Posts Tagged ‘flowering plant’

Decifrando a Evolução Sexual das Plantas pela Fórmula da Matrix/DNA – Veja Debate

domingo, janeiro 5th, 2014

amber fossil

Researchers have stumbled across a 100-million-year old piece of amber, perfectly preserving example of flowering plant life from the Cretaceous Period. It may be the oldest evidence of sexual reproduction in a flowering plant. (Photo : Oregon State University)

Researchers Find Ancient Flowers Amber-Fossilized ‘In The Middle Of Sexual Reproduction’

Jan 05, 2014 01:08 PM EST

http://www.designntrend.com/articles/10017/20140105/researchers-find-ancient-flowers-amber-fossilized-middle-sexual-reproduction.htm

Scientific Paper publicado em:

Journal of the Botanical Institute of Texas – (

MICROPETASOS, A NEW GENUS OF ANGIOSPERMS FROM MID-CRETACEOUS BURMESE AMBER

http://brit.org/webfm_send/455

XXXXXXXX

Comentário postado no artigo pela Matrix/DNA ( The DesignTrend)

TheMatrixDNA  – • 2 days ago

It is wonderful how the creature keeps the face of its creator, no matter that the reproductive process takes million years and occurs in a strange new world. Every shape end elements of this plant remember the shape and elements of a galactic building block, with picture and descriptions at my website.  For beginning, the shape of the flower ( and every tree) is the shape of the galaxy, every element of the flowers mimics the shape and functionality of astronomical bodies like pulsars, black holes, quasars, stars, composing a functional half-mechanical/half biological system in the sky, yet unknown by most of human kind. For understanding it, for knowing that there was no origins of life here, no abiogenesis, but yes, astronomical embryogenesis, you need know the Matrix/DNA formula. If these hard working researches learn about the formula, they will get a big evolutionary jump for our knowledge.

11b  – • 2 days ago

“As dinosaurs where still very much the dominant form of life…” Can we all learn to proof read before posting articles online?

 

TheMatrixDNA  to 11b –  2 days ago

The problem is: “if dinosaurs where still very much dominant form of life, why natural selection did not selected them for continuing evolution, making dinosaurs the ancestors of mammals? There were mammals at that time, they came not from dinosaurs, but from smaller reptiles, like the cyanodont. Isn’t the stronger, the most adapted, choosed by natural selection? There are alternative theories, explaining well what the neo-Darwinian theory can not explain, like the Matrix/DNA models. There are hidden but real natural systems acting over biological evolution here, obeying the rules of the hierarchy of systems. This hidden system is the creator of biological systems, because biological systems are merely a continuing evolutionary step from it. This hidden system is the yet unknown building blocks of atomic, astronomical systems, and its anatomy is shown at my website. This astronomical building blocks are encrypted into lateral base-pair of nucleotides, the building blocks of DNA. And as our ancestor, the astronomical system already had the entire apparatus for both, putting eggs out – like reptiles – and keeping eggs in, like mammals. So, the dinosaurs where discarded by evolution just because they got to be to much “strong and smarter”, accommodating at a provisory way of life and stopping its own evolution, while the cynodont, struggling for survival, still was an opened system for evolution working, reproducing what was already existent billion years ago…. in the sky.

John H  to TheMatrixDNA – 9 hours ago

“Isn’t the stronger, the most adapted, choosed by natural selection?”..
Nope…it is the one that will best REPLICATE, that has nothing to do with size, ability, pretty/ugly, simply better at replicating…

Need to go back to class, dude, you missed a bunch of lessons.

TheMatrixDNA  John H –  38 minutes ago

So… the stronger, the most adapted is not the best at replicating, accordingly to you. And rats are the best replicators… I am not seeing natural selection choosing them…No, dude, the school does not have answer to questions that you should have in thinking a little bit… What about the Dawkins’ school? The supreme goal of genes is to get replicated… Genes, merely a bunch of atoms, has no goals… and no purpose in any action…

Postado em outro artigo:

TheMatrixDNA

You have a good point. But, there is the possibility that this is a real scientific fact, the timeline is correct, still was produced by previous design. A question for you: “Why and how the first initial cell was shared into plant cells and animal cells?” There is theoretical models explaining it and accordingly to all possibilities. The model shows the design of an astronomical building block of galaxies. Take out the star from this model and you will see the image of a working animal cell; put in the star again and you will see the image of a working plant cell. The functions of stars are mimicked by the chroplasts
John H to TheMatrixDNA 

The STRONGER may NOT be the best at adapting…when conditions change…dinosaurs are no more…there is no argument they were the biggest and strongest…but mammals won out..Evolution has no goals, it is not to be stronger, prettier whatever, it is simply which is better at replicating…Why would you think differently..?

Avatar
TheMatrixDNA   to  John H 

If they were the biggest and the strongest, the dominants of the land, why not they were the best replicators? I don’t understand what do you think about best replicators. Are you thinking about quantity or quality? If quality, what kind of quality? The one adapted for the environment just here and now or the one better equipped for the next environment that is coming with planetary climate change?

If nature has no goals, why not it obey the natural long chain of causes and effects, where the stron
gest natural forces are dominant when producing new results? Because… the strongest forces are with the stronger and better adapted species.

At Matrix/DNA Theory we have a different theoretical model than that you know about the astronomical system that is the real creator of biological system at this planet. And we can see at that model, that the whole equipment for composing a mammal is merely reproduction of an equipment already existing at that astronomical system. So, the emergence of mammals here was long determined in the stars. So, evolution here was obeying a process of reproduction. It means that evolution here had a goal. But… maybe my astronomical model is wrong,… so, I am not sure about “best replicators” as you are.

ricky spankler 

so does that mean the organism reached a state of “evolutionary perfection” 100 million years ago and have thus remained unchanged all this time ? what determines this, ie; what factor or factors determine this ? does this imply some type of design or blueprint ?or perhaps that the timeline and story that the article puts forth is theory posing and posted as scientific fact?

TheMatrixDNA  to ricky spankler 

It could be a product of previous design, maybe it is. The real creator of biological systems at Earth surface is this planet, inside this stellar system, inside this galaxy. The phenomena present and described here at this plant is an exactly reproduction of a phenomena that composes galaxies. So, this plant has not invented all this machinery, since it was existent billions years ago, before life’s origins, and at its ancestor. Genetic previous design flowing naturally in cosmological evolution.But, as you said, everything here, besides the real fact, is theories. There are two theoretical models of astronomical systems. One, called “Matrix/DNA Theory” and the other, the currently academic theory, which does not shows this mechanism.

XXXXXXXX

Pesquisa: ( a continuar)