Posts Tagged ‘Evolução’

Teoria da Evolução Feita por Darwin Paraíso e a Teoria da Evolução feita por mim no inferno

sexta-feira, dezembro 1st, 2017

xxxx

Incrível como a classe social  que pertencem os pensadores e pesquisadores determinam a interpretação dos fatos observados e a espécie de valores morais extraidos. E’ impossivel ao humano elaborar uma teoria, seja cientifica ou filosofica, impessoal, sem projetar a sua psyche humana sobre os fatos modelando o quadro imaginado final.

Neste artigo com link abaixo, se tem a certeza que Darwin sempre pertenceu `a nobreza rica, a qual tem seus valores morais torcidos para que se encaixem nos seus privilegios sociais e os justifiquem. Entao para eles o mundo tem que ser regido por leis que captam dentre uma populacao ou dentre as especies os individuos “nobres”, que os levantem para reinarem sobre os nao-nobres, e este reinar e’ seu sagrado compromisso com seu deus intimo que foi quem permitiu o mundo ser assim. Por isso a teroia darwinista e’ cheia de expressoes manifestando os valores do mais forte, mais adaptado, mais astuto, mais agressivo, etc., e tudo isso sacramentado por uma tal de “selecao natural”, abstrata, sem agente conhecido, mas nao precisa porque Deus e’ sempre abstrato. Nunca lhes ocorrem observar que a imagem da Natureza na superficie da Terra nao e’ igual a imagem da Natureza que vemos nas estrelas. Aqui e’ o reino do caos, la’ se ve ordem, harmonia. Mas ver isso seria um choque incomodo ao seu status social e comportamento na vida, entao, nunca vao executar o servico mental de aplicar a propria evolucao `a natureza e perceber que se no inicio e’ o caos, ele esta errado e vai ser transformado em ordem. mas num estado de ordem nao haveria “mais fortes” e nao haveria privilegios sociais, entao, cega-se convenientemente para os ceus e abaixam os olhos para seus territorios na Terra. Veja-se no artigo como Darwin viveu como um nababo. O elitista Darwin fez a teoria para servir aos interesses dos elitistas.

Por meu lado, pequei justamente pelo motivo oposto ao mesmo erro, ou seja, o outro lado de uma moeda falsa. Porque projetei o meu status social e ausencia de beneficios nos modelos teoricos que elaborei. Um dos indicios e’ que todas as partes do modelo de “sistema perfeito” sao zumbis escravizadas controladas pela entidade abstrata do sistema. Tal como nasci e sempre fui na vida real, ou seja, projetei a minha condicao na interpretacao e maneira de conectar os fatos reais numa grande figura final. Ainda nao identifiquei outros indicios mas sei que deve have-los, o problema e’ que eu sou o menos indicado para encontra-los pois e’ muito dificil alguem ver o veneno oculto em suas proprias crencas. mas vou continuar essa pesquisa indigesta porque tenho que purificar a teoria da influencia humana, ja que o que me interessa nao e’ minha obra diminuta e sim a Verdade.

Diriam que Einstein nao se auto-projetou nas suas teorias sobre a luz? Ora, depois que descobri que na luz existe muitos mais segredos do que Einstein captou e que nao podem serem captados pelo exercicio da matematica `a exaustao – percebi que tambem Eisntein se auto-projetou na interpretacao e modelacao da sua teoria quando reduziu a luz ao ambito matematico o qual e’ uma criacao humana.

Mansão de Darwin revela lado sociável do naturalista inglês

http://www1.folha.uol.com.br/turismo/2015/05/1631362-mansao-de-darwin-revela-lado-sociavel-do-naturalista-ingles.shtml?utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=compfb

Evolucao exige `a mente humana ultrapassar os limites do imediato

quinta-feira, novembro 9th, 2017

xxxx

A maior capacidade de algumas pessoas detectarem mias que outras os detalhe visuais do ambiente imediato nao significa que tais pessoas sao mais inteligentes e possuam maior IQ – este estudo comprova. Eu acho que isto e’ obvio, tenho ha’ muito percebido isto. Pessoas que reparam em tudo – como a roupa, o cabelo, de outros, e pessoas que cheiram tudo, se incomodando e se concentrando em cheiros, significa que investem todo seu tempo na vida imediata e nada investem na busca do conhecimento dos ambientes alem do imediato, cujas coisas estao invisiveis e nao emitem cheiros, como as dimensoes do macro e do microcosmos, a macroeconomia, ou macropolitica,etc. Mas e’ justamente o esforco dobrado intellectual na manutencao destas coisas de horizontes mais amplos que puxam a inteligencia obrigando-a se ampliar tambem. Os animais sao mestres em captar os detalhes imediatos, nao tem humanos melhores que eles, no entanto, nunca voltam seus olhos nem para admirar as coisas visiveis do ceu, por isso tem inteligencia zero.

Visual Intelligence Not the Same as IQ

http://neurosciencenews.com/iq-visual-intelligence-7897/

Teoria da Evolução Molecular pelo Paradigma Acadêmico versus Teoria pelo Paradigma da Matrix/DNA

sábado, novembro 4th, 2017

xxxx

Topico baseado no artigo:

Cientistas desenvolvem nova teoria da evolução molecular

Louis C. Morelli – 11/4/2017

Caro amigo Douglas, obrigado pela importante informação, porem…

Por isso cada vez mais me interesso pela Matrix/DNA Theory. Como poderíamos entender a evolução e mudanças dos organismos se não soubéssemos da existência do DNA, que é uma espécie de formula natural dirigindo esta evolução? Creio que o mesmo fenômeno e’ responsável pela evolução e mudanças nas proteínas. Não podemos esquecer que proteínas são uma forma primitiva precursora dos organismos, então, o que vale para organismos deve valer para proteínas. Ou seja, deve existir uma fórmula natural desconhecida ainda atuando na sua evolução. A Matrix/DNA elaborou modelos teóricos sugerindo que no DNA biológico cada building block do DNA é uma copia variada de um único sistema, o qual coincide com o template de sistemas atômicos e astronômicos. Se isto for correto, significa que as origens da vida, e portanto das proteínas, não foi um evento separado da evolução cosmológica que vinha desde o Big Bang, e sim apenas uma continuidade daquela evolução. Se as proteínas são a continuidade de uma evolução universal então tem que existir uma formula escondida e que corresponda a formula que construiu átomos e galaxias. E a teoria vai além sugerindo um processo de como aqueles sistemas não-biológicos, sob entropia, são fragmentados em bits-informação, registrados em fótons, partículas de luz decorrentes da radiação entropica daqueles sistemas. Estes fótons atuariam como precursores dos genes biológicos e ao adentrarem elétrons dos átomos que compõem as moléculas, formariam networks fotônicas `a semelhança do sistema de onde vieram. Eis a formula escondida ainda porque o paradigma cientifico atual que escolheu separar evolução cosmológica da evolução biológica impede a Ciência de desenvolver os métodos para captar estes fótons e suas networks. A teoria vai alem quando sugere o modelo da formula e que as proteínas representam trechos do circuito energético esférico da formula. O DNA não foi descoberto pelo método da mecânica estatística – acho que praticamente quem iniciou sua descoberta foi Mendell com as mãos na lama estudando a vida como ela e’. Esta é a diferença entre o método do paradigma atual e o método aplicado pela Matrix/DNA. Obviamente todo o escrito acima parecera mera salada de palavras como seria uma palestra do Mendell aos estudiosos de sua época.

