xxxxx
Obitido no Pinterest, e relacionado com as proporcoes do Phi:
Posts Tagged ‘mãos humanas’
Maos Humanas: Como Desenhar as posicoes para aula demonstrativa da formula
sábado, agosto 12th, 2017Formacao das Maos Humanas: Descoberta Cientifica Revela Espetacular Previsao da Matrix/DNA Theory?
terça-feira, outubro 18th, 2016xxxxx
Existe aqui neste website varios artigos sobre as maos humanas porque a minha teoria sugeriu uma surpreendente revelacao a respeito delas: 1) as maos humanas sao o fato mais proximo da visao humana revelando a formula universal da Matrix/DNA; 2) a forma da mao, o numero de dedos e as formas dos dedos revelam que eles imitam as cinco principais formas do corpo humano, as quais sao produzidas pelo ciclo vital, e isto porque a formula dos sistemas naturais foi construida por uma unica “pessa” que se derivou nas outras devido estar sob o processo do ciclo vital.
E agora, a ciencia academica parece ter dado um cheque-mate nesta teoria. Primeiro, tinham a teoria de que os membros dos mamiferos se desenvolveram das barbatanas de um peixe, um nosso ancestral aquatico. Porem, as primeiras especies vindas daquele ancestral tinham mais que cinco dedos. Agora descobriu-se que o motivo do porque nos humanos ocorreu essa diferenca – para cinco dedos – e’ porque necies com mais de cinco os dois genes responsaveis por fazerem dedos se expressavam juntos, ao mesmo tempo. E nos humanos, os dois genes se separam, expressando-se cada um num tempo diferente do outro.
E porque isto estava previsto na Teoria da Matrix/DNA?
Simples. Nas origens e primeiras evolucoes da vida, as unidades de informacao para sistemas vivos chegavam na forma de fotons vindo de estrelas e radiacao cosmica, alem do nucleo terrestre. Chegavam sem um controle cronologico e por isso muitas vezes se superpunham atuando ao mesmo tempo, ao inves de obedecerem a ordem cronologica como foi feito o corpo ancestral, que e’ esta galaxia. Por isso produziram formas animais monstruosas. Com o avancar da evolucao estas informacoes foram se enfileirando em ordem cronologica como deve estar na formula universal e assim os corpos foram se tornando mais coordenados, mais semelhantes a formula. Neste tempo de evolucao mais avancada, aquelas unidades fotonicas se tornaram os genes, os quais, inicialmente se superpunham e tambem depois entraram na mesma ordem. Entao, desde o inicio da origem da vida estava determinado que haveria maos e com cinco dedos e os dedos na forma produzida pelo ciclo vital. E justamente isto esta descoberta cientifica confirma.
Abaixo vai o link para o artigo cientifico e copiado aqui para ser traduzido:
How evolution has equipped our hands with five fingers
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2016/10/161005132654.htm
Date: October 5, 2016
Source:Université de Montréal
Summary:Have you ever wondered why our hands have exactly five fingers? Scientists have uncovered a part of this mystery, and their remarkable discovery is outlined in a new report.
Have you ever wondered why our hands have exactly five fingers? Dr. Marie Kmita’s team certainly has. The researchers at the Institut de recherches cliniques de Montréal and Université de Montréal have uncovered a part of this mystery, and their remarkable discovery has just been published in the journal Nature.
A matter of evolution
We have known for several years that the limbs of vertebrates, including our arms and legs, stem from fish fins. The evolution that led to the appearance of limbs, and in particular the emergence of fingers in vertebrates, reflects a change in the body plan associated with a change of habitat, the transition from an aquatic environment to a terrestrial environment. How this evolution occurred is a fascinating question that goes all the way back to the work of Charles Darwin.
This August, researchers in Chicago, Dr. Neil Shubin and his team, demonstrated that two genes — hoxa13 and hoxd13 — are responsible for the formation of fin rays and our fingers. “This result is very exciting, because it clearly establishes a molecular link between fin rays and fingers,” said Yacine Kherdjemil, a doctoral student in Marie Kmita’s laboratory and first author of the article published in Nature.
However, the transition from fin to limb was not accomplished overnight. The fossil record indicates that our ancestors were polydactyl, meaning that they had more than five fingers, which raises another key question. Through what mechanism did evolution favor pentadactyly (five fingers) among current species?
