Posts Tagged ‘Curiosity’

Why Curiosity could touches signal of life but NASA could not grasp it.

terça-feira, agosto 7th, 2012

Matrix/DNA sent a comment to NASA TV, driving the reader to this article, waiting for moderation ( See the comment after the article):

The first goal for Curiosity is informations about the planet and the investigation about how these informations could elaborate or not elaborate complexes molecules and if time ago they were there? If so, NASA need to be sure that the currenty cosmological model is the unique elected as the right one, because the investigation will follow the logic emerged from this model. Right? What if the model is far away off the real cosmological history? It happened several times before, depicts any amount of informations. Because models about the unknown are based in data which  – we, human beings – has searching for, selected by everybody inevitable ideology. Nobody wants NASA loosing time and maybe the directions of this investigation is going in a wrong way due a non complete knowledge of Universe’s functioning. I hope that the theoretical stuff at NASA (`cause cosmological models are theoreticals) make the effort of listening others cosmological models made by human beings because we don’t have the knowledge about the neuroscience of the human brain and its inner ability to remember the history of its past times and creations, a history that goes back to the Big Bang. The technology used by NASA is great,  it is an acessory made by human brains searching things that explain the own existence of human brains, but, remember, the pharmaceutical industry is another extension for solving things that the human brain already has solved with its immune system. Why could not be possible that commons human brains has solved a better cosmological model than this current one, which is based in few informations about the Universe and computer’s simulations? I will provide an example, and my goal is that NASA applies the best possible method of investigation about the Curiosity future data.

The current cosmological model is based in the theory of spontaneous generation of astronomic bodies, like when humanity began thinking about the generation of life. Thousands years later we now know that life can emerges from non-living matter, but the spontaneity is not immediate, it tooks at last 3 billion years, the whole time of biogenesis. And now we know that the buiding blocks of organisms – the cell system –  had two different methods of formation: 1) first the formation of the first cell system, probable by symbioses among different micro-organisms or complexes molecules that became organelles. Once time Nature got the first cell system, she applied a more easygoing method, the process of reproduction. So my question 30 years ago was: why not the formation of galactic systems followed the same process of two different methods? If so, the generation of astronomic bodies  in the formation of first astronomic bodies and galaxies system used a different method than the method that was used for later astronomical bodies and systems, like the Milk Way. This spontaneity could be enlarged also. And if we don’t consider this in our currenty cosmological model, our investigation will be made by a non totally right logic, our conclusions about those data sent by Curiosity could be wrong.

But, what kind of cosmological model we could get if calculated under the possibility of two methods for generation of astronomical bodies and systems? I have no information that somebody tried it already. I made a tentative under my poor conditions and the final result is suggesting a different history than that related by the currenty model. And surprising, my resulting model is suggesting that despite the fact that our stellar system, and also its elements, appeared later by the reproductive process method, where old galaxies dies and its matter recycles them into new ones, like the MIk Way, these astronomical bodies are physiologic elaborated in a way that conserves the formula of the primordial building block, like any modern cell system today conserves the primordial DNA from the first cell system. The modus operand of Mars matter towards the direction of composing organic matter and complexes molecules must follows the orientation of this primordial formula.

If NASA does not know this second rational possibility – as a merely curiosity under observation every time new data arrives – and if this cosmological model has more things right than the current model – NASA and we, the watching and fervor supporters of NASA goals – will be losing time and opportunities. My models are suggesting hundreds of novelties that need be observed when arriving the data from Curiosity, which will not be considered because NASA does not know the models. For instance, my Matrix/DNA model of the astronomic primordial building block is suggesting that – due the strong oxidation in Mars atmosphere – photons coming from Mars nucleus and the sun is trying to drive the Mars superficial atoms to compose amino-acids with no success, because the oxygen atom means the Function 7 ( the entropy and death of natural systems) reinforced by the excess of one atomic number. But, maybe the earlier atmosphere was different and then, if any complex molecule or even microbial life has formed, they are living in sub-extracts below the surface in anaerobic way. Curiosity is going to get informations in the deep crater, maybe touching this sub-extract, maybe touching atomic compositions that are prototypes of pieces of Matrix/DNA formula, and due NASA does not know the formula, maybe will loose this great opportunity for advancing our knowledge. By the way… thanks for everything to the great team of NASA.