Como aplicar sexualidade no caminho da evolução transcendental

sábado, novembro 4th, 2017

xxxx

(artigo em construcao, correcao ortografica)

Uma das grandes surpresas a que me levou meus modelos e calculos tentaando achar a explicacao para a existencia foi quando cheguei aos primeiros momentos da nossa manifestacao neste mundo, e nos encontravamos na forma de particulas fugazes tentando se materializar, minhas operacoes logicas encenaram um evento que pode muito bem ser descrito, metamoforicamente, como o primeiro intercurso sexual, o primeiro orgasmo e o primeiro baby deste universo. O que fizeram duas particulas moribundas que eram iguais em especie mas opostas em carater e tendencias, e que ambas estavam “morrendo”, mas se chocaram e se uniram e corrigiram seus desequilibrios energeticos, do qual foi emitido um flash de luz que as fizerm extremamente felizes e este flash se tornou uma terceira particula, filha, em tudo ‘e identico ao que faz um casal humano em relacao ao sexo. Admirado vendo e pensandop naquilo a primeira descoberta que fiz foi: ” Poh,… entao o orgasmo e’a celebracao do primeiro momento da vida, foi o nascimento e afirmacao da vida. E ao mesmo tempo o acasalamento entre dois opostos conflitantes e’ o ponto de transcendencia para um nivel superior.”

Mas entao, a humanidade tem se comportado totalmente errado ao que as leis naturais requerem, e tem perdido de sentir, apreciar, o que existe de significativo na sexualidade. E nao muito por escolha dos humanos, mas sim porque o sistema esta montado de uma maneira que se torna aos humanos impossivel serem naturais a caminho de sua transcendencia. Eis que hoje, por acaso, me deparo com um texto de um livro que e’ escrito por uma mulher, americana, que alega ser mediunica e recebe mensagens de inteligencias extra-terrestres que tentam ajudar a humanidade. Eu nao acredito nem desacredito, simplesmente sei que pode ser possivel mas nao sei se acontece. Isto nao impede a curiosidade de ver se esta mulher diz algo diferente do normal e que fassa sentido logico. O texto indica que os extraterrestres perceberam que a humanidade esta se prejudicando na sua evolucao porque esta desviando o potencial energetico transcendental do fenomeno sexual, tal como a filosofia naturalista me conduziu a suspeitar. E depois, quando a cosmovisao da Matrix/DNA ja estava mais amadurecida, suas formulas me conduziram a uma profundidade que subjaz a aparencia material, onde este mundo deve ser entendido na base da luz, frequencias, vibrations. Pois justamente exte texto fala exatamente isto: orgasmo sexual e’ um potencial que eleva nossas vibracoes no bom e saudavel e espiritual sentido. Portanto nao posso deixar de registrar o texto aqui e mais tarde, se tiver tempo, tentar traduzi-lo para leitores brasileiros. O texto me deixa indignado ao sentir como a humanidade tem sido ou sado-masoquista ou escrava de alguma forssa maligna ( a qual eu acho que captei e tenho pesquisado muito), e mais indignado porque sei que o texto   nao vai nos ajudar muito porque o sistema em que estamos apanhados e engrenados naos nos permitira nem sequer tentar mudar-nos. Mas o sistema nao nos diz o que a medium diz, e pelo contrario, se ele puder ele sufoca a voz dela, entao, apenas por este indicio ja nos indica que e’ bom saber o que ela diz.

http://www.stillnessinthestorm.com/2014/02/transmission-from-pleiadians-about.html

Transmission from Pleiadians about Sexuality – via Barbara Marciniak, from the book “Bringers of the Dawn”

Evolucao Quimica, apenas por si mesma, Criou a Vida?

segunda-feira, outubro 16th, 2017

xxxx

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mRzxTzKIsp8

What is Chemical Evolution?

Bem,… ja que os biologos nao encontraram uma maneira de explicar a procedencia das complexas propriedades vitais, o pensamento filosofico materialista se volta para a quimica, e nela acredita piamente como suficiente para fazer a vida acontecer onde ela nao existia antes.

Quando confrontamos esta teoria com a Matrix/DNA Theory, a primeira coisa que salta aos olhos e’ o erro crasso na mencao de “sistemas”. Confundem processos ( que sao meras relacoes entre duas ou mais partes de um Sistema, sem nunca completer o Sistema), com sistemas, do qual a formula da Matrix/DNA e’ a anatomia completa. Nos acidos graxos (fat acid?), por exemplo, apenas 3 atomos existem, quando para montar um Sistema de atomos completo sao necessarios ao menos um atomo de carbon ou entao seis atomos diferentes. Observamos que quando os 3 atomos se ligam formando um processo ciclico, a evolucao se paraliza ai, ( porque torna-se um Sistema fechado?), sendo que na continuacao ocorre apenas a repeticao do mesmo padrao, fazendo assim que o conjunto dos 3 atomos se tornem o building block da molecula total.

Nao sei onde e como a quimica mostra a evolucao de moleculas ate tornar-se um Sistema completo de maneira que o Sistema adquira o “sopro” vital, ou seja acionado como quando ligamos o plug de um aparelho numa tomada. O fenomeno quimico que conheco que mais se aproxima de um Sistema e’ o ciclo de Krebs, o qual ainda devo estudar mais procurando sua relacao com um Sistema de fato. Fica registrado aqui este video para dar continuidade `a pesquisa.

