity. We can’t directly observe gravity – so gravitationalists are just full of faith and religion – and push their beliefs onto everyone else. Putting satellites in orbit is not science – that’s religion!

Now step back and realize why you’re an idiot.

Nor could we ever “see” an electron or gravity or a microwave because they exists outside the visible spectrum of light. Thankfully we have tools that can measure those things independently of sight, some people say seeing is believing but that only covers about 5% of reality. ; P

xxxxxxxxxx

Gamma radiation e DNA. Pesquisar isto:

Do you know what gene splicing is? Do you know how it’s done in the lab? Do you know what gamma radiation does to DNA? How about low dosage gamma radiation for DNA repair? How about for DNA gene splicing. The ice core gamma radiation record is clear and well documented. So are the effects of gamma radiation on DNA. Some want turtle shell and bone digging as science and some want astrophysical. Darwinian evolution will definitely not stand even for a few more years.

Chakrathazhwar in reply to Onithyr 1 hour ago

Good science always challenges existing theory. If you don’t like it, you can certainly cling to Darwinian theory. I think that theory is really bad. Its much more plausible that DNA changes come as a result physical phenomenon scientifically KNOWN and PROVEN to produce DNA change. Darwin was stooopid. 😉

Chakrathazhwar in reply to Onithyr 42 minutes ago

Se êle está dizendo a verdade estaria aí a brecha por onde entraria LUCA mesmo nos ultimos estados avançados da evolução biológica, resolvendo o problema da falta de links.

XXX

Nunca esquecer:

“matter cannot be created or destroyed “”

Wrong.

Matter can be created from energy, as occurs in particle accelerators. And matter can be destroyed by being converted into energy, as occurs in nuclear bombs.

DNAunion in reply to TheOfficialPSPHacker 16 hours ago 2

XXX

Pesquisar isso. O que é Gulo gene e porque isso aconteceu?

Explain hundreds of different primates all having the same mutation breaking their GULO gene thus preventing them from being able to manufacture vitamin C which is essential for multicellular life. Explain how an intelligent designer copies this same mistake only into a particular branch of primates.

ExtantFrodo2 in reply to hunting4them (Show the comment) 40 minutes ago

XXX

The Edison who said “what you call God I call Nature, the Supreme intelligence that rules matter.” Sounds more like a deist or pantheist, definitely doesn’t sound like the Abrahamic god.

fangednekoyasha in reply to Al3jandr0101 (Show the comment) 1 minute ago

XXX

Darwinists immediately try to brand anyone who questions Darwinism a “Creationist”, they pull another subtler, less logical trick: They claim we have no basis to argue against Darwinism unless we can adequately replace it. “However wrong the current answer may be, it stands until a better answer arrives. It is as if a criminal defendant were not allowed to present an alibi unless he could also show who did commit the crime. How does strategy squares with any notion of “scientific inquiry”

alfadrone 1 minute ago

xxx

THE ABSURDITIES OF DOGMA

In 1905, a 25-year-old patent clerk named Albert Einstein demolished the 200-year-old certainty that Isaac Newton knew all there was to know about basic physics. In a technical paper only a few pages long, Einstein sent a huge part of his current “reality” to history’s dustbin, where it found good company with thousands of other discards large and small. In 1905, though, Newton’s discard was about as large as the bin would hold.

alfadrone 3 minutes ago

“It is the right and the duty of everyone who seeks the truth to doubt, investigate and consider all available evidence. Wherever this doubting and investigating is forbidden; wherever authorities demand unquestioning belief — there is evidence of a profane arrogance, which arouses our suspicions. If those whose contentions are questioned had truth on their side, they would patiently answer all questions.

alfadrone 12 minutes ago

xxx

Bom para ID/Creationism

Copernicus was a Catholic bishop when he discovered heliocentrism and Gregor Mendel was a Catholic monk who studied genetics. The psalms talk about observing and exploring the creation of God. The book of Job talks about “dividing the light”, which may have led Newton to experiment with optics and glass prisms. Science needs morals to make progress; example: Adult stem cells have successfully treated 72 diseases, but embryonic stem cells are known to cause cancer at the site of injection.

Angela Pearce in reply to AspiringCommentor (Show the comment) 37 minutes ago

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Sôbre o Vídeo/Debate:

  • My biggest problem with the video is the following. The gist of the video is: don’t let your children question evolution because it will stifle innovation. Am I the only one that finds this ironic? Really? Absolute loyalty to this problematic theory of speciation can’t or shouldn’t be questioned? If by evolution he means gradual change in species, even AIG acknowledges more radical changes in species than evolutionists do. What’s really his beef with believers?

    doctordemando in reply to Nullifidian 1 hour ago

  • His beef with creationism–not with believers, a term that can encompass people who accept evolution–is that evolutionary biology is the fundamental basis of biology. Trying to learn biology without it is like going through a semester on kinematics without addressing the concept of mass. The conceptual problems that arise for students when they are miseducated in the subject are myriad and hard to fix, as I know all too well from being a grad student TA who has had to fix fundamental errors.

    Nullifidian in reply to doctordemando 1 hour ago

    • I had no problems learning biology. What particular problems did you have to try and fix?

      doctordemando in reply to Nullifidian 12 minutes ago

    • The main problems I’ve seen are:

      Not getting that evolution is a population-based process, the belief that “transitional” means a step in metamorphosis of one individual, no ability to conceive of what a transitional would even look like based on a thorough understanding of what evolved from what and when, essentialist thinking when dealing with populations, and the inability to think of things like biochemical processes in a functional and evolutionary context, which harms their understanding.

      Nullifidian in reply to doctordemando 7 seconds ago

      Agreed. However, Bill Nye in this instance is crossing from the realm of science into the realm of ‘this is what you should not be teaching your children because this is what I know to be false.’ Because Bill Nye is now discussing not scientific matters but worldview matters, I have followed suit. My arguments are not strawman because they are not scientific. If Bill Nye is an honest scientist he should show us the evidence that a differing worldview stifles innovation.

      doctordemando in reply to whiteowl1415 1 hour ago

      This is not a matter of worldview. The claims that species are separate creations, that the world is 6,000 years old, that all humanity arose from a breeding population of 2, and that there was once a global flood that also reduced all non-human species to a population between 2-7 and humans to a population of 8 are all false. They are hopelessly at odds with all of biological and geological reality. Thus teaching these falsehoods as truth prevents students from getting a grasp on reality.

      Nullifidian in reply to doctordemando 1 hour ago

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Matrix/DNA sendo “silenciada”. Será por isto?

segunda-feira, setembro 17th, 2012

Truth hurts — especially if it’s funny.

The reason men are silenced is not because they speak falsely, but because they speak the truth. This is because if men speak falsehoods, their own words can be used against them; while if they speak truly, there is nothing which can be used against them — except force.

You will know you have spoken the truth when you are angrily denounced

alfadrone 34 minutes ago

Big Bang Theory: Três Problemas Não-Resolvidos a Pesquisar

domingo, setembro 16th, 2012
O abaixo foi obtido num forum na Internet. Ler cada item. There are generally considered to be three outstanding problems with the Big Bang theory: the horizon problem, the flatness problem, and the magnetic monopole problem. The most common answer to these problems is inflationary theory; however, this creates new problems.

alfadrone 42 minutes ago (Bill Nye -Youtube)