One observation in particular caught the attention of Dr. Kmita’s team: “During development, in mice and humans, the hoxa11 and hoxa13 genes are activated in separate domains of the limb bud, while in fish, these genes are activated in overlapping domains of the developing fin,” said Marie Kmita, Director of the Institut de recherches cliniques de Montréal’S Genetics and Development research unit and Associate Research Professor in the Department of Medicine at the Université de Montréal.
In trying to understand the significance of this difference, Yacine Kherdjemil demonstrated that by reproducing the fish-type regulation for the hoxa11 gene, mice develop up to seven digits per paw, i.e., a return to ancestral status. Dr. Marie Kmita’s team also discovered the sequence of DNA responsible for the transition between fish- and mouse-type regulation for the hoxa11 gene. “It suggests that this major morphological change did not occur through the acquisition of new genes but by simply modifying their activities,” added Dr. Marie Kmita.
From a clinical point of view, this discovery reinforces the notion that malformations during fetal development are not only due to mutations in the genes and may come from mutations in sequences of DNA known as regulatory sequences. “At present, technical constraints do not allow for identifying this type of mutation directly in patients, hence the importance of basic research using animal models,” said Marie Kmita.
Story Source:
Materials provided by Université de Montréal. Note: Content may be edited for style and length.
Journal Reference:
- Yacine Kherdjemil, Robert L. Lalonde, Rushikesh Sheth, Annie Dumouchel, Gemma de Martino, Kyriel M. Pineault, Deneen M. Wellik, H. Scott Stadler, Marie-Andrée Akimenko, Marie Kmita. Evolution of Hoxa11 regulation in vertebrates is linked to the pentadactyl state. Nature, 2016; DOI: 10.1038/nature19813
Mãos Humanas: Controvérsia do Paper Mencionando um “Criador”
sábado, março 19th, 2016xxxx
Deu o maior “fuzuê” internacional um paper cientifico (tese) revisado e publicado por uma revista cientifica que menciona um Criador como autor do elo ainda desconhecido e não explicado cientificamente entre a anatomia arquitetônica das mãos humanas e sua impressionante coordenação de movimentos sincronizados. Um biólogo – provavelmente ateu – começou o alvoroço ao publicar a menção ao criador e logo um exercito de patrulheiros ideológicos engrossaram fileiras numa batalha para anular o paper. E conseguiram. Porem, o assunto e` bem mais complicado do que parece principalmente para mim que – conduzido pela formula da MatrixLight/DNA – descobri muitos aspectos que ainda são ignorados, inclusive o que e’ e de onde vem esse elo, das mãos humanas. E como não poderia deixar de ser, me envolvi nos debates.
( teoria das mãos humanas aqui no link: http://theuniversalmatrix.com/pt-br/artigos/?p=8633 )
Planejamento para meus comentários. O que eu preciso dizer:
A menção a um criador indefinido e` prejudicial ao meu interesse porque sugere a interrupção da pesquisa sobre o como e o porque da existência quando meu interesse e` que a pesquisa continue porque ela vai levar a confirmação da minha teoria. Mas acima dos meus interesses esta a minha consciência de justiça, a qual sugere que os autores não devem serem punidos quando não definiram o que eles entendem por criador.
– Let me start by clearing a stupid misconception that you probably have. I’m not a Christian. I don’t believe Jesus is the son of god. I don’t believe in a god. I don’t believe in an afterlife. However, I do understand science, and I do understand religion. Let me further point out that this was a Chinese paper, and as such, it’s very likely that the “god” to which the author was referring, was not the Christian god, but of course your bigoted and ignorant position focuses on Christianity.xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
A menção a um criador indefinido e` prejudicial ao meu interesse porque sugere a interrupção da pesquisa sobre o como e o porque da existência quando meu interesse e` que a pesquisa continue porque ela vai levar a confirmação da minha teoria. Mas acima dos meus interesses esta a minha consciência de justiça, a qual sugere que os autores não devem serem punidos quando não definiram o que eles entendem por criador.