Esta controversia entre os teoricos da evolucao quimica e a teoria da Matrix/DNA repete a famosa discussao entre Louis Pasteur ( representado aqui pela Matrix/DNA) e o quimico positivista Lwduig ( esta certo o nome?). Lwduig acreditava em geracao espontaneade vida emergindo da quimica e Louis Pasteur replicava que a vida emergia da quimica produzida por um ” principio vital”. Pasteur ganhou na ocasiao com um experimento em que, fechando o frasco que contem os elementos quimicos a vida nao se produziu, alegando entao que o principio ativo estaria no ar.

Mas os quimicos positivistas nao se conformaram e continuram a espremer a quimica para cptar quando ela dava inicio `a vida. Jun taram tantas evidencias e, apesar de nao terem ain da as provas, voltaram como a teoria preferida dos academicos, porque afinal, o principio vital permaneceu numa aura fantasmagorica mais parecendo ser inexistente.

Bem,… a debilidade do argumento de Pasteur e’ que ela tambem nao tinha a menor ideia do que seria este principio vital, apenas sua fe’ religiosa mantem seus camaradas esperando que Deus o revele. Ninguem faz ideia do que seja a forsa que liga um Sistema e o faz viver.

Apenas a Teoria da Matrix surgiu com uma sugestao racional e um modelo teorico porem cientificamente testavel, do que seria este principio vital.

xxxx

Na secao “read more” tem uma lista de links para assuntos relacionados:

Have you ever wondered how life first got started on Earth? So do scientists! Though the question has not yet been fully answered, a careful study of Chemical Evolution is beginning to shed light on this mystery. In this film you will learn what Chemical Evolution is, how it works, and how it is different from Biological Evolution. This animation was paid for by the Center for Chemical Evolution, the National Science Foundation, and NASA!

For an overview of research that has been done on abiotic fatty-acid membrane formation, check out this paper by Dr. Pierre-Alain Monnard and Stated Clearly’s science advisor Dr. David W. Deamer. http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10…

Read about the solubility of fatty-acids in warm water. It is this solubility of fatty acids which allows natural selection to sort them out of the mess they are typically produced in during abiotic synthesis. http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10…

Learn of the bio-molecules discovered on meteorites. These biomolecules were not produced by living creatures, instead, they were created abiotically in a way similar to how we think the first biomolecules formed on Earth! http://cshperspectives.cshlp.org/cont…

Learn of research done by the Center For Chemical Evolution on a possible precursor to modern genes! http://news.sciencemag.org/2013/02/se…

Check out more of the work done by Center for Chemical Evolution: http://centerforchemicalevolution.com/

Visit the Stated Clearly website for more on genetics, evolution, and the origin of life: http://statedclearly.com/

Sintese Pos-Moderna (Postmodern Synthesis): Novo remendo na teoria Darwinista?

sexta-feira, outubro 6th, 2017

xxxx

(Obs: Este artigo foi copiado abaixo para fazer a traducao porque e’ muito importante)

Como tem sugerido a Teoria da Matrix/DNA, a Teoria de Darwin com apenas suas tres variaveis (variacao, hereditariedade, selecao), esta’ muito longe de ser a complete descricao da evolucao natural. Dentro de seus proprios aposentos, seus defensores tem percebido falhas e vao aos poucos acrescentando mais detalhes, novas variaveis ( como horizontal gene transfer) e inaugurando novos nomes para a teoria. Assim que surgiu o nome “Modern Synthesis”. Porem ja existem cientistas nao satisfeitos com falahas na Sintese Moderna e estao sugerindo mais um novo nome.

O texto abaixo, demonstra algo, extraido do link:

http://www.nature.com/news/2008/080917/full/455281a.html

“Gunter Wagner, an evolutionary theorist at Yale University in New Haven, Connecticut, puts up a slide suggesting the words ‘Postmodern Synthesis’.

xxxx

O que e’ – ou foi – a Sintese Moderna:

Between about 1920 and 1940, researchers such as the American Sewall Wright and the Englishmen Ronald Fisher and J. B. S. Haldane took Charles Darwin’s ideas about natural selection and Gregor Mendel’s insights into how traits pass from parents to offspring — which many biologists of the time believed antithetical — and fused them into a mathematical description of the genetic makeup of populations and how it changes. That fusion was the modern synthesis. It treats an organism’s form, or phenotype, as a readout of its hereditary information, or genotype. Change is explained as one version of a gene being replaced by another. Natural selection acts by changing the frequency of genes in the next generation according to the fitness of phenotypes in this one. In this world view, the gene is a black box, its relationship to phenotype is a one-way street, and the environment, both cellular and external, is a selective filter imposed on the readout of the genes, rather than something that can influence an organism’s form directly.

O que ha’ de errado com a Moderna Sintese?

What’s wrong with this picture, say the would-be extenders at Altenberg and elsewhere, is what it leaves out. Molecular biology, cell biology and genomics have provided a much richer picture of how genotypes make phenotypes. The extenders claim that enough insights have now come from this and other research for it to be time to re-examine problems that the modern synthesis doesn’t address. These problems include some of the key turning points in evolution: the patterns and changes seen in the fossil record as new branches spring from the tree of life and new anatomies — skeletons, limbs, brains — come into being. “When the public thinks about evolution, they think about the origin of wings and the invasion of the land,” says Graham Budd, a palaeobiologist at the University of Uppsala, Sweden. “But these are things that evolutionary theory has told us little about.”

xxxxx

Biological theory: Postmodern evolution?

Published online 17 September 2008 | Nature 455, 281-284 (2008) | doi:10.1038/455281a –

This summer a group of high-profile researchers met in Altenberg, Austria, to try and plot the future course of evolutionary theory. John Whitfield was there.

“Oh my gosh,” says Massimo Pigliucci, “maybe I shouldn’t use that term.” Pigliucci, responding to comments on his talk about how living things respond to their environment, and what it means for evolution, has just let slip the p-word. Later the same day, Günter Wagner, an evolutionary theorist at Yale University in New Haven, Connecticut, puts up a slide bearing the words ‘Postmodern Synthesis’. Pigliucci is moved to make an editorial suggestion from the floor: “I’d really rather we didn’t use that term.” Wagner says the slide was intended to be tongue-in-cheek, but Pigliucci is worried about the impression the word creates: “If there’s one thing we don’t want, it’s for people to get the idea that there’s a bunch of evolutionary theories out there, and that they’re all equal.”

