Origens da Vida: Bom video sob a otica materialista e debate com a Matrix/DNA

 

xxxx

The Origin of Life – Abiogenesis – Dr. Jack Szostak

video no Youtube:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6QYDdgP9eg&google_comment_id=z125glhhuvy2vzwsr23ced0h2yj1ypfvl

E meus comentarios, respostas, no Yotube:

Louis Charles Morelli · September, 04, 2015
” Life only appears to come from life…”Only appears?!!! When and where somebody saw any life coming from other thing than life?! All life come from life, there is no known and proved fact of other way, so, any human being that ” belief” there is life coming from non life is not rational, is metaphysics, is an appeal to something supernatural.Then we have the first living beings at Earth that we don’t know which life produced them. What’s the problem? Let’s go making theories ( maybe from extra-terrestrials, then prove that there are extraterrestrials, etc.) for investigations, but any rational theory must pointing to some kind of life. These people and the whole scholar mindset loose the control of their rationality.
E other post:

The building block of galactic systems are equal the building blocks of DNA and both are ancestors of the first biological system at Earth, a complete and working cell. So, an astronomical system composed by seven different shapes of astronomic bodies ( planets, stars, pulsars, quasars, black(white) holes, comets, cloud of dust and gases) performs the same functions that a cell composed by seven or eight organelles or parts ( ribosome, DNA, RNA-m, lysosome, mitochondria, chloroplasts, membrane) and that a DNA’s building block composed by seven elements ( two lateral sugars, four bases plus uracil).  Then, DNA is not a only the code for biological systems, it is merely the biological shape of a universal matrix, which is the code for all known systems, from atoms to galaxies to human beings. Abiogenesis was merely a process of astronomical reproduction and embryogenesis in a different environment and added with anew state of matter – the liquid water.At Matrix/DNA Theory ( vide its website) everything is detailed explained. But where this universal Matrix/DNA came from? We discovered that natural systems are elaborated by Nature applying the process of vital cycle upon a unique initial body. So the question was: from where came this process? And we also discovered it: the electromagnetic radiation ( aka waves of light) propagates in time and space by the same sequence of vibration/energy that a human body propagates in its time and space.So, life came from a wave of light, emitted at or by the Big Bang, and penetrating the dark matter. The problem now isL where these waves of light that contains the code for life came from?We don’t know, because as human beings we can only investigate what is inside this Universe, and these things came before and beyond the Universe. Final: Remembering Godel – ” nobody can know the truth of a system standing inside it” – if life was produced by Nature or God or something else non human we know it, never. For knowing it, we will need transcendence of our actual shape. But, with our intelligence we can know everything inside.
xxxxx
+Louis Charles Morelli You should learn some correct English first. Then you can start to tackle such advanced concepts as what a scientific Theory is.
Louis Charles Morelli 1 second ago

+JustinMShaw I know what theory is since my 12 years old when reading all Greek philosophers. Theory is a contemplative and rational type of abstraction, or the results of such thinking. Depending on the context, the results might for example include generalized explanations of how nature works. The owners of this name – theory – is those who coined the word, in ancient Greek.But,… when someone want to be rational and thinking about Nature, there is no chance for metaphysical appeals. Nature shows to us that all known life only comes from a previous existing life, that’s it.Neither the scientific mindset of this times ( which will be substituted by another more advanced at the next times, as always has been) is the owner of the word ” theory”, neither the English language is the owner of natural phenomena like the one here – life’s origins. Can you understand that ” life” has its electromagnetic version and its astronomical mechanical version also? So, searching the origins of life at 3,5 billions years ago and at Earth surface or some comets, makes no sense.
xxxxx