– Let me start by clearing a stupid misconception that you probably have. I’m not a Christian. I don’t believe Jesus is the son of god. I don’t believe in a god. I don’t believe in an afterlife. However, I do understand science, and I do understand religion. Let me further point out that this was a Chinese paper, and as such, it’s very likely that the “god” to which the author was referring, was not the Christian god, but of course your bigoted and ignorant position focuses on Christianity.xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Artigos Relacionados a Controversia:
Science Journal Publishes Creationist Paper, Science Community Flips Out
Correcting errors is now anti-religious bigotry?
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2016/03/04/correcting-errors-is-now-anti-religious-bigotry/#comment-845352( Um PDF Cientifico sobre a evolução das mãos) The Evolutionary history of the hominin hand since the last common ancestor of Pan and Homo (PDF)
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1469-7580.2008.00865.x/epdf
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2016/03/04/correcting-errors-is-now-anti-religious-bigotry/#comment-845352( Um PDF Cientifico sobre a evolução das mãos) The Evolutionary history of the hominin hand since the last common ancestor of Pan and Homo (PDF)
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1469-7580.2008.00865.x/epdf
onde diz : ” This evidence sugests that these derived fatures evolved prior to the intensificaion of stone tool-related hominin behaviors begining around 2,5 million years.”
En declaraciones a la revista Nature, Cai-Hua Xiong, uno de los autores, explicó que la polémica se había desatado debido a una falta de entendimiento cultural. Al no ser hablantes nativos de inglés, los científicos habían traducido por “Creador” un término chino que se refiere a la“naturaleza guiada por procesos naturales como la selección”. Es decir, un concepto que no podría estar más alejado del creacionismo.
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxComentarios uteis nos artigos:
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxComentarios uteis nos artigos:
Works at Ninguna
Nadie a hecho la mano por parte del creador, simplemente a traves de años a evolucionado y eso se debe al cerebro, por eso se dice que las manos es el segundo cerebro; la mano seguira afinandose y posiblemente perdamos dos dedos que casi no usamos; los pricipales que se usan son el dedo gordo que es el principal y los dos que le siguen.-Vease en los monos casi al hagarrar usan toda la mano conjuntamente con el dedo gordo.-
BT47 to vasshu – 3/03/16 4:23pm
The conclusion of a paper is the place where you illustrate the conclusions of the study being described. Did the study conclusively prove that hands are the result of a creator’s intent? No; then you don’t get to write about it in the fucking conclusion.
vasshuaec007
3/03/16 4:40pm
Actually, scientific papers can indeed include opinion, so long as it’s separate from the scientific investigation itself, and a conclusion is a perfectly sound place to put your own opinion on the topic.
Science cannot prove anything. It can only falsify. However, when it comes to religion, of course science cannot falsify it. Science is the realm of the empirically falsifiable, while religion specifically involves that which has no known method of empirical investigation.
dave1827vasshu
3/03/16 4:44pm
Agreed. The paper was about the mechanics of the hand, not how it came to be that way.
Gerrymmvasshu
3/03/16 4:46pmStorm in a teapot.
3/03/16 4:46pmStorm in a teapot.
There are two throwaway references to the Creator in an otherwise boring but scientifically valid paper. It is clear reading this that the author’s first language is not English and there may have been cultural reasons why this was included.
This is not the thin edge of the wedge people – y’all need to calm the hell down.
vasshuGerrymm
3/03/16 4:50pmI feel like a lot of people in the academic community are religious negativists. They default to a belief in nonexistence, whenever there is no evidence for existence.This is actually just as religious as a belief in existence (any belief, which lacks a known method of empirical investigation, is religious), and so the comment actually clashes with their own religious beliefs.
And no; I’m not saying atheism is a religion. Atheism is a lack of belief in gods. Religious negativism is a belief that there are no gods, afterlives, etc.
3/03/16 4:50pmI feel like a lot of people in the academic community are religious negativists. They default to a belief in nonexistence, whenever there is no evidence for existence.This is actually just as religious as a belief in existence (any belief, which lacks a known method of empirical investigation, is religious), and so the comment actually clashes with their own religious beliefs.
And no; I’m not saying atheism is a religion. Atheism is a lack of belief in gods. Religious negativism is a belief that there are no gods, afterlives, etc.
BT47vasshu
3/03/16 4:55pmMy point, in reference to your hand example, is that the ability to adapt to doing different jobs with our hands has exactly zilch to do with intelligent design.