A lot of scientists loathe what they take to be postmodernism’s intellectual relativism, and shy away from using the word. But doing so puts Pigliucci in something of a bind. An evolutionary ecologist at the State University of New York in Stony Brook, Pigliucci is one of the conveners of this small meeting on the future of evolutionary thought taking place at the Konrad Lorenz Institute for Evolution and Cognition Research in Altenberg, Austria. The meeting has received a fair amount of hype — in the blogosphere it was dubbed ‘The Woodstock of Evolution’. Its agenda is, pretty explicitly, to go beyond the ‘modern synthesis’ that has held sway in evolutionary theory since the middle of the twentieth century. And in everyday speech, it is pretty clear what comes after the modern.

   The modern synthesis is good at modelling the survival of the fittest, but not the arrival of the fittest.

What’s more, some of this work sounds as though it fits the term quite nicely. Over dinner at the meeting’s end, Pigliucci expresses his hope of “moving from a gene-centric view of causality in evolution to a pluralist, multilevel causality”. Postmodernists in the humanities call this ‘decentering’, and they are all for it. Over the course of the meeting, it’s fairly clear that the means to this pluralist end are being sought through mixing and matching neglected ideas and old problems from biology’s past with the latest experimental and analytical techniques. Apply that sort of bricolage to architecture and you get the sort of brutalist-right-angle here, classical-column-there, swirling-titanium-ceiling-above-it-all look that is normally pigeonholed, for better or worse, as postmodern.

Evolution of ideas

Leaving aside the troublesome adjective, what is the modernism that the Altenburg meeting is meant to move beyond — or to use Pigliucci’s preferred term, ‘extend’1? Between about 1920 and 1940, researchers such as the American Sewall Wright and the Englishmen Ronald Fisher and J. B. S. Haldane took Charles Darwin’s ideas about natural selection and Gregor Mendel’s insights into how traits pass from parents to offspring — which many biologists of the time believed antithetical — and fused them into a mathematical description of the genetic makeup of populations and how it changes. That fusion was the modern synthesis. It treats an organism’s form, or phenotype, as a readout of its hereditary information, or genotype. Change is explained as one version of a gene being replaced by another. Natural selection acts by changing the frequency of genes in the next generation according to the fitness of phenotypes in this one. In this world view, the gene is a black box, its relationship to phenotype is a one-way street, and the environment, both cellular and external, is a selective filter imposed on the readout of the genes, rather than something that can influence an organism’s form directly.

What’s wrong with this picture, say the would-be extenders at Altenberg and elsewhere, is what it leaves out. Molecular biology, cell biology and genomics have provided a much richer picture of how genotypes make phenotypes. The extenders claim that enough insights have now come from this and other research for it to be time to re-examine problems that the modern synthesis doesn’t address. These problems include some of the key turning points in evolution: the patterns and changes seen in the fossil record as new branches spring from the tree of life and new anatomies — skeletons, limbs, brains — come into being. “When the public thinks about evolution, they think about the origin of wings and the invasion of the land,” says Graham Budd, a palaeobiologist at the University of Uppsala, Sweden. “But these are things that evolutionary theory has told us little about.”

Bring on the kangaroos

The question of how form changes in individuals is the province of developmental biology, and genetic studies have now revealed a lot about how the mechanisms of development have evolved. Many see the evolutionary developmental biology — ‘evo-devo’ — that is emerging from this work as the key ingredient needed to extend or surpass the modern synthesis.

“Evolution needs a theory of body construction and change, as well as population construction and change,” says Scott Gilbert, an evo-devo researcher at Swarthmore College in Pennsylvania, who was not in Altenberg but who is writing a book on extending the evolutionary synthesis in similar directions. “The modern synthesis is remarkably good at modelling the survival of the fittest, but not good at modelling the arrival of the fittest.” To explain the production of novel features, such as limbs and feathers, Gilbert and like-minded biologists want a theory in which the environment is defined broadly enough to include the developing body, which is the primary context in which the genes are expressed. Genes shape this developing environment, but the dynamic environment also shapes the expression of the genes. And it does so directly, rather than through some later selection. “The gene will continue to be centre stage,” says Gilbert, “but it will be seen as both active and acted upon. It’s not going to be the unmoved mover.”

The importance of the environment acting on the genome can be seen in plasticity, the ability of the same genes to give rise to radically different phenotypes in different conditions — as studied by several of the Altenberg group. Pigliucci, who works on invasive plant species, gave the example of species that lie low in a new environment for several years before becoming a problem. He puts this down to plasticity and the Baldwin effect. In 1896 James Baldwin, an American psychologist, suggested that over the generations, tricks that at first have to be learned can become hard-wired as genes fix variations caused by the environment. “It could be that the plants arrive in a new environment and hang on thanks to plasticity — it gains time for natural selection to kick in,” says Pigliucci. To begin with, the genes follow adaptation rather than leading it, as “bookkeepers of what’s happening”. Once the genes have caught up, and the immigrant can take adaptation to the environment as read, it is able to become dominant.

Plasticity also allows organisms to make the most of their mutations. “The myopic view — that we don’t need to worry about phenotypic variation, that it is abundant, always small and that it goes in all possible directions — doesn’t correspond to the conservation we’ve seen in developmental systems,” Marc Kirschner, a systems biologist at Harvard University in Cambridge, Massachusetts, told the Altenberg meeting. To grow a limb you don’t need mutations in every gene involved in limb building; life can use the facts that muscle cells naturally align with bone, nerve cells stabilize when they plug into muscles, and blood vessels grow towards areas low in oxygen to leverage a small genetic change into an important difference. Again, the changing environment within the developing body is part of the process by which the gene is expressed: Kirschner calls it facilitated variation2.

As an example, he points to the discovery that the narrow, tweezer-like beak of an insect-eating finch can become the fat, nutcracking beak of a seed-eater by increasing the activity of a single gene involved in bone formation3. “Because developmental systems are so integrated and self-regulating, you can make a large functional change without a large genetic change,” says Kirschner. Pigliucci gave a more speculative example of the possible evolutionary consequences of such changes, showing a slide juxtaposing a kangaroo and a dog that had been born without forelimbs but learnt to walk on its hind legs. “It’s hard to imagine that this kind of change doesn’t have anything to do with the evolution of bipedalism,” he told the meeting.

Self-organizing cells

Pigliucci and Kirschner think that the capacity of small genetic changes to trigger large shifts results in waves of innovation separated by seeming lulls in which evolution stablizes and integrates the new arrangements. This matches some aspects of the fossil record, where bursts of innovation and diversification are interspersed by much longer periods of stasis — a pattern known as punctuated equilibrium, first described by the late Stephen Jay Gould and Niles Eldredge of the American Museum of Natural History in the 1970s. Gilbert, who studies turtles, sees something similar: “Turtle biologists joke that one Tuesday in the late Triassic there weren’t any turtles, and by the weekend the world was full of turtles. One reason why might be that it’s not all that hard to make a shell — all the genes are probably there already, and it doesn’t take many changes to get a shell.”