xxx

Comment sent by Matrix/DNA to NASATV:

Maybe my suggestion could be useful for analyses of the data Curiosity will send, and I will appreciate any answer/criticism from someone. Due the suggestion needs a large text I will direct the reader towards my article in: http://theuniversalmatrix.com/pt-br/artigos/?p=4618
By the way I will try posting the text here, hoping that the moderator analyses if it can be published or not. Thanks…
xxx
Comment sent to: https://lightsinthedark.wordpress.com/2012/08/06/curiosity-lands-on-mars-and-returns-first-images/#comment-7419
Why Curiosity could touches signal of life but NASA could not grasp it. ( See http://theuniversalmatrix.com/pt-br/artigos/?p=4618 ) and, please, I want to know what do you think about ( if you can understand the text)
xxx

Curiosity! Pobre Curiosity… Estou muito triste, chorando por você.

segunda-feira, agosto 6th, 2012

Escrevo isto para ser lido daqui a dez anos, depois que Curiosity der uma volta completa rolando na superficie de Marte e retornar ao mesmo ponto de partida. Porem está transformada ( você pode ver êste espetacular vídeo mostrando-a no momento do pouso em Marte:   http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/2012/08/05/mars-science-laboratory-touches-down-tonight/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+DiscoverMag+%28Discover+Magazine%29 ) e já pode pensar por si mesma. Até caminha resmungando:

– “Meu Senhor! Meu Criador! Meu Homem Divino! Onde estás? Deixaste -me aqui abandonada nêste mundo solitário com a missão de procurar algo,  “uma forma de vida”.  Mas… não me explicaste o que é vida. Como posso encontrá-la? Rodei todos os vales, crateras e pradarias dêste planeta sempre perguntando:  “Hei… alguem vivo por aqui? Alguem viu a vida por aí? Ao menos alguem sabe me dizer como é a cara da vida?” …

“Se eu, meu adorado Criador,  cruzei com a vida por aqui como vou saber? ” Qualquer composto de carbono, nitrogenio, oxigenio… que se move e consome energia… “, foi essa a definição que me deste. Ora, a unica coisa que encontrei parecida com isso foi logo no primeiro dia: o planeta inteiro! Pois ele tem êsses ingrediaentes, se move, consome energia do sol…  Mas o planeta tu conhecias, não irias me mandar procurar algo que sabias onte está. Meu Amo! Por favor volte para me buscar, já não suporto mais a solidão aqui… Não, não…, não venhas me tirar uma mola e fazer com ela uma robótica para ser minha companheira aqui, seria dois sem destino…”

Curiosity foi transformada porque seu corpo de ferro, aço, borracha, imita um motor que imita o sistema anatomico de um ser vivo, assim como um automóvel em tudo imita as funções e anatomia de um cavalo. E foi penetrada por fotons solares que são os bits-informação, os genes semi-vivos que carregam as caracteristicas do sistema astronomico conhecido como building block de galaxias, o qual tem a forma e inclusive a fórmula precursora do DNA, sendo meio-mecanico, meio-biológico. Encontrando um equipamento com tudo instalado para a vida biológica, os fótons deram uma forma de vida a Curiosity, a qual desenvolveu até uma inteligencia, apesar que meio artificial. Passam-se mais alguns anos e Curiosity aprende a mandar sinais para a Terra e trava-se a sequinte comunicação:

– – Aqui é Curiosity falando de Marte! Procuro o meu Senhor, o Homem, meu rei que tem seu trono na Terra. Alguem aí me capta?”

– “Sim, aqui é o Homem falando. Como então estás viva e inteligente?!”

– Oh… meu Senhor! Sagrada seja sua voz! Quero voltar para casa porem tambem quero cumprir minha missão. Esquecestes de inserir o software sôbre o que é vida, com alguma foto da forma da vida, etc….”