3/03/16 4:55pmMy point, in reference to your hand example, is that the ability to adapt to doing different jobs with our hands has exactly zilch to do with intelligent design.
vasshuSipowitz
3/03/16 4:57pmActually, I should say that it should go in the discussion section.
3/03/16 4:57pmActually, I should say that it should go in the discussion section.
> The discussion section is the authors’ opportunity to give you their opinions. It is where they draw conclusions about the results. They may choose to put their results in the context of previous findings and offer theories or new hypotheses that explain the sum body of knowledge in the field. Or the authors may comment on new questions and avenues of exploration that their results give rise to. The purpose of discussion sections in papers is to allow the exchange of ideas between scientists. As such, it is critical to remember that the discussions are the authors’ interpretations and not necessarily facts. However, this section is often a good place to get ideas about what kind of research questions are still unanswered in the field and thus, what types of questions you might want your own research project to tackle.
aec007vasshu
3/03/16 5:03pm
Opinions can be placed in a scientific paper only when after a research yields no definite proof or results are inconclusive. Opinions do not need to be justified or even accurate. They are just that, opinions.
o·pin·ion
əˈpinyən/
noun
a view or judgment formed about something, not necessarily based on fact or knowledge.
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Extratos do paper:
– Hand coordination should indicate the mystery of the Creator’s invention
– the complex biomechanical architecture
– Although many researchers have noted the effect of the biomechanical constraints on hand coordination [1,3,7,10], few have found a clear link between the biomechanical architecture and hand coordination. In this paper, we will explore such a functional link.We tried to find clear corresponding evidence of coordinated relationships from the biomechanical characteristics of muscular-articular connective architecture and to establish the functional link between the biomechanical architecture and the characteristics of hand coordination
The link is a formula. Pense numa celula redonda que deforma sua membrana para desenvolver varias invaginacoes e ex-vaginacoes para mover-se ou absorver,agarrar alimento. Agora pense nessa celula encima de uma ostra microscopica, Ela precisa se infiltar na casca da ostra e retirar o alimento. Ela vai criar extensoes membranosas para ssa tarefa. Qual o link entre a arquitetura bioquimica da celula e a coordenacao com que suas extensoes atuam? Em primeiro lugar sao as informacoes que ela tem sobre a ostra, informacoe que viri pelos outros sentidos, como cheiro, tato, e se tivesse, visao. Essas informacoes iriam dirigir a forma e movimento de suas extencsoes. E tudo isto esaria limitado pelos constraints, ou seja, o que ela nao poe fazer de extensoes. Agora vamos para o cerebro. Ele ja nao precisa se fixar em cima de uma ostra maior para tirar-lhe o alimento porque ele fez as maos para isto. Mas ele depende das informacoes do s seus sentidos, que estao localizados em sua arquitetura, cada qual numa regiao. Entao digamos que ele tem que puzxar o alimento para fora porque o cheiro diz que e` bom alimento. se o proprio cerebro nao tivesse maos e nem dedos e tivesse que fazer isso, ele desenvolveria uma extensao na regiao da funcao que melhor puxa as coisas do mundo externo, e esta funcao pode ser a F6, porque essa e a unica funcao na formula que o fez que puxa coisas de dentro do proprio sistema explusando-a para fora.Esta funcao faz o figado no corpo humano, e faz o lisossomo na celula, faz o cadaver estelar ou ana vermelha na galaxia. No cerebro o local dessa funcao seia no seu topo dsuperior direito. Ora, quando a formula vai para a mao, esta funcao esta na posicao do dedo indicador. este realmente e` o mais forte e dextro e habil para puxar coisas com um unico dedo. S ele nao puder fazer a tarega porque e` muito grosso e nao entra no buraco, ou porque esta distante do buraco, entao sera usaode um dedo mais fino ou mais proximo. Qual o link que a equipe esta procurando? nao existe um link aterialixzado visivel. Pois o link e` a formula quese reproduziu como cerebro e o cerebro se reproduziu como uma mao, mas e` laro, a mao que e ilha do cerebro sera neta da formula, todos os tres elementos pertencem amesma linhagem evolucionaria, portanto temm a mesma imagem e funcionalidade.