Stuart Newman, a developmental biologist at New York Medical College, takes such ideas further than most, arguing that the abilities that cells have to self-organize into complex structures can lead to major evolutionary innovations such as the origin of the vertebrate limb — a problem on which he collaborates with Altenberg’s other organizer, evo-devo researcher Gerd Muller of the University of Vienna, Austria4 — with perhaps little or no genetic change. “You can’t deny the force of selection in genetic evolution,” says Newman, “but in my view this is stabilizing and fine-tuning forms that originate due to other processes.”

The same process might have given rise to animals themselves. The further you turn back the clock through geological time, Newman believes, the weaker genetic regulation of development becomes relative to plasticity and self-organization. The development of the most basic features of multicellular organisms some 600 million years ago, in the late Proterozoic, might have been the rapid and spontaneous result of molecules already present on unicellular organisms doing new jobs when cells stick together5. “You don’t need incremental change under gradual selection regimes to get attributes such as segmented, hollow or multilayered bodies,” says Newman. “You can get it all with thermodynamics and self-organization.”

The problem is testing such ideas. Newman suggests that knocking out the genes that stabilize development in model laboratory organisms might provide insights, but extrapolating back from modern organisms to their distant ancestors is fraught with problems. It is difficult to see how such an approach can get beyond the theoretical, says Budd, adding that what evidence there is weighs against Newman’s hypothesis. “Clearly there are physical and chemical processes that affect cells,” says Budd. “But I don’t think there is any evidence at all for the idea that development was more permissive and plastic [in the Proterozoic] and that body plans could spontaneously emerge. The fossil record shows that body plans appeared sequentially in a series of innovations, not in a misty way at the bottom of the tree.”

Confusing what can happen and what did happen is a common criticism of the ideas raised at Altenberg. For example, some lab studies lend support to the Baldwin effect: experiments with fruitflies show that following up an environmental stress with selective breeding can produce animals that show the phenotypic response to that stress without having experienced it6. But there is little evidence so far that genetic change in wild populations takes this course, says Wagner. “The idea that environmentally induced changes are the path-breaker for genetic fixation is an old one, but I’m not yet convinced that’s how it works in real populations,” he says.

“These notions haven’t forced us to change the neo-darwinian paradigm,” says Jerry Coyne, an evolutionary geneticist at the University of Chicago. Coyne has little time for “evo-devotees”7 who think that the discipline will cause a revolution in biology. Researchers coming at evolution from population genetics are particularly resistant to any attempt to displace natural selection from the place at the heart of evolutionary theory that the modern synthesis provided it with. “The whole thing about natural selection being an insufficient paradigm seems grossly overblown,” says Coyne. “There are a lot of interesting new things coming out that will change our view of evolution. But to say the modern synthesis is incomplete or fatally flawed is fatuous.”

And it is worth noting that you can work in evo-devo and not subscribe to such ideas. Sean Carroll of the University of Wisconsin in Madison sees things in terms of bridge-building, not replacement. “What did population genetics and palaeontology have to do with each other for the past 80 years? Nothing. The modern synthesis describes evolution within populations — it’s agnostic or silent about the cumulative effect of that process,” he says. By revealing the genetic basis of development, and showing how genetics relates to morphology, evo-devo “sits right in the middle” of the two disciplines, says Carroll.

The true message of evo-devo, Carroll says, is that developmental processes have evolved in a way that allows small aspects of form to be tweaked without affecting the whole organism — something which tends to reinforce the modern synthesis’s view of evolution as incremental8. “Because we can get large effects when we manipulate genes in development, the spectre that these things have happened in history is out there,” says Carroll. “But just because we can make freaky-looking animals in one step, I’m unwilling to say that evolution works that way.” Wagner and his colleagues have recently shown that altering many genes in mice produces only a small effect9, countering the idea that most individual genes have such a wide-ranging influence that changing them would be fatal.

The differences of opinion suggest that, although evo-devo may once have looked as if it would unify population genetics and development, so far it has done more to give new voice to important problems that had been pushed to the margin — this was a strong note at Altenberg, making the meeting as much about revivalism as revolution. “Originally, the idea was that evo-devo was going to be the synthesis between evolution and development — now it is part of what needs to be done to get there,” says Alan Love, a philosopher of science at the University of Minnesota in Minneapolis who attended Altenberg. “There is still a lot of outstanding work to do on fitting the pieces together, but no consensus on how to go about that right now.” Nevertheless, he says, that’s no cause for alarm. “What is needed is to incorporate empirical findings into the bigger picture. It took populations genetics 25 years to do that and make the modern synthesis. As far as evo-devo goes, I’d say we’re smack dab in the middle of that process.”

Preaching to the converted?

David Krakauer, an evolutionary theorist at the Santa Fe Institute in New Mexico who was not at Altenberg, agrees. “It’s a matter of finally unifying two areas that haven’t spoken to one another,” he says. “To tackle any modern problem in evolutionary biology, you’ll have to use development and the dynamics of the genes that underlie it.” He’s quite enthusiastic about the possibility of bringing together mathematical theories of pattern formation, of the kind favoured by Newman, and the large body of theory on genetic change between generations used by population geneticists such as Coyne. But at the same time, he can see forces beyond the content of the theories that may keep them apart: “It’s not about totally incompatible world views, it’s about who holds the torch — who are the legitimate heirs to the Darwinian intellectual estate.”

Love saw the Altenberg meeting as an attempt to bridge the divide, but one that, by avoiding conflict (partly through invitations being declined), ended up a little one-sided. “Altenberg was an attempt to pull people together; the hard part was that it didn’t pull in people who were less than sympathetic towards one another,” he says. “It could have been a much more eraser-throwing meeting, but there is no reward for organizing that — you don’t get another grant by trying to get people in the same room, you just have to take time away from the lab or fieldwork.”

And there are forces at play beyond jockeying for disciplinary prestige. Never mind what can happen and what did happen. What should happen? It’s a fight that evolutionary theory — rooted as it is in a world view shaped by Victorian capitalism — has always found itself dragged into. To give one example, the championing of ‘punctuated equilibrium’ in the fossil record by Gould and Eldredge was easily construed by participants on both sides of the debate in the 1970s as an attack from the political left — part of a broader rising of hackles at the arrival of sociobiology, selfish genes and the like. Evolutionary ideas and political metaphors still seem to seek each other out — in an extended synthesis, says Gilbert, “the gene will be a much more constitutional monarch, taking instructions from the cell and environment”.