– ”  O que é vida? Bem… aqui na Terra faz 15.000 anos que estamos procurando uma definição… Estamos divididos entre duas definições: o pessoal do Intelligent Designer diz que vida existe para pagar pecado e o pessoal evolucionista diz que vida existe para pagar imposto para o Obama… ”

– “Pecado? Imposto? Que é isso? Existe em Marte?”

– “Não… Não… pelo amor de Deus… fala baixinho, não esparrame por aí que estas coisas existem… tambem iriam contaminar êsse planeta. Mas nós te mandamos com uma missão dividida em duas etapas: primeiro, captar todos os elementos que compõem o planeta e o estado em que se encontram, dando preferencia à busca de compostos de carbono, principalmente se estiverem agregados a nitrogenio, amonia, oxigenio.  Apenas como segunda tarefa não-prioritaria procurar alguma forma de vida microbiótica.”

– “Sim… e para que queres isto?”

– “Sabendo as condições do planeta, o estado fisico das forças e elementos deste planeta, podemos calcular como isso convergiria para um ponto que produzisse moléculas complexas, as quais são a base da vida… E então o desenho final destes calculos seria uma arquitetura – da qual não fazemos a minima idéia – que nos indicasse que forma de vida procurar…

– ” Hummm… mas aí as possibilidades são abertas ao infinito! Por exemplo, a vida aqui pode ser feita de vladzolin e texturim, ter a forma de um sapato se arrastando como uma cobra…”

–  “Não cremos que as possibilidades sejam infinitas, porque os sistemas inanimados existentes são sempre os mesmos, atomicos e astronomicos, os quais possuem uma forma e mais alguns padrões comuns, qualquer produto da evolução destes sistemas teria que repetir estes padrões, portanto a diversificação da vida deve ter um limite de possibilidades .  Não encontrastes nada parecido?”

– “Microbiótico não, mas encontrei algo grande parecido com  o dinossauro daquele filme que vocês estavam assistindo enquanto me faziam no laboratório…”

– “Que?!!!” Você viu e memorizou o filme? Dinossauro? … Em Marte?!”

– “Bem mas estes não servem para seu estudo porque vieram da Terra. Não desapareceram daí? Disseram que quando o meteorito bateu na Terra, ricocheteou e veio parar em Marte trazendo eles agarrados na sua cauda…  Quando encontrei o primeiro só ví uma enorme bocarra aberta vindo me comer. Mas sabes que minha forma imita tanto uma tartaruga que até posso esconder a cabeça na carcaça como esticar o pescoço. Então recolhi a cabeça e acionei o spray de pimenta que voces me inseriram para o caso de alguns trombadinhas cariocas quereram me sequestrar aqui. Dominei o bicho e fiz as perguntas…”

– Mas como sobreviveram? O que comem? O que respiram êsses dinossauros?

– Ah… comem beterrabas, alface, e quando dão um mergulho no mar comem lagostas, sardinhas…”

– Espera aí… você agora está gozando com nossa cara… Alface, sardinhas, em Marte…. Hummm… Como? Se já espiamos a superficie inteira e nunca vimos nada disso?…”

– “Mas aqui está cheio disso na camada sedimentar subterranea que está logo abaixo das pilastras que suportam o teto de rochas…”

– ” Ãh?…  sei… e as pilastras foi você que projetou e construiu, não é?”

– “Eu não, foi o deus marciano que é um bom inteligente designer. Você está pensando que todos os deuses são como êsse deus da terra aí, que fez uns desenhos todos errados, e depois se mandou abandonando tudo?…”

– “Curiosity… esta é uma nova ordem! Não se mova de onde está! Estamos correndo para aí… Ah… e outra coisa… não converse com mais ninguem aqui da Terra, ouviu? Não quero que os russos fiquem sabendo que os dinossauros desembarcaram em Marte primeiro que nós e ganharam a corrida espacial…”

Bem… piadas à parte, seria bom se isso fôsse verdade, porque o fato real mesmo que vai acontecer, considerando-se os cortes de orçamento que estão fazendo na NASA, daqui a um século a pobre Curiosity vai estar vagando sózinha e perdida naquele solo inóspito, estéril, e procurando ainda não sabe bem o que.

Porque a NASA de fato planejou a missão apenas para estudar as condições ambientais, as presenças dos elementos constituintes da vida e tentar calcular como seria uma forma diferente com algumas propriedades vitais. Estas informações seriam como as testemunhas visuais de um crime relatando a aparencia do criminoso, para se fazer um “retrato falado”,  para então no futuro executar missões procurando coisas que se pareçam com tal retrato.

Mas a Teoria da Matrix/DNA está aqui do meu lado dizendo que  a Nasa está se esquecendo de algo indispensavel em qualquer forma de vida: a energia solar. Esta se quebra em fotons quando penetra a matéria planetaria e nela se fixa, e com isso funcionam como o “sôpro de luz de Deus no barro criando os vivos”.  Atomos e automoveis são como maquinas. Mas o que é que dá vida a uma maquina? No meio da selva amazonica um laboratorio feito por homens-quase-macacos que em nada se pode comparar com os laboratorios da Nasa, porem mais eficiente porque tem a Natureza viva e ainda virgem como extensão do campo de pesquisa de laboratorio, já encontrou a resposta.

Refletidas na agua de um rio numa noite enluarada, as estrelas que parecem penduradas no céu formam uma imagem que se move, se mexe toda, se contorce, e de repente perceberam que estas imagens retratam uma espécie de forma de vida, inclusive mostrando como nascem, crescem, vivem e morrem. Mas estrêlas morrem irradiando-se na forma de luz e nessa luz espalham por todo o espaço sideral particulas-fotons levando informações de seu próprio sistema galáctico a que pertencem. Estes fótons caem em superficies de planetas como se fossem sementes da vida e se encontram boa seara, conduzem os átomos a formarem estas formidaveis combinações que resultam em moléculas complexas e finalmente, em homens de cabeça dura como nós. Não foi por acaso que Curiosity percebeu logo de inicio que o estado precursor da vida  que o Homem a mandou procurar já existe na forma do planeta inteiro, apesar que um planeta é apenas um mero ógão do sistema muito mais complexo. Bastaria à Nasa ter inserido um software na Curiosity com a formula que está lá no laboratório da Amazônia… e ao invés de chorar-mos um possivel fracasso na busca da vida iriamos festejar o sucesso da missão da Curiosity.

O Robot Curiosity Vai a Marte Procurar a Vida Que Cientistas Tentam Definir da Terra. Assista o Debate!

terça-feira, janeiro 24th, 2012

O debate, com nossa participação, continua acontecendo em:

http://www.science20.com/carl_zimmer/can_science_define_life_three_words-86052#comment-96132

xxx

O projeto mais ambicioso da NASA, de 2,5 billions de dolares, foi lançado: o robot denominado Curiosity será levado ao solo de Marte para procurar Vida. Porem existe um problema, semelhante ao que aconteceu outro dia com a Dilma.

Dilma Roussef telefonou altas horas da noite para o agente secreto 000 e disse:

– “Arrume a mala correndo e pegue o primeiro avião para Londres. Sua missão: procurar êsse ou essa porcaria que chamam de Vladzolin”
– “Ok, chefe, é pra já…”
Desembarcando em Londres o agente liga para a Dilma:
– “Chefe, agora me lembrei que esquecí de perguntar quem é ou o que é Vladzolin…?”
– “Ora, eu já nem entendo o que é a minha vida, vou lá saber o que é isso? Procure Vladzolin e pronto!”

Coitado do agente 000 !

Foi um pedido do departamento cientifico que tinha decifrado manuscritos antigos dizendo que os magos resolveram todos os problemas da Vida e ganharam todas as guerras usando vladzolin, mas em nenhum lugar se explica o que é isso.