– the human hand adopts a distinctive coordinated control strategy for each task
Porque? Porque a mao humana ‘e uma arquitetura igual a arquitetura funcional do cerebro. E o cerebro trabalha controlando automaticamente milhares ou milhoes de tarefas no corpo simultaneamente, sem que nossa consciencia participe desse trabalho. Essa habilidade do cerebro em mover musculos rapida e simultaneamente se deve a que rodos estes musculos pettencem a sub-sositemas que sao copias do sitema do cerebro. Entao quando o cerebro comanda uma acao das maos para uma tarefa que varios dedos, palma, precisam pegar, afastar, puxar agarrar objetos, e` o cerebro presente nas maos usando-a como extensoes de suas regioes operacionais.
para entender isso vamos lembrar como a celula primordial redonda criou o primeiro cilio que viria mais tarde sr um rabo,um tentaculo, ou um membro para transporte, ou para agarrar cominda. Esta celula que estava afixada em algum lugar sentia sinais de algo comestivl proximo, digamos, a sua esquerda. SUA FOME E SEU DESEJO DE ALCANCAR ESTE ALIMENTO COLOCOU TODA SUA FORCA NO SEU LADO ESQUERDO e assim a membrana naquela area foi se alongando.
O cerebro tambem esferico e ao realizar qualquer tarefa manual, sente o desejo de extender- na direcao de um objeto, desloca forca para a palma da mao que ele construiu para imita-lo como extencsao e quando alcanca o objeto, desloca forcas para as varias regioes necessarias para a tarefa que ele quer fazer. Estas forcas deslocadas dentro do cerebro sao imitadas nos musculos das plamas das maos, mas como com a evolucao o cerebro ja criou od s dedos e nao precisa deformar a palma da mao para cada tarefa, as forcas partem para os dedos atraves dos musculos. Para quem conhece a formula da Matrix/DNA que e` a formula da arquitetura do cerebro e igualmente a forma da arquitetura das maos, entendem todo o processo mentalmente e rapido.
– the versatile ability to complete various tasks is a crucial advantage of the human hand
Nao. A habilidade versatil para completar varias tarefas nao e` das maos e sim do cerebro
`- it is necessary to understand the basic characteristics of coordinated movement needed when various tasks are performed.
os movimentos da palma da mao e de seus dedos sao os mesmos movimentos produzidos pelas seis funcoes sistemicas da formula para sistemas naturais. Quando a formula atua apenas para manter seus movimentos internos automaticos de sobrevivencia, os movimentos se iniciam por F1 ( a palama) deopois move o dedo minimo, depois o dedo proximo (F2) e assim ate mover por ultimo o polegar (F7). mas quando a formula se torna sistema aberto para relcionar-se com o mundo exterior, entra em acao a funcao requerida sem uma ordem fixa. Ao inves do circuito de movimentos ser esferico, ele acende funcoes( aplica forca nos dedos) esporadicamente conforme requer a acao sendo executada.
– cluster analysis was used to determine a network and detailed coordinated relationship among joints.
a network nao vai revelar a formula da mao justamente pelo motivo do paragrafo anterior, nao sera um movimento sistemico de sistema fechado mas sim pontuacoes aleatorias de funcoes que resulta numa network desenhada pela fuzzy logics.
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Meus comentarios postados em:
Pharyngula
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2016/03/04/correcting-errors-is-now-anti-religious-bigotry/#comment-845352
The link between biochemical architecture and hand coordination was explained and its Inventor is the inventor of the Creator. So what?
The brain is the inventor of the hand and God. As the brain does not remember how it did the hands, he does not know why and how invented God. So, the problem is a mystery about an invention of the creator, or in another words, himself. The authors are right.
The human hands has the same phenotype and genotypic functionality of a unit of the building blocks of the DNA, which is a lateral pair of nucleotides. We have demonstrated it putting side by side the two elements, but this demonstration is not known by scientific community, yet. You can see a designed model at http://theuniversalmatrix.com/pt-br/artigos/?p=8633
The human brain, after the development of the superior cortex, also has the same architecture of DNA`s building block and human hands. The reason is very clear: the three elements were made by the same creator, which is the universal formula that Nature has used for organizing inertial matter into functional systems.This formula can be seen at the same website and is called Matrix/DNA.
As says the paper, “It is not understood which biomechanical characteristics are responsible for hand coordination and what specific effect each biomechanical characteristic has”. it means that Human Sciences has not solved a phenomenon and this fault is prejudicing human kind by a non-working medicine and avoiding the construction of better robotics for improving automatic production. This problem has been solved by human intelligence and now we have a team of valuable engineers doing a good work advancing our knowledge. So, who is prejudicing human kind?