+Louis Charles Morelli  – Well it’s a good thing that science has not tried to wage a war against the continued use of the word theory that you just summed up – the purely philosophical and not even remotely dependent on empiricism version of the world. But your lament at the inaccessibility of the intangible to a scientific Theory suggests that you don’t know the meaning of the latter and clearly reveals your intolerance of it. That begs the question of what you’re doing on a video like this that is purely concerned with empiricism. But since you seem to enjoy babbling about scientific terms, what exactly do you mean about life having an electromagnetic form and an astronomical mechanical version? Are the two supposed to be mutually exclusive and if so then what’s the difference between them?
xxxx
+JustinMShaw ” Well it’s a good thing that science has not tried to wage a war against the continued use of the word theory”
Hummm… among the founding fathers of the scientific method, there were those that was merely wishing to open a war against religion and there were those, like Francis Bacon, that was purely rationalists and from them we learn that Science is observation of natural phenomena, annotation, and from the data trying to get more data through experiments.  Pure Science opens war against humans enemies like viruses, meteorites falling from the sky, etc., not against abstract things like words, religions, etc., because the abstract is not business for Science. Is an ideology (as materialism) dominating the head of a scientists that produces behaviors like Szostack which leads them far away from rational thinking, like the imagination that life could coming from non-life.
” the purely philosophical and not even remotely dependent on empiricism version of the world.”
That’s funny. You says that I must learning English while you knows how to talk English but you does not know the formal definition of English words. Like theory and empiricism. Empiricism is not derivated and not limited to scientific experiments. It is a “theory” that states that knowledge comes only or primarily from sensory experience. And which rational theoretical scientist have a sensory experience of life coming from non-life?! Do you know why it happens? It is missing to learn with Einstein about the relativistic world. It teaches us for instance, trying to see things from a microscope perspective. Like the imagination that we are intelligent microbes inside an embryonary sac nurturing a human fetus. The microbes watches the development from a unique cell, blastulae, fetus, fish, reptile, mammals shapes and of course – since they never saw reptiles and mammals – everything is blind evolution by random mutations producing complex systems. They never could know that driving all events there is a natural formula, called genetic code, which comes form other life existing beyond the microbes’ universe. That’s what I am discovering with my Matrix/DNA Theory, after studying natural systems, applying comparative anatomy between living and non-living systems and discovering that abiogenesis was driven by the same formula, he same genetic code, coming from a half-living system – the building blocks of astronomical systems.
” what exactly do you mean about life having an electromagnetic form and an astronomical mechanical version?”
No, Justin, there was no life when the Universe began by an electromagnetic order of natural phenomena, neither when the universe was composed by astronomical systems… The magical thinking ( be it materialist, deist, atheist) needs that a universe not linked to a kind of life could create life by magic, be it magical gods or magical random movements. A magic event that brought from nothing the living principle, and inserted it inside itself as genetic code! Go to my website to see a model of atoms operating almost by electromagnetic forces already expressing life’s properties, and models of astronomical systems were all life’s properties are expressed in a mechanic fashion. At the Big Bang, the living principle was like a extreme singularity, but, you know, there is evolution, and then, we have this complex shape of the same life today. If the theoretical smallest atom that gave birth to this Universe had no living principle, forgets that atom and search another prior cause, as we did at Matrix/DNA Theory. Everything is natural, no supernatural creation as wishes Mr. Szostack.

” Are the two supposed to be mutually exclusive and if so then what’s the difference between them?”

The difference between lifes’ properties expressed at the primordial electromagnetic order of phenomena and the later astronomical order is less mass and more mass – and billions of years of evolution between then. Why they must be mutually exclusive? I can’t see Newton mechanics without electromagnetic effects, magnetic fields, etc. If you are saying that radiations like gamma-ray from the electromagnetic expectrum are mortal to life you are wrong: they are mortal to biological life only. Included, the sequence of electromagnetic frequencies/vibrations from gamma-ray to radio is the same sequence of the living energy that drives yours own body in yours lifetime, from blastulae to death.

(Obs.: Definition of Empiricism by Wikipedia):

Empiricism is a theory that states that knowledge comes only or primarily from sensory experience.[1] One of several views of epistemology, the study of human knowledge, along with rationalism and skepticism, empiricism emphasizes the role of experience and evidence, especially sensory experience, in the formation of ideas, over the notion of innate ideas or traditions;[2] empiricists may argue however that traditions (or customs) arise due to relations of previous sense experiences.[3]

Empiricism in the philosophy of science emphasizes evidence, especially as discovered in experiments. It is a fundamental part of the scientific method that all hypotheses and theories must be tested against observations of the natural world rather than resting solely on a priori reasoning, intuition, or revelation.

xxxxxx

JustinMShaw 2 days ago

+Louis Charles Morelli
You really should work on improving your English, but I think I can decipher that. Let me know, does this paraphrasing come close to what you meant (I’ll separate it into the three paragraphs you did, but much shorter)?
~”Some of the founders of the scientific method wanted to wage a war against religion. Science can’t declare war against concepts, only against tangible things like viruses and meteorites. But ideology leads many scientists astray and Szostak has been compromised by his belief in materialism. By the way, abiogenesis is a joke.
In fact founders of the scientific method lived in an era when an accusation of atheism could earn them the death penalty. Of course we can speculate about their inner beliefs, but character witness is something that science has already shown us to be exceptionally bad at, besides the pointlessness of the endeavor. But what they did openly, if they criticized religion at all, is favor one at the expense of another. You don’t see rationalists really start speaking out against religion until the eighteenth century, and even then generally not from an atheist perspective but merely more of a deist one. The current acceptance of atheism is really just a generation old if that. So no, you are directly wrong about the history of religion and science. But you make it very clear that you’re intolerant of materialism and consider it a religion. That is an extremely dishonest and offensive position. Materialism means to invoke everything tangible but nothing else. By definition it means everything except the supernatural, everything except magic. Your pet definitions of those words are rejected.
You don’t know the definition of the words you use, empiricism means relating to the senses and we can’t sense abiogenesis happening. There are theories like the one that we’re intelligent microbes inside an embryonic sac that feeds a fetus. The microbes watch various animal shapes develop and assume it’s just natural selection. They never guess that there’s a hidden pattern guiding it all. That’s what I’m discovering with my Matrix/DNA Theory.
And you’re wrong in the exact same way about the definition of empiricism. Good for you getting into the root meanings of words, and shame on you for thinking that modern thinking must adhere to those roots. Though in this case there is a connection. Empirical things can be sensed even if we must enhance our senses with machines, and they are clearly distinguishable from things that can’t yet be sensed such as (again, by definition) the intangible. More to the point empiricism just refers to checking assumptions against experimental results rather than merely against our own inner logic. Anyway, to continue with your rant about intelligent microbes, you seem there to be trying to describe the mainstream scientific view, but are failing miserably. It is not assumed that we are intelligent microbes or that we see all those animal forms in sequence. Maybe if you were to dishonestly mix up some pseudoscience with some long outdated claims you could patch that together, but it’s extremely dishonest now. And you hilariously end trying to claim that you have the answer with your own pet pseudoscience. You’re not the discoverer of the universe’s great mathematical secrets, and if a pattern does repeat itself in and out of biological systems that isn’t necessarily evidence of a pattern from another universe. According to mainstream science it’s merely the consistent nature of the universe that makes science possible, and the symmetry that hopefully makes it within our grasp to someday fully understand.
Life appearing in this universe, whether by abiogenesis or by divine biogenesis, is magic. Only my theory of a pattern for life from another universe makes sense. And Szostak is invoking magic, I’m not.
” If that is what you meant to say then you clearly not only don’t get the definition of natural versus supernatural, you outright rebel against it and call natural phenomena supernatural. So don’t expect this conversation to stay civil for very long.
You did not clarify the difference between your own claims of “electromagnetic form” and “astronomical mechanical version,” instead you just acted the pompous and ignorant idiot and pretended that I didn’t realize life was younger than the universe. So you dodged the question, perhaps lost in the euphoria of expounding on your own pathetic fantasies, and then declared that only the involvement of a pattern from another universe could be considered “not magic.” Your stupidity just gets worse and worse. Any mathematical patterns we find are by definition within this universe, you idiot. And you invoking another universe while claiming that this one is not enough is invoking magic. I am so glad that your brand of pseudoscientific quackery is on a steep decline. It’s especially hilarious how transient your followers are, being sucked in one minute by some new quantum discovery and then falling out of favor when the scientific site that informed them about it explains a few things. The age of unsupported dogma is coming to a close. Granted, it’s throwing a loud temper tantrum as it’s put to bed, but it’s going down.
xxxxxx
Justin, you did a great contribution  translating my text, now I can know how English speakers and totally ignorant about the new Matrix//DNA world view interprets almost everything wrong. I never said such stupid things like that life came from another universe and by magics, I never said that there is a theory about intelligent microbes, I never said that rationalists started speaking out against religion before the eighteenth century, there is no such confusion between natural and supernatural, etc.. Yours paraphrasing is not close to  the concepts that I was trying to explain, but yours fault is not due my English language errors, since that people of my native language makes the same interpretations error mistakes that you do.  Yours fault is due yours wrong interpretations about each real natural phenomena, because a wrong millenary human culture that are interpreting those phenomena has indoctrinated your mind. in the way that you will believe that an extraterrestrial intelligent life form made with non-organic materials has an absurd and stupid interpretation.     
But, if you are interested to learn how to check yours nowadays world view and how it will be difficult for humans to communicate with other lifeforms  that  have a world view totally weird and never imagined before by you,  it will be good to keep this conversation here…
You interpreted:  “…. By the way, abiogenesis is a joke.
I never wrote this word – joke – go reading again my post. The total time of abiogenesis ( maybe 3 billion years) was anything else than a process of embryogenesis at astronomical scale of time, because the mother of abiogenesis was this astronomical system inside which the first living being was born.  Human embryogenesis takes only 9 months, but the formation of a star takes millions or billions years, and here, embryogenesis and formation has the same meaning, they are the same process – one is the other, the difference is merely evolutionary. I could explain this process if I could bring here the picture of the model of an astronomic system by Matrix/DNA Theory, which is pretty different of yours ” Standard and Nebular Theories’ models” , despite that my facts and yours facts are the same facts – the theoretical connections and interpretations of these facts are different, and one theory has no fact for debunk the other.
The abiogenesis theory is well based on  facts and evidences, like the self-replicating molecules, the Miller/Urey aminoacids, etc. What is wrong with the theory is the  human imagination that tried to connect those data and evidences for to see the big picture, or to write the Natural History from the non-living matter of this planet till the first  living being. And the errors of these theorists was due their minds believing that there was an agent, a force, called ” random events” as guide of this history. It is not random  events that drives the process of embryogenesis, it was not random events that drove the formation of the first living being. Formation or embryogenesis is driven by the bodies’ parents, , and the parents of the first living being was the body of this astronomical system called Milk Way.  Or don’t was it ?!!! Which real proved known fact have you for convincing me that Nature has decided to apply an unknown different mechanism for formation of the first biological system? A mechanism other than that applied for formation of astronomical systems?
Oh….. I know, yours answer will be that random events also was the  mechanism applied for formation of astronomical systems. And you will throw over the table the academic model for astronomical systems. But this is circular reasoning, like any other mystical world view will bring its sacred scripture as proof. The academic model is wrong.
I am advocating that this connection was wrong because I did this ( also imaginative) connections and the final result is a different theory. So, we are debating  theories, yours against mine. But, please, be non-personal, without an ideology, a belief system like that the school of this time indoctrinated you towards the materialistic world view. I don’t believe that my theory ( which school is  the  wild environment of Amazon jungle), or any other human theory  is the ultimate thru, because I recognize that my little brain without good sensors and my dimensions as a microbe in this Universe is not able to grasp and to understand the ultimate truth. So, this  debate between ours different theories must be focused upon the real facts known by you and me, and  the motives that you connected the fact A with the fact L while I connected A with the fact  R.
( I will be back posting the corrections to yours others paraphrasing)

Tags: ,