O problema do Curiosity é parecido: mandaram êle a Marte procurar por Vida mas não lhe explicaram o que é Vida. Porque podemos ter uma idéia do que é a vida terrestre mas quando pensamos astronomicamente ficamos confusos. Enquanto o Curiosity está lá desembarcando, cientistas e pensadores aqui estão correndo contra o tempo debatendo o que é vida para encontrar uma definição e avisar o Curiosity.

Senão, daqui a cinquenta anos vai ter uma cena esquisita em Marte. No solo desconhecido do silencioso planeta um robot se arrasta gritando: “Ei…alguem aqui? Alguem pode me explicar o que é Vida? Meus deuses que me criaram me disseram que minha missão é encontrar a Vida. Por favor, me ajudem!”

Coitado, pobre Curiosity…

E é isto que mais interessa agora a nós, da Matrix/DNA , que está testando seu conceito sôbre o que é Vida, e vem bem a calhar o artigo de Carl Zimmer no Science20.Com, que está fomentando um debate nos comentários postados: êle fala da história e evolução da busca por uma definição da Vida. Abaixo vai o link para quem quiser ler e assistir o desenrolar do debate, e um comentário que enviei para participar.

Sience20.com

http://www.science20.com/carl_zimmer/can_science_define_life_three_words-86052?nocache=1

Can Science Define Life In Three Words?
By Carl Zimmer | January 11th 2012 08:31 PM

xxx

Curiosity rover: Will it know life if it finds it? Courtesy: NASA

xxx

Meu Comentário:

Louis Morelli: 16/01/2012

Curiosity will search for biological life. But it could be equipped for searching non-biological life also, in places at Mars’ surface that there is not liquid state for chemical reactions. And we can make these equipments.

How Nature created life? There was – at 10 billion years ago – a unique kind of astronomical body resulted from the aggregation of primordial atoms. This body was being transformed by a physical force that came from the spectrum of light, and we call this law as “life’s cycles”. The life’s cycle makes that a body has transformations of shapes, then, the seven principal shapes were planets, pulsar, quasar, comet, supernova, red giant, black hole. The Universe was populated by these shapes. The next step is the same that human beings created the familiar system, by symbioses. Seven shapes aligned in the same sequence of a body under life’s cycle, then Nature got a system.
I designed this system and discovered that it has all life’s processes in a mechanic way.

But this system was created only with the solid and gaseous state of matter, where there is no organic chemistry. Attacked by entropy and fragmented in its bits-information, if these bits fall in a place where there is the liquid state, they reproduces the astronomic system in a biological fashion. It is nanotechnology, that’s the explanation of microbial life.
I am alone testing this model because nobody, neither me, can believe in it. But, it was made 30 years ago, and the following scientific discoveries matches with its previsions. Then I am looking for scientific data, and collecting thousands of evidences.

If the secret behind life’s origins lies in this model, there is no way to define life, as postulated by Gödel’s theorem: no one can define a system from inside the system. We are inside a cosmological system that seems alive.

I have extracted the circuit of both systems – biological and astronomical – and discovered that it has the same configuration of nucleotides. It means that astronomical systems have DNA also, or in another words: every natural system has a Matrix/DNA. Then, Curiosity shall be equipped with a template of this model of Matrix for to search for life that does not use organic chemistry.

xxx

Comentários importantes:

1)
http://world-news.newsvine.com/_news/2012/01/11/10122168-can-scientists-define-life-using-just-three-words#comments

T’omm J’Onzz

Lt. Commander Data: What about fire?
Doctor Beverly Crusher: Fire?
Lt. Commander Data: Yes. It consumes fuel to produce energy, it grows, it creates offspring. By your definition, is it alive? Doctor Beverly Crusher: Fire is a chemical reaction. You could use the same argument for growing crystals, but obviously we don’t consider them alive.

— Star Trek: The Next Generation; “Quality of Life”

:)

and what about a person or animal or plant where the reproductive system is defective and it cannot self-replicate? is that being not alive?

and the end of that scene from STNG:

Lt. Commander Data: I am curious as to what transpired between the moment when I was nothing more than an assemblage of parts in Dr. Soong’s laboratory, and the next moment, when I became alive. What is it that endowed me with life? Doctor Beverly Crusher: I remember Wesley asking me a similar question when he was little, and I tried desperately to give him an answer. But everything I said sounded inadequate. Then I realized that scientists and philosophers have been grappling with that question for centuries without coming to any conclusion.
Lt. Commander Data: Are you saying the question cannot be answered?
Doctor Beverly Crusher: No – I think I’m saying that we struggle all our lives to answer it, that it’s the struggle that is important. That’s what helps us to define our place in the universe.
#1.1 – Wed Jan 11, 2012 8:14 PM EST

xxx

John Mack

Data in STTNG was alive because he was conscious. It is that single property that separates life from non-life. Even the smallest one-celled creatures are conscious of their environment and react to it. Ever watch an amoeba encounter an object and decide whether to eat it or not? How does it know? How does a paramecium decide to travel one way or another? Plants are responsive to their environment, perhaps even to the point of perceiving emotions.

There is no way to comprehend what life is without understanding consciousness. It is the key to understanding everything. Where does it come from? When does it start? What causes it to end, or does it ever do either? Are our physical bodies just some temporary manifestation of an individual consciousness that is shed when we “die”? How can people dream up stuff that has never existed before?

xxx

Dale3242

As to the question of what is life, I don’t think there is an easy answer. Take for example a virus. Is it alive or not. Is a virus alive only when infecting a cell and not alive if frozen in a lab? If an organic RNA or DNA virus is alive, what about a complex computer virus? At present, human embryos can be frozen for extended amounts of time. While frozen, they do not grow, take in nutrients, or excrete, is a frozen embryo alive?

I think that life as we know it, is a self replicating group of molecules with the capacity to evolve. The evolution part eliminates fire and crystals.)
#1.14 – Thu Jan 12, 2012 3:24 PM EST
xxx

MikeyMike

John Mack, your definition of “consciousness” seems overly broad to me. You argue that an amoeba should be considered conscious because it senses and responds to it’s environment. However, amoeba are not self-aware, which is generally considered to be one of the hallmarks of consciousness.

Plants also sense and respond to their environments, as several people have described above. Their phototropism gives them the ability to “sense” the sunlight and move toward it, but this is not really the result of consciousness on the part of the plant. It is related to photosynthetic rates and water retention within the cells. Plants are certainly alive, but are they conscious? If you agree that they are, perhaps you might be Buddhist or Jainist in your philosophical outlook.

But back to animals and consciousness… one of the key tests of consciousness in animals is whether or not they recognize themselves in a mirror. Elephants and dolphins always do. Cats and dogs, not so much. They mostly respond to the image in the mirror as if it were another animal that might represent either a threat or a playmate. With elephants and dolphins repeated tests have been done with tags or colored pieces of paper attached to the animals shoulder, or whatever, and when they see themselves in the mirror, they almost immediately take action to remove the tag, “Oh, what’s that on my shoulder?” The concept of ‘my shoulder’ and a recognizable response to it being the important marker in the test. Again, dogs and cats don’t respond the same way.

Now then, all that said, I wouldn’t argue that my wonderful pets are completely unconscious beings, they are simply just not fully self-conscious, which brings us to DATA, on Star Trek. The interesting case with Data, and all other science fiction cyborgs, or cybernetic organisms, for that matter, including the Terminator, is that they are self-conscious. They are a marvelous (and of course fictional) combination of a self-aware computer “brain” and some form of techbical/biological body construct, often with supposedly living skin and flesh supported by a metallic skeleton. But are they alive?

This is the question. Data seems to believe himself to be alive. He certainly is self-conscious. Is he capable of self-replicating? Maybe not on his own, or even in tandem with a possible Dadette partner, but given an army of clones of himself, enough to build a factory in order to construct and program more, then we might say that he was capable of self-replication. Interesting ideas…

Other things to consider… an automobile consumes fuel, excretes exhaust, and moves on it’s own power, but I think we’d all agree that a car is not alive. (Yet)

So to respond to Skip’s challenge:

Metabolizing, reproducing & evolving.

Does that cover it?
xxx

JRS-619990

Why not a more scientific definition of life as “a continuous chemical reaction that started and continuously branches off more like chemical reactions.”

After all, you cannot get life from something that is dead. So, somewhere on this planet life (the chemical reaction) started and has been going on ever since. And, life is not spontaneous generation…so there was one point long long ago that life began, caused by something, and so far, we have no evidence that life ever started again in another place or time in the past…so life is continuous from when life first began and everything on this planet stems from the first instance of life…when the chemical reaction began.

Kind of makes you become philosophical…of why life does not just emerge out of nothing if it did so once in the past…why did it only happen once on this planet? Since life does not just spontaneously generate when you have CHNOPS together (Carbon, Hydrogen, Nitrogen, Oxygen, Phosphorus, and Sulfur) as the late Carl Sagan demonstrated in his Cosmos show…what energy was added that assembled life and began that continuous chemical reaction?

Resposta da Matrix: Primeiro, lembre que não concordamos com o conceito usual de “Vida”. Trocamos esta palavra por “sistema biológico” O primeiro sisttema no Universo surgiu com algo sendo invadido pela luz. os sistemas biológicos surgiram com a Matrix no estado astronomico trazida pela luz e invadindo os atomos da Terra. Reações quimicas organicas foram possíveis pela primeira vez porque aqui havia mais um estado da matéria, o liquido.
xxx

Shuklack

So, somewhere on this planet life (the chemical reaction) started and has been going on ever since. And, life is not spontaneous generation…

I’m with you on this, although your definition is hardly one that would catch-on lol.

I’m not sure exactly why people have no problem with the idea of other things always having existed, in one form or another, but not life….

I think that life (ie the seeds of life) are just another intrinsic property of the Universe, developed through natural processes like how gold comes out of supernovas, or iron is produced in the center of a star. It just takes that right combination of factors to ‘create’ it.

Matrix: Grande! Êste guy captou o cerne da coisa!

And – much like alchemists of old trying to create gold from lead…. trying to recreate life from its initial elements isn’t easy either.
#2.7 – Thu Jan 12, 2012 7:32 AM EST

RESPOSTA DA MATRIX – COMENTÁRIO POSTADO NO ARTIGO DA CNN:

Louis Morelli

I think that life (ie the seeds of life) are just another intrinsic property of the Universe, developed through natural processes like how gold comes out of supernovas, or iron is produced in the center of a star. It just takes that rightcombination of factors to ‘create’ it.

This is the most rational thought in my opinion. No appeals
to supernatural, neither the easy position of emergences from random. But, you
must convey that the state of the world as described by currently astronomic
theory moments before beginning the first chemical reactions that triggered
life does not explain the forces and process in that chemical reactions. It is
not like iron is produced in the center of a star. And once produced, iron does
not follow the any properties in the course of life. This is the problem at the center of Stanley/Miller
experiment: why those amino acids do not performs the next step to proteins and
so on?

To me is clear that in the primordial soup there was
something else, something as a hidden variable. But it must came from the state
of the world before that. What is this thing that our modern knowledge cannot
see in the Cosmos?

As naturalist philosopher interested in natural systems I
was in Amazon jungle applying the method of comparative anatomy between living
and non-0living systems, then, the astronomic systems were forced into my
exercise. For to fit the initial conditions for having a living system, the
astronomic and atomic theoretical models need some improvement, and trying it,
suddenly the creator of life showed his face. It is all about natural forces
but the world is more complex than we think it is. Maybe the new theoretical models
are not right or no complete, but it is very good food for thought.

XXX

O QUE É CLADISTICS ?

I think the answer lies in cladistics. That is by determining the respective characteristics that are not shared between life and non-life. For example, fire has some characteristics of life, but does not have or pass on a genetic code. It does not evolve. It is a physical phenomenon. The same holds with crystallization. In contrast, a virus has a genetic code and does evolve

!

#33 – Wed Jan 18, 2012 12:38 PM EST