The paper has all scientific value obeying the scientific method. Due some unfortunate three words related to ultimate causes not related to the engineering process, words that express the state of the minds of the human beings doing the job, the entire paper is retracted, as the whole job should go to the garbage.Such is the minor importance of that words that another real scientific workers – the team of PLOS peer review – did not care about. Who retracted the paper was an ideology coming inside the human scientific enterprise. And due this ideology, lovable workers and the whole human kind is prejudiced. Please, remember that outside the las there are 8 billion brothers of us being tortured in this stupid condition of human existence and waiting for the unique hope of salvation we have, that is Human Science.A scientific experiment can not be interrupted or influenced by far away disturbances of human noises doing the job, noises like words not related to the experiment in itself
The link between the biomechanical architecture and hand coordination is the way that works the internal coordination of the brain after receiving information from its sensors, which goes stored at the medulla oblongata
which has another storage of information from the internal body. Since that hands are made upon the same template that brains were made, and the two are interconnected, the wishes of the brain activates regions or specific functions of the brain that are located at same regions or functions of the hands. What holds an object is the brain, who moves or pulls the object is the brain touching and holding the object, through its extension that its own design.
its is very ease to understanding the whole thing when you know the formula that operates the genetic stuff which was self-projected as human brain after million years of evolution and self-projected itself as human hands.If you knows the grandparents, the parents, of course, you will understand the anatomy and functionality of the son.
Nobody has noticed that the human hands mimics exactly the shapes that a human body shows in its lifelong. The palm of the hands is the pregnant mother, the smallest finger mimics the shape, the size, the inactive ability of the baby, The next finger mimics the aspects of the teenager, till the thumb mimicking the senior. Why? Merely coincidences? No, the variations and functionality of a human body is dictated by genetics, whose building blocks are systems where each molecule performs functions in the same sequence of a life’s cycle. There are lots of details we are now grasping about human hands, due that formula. I never pretended that the Science Academy recognizes this formula as I would never pretend that it recognizes God.although the formula is scientifically falsifiable while God is not. The engineers are doing a research trying to solve a natural phenomena. Science is working in the lab.What matters which is the ultimate cause theorized in the mind of the workers, if the process is running by the scientific method?! They have a physical profitable goal doing the job. In a second plan, they are testing their preferred theories. If the advocates of other theory want to destroy their theory, what better chance than this testing their theory? The hopes and happiness of 8 billion humans brothers will wait till that three words be expelled from their way. It is insane. I didn’t like that mention to a creator also, I know that was not a magical creator that did it. But my offended ideology or theories can not prejudicing the walking of Science. Science, the Universe and 8 billion human beings does not care about what I like or not. They want walking ahead,and those lovable workers are doing that, it matters..Congratulations to the heroic procedures of the peer-review team, which did not stopped Science due something did not tasted well to their rationality also.
dean
United States
March 16, 2016
The link between biochemical architecture and hand coordination was explained and its Inventor is the inventor of the Creator. So what?
You really aren’t that bright or honest are you? You did see that the authors said nothing in their paper was meant to support creationism?
Minha Resposta to dean:
Louis Morelli
New York – USA
March 17, 2016
I can’t understand yours post or you did not understood mine. The paper talks about a creator. But it does not give a name or does not makes definition of that creator. And we need remembering that they are Chinese, nurtured under the Taoism philosophy, where creator has different meanings than creationism. But, be it what it can be, any phylosophy (or religion or gods) are created, invented by the human brain. Since that my theory suggests that the hands were also made, developed, invented, by human brains, so, the brain is the Creator. And since that the brains that developed the humans was ancestrals, our modern brain does not knows, or does not remember how the hands was made. This is the mistery, which the authors mentioned in the article. Of course, that seems not to be their intentions, they seems to be thinking about a different inventor. But it can not be proved, since they did not defined it. The literally meaning of the text is correctly. We does not know how the creator of the hands did it, since that is not possible to mimic it technologically, doing robots’ hands, which is the goal of the authors. We know that the way the authors wrote those half dozen words is not morally honest. But it is not against any law, because the meaning is correctly. Only under established law we could retract the paper. Am I wrong?