Eva Jablonka of the University of Tel Aviv, Israel, is explicit about a political side to her work. She advocates the importance of epigenetic inheritance — traits that can be passed on without changes to DNA sequence. These can be induced by environmental stressors such as temperature, diet or environmental chemicals. Such mechanisms, and insults, may be behind some inherited diseases, she says, in which case we have a responsibility to curb and reverse them. “There are social implications to our approach,” says Jablonka. “Our way of looking at heredity and evolution counters genetic determinism and its political implications.” Jablonka is one of the Altenberg attendees most comfortable with the term ‘postmodern’.

ADVERTISEMENT

Yet there was no sense at Altenberg of a desire to attack evolutionary theory from the left. Quite the reverse — the dominant political concern was a fear of attack from fundamentalists. As Gould discovered, creationists seize on any hint of splits in evolutionary theory or dissatisfaction with Darwinism. In the past couple of decades, everyone has become keenly aware of this, regardless of their satisfaction or otherwise with the modern synthesis. “You always feel like you’re trying to cover your rear,” says Love. “If you criticize, it’s like handing ammunition to these folks.” So don’t criticize in a grandstanding way, says Coyne: “People shouldn’t suppress their differences to placate creationists, but to suggest that neo-Darwinism has reached some kind of crisis point plays into creationists’ hands,” he says. It is tempting to say that it’s not just genes that express themselves in an environment that responds and reshapes itself around them, feeding back and complicating matters beyond simple cause and effect; the same applies to ideas. And if that seems a bit self-referential — well, that’s postmodernism.

Video: Irreducivel Complexidade versus Evolucao da Agulha Molecular versus Heranca da Evolucao Cosmologica

quarta-feira, outubro 4th, 2017

xxxx

Este artigo comecou aqui: https://evolutionnews.org/2017/09/charles-darwin-michael-behe-two-revolutionary-scientists/

e revelou-se de grande importancia para divulfdgacao da Matrix/DNA devido a grande polemica e o corolario de sites se abindo para o tema, o que noss fara’ proceder a uma pesquisa intense nestes sites, sempre tentando publicar a versapo da matricx. Outro link que se segue e’: http://www.nature.com/news/2008/080917/full/455281a.html , e

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Type_three_secretion_system

Michael Behe e o Misterio das Maquinas Moleculares

https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=3371&v=7ToSEAj2V0s

At this link ( http://theuniversalmatrix.com/en-us/articles/?p=15 ) is solved how the bacterial flagellum was built:
1) By “previous” design, but, not intelligent design, in the way that mother giraffe does not apply intelligence for building a new baby giraffe. The process applied for building the bacterial flagellum was pure natural genetics which is an evolutionary product from a mechanism that emerged with the Big Bang. So, the ultimate answer (if it is or don’t intelligent design, randomness or other thing), is unknown.
2) The bacterial flagellum is really irreducible complexity to anything existed before at Earth surface. But it is reducible ( all its parts) to the building blocks of galaxies, like this Milk Way (see the astronomic model at the website), which is the real last non-biological ancestor (LUCA). The way a galaxy rotates creating the spiral arms contains a kind of motor that is the same configuration of bacterial flagellum. So, there is irreducible complexity in relation to Earth, but there is no irreducible complexity in relation to natural astronomic systems;
3) We need to understand that the stupid matter of this lost planet did not invented – first time in the universe –  these complex things like genetic code, human beings, consciousness, etc. But, the Matrix/DNA Theory, working with the approach of systemic and not reductionist or mystical thoughts, re-wrote the Universal History from today to the origins of this world, finding that everything complex here had a long evolutionary history that began with a few information that can be seen at any natural light wave. So, the effect (our perceived world) is entirely explained but, the cause escapes from us because the source is beyond and before the Big Bang, then, as we can’t advancing beyond the last material frontier, what is or who is, is it intelligent or not,… the source still is merely humans conjectures.

Evolução do Cérebro? O que é Ficção Científica, Os Obstáculos da Ciência Real, e a Teoria da Matrix/DNA

sábado, setembro 16th, 2017

 

XXXX

Artigo extraído do seguinte debate com nossa participação ( anotar que para o assunto cérebro/energia acrescento o link embaixo para a palestra de Suzana Herculano sobre como o cérebro desenvolveu devido o cozimento dos alimentos):

Evolution of the Brain? What is Science Fiction, The Constraints From Real Science and the Theory from Matrix/DNA

Robert Beckendorff – 9/14/2017

All Biology is FLAWED in some way or another. It is up to MAN to take what Mother Nature has dished up and make adjustments and improvements. Eugenics is the future, guaranteed. Piss on all the religious idiots who oppose Human Progress. Micro-Bionics is the FUTURE: Soon enough, the entire brain and nervous system, will be enhanced with micro-chip and micro-robotic systems, the Cardio-Vascular system just the same. As humans become less dependant upon flawed raw biology, life will become much richer and longer. A whole new man made level of beauty and fitness will emmerge. Biology will be employed in our computers; Bio-Electronics will be employed in our bodies. We are about to convert Raw Biology into Man Made Bio-Technology. NO one can stop it. To Hell with all the religious fanatics, the all their BS about the “End Times”.

Louis Charles Morelli – Robert Beckendorff – ” … flawed raw biology…”

 I don’t blame Nature due flawed Biology because it seems clear that there is a cycle “chaos>order>transcendence>degeneration>chaos>order…” so, it seems Nature has three states, and this Earth biosphere emerged in state of chaos. What you are wishing about our future is merely the natural sequence, we are going to an ordered state. Our biggest problem is the human inheritance of three animal instincts – instinct for big predator, middle predator, and prey – which are product of chaos and we still carries on these in our genetics and modeling our psyche. So, if we produces high technology now, it will not be used for the well of the whole humanity but will be appropriated by the 1% as big predators against the other two class. Preys – the big mass of 90% of the population are inertial, they don’t care about human progress, only food, which is their way to extinction due overpopulation. So, if we don’t self-exorcise ourselves from these three instincts and don’t make efforts for others doing it, high technology will lead us to worst scenario: The Brave New World ( where everybody are stupid in the paradise) under the government of the Big Brother ( where included the human minds are not free).
Robert Beckendorff2 days ago
Humans have always been ruled over and controlled by a tiny power above them. This is the natural way of things. Those who have control of knowledge in a scoiety, have the power to rule over the masses, and they do so usually in a benevolent way. Today, there is no excuse for being ignorant. We have instant global sharing, and an Internet that can settle any dispute, and answer any question.
Louis Charles Morelli2 days ago
Robert Beckendorff – Are you a hard work in construction or 12 hours/day in a factory, as 7 billion humans works or are dependent of these workers and their misery wage? And still you can pay a college where one gets such knowledge? My friend, you don’t know the third world or the reality of the “projects” at the first world and these is 90% of humans. And for your sake, it is a tactic among the big predators of the third world that the population must be kept ignorant.
redlegagent 1 day ago
Try not to allow science FICTION to override real science.  It is one thing to merely deliver a micro-electrical pulse along a nerve track or to an area of the brain in a crude fashion so as to stimulate a response – as the nervous system is already established and you are merely mimicking energy transference.  It is another thing altogether to attempt to interface with human memories in a coherent fashion which may originate from different areas of the brain and for which we are not able to understand right now.  The same for attaching synthetic parts to our bodies – again via that already pre-established system.  So I would not hold my breath just yet waiting for human/technological hybrids as we clearly have a lot to learn yet.  Our brains are as good as nature could make them.  While science fiction loves to blather on about humans supposedly developing more advanced brain capacity – our current brains already use a lot of the resources our bodies can provide.  To increase brain capacity would require a fundamental re-working of our bodies to deliver the additional oxygen and nutrients required to sustain said higher functioning.  In short – we would over-tax our organ systems which could not deliver the necessary metabolic elements without compromising themselves in the process as our brains are already “hogs” who steal a sizeable chunk of our oxygen etc. from our blood supply.
eeeaten – 1 day ago
apparently i’m somewhat more optimistic than you three. i see no reason to ascribe laws of cycles or instincts to our fates, and i doubt these are even true. newton’s second law implies a natural move towards disorder, while specific systems within the universe may or may not have increasing complexity depending on local energy sources (eg a star). in regard to humanity and instincts, we have a tendency toward increasing civility and decreasing violence (pinker’s better angels is a great read on this), suggesting humanity is capable of creating a future for itself without tyranny or even war. i don’t think human-technological augmentation is far away at all (check out ray kurzweil’s predictions). we already have infinite-information devices in front of our eyes every day: it’s a small step for these to be accessed directly by our brains – limited only by (fast-evolving) technology. as ever, the future is scary but bright.
redlegagent -n1 day ago
Think of it like the old Westerns where the bad guys would climb a telegraph pole and listen in on the wire.  Things like devices which release a small electrical charge to a section of the brain so as to “disrupt” the electrical signals to prevent a seizure or else attaching a artificial limb which likewise is connected to the existing nerve pathways is basically the same thing.  All you are doing is applying an electrical charge which then transits the existing nerve pathways by overriding natural bio-chemical signals.  That is not the same as somehow tapping into our memories and being able to generate new memories + recall and manipulate neuron transmission in a coherent fashion.  To use artificial technology to enhance our knowledge means that we must be able to accurately access the human brain – understand what areas need to be stimulated to generate specific results – and to then be able to do that.  Suffice to say we are no where near that today.  It’s not like we have a USB plug in our brains.  Our brains process different information is different places – thus one must be able to understand and influence the entire brain to facilitate new information.  As to cultures – technology has always grown at a faster pace than human behavior.  We develop new technologies – and eventually we learn how to use them in a responsible way.  Social development is always the weak link in the chain since people are individuals – each with their own wants and needs – which is why change is always slow.  The way to stimulate altruism and empathy has always been via mass communication.  The more people are connected and see what goes on in the world around them – the more that awareness stimulates responses to what they see
Louis Charles Morelli
redlegagent – “To increase brain capacity would require a fundamental re-working of our bodies”.
Maybe not. We increased the processing capacity of computers while diminishing the size of hardware by advancing electronics. Same for the relation motor capacity/truck size. This is still fiction, but the Matrix/DNA Theory is suggesting a formula for systems made by biophotons and a network of biophotons could replace electrical chemical signals and network, without needing more nutrients from the body…
Louis Charles Morelli
eeeaten ” I see no reason to ascribe laws of cycles or instincts to our fates”.
So, how could be broken the natural course that all ancestors ( living and non-living ancestors) has followed to such fate? The answer would be ” self-exorcising the selfish gene” since that our surrounding environment ( this biosphere) is modeled by and for to keep the selfish gene. But how you will drive a human with tendency to be big predator to other humans beings – which has the abstract shape of canines in its psyche designed by genetics – to wish their self-exorcising? A predator has canines, no way to change its behavior. Take out the preys he will die.
Louis Charles Morelli
eeeaten – ” I think you’re implying our ancestors were all selfish and violent…”
No. They were all selfish, but about violence, there is the instinct for prey which is inertial, not aggressive neither for self-defense. This is our problem, the universal duality (hot/cold,male/female,etc.) is here, how to eliminate a universal duality? But it is not, as you said “is an inescapable part of our nature” The two opposites of any duality will arrive to a marriage (hot/cold = no temperature or a median temperature). So you can go to “no more human species” or a descendant more evolved shape resulting from the marriage. It is upon to us our fate. Till now the human history offers no hope. All social systems created till now mimics the rules in the jungle among animals: there is the big predators ( the 1% or high aristocracy), the middle predators (wolves, fox, as the middle class); and the preys ( the 90% still slaves and uneducated). That’s why I am fighting my fight: we need self-exorcise this instincts from our genetics and primary psyche at the same time we need insisting with others to do that, and it means you against the three class. That’s why I am no leftist, no rightist, neither neutral: we need a new kind of social system that does not mimicks animals… or death.
redlegagent – +Louis – computers require electricity which is not an internal part of the system but rather comes from an external source.  Look at your body.  There is a reason why oxygenated blood goes directly from the left ventricle to shunt straight to your brain – your brain requires the highest amount of oxygen of all your organs in the body to sustain itself.  Your brain is only about ~20% or so of gray matter – and gray matter is the portion which is associated with complex thinking.  The white matter represents the bulk of your brain and it is mostly there to facilitate transmission of signals for the gray matter.  This means that most of your brain is not conducive to higher thought.  So understanding that – understand that our brains place a high demand upon the rest of our body to keep it supplied with enough oxygen and blood to facilitate our currently level of cognition.  In order to foster even higher brain function – our cardio-pulmonary and circulatory systems would have to supply even more sustenance to our brains…………..at the expense of their own function + the rest of our body which also requires a certain level of cellular nutrition.  In short our brains are developed about as good as they can based upon what the body can supply them.  To access as noted via external devices – we must first understand where and how the bio-chemical signals which represent our memories and thought processes originate = and then be able to interface them in a coherent fashion so that our brain understands what we are trying to tell it and vice-versa in order to operate in a cogent fashion.  So while we are learning about how certain areas of the brain are associated with certain functions – that is not the same as being able to input new commands or recovering memories such as are associated with cognition.
Louis Charles Morelli
redlegagent – Thanks, by good information, you have demonstrated why Robert Beckendorff must slow down his optimism and what seems science fiction. We will wait to see how natural evolution will solve this problem ( maybe giants humans?). If you have not seen the theory of this smart scientist ( human brains developed due cocking food increasing absorption of energy), here is the link, TED TALK: https://www.ted.com/talks/suzana_herculano_houzel_what_is_so_special_about_the_human_brain By my hand, I am involved in an investigation about brain and consciousness that seems “weird” or “esoteric” by people with current world view. I am trying to get a full anatomy of the brain in 3D for superimposing the picture upon the drawing of a software diagram that works as a formula for all natural systems. If I can locate at least seven different regions/or pieces as glandules, the brain picture will fit with the formula picture, then, we can identify the specific systemic function of each piece/organ. The brain is a system in itself, so, it must have as template or blue print, this formula for systems. The second investigation is more “weird”. A surprising suggestion from the formula that I got is the explanation why we are using more the left than the right hemisphere. The brain is divided into two sides like the formula is also. In the formula there is a flow of information running in a spherical circuit but when the flow arrives to a Function 4, it is divided into two flows, one continuing the sphere and other going down towards the beginning, where is Function 1. In the brain, the trajectory of this lateral flow would be from the cortex towards the hippocampus, through the corpus callosum. Final conclusion: the human life still needs the fight for survival which needs focusing here and now and the attributes for these are at the left. We can’t lose time/energy with things beyond our survival zone, which are attributes of the right H. Then what is happening? Our thoughts happens only in half potential. When we begins a new thought, it must obey the systemic trajectory which designs the process of life’s cycle like our body. Each thought seems a living thing, with birth (must be at the hippocampal region, F1) , grow, maturation, degeneration and death. If it is useful is registered in the memory, if not, it is lost. It happens that in this still primitive phase of brain evolution, and the fight for survival, the thought as flow of energy’ information is born in F1, goes clockwise through the left h. and when arrive at the cortex, instead going to the right for to be enriched with its attributes, it quickly go down back to hippocampus. We can’t jump to a more elevated, holistic, cosmic, understanding and processing. I suspect that the effort in practices of meditation, like those Indian guys says they can reach nirvana, is the effort to push on the flow making it crossing the barrier of corpus callosum and entering into the right side. My second investigation is more “weird” yet. My formulas and models are suggesting that consciousness must be based in a more subtil network composed by biophotons, which our scientific instruments are not able to detect yet. There are too manny indications suggesting this hypothesis and, since consciousness must be a new system also based on the formula, I have indications about how is designed and evolving this network. If it will be proved existent, then, forget the problem brain/energy supply in relation to evolution and complexity of our mind, nature already has the solution: it is other kind of energy, free in space. ( ok, I told these things only as curiosity and since you like the issue about brain, maybe is your curiosity also). Cheers…

Provas da Evolução que Você pode encontrar em seu Corpo ( video)

terça-feira, setembro 12th, 2017

xxxx

Interessante video sobre vistigiais interrompidos pela evolucao porem ainda mantendo seus templates,  como mucles da mao, da cauda, arrepios, etc.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rFxu7NEoKC8

Diferenças no trabalho entre Darwin e o autor da Matrix/DNA Theory

segunda-feira, setembro 11th, 2017

xxxx

Tem pessoas adiantando que estou me comparando a Darwin. Entao copio abaixo uma resposta que enviei a um destes criticos ( e a registro aqui porque com certeza tereii que envia-la a outros mais):
There are differences:
1) We both applied comparative anatomy, but, he applied the reductive method, working details, I applied systemic method, searching the division, location and relationships among systems, starting with the whole biosphere as unique system and calculated the reverse of evolution, arriving to a point. Then the point pointed out to the solar system, so, from the point I went to the whole Universe, applying now comparative anatomy and reverse mechanisms of evolution between living and non-living systems (atoms and astronomic systems): Here I discovered the mechanisms of cosmological evolution and that these mechanisms continuing to driven biological evolution. Darwin did not perceive it. So, I re-calculated evolution applying the Darwinian mechanisms plus the cosmological mechanisms. The final results explained all gaps in Darwinian theory.
2) The idea of evolution was existing before Darwin’s travel to the field, at the tropics. He went to confirm the idea. The idea about an evolutionary link between cosmological evolution and biological evolution, and the idea that those non-biological systems linked evolutionary to biological system must be formed by the same biological formula (an ancestor of DNA); the idea that the building blocks of galactic systems has expressed or not the seven properties of life; and the final idea that in fact, there is no evolution, but, merely, a universal process of reproduction of the thing that triggered the Big Bang… these ideas were nowhere at my time, never existed before, and till now I am the unique human being with these ideas and formulas, models, supporting them. plus 1.600 evidences enrolled at my website and lots more at home, and hundred of previous predictions from 30 years ago confirmed by data obtained by official Science. Neither I had these ideas before going to the field, it was the pure nature never touched by human beings that suggested them. My unique idea before was that the first cell system was the first complete and real living thing, systems only comes from prior systems, less evolved or not, biological or not, and nobody in any time has searched a system when searching the cause of life’s origins. I went searching such system that, probable, was inside the primordial soup.
3) Darwin worked limited to the planet Earth and stood in the field 4 years: he discovered micro-evolution, 3,5 billion years old, because biological evolution is micro: I stood in the field 7 years, putting all time the whole universe on the table when drawing and calculating my models, i worked with universal macro-evolution which is 13,8 billion years old;
4) There are ideas that you suspects it is real, you work hard on it, sometimes given your life for it, you build a new theory, but, reality approves one idea and not approve others. Biological evolution is approved already, Darwin was lucky. Universal evolution still is not approved and can be debunked ( I am almost convinced that it will not, but, not sure yet), I will lose. Still I will leave my contribution: nobody will do the same mistake again.