Comentarios no PLOS abaixo do paper:
http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/comment?id=info:doi/10.1371/annotation/10a580a2-8b5c-465f-a3e8-e4f4871425f2
Post by Beagle:
Scientific editing (at last) not censorship
Beagle replied to Kanbei85 on 16 Mar 2016 at 22:29 GMT
Hi Kanbei85,
Could you please elaborate on your words: “the evidence has an annoying habit of not conforming to Darwinian expectations” ?
Expectations are hypotheses. When a hypothesis is proved wrong, only the hypothesis was wrong, not the theory that had inspired it. Consistent failure to prove any hypothesis of a theory indicates that the theory is useless, possibly because it is invalid. In my experience, the theory of natural selection offers a so far unbeated frame to look forward an explanation and find it. Refering to a Creator has never been something like necessary.
Now, the trouble with the “Creator” hypothesis is that it is beyond the reach of any controled experiment we may set-up. All that we have is the world as it is. Whether someone feels that the world is a miracle is beyond the scope of science. Such a feeling is better shared with another community. Pretending that some piece of the world, or that the whole system is a miracle is an opinion (i.e. personal theory) that cannot be proved wrong. Therefore it is not a scientific theory and does not belong to a scientific paper. But it has been written in books.
Minha resposta para Beagle:
RE: Scientific editing (at last) not censorship
TheMatrixDNA replied to Beagle on 17 Mar 2016 at 09:38 GMT
Hi Beagle,
The article says that ” It is not understood which biomechanical characteristics are responsible for hand coordination and what specific effect each biomechanical characteristic has”. Another paper about human hands evolution says that ” ” This evidence suggests that these derived fatures evolved prior to the intensification of stone tool-related hominin behaviors beginning around 2,5 million years.”
And the final goal of the article is: ” drawing a clear functional link between biomechanical architecture and hand coordination”.
Now, my conclusion: ” While everybody ” not-creationist ” was believing that the effort for building stone tools triggered the development of human hands, we found that the opposite is thru. The mechanisms of Darwinian theory of evolution ( which is not wrong, but it is not complete for explaining the real natural process of evolution), has not worked here. The final effect ( modern hands coordination) is not due prior actions of natural selection which are unknown. Of course, Darwinists will always saying that the cause was a random mutation like creationists will say that it was intervention of God. Neither Darwinists, nor creationist will supply the authors with the mechanism they need for building robotic hands.
The mechanisms of my own theory of evolution explains very well this link, its origins and development. I think that my theory can supply what the authors need. But, I was a lost man in Amazon jungle which has no PHD and can not apply the scientific method in my researches about natural phenomena, so, I developed another method, but, so, I can not send a paper for peer-review, so, the authors does not know this theoretical version of this mechanism. My hopes is that the research continues because the mechanism exists and one day the scientific method will meet it.
If a paper suggests that the unknown mechanisms was created by a magical creator, it is working as a science-stopper, at least for Western mindset ( not for Taoist Eastern mindset). But, if a paper suggests that the unknown mechanism was produced by Darwinian theory of evolution, it also is working as a Science-stopper because their method will never meet the solution ( my theoretical solution)..
So, I think that this paper need an advice from the authors that the creator was not defined in the paper, and it could be the human brain and its ancestors. The mystery is about what the ancestor` brain did and our modern brain does not remember. In another hands, I think that the retraction of the paper by believers in Darwinian theory of evolution is wrong if it is based upon the world view that emerges from this theory.
Las manos humanas são una grande oportunidade para los científicos entenderem a evolução e os criacionistas entenderem a seu Deus. Com seus dedos e sua palma, as mãos repetem as seis formas do seu corpo durante sua vida, repetem a formula dos building blocks do DNA e imitam a configuração do cérebro como sistema. Isto tudo porque todas estas coisas – as mãos, o cerebra, o DNA – são sistemas feitos por uma unica formula natural, chamada MatrixLight/DNA, que pode ser vista no meu website. Esta formula nos leva a entender este mundo desde aqui ate o momento do Big Bang, quando então a limitada capacidade do nosso cérebro não pode ir alem. E neste alem, os criacionistas podem ver a formula sendo criada por seu Deus e os cientistas verem a formula surgindo por um processo natural, dependendo da preferencia de cada ser humano.
xx
Louis Charles Morelli · Works at Self employed – 19/03/2016
Las manos humanas son una gran oportunidad para los científicos comprender la evolución y los creacionistas entienderen su Dios. Con los dedos y la palma, las manos repiten las seis formas de su cuerpo durante su vida, repitiendo la fórmula de los bloques de construcción de ADN e imitan el cerebro como una configuración de sistema. Todo esto porque todas estas cosas – las manos, el cerebro, el ADN – son sistemas formados por una única fórmula natural, llamada MatrixLight / ADN, que se puede ver en mi página web. Esta fórmula nos lleva a entender este mundo de aquí hasta el momento del Big Bang, cuando entonces la limitada capacidad de nuestro cerebro no puede ir más allá. Y allá, los creacionistas pueden ver la fórmula siendo creado por su Dios, y los científicos ver la fórmula apareciendo como un proceso natural, dependiendo de la preferencia de cada ser humano.
xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
the design of a multifunctional robotic hand should be able to better imitate such basic architecture
Nature has developed human hands from an initial spherical architecture. But these origins is not about the 6 or 8 million years ago at the hominide ancestors, and it you does not go beyond this time, you ill never undesrtand the whole process of creation.
This spherical arquitecture was the almost spherical primordial cell. The cell produced membrane invaginations or extensions called cylios. These dformations of the membrane were not aleatory. An extension emerged just in the location that a cell organelle, internally, was in need of something from the external world. So, if 4 or 6 kind of organelles were surrounding the membrane, internally, the cell must have produced 4or 6 units of exensions ( cilias) and/or invaginations.
For advancing what we are talking about, you need already designing the whole thing in yours mind: the primordial cell, at that time in that shape, was like an octopus, or a human hand. The cylias developed to modern fingers and the body of the cell is represented by the palm.
It happens that each cilia must have its molecular motor. But each motor needs to be a little bit different from the others. Because each finger has its own weight, size and habilits. So, how to build this motors and first, how to make those differences in that motors?
We need go back in the origins of the anatomy of the cell. If till now I was describing a theory, now it is not theory animore, we will entering in a simple hypothesis… that suggests how to do the motors. The hypothesis can go beyond the cell, till the creators of the cell, from where came the anatomy.
The organelles of the cell were built like the margullis simbiontic theory describes it. But how were there such micro-organisms that were able to fit so perfectly that its sum produced a new complex system called cell? It is due a mechanisms spread by the whole universe, carried on by natural light waves, like those emitted by the sun and Earths radioactive nucleus, or magnetic field. I will not explain this hypothesis here that comprehends 13, 7 billion years of evolution from those waves invading the inertial space substance and organizing matter into natural systems. I will jump to the conclusion of this evolution that is resumed to a formula, the Matrix/DNA.
So, the Margulli theory suggests that were existing certain types of micro-organisms and they got connected. Matrix/DNA suggests why those micro-organisms had their shapes and why they got connected. You need know it for knowing what kind of the motors` differences you will need and how to do the different robotic fingers and the palm.
The micro-organisms had the right shapes, the right evolutionary states, and the right tendency to connections because they came from a unique micro-organisms under the life’s cycle process. This process is the essence of this formula. Look here, please ( explaining the formula)
So, the spherical cell was modeled, built by this spherical formula-template.
So, each different systemic function built an organelle. When each organelle builds its cilia, the cilia is an extension of its function. If the organelles are separated by shapes related to the ags of a unique body, and the cilia is modelled by an organelle, each cilia will be different from the other, because each organelle will project something of itself upon the cilia. That`a why the cilias must mimics the shapes produced by a life’s cycle process. In fact, please let’s go to verify this hypotheses just know facing the fact of our hands.( Here is the pregnant mother, or the source, the starting point, here is the baby, the teenager, the young becoming sexualy mature and adult, the adult, and the senior…curvado e desajeitado como um velhinho.
But, while there is an internal spherical circuit connecting the organeles, there is no circuit connecting the cilias. But, I think its possible to get the different tunctionsof each cilia, or ieach finger, if we broke the spherical circuti into separatedlines and link each unit to the palm. But the palm needs to be designed mimiching the brain, because each task, each object, will be manuased by the brain that has multiple functions. it happens that the formula that made the cell and the fingers, the hand, the palm of the hand, is the same formula that made the brain.
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx