Posts Tagged ‘primatas’

Razão pela qual não se achou ainda o primata ancestral dos humanos: hibridismo

sexta-feira, agosto 24th, 2018

xxxxx

Denny inherited one set of chromosomes from her Neanderthal ancestors, depicted in this model.Credit: Christopher Rynn/University of Dundee

Denny inherited one set of chromosomes from her Neanderthal ancestors, depicted in this model.Credit: Christopher Rynn/University of Dundee

Cruzamentos férteis entre diferentes especies: Neanderthals e Denisovans

Observe que já se sabia que o homo sapiens tenha vindo de uma linhagem de Neanderthals:  Before the discovery of the Neanderthal–Denisovan individual, whom the team has affectionately named Denny, the best evidence for so close an association was found in the DNA of a Homo sapiens specimen who had a Neanderthal ancestor within the previous 4–6 generations3.

Artigo na Nature:

Mum’s a Neanderthal, Dad’s a Denisovan: First discovery of an ancient-human hybrid

22 AUGUST 2018

https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-018-06004-0

Paper Original:

The genome of the offspring of a Neanderthal mother and a Denisovan father

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-018-0455-x

Abstract

Neanderthals and Denisovans are extinct groups of hominins that separated from each other more than 390,000 years ago1,2. Here we present the genome of ‘Denisova 11’, a bone fragment from Denisova Cave (Russia)3 and show that it comes from an individual who had a Neanderthal mother and a Denisovan father. The father, whose genome bears traces of Neanderthal ancestry, came from a population related to a later Denisovan found in the cave4,5,6. The mother came from a population more closely related to Neanderthals who lived later in Europe2,7 than to an earlier Neanderthal found in Denisova Cave8, suggesting that migrations of Neanderthals between eastern and western Eurasia occurred sometime after 120,000 years ago. The finding of a first-generation Neanderthal–Denisovan offspring among the small number of archaic specimens sequenced to date suggests that mixing between Late Pleistocene hominin groups was common when they met.

Brasileira Cientista Faz Sucesso nos EUA com Teorias Brilhantes, porem, Uma Esta’ Errada

sexta-feira, maio 6th, 2016

xxxx

 

Ontem fiquei sabendo que a famosa neurocientista brasileira, Suzana Herculano Houzel, esta’ paralisando suas valiosas pesquisas no Brasil para mudar-se para os EUA, atendendo uma oferta de professora numa universidade americana. Ela explica que não teve apoio financeiro no Brasil para manter seu laboratorio, mas quer continuar suas pesquisas, e naquela universidade americana lhe ofereceram um grande e e melhor laboratorio com financiamento a vontade.

Deixando de lado esta questão da evasão dos cérebros brasileiros, me lembrei de ter visto tempos atras um video com uma palestra da Dra. Suzana no famoso TED Talk, alias, uma palestra brilhante, fornecendo muitas novas valiosas informações sobre a evolução e o cérebro humano. Ela inventou um método para contar a quantidade de neurônios no cérebro e contou 85 milhões ( ou bilhões?)!

Eu posso lhes passar a receita de como fazer isso, e’ fácil. Pegue um cérebro normal ( não um defeituoso como do Eduardo Cunha) e cozinha ele ate’ virar uma sopa. Depois derrama essa sopa numa forma que tenha 10.ooo cubículos. Ai’ você pega a quantidade de sopa de um cubículo e conta os neurônios. Ai você multiplica o numero que obteve por 10.000, e pronto. Tens o total dos neurônios do cérebro. Mas sera mais fácil esperar eu morrer e cozinhar o meu cérebro porque so tem um neurônio, não precisa nem contar. Para sua recompensa depois dessa contagem toda, podes comer a sopa.

 

Mas dentre suas teorias, ela expos uma em que o cérebro humano se tornou diferente e muito mais complexo que o cérebro dos ancestrais primatas porque algum primitivo humano descobriu a técnica de cozinhar o alimento.

Basta ler a seção de comentários que se segue ao video, para notar que o publico não conseguiu digerir muito bem essa teoria. Imagine um macaco na selva, de repente, começando a cozinhar, e pela primeira vez no Universo. Pela sua teoria, tinha que ser um quase-macaco, pois segundo ela primeiro se começou a cozinhar, e isto desenvolveu a inteligencia. Eu também fiquei me contorcendo incomodado com esta ideia, pois penso que para começar a cozinhar e’ preciso antes, inteligencia. Principalmente me lembrando que todo animal sem inteligencia foge do fogo como a peste. Nunca vi nenhum brincando com fogo.

Mas como sempre aconteceu comigo, fui dormir com aquela ideia importuna no cocuruto e quando acordei de manha tinha uma diferente explicação, claro, baseada na minha teoria universal chamada de MatrixLight/DNA. Para desconcerto da Doutora, não foi um animal nem um homem já inteligente que inventou a técnica de cozinhar alimento para produzir mais neurônios e energia para construir o cortex cerebral que hoje dota o homem com sua mente. Pois a natureza já tinha inventado isso a dez bilhões de anos atras, muito antes das origens da vida, e mais uma vez, o que nosso ancestral fez aqui foi meramente repetir o que um outro ancestral nosso, muito mais antigo, já fazia. E quando trago a lembrança o fato de que a minha teoria geral tem apontado que todos os sistemas naturais são compostos de hardware e software, o quem no caso humano, o software se torna a mente, ou ” inteligencia”, tambem se percebe que a inteligencia já estava escrita nas estrelas antes das origens da vida, apenas esperando a forma ideal de cérebro para ela se manifestar.

Então – segundo a minha teoria – os fenômenos conhecidos como ” cozimento do alimento” e ” inteligencia” emergiram num processo gradual de feed-back, onde um alimenta a evolução do outro para que tenha sua própria evolução elevada.

Mas como não poderia deixar de ser, o assunto da Dra Suzana se tornou prato cheio para a eterna controvérsia entre criacionistas e ateus, os quais caíram nos comentários como moscas atraídas por acucar. Acontece que dentre estes comentaristas apareceu gente dos dois lados muito bem informados e com preciosos insights, porem, igualmente enganados porque não conhecem a formula da Matrix/DNA. E assim fui obrigado a espalhar comentários-respostas por todos os lados apesar de ter chegado com dois meses de atraso e quando a maioria já tinha se despedido. Para os interessados, vale a pena pescar dentre os comentários aqueles em  que a Matrix/DNA faz suas intervenções.

( Obs: eu já tenho neste website dois artigos mencionando as matérias da Doutora Suzana:

Cérebro Humano Evoluiu Devido Cozimento do Alimento – Mais Informações Sobre o Cérebro

Neuro Channel e o Congresso Mundial do Cérebro em Julho, no Rio

Meu comentario introdutorio:

Louis Morelli

Posted at 5/6/2016

No non-rational animal began to cook food. Cooking and intelligence was a gradual process of feed-back where one feeds the other. It happens that the method of cooking was encrypted as potential state in the animal’s DNA. Long before life’s origins, about 10 billion years ago, Nature was mixing soups and cooking food inside astronomical systems nucleus, which was our real ancestors. You can not see it in the academic theoretical model of galaxies because it is wrong. At MatrixLight/DNA Theory we got a different model that has predicted most of the recent Hubble’s photos. And in this model we can see it.

There is a vortex built by stellar degraded mass and energy. Inside this vortex, energy and mass are mixed, the mass is cooked by the heat of vortex’s spinning, and the result is a newborn ” cooked” germ of a new star. Since that the internal circuit configuration of that astronomic system is equal the working system formed by four nucleotides in the biological DNA, we can see that all those process performed by this astronomical system became registered information into biological DNA.

The technology of cooking mass by heating for getting a new system with more energy is known by Nature before life’s origins, This information was sleeping as potential state from bacteria to monkeys, waiting someone which brain’s system reaches an evolutionary configuration that triggers the old apparatus. So, once it starts re-applying the technic, the brain began to produce new neurons in such great numbers as the galactic nuclei produces billions of stars. Then, intelligence flourishes, again, since that nature had the ” intelligence” for doing it before. There is no way for understanding biological evolution when forgetting the ancestor cosmological evolution.

xxxxxx

trecho extraído de um comentário postado nesta palestra:

“… consider a very simple putative organism composed of only 200 integrated and functioning parts, and the problem of deriving that organism by this type of process. The system presumably must have started with only one part and then gradually built itself up over many generations into its 200-part organization. The developing organism, at each successive stage, must itself be integrated and functioning in its environment in order to survive until the next stage. Each successive stage, of course, becomes statistically less likely than the preceding one, since it is far easier for a complex system to break down than to build itself up.”

E a resposta da MatrixLight/DNA: 

Primeiro, não existe “sistema” com apenas uma parte. Tal objeto ou seria parte de outro sistema maior, ou seria apenas um objeto inanimado. Para ser um sistema completo, real, ele precisa ter partes desempenhando as sete funções sistêmicas indispensáveis. Como ‘e mostrado na formula da Matrix/DNA.

Segundo, para um sistema desenvolver novas partes a partir de si mesmo, que fiquem integradas a ele, tem dois caminhos, ao menos. a) Ele existe sob o processo do ciclo vital, o qual ‘e o responsável pelo sistema mudar de formas durante sua existência. Se houverem muitos sistemas iguais convivendo próximos, haverá momentos em que existirão sistemas em todas as formas de um ciclo vital. isto pode ter acontecido por exemplo com um micro-organismo que se tornou de sete formas diferentes as quais hoje são as organelas celulares. E como estas formas sempre obedecem ou foram produtos de uma unica linha sequencial de formas, as formas que são vizinhas nesta sequencia tendem a se agruparem, mais que as formas não vizinhas. Assim, a dinâmica e sequencia de uma onda vital de um único sistema, se projeta para ser a sequencia da onda vital de grupo, como a mesma sequencia em que alinham os vizinhos num novo contexto social. E se o caso acontece num contexto onde pode ocorrer simbiose e formação membranar ao redor do grupo, o que era sete sistemas/partes passam a serem sete partes de um novo sistema. Numa segunda onda, passam a ser 49 partes diferenciadas, e assim por diante. Alias, penso que isto acontece na diferenciação celular nas fases de morula e blástula, de onde, a partir de uma unica célula, surgem milhões de células diferentes.

Terceiro, não e’ mais facil para um sistema complexo se desmanchar do que evoluir para um nível superior mais complexo. Um exemplo e’ um feto – um complexo organismo – ao invés de se abortar, torna-se um embrião, muito mais complexo.

Tradução:

First, there is no “system” with only a part. Such an object would be part of a larger system, or just an inanimate object. To be a complete, real system, it needs to have parts playing the seven essential systemic functions, as shown by the formula of the Matrix / DNA.

Second, for a system to develop new parts from itself, parts that will be integrated into it, there are two ways, at least. a) It exists in the process of the life cycle, which is the responsible for systems changing its forms during its existence. If there are many like systems coexisting next, there will be times when there will be systems in all forms of a life cycle. This may have happened for example with a micro-organism that derived into seven different forms which today are the cellular organelles. And as these shapes always arises in a unique sequential line, the separated shapes have the tendency to connect with its prior neighbors in that sequence, and one is the complement of the other, arising symbioses between them.  Thus, the dynamics and sequence of a vital wave of a single system, is projected to be the sequence of life-wave group. And if the case takes place in a context where it could cause symbiosis and training membrane around the group, which was seven systems / parties now are seven parts of a new system. In a second wave, become differentiated parts 49, and so on. Incidentally, I think that exists in cellular differentiation in the morula and blastocyst stages, where, from a single cell, there are millions of different cells.

Third, it is not ” far easier for a complex system to break down than to build itself up”. An example is a fetus – a complex organism – instead of breaking down, it goes more complex. Nature does it facing yours eyes, and, as below, as above.

xxxxx

Louis Morelli

Posted a few seconds ago
In reply to:

2. A four-component integrated system can more easily “mutate” (that is, somehow suddenly change) into a three-component system (or even a four-component non-functioning system) than into a five-component integrated system. If, at any step in the chain, the system mutates “downward,” then it is either destroyed altogether or else moves backward, in an evolutionary sense.
Therefore, the successful production of a 200-component functioning organism requires, at least, 200 successive, successful such “mutations,” each of which is highly unlikely. Even evolutionists recognize that true mutations are very rare, and beneficial mutations are extremely rare—not more than one out of a thousand mutations are beneficial, at the very most.
But let us give the evolutionist the benefit of every consideration. Assume that, at each mutational step, there is equally as much chance for it to be good as bad. Thus, the probability for the success of each mutation is assumed to be one out of two, or one-half. Elementary statistical theory shows that the probability of 200 successive mutations being successful is then (½)200, or one chance out of 1060. The number 1060, if written out, would be “one” followed by sixty “zeros.” In other words, the chance that a 200-component organism could be formed by mutation and natural selection is less than one chance out of a trillion, trillion, trillion, trillion, trillion! Lest anyone think that a 200-part system is unreasonably complex, it should be noted that even a one-celled plant or animal may have millions of molecular “parts.”
The evolutionist might react by saying that even though any one such mutating organism might not be successful, surely some around the world would be, especially in the 10 billion years (or 1018 seconds) of assumed earth history

Sorry,you are wrong again, because you don’t know that four nucleotides – a unit of information of DNA – is a working system. And the “soul” or internal circuit that connects nucleotides and sugars through which runs the flow of energy/information have same shape of internal circuits of all natural systems, from atoms, to galaxies to human brains. This systemic configuration as template we call ” MatrixLight/DNA formula”. So, DNA is a system composed by millions of copies of a unique system, but each copy has a minimal specific detail different from all others copies (like 8 billions humans have no one exactly equal other). Cellular differentiation at blastulae stage forming a unique organism with millions parts is other example.

You think that a four-component integrated biological system need to invent, to create a never existed before new part for tho jump to five-component. You forget that biological systems exists inside a bigger system ( its environment, this stellar and galactic system) which created it and evolution is a feed-back process between this hierarchy of systems. The information for new parts exists in the air, in the bigger system, pushing the small towards its level of complexity, or at least, for to have all its parts. And since that the biggest system is the creator by genetic process, it is encrypted inside the smaller, its creature. So, more complexity is in potential state inside the less complex, and it can develop by fuzzy logics, as result of internal interactions among the bigger parts creating intermediary parts.

You has the tendency to denying the evolutive natural process because it could threat the belief that humans are God’s creation. It is the same that someone saying that evolution from blastula to fetus to embryo does not exists because the parents – the human species – created the baby already in that shape. You are diminishing the intelligence of a possible God of all universes, which should be not able to create a formula, a seed, spreading life into all universes.

Considers a light wave resulting from the seven kinds of electromagnetic radiations, expanding as a system seven-components integrated as parts – its seven different frequencies or vibrational states. If you stop the expansion of a light wave with a hard wall, when the light wave is still six-components, the seven part exists as potential and when removed the wall, it will advance. This is a system that grows itself in complexity ( more parts) because a initial light wave triggered by the Big Bang is exactly the copy of MatrixLight/DNA formula for all natural systems. If you unfold a nucleotide system, you have a directional wave equal a light wave. So, would be necessary to a great God merely sparking a light wave for getting human beings here and now through evolution. Think on it… you are earning because yours God is greater than you have imagined.

xxxxxxx

ria Sponge

Posted a month ago

Cooking made us who we are today, intelligent. If this is true can we not teach other primate animals to cook? Will this then increase the amount of energy they can use and make them smarter?

Louis Morelli

Posted a few seconds ago

The problem is that you never will get a primate animal playing with fire. I think that the event responsible by the intelligent jump of humans was the reunion of males and females, young and seniors together with the hunting adults into the cave. These approximation (for escaping from raining, could and other climates events) lead to the strongest and individualists males to a principle of empathy with their offspring, feeding them, beginning the familiar system. These new levels of emotions and feelings hard wired the brain for the emergency of consciousness.

But this hypothesis is more acceptable when we considers that all natural systems – from atoms to bacteria to primatas – are composed of hardware and software, as suggested by MatrixLight/DNA theory. The software is the entity that grows from systems due the sum of information of all parts plus the information that arises from the connections among the parts. So, the software along evolution became the human mind but universal consciousness was existing in potential state only waiting any creature that wake up for some kind of empathy ad love for its manifestation. And it happened in the cave

xxxxx

Louis Morelli

Posted a few seconds ago

In reply to:

3. Therefore, let us imagine that every one of the earth’s 1014 square feet of surface harbors a billion (i.e., 109) mutating systems and that each mutation requires one-half second (actually it would take far more time than this). Each system can thus go through its 200 mutations in 100 seconds and then, if it is unsuccessful, start over for a new try. In 1018 seconds, there can, therefore, be 1018/102, or 1016, trials by each mutating system. Multiplying all these numbers together, there would be a total possible number of attempts to develop a 200-component system equal to 1014 (109) (1016), or 1039 attempts. Since the probability against the success of any one of them is 1060, it is obvious that the probability that just one of these 1039 attempts might be successful is only one out of 1060/1039, or 1021. All this means that the chance that any kind of a 200-component integrated functioning organism could be developed by mutation and natural selection just once, anywhere in the world, in all the assumed expanse of geologic time, is less than one chance out of a billion trillion. What possible conclusion, therefore, can we derive from such considerations as this except that evolution by mutation and natural selection is mathematically and logically indefensible! This is science genetically. Then we have the massive historical record which the Bible has proven atheistic or academic researchers wrong time and time again. They have outright denied many things in the Bible. OUTRIGHT, to only prove these false scientists, yours, liars and spiteful people. There is much evidence for the Bible but spite and hate makes these “scientists” lie and make things up, knowing the masses are easy prey and religion is falling, as predicted by the Bible.

Oscar Lunezi

But… who told you that the language and logic of Nature is mathematics and statistics? There is a Cartesian graphic proven that Math does not accounts for evolution because Math is linear logics and evolution is curve. Universal evolution is like the evolutionary history of yours body: starting from the shape of human species, yours body began as the shape of a universe full of galaxies, then got the shape of a gyrinus, a fish, a four legs mammal, a fetus, and finally went back to the shape of human species. Ir draw a curve, not a direct and infinite line. There are phases when time goes back in evolution ( like when discarding dinosaurs and choosing the smaller cynodont for to evolve to mammal). And Math can not build curves equations and considering negative time. Math reaches and translates Nature only in a small space of all evolutionary micro-cycle of universal cosmological evolution.

Natural systems mutates and becomes more complex because the initial universe was tunneled for that, like the womb of my mother was tunneled for producing me, without Math and statistics. And the Universe was tunneled and working as womb because in this Universe is occurring a natural genetic reproduction process of the unknown ex-universe system that triggered the Big Bang. At least, that is what you get when knowing that this biological DNA is nothing else than a temporary shape of a universal DNA ( called Matrix/DNA) that organized matter into all known systems, from atoms to galaxies and now to a system known as ” consciousness”. If you want to call that unknown “natural” system that creates wombs-universes by natural genetic process, as God, I have no problem with it…

xxxx

Louis Morelli

Posted a few seconds ago

In reply to:

I think people greatly overestimate the brain power required to learn how to cook. The ability to harness fire, combined with the natural inclination to use it as a weapon against prey (or each other), combined with cannibalism and/or more traditional food sources, would quickly lead to an association between fire/food (cooking) and taste. There have already been studies that show apes prefer cooked food, so it would only be a matter of time..

John B

Which primata was harnessing fire? Do you have any source? The logics indicates that all non-intelligent animals does not stands at the side of fire. Before playing with fire must had a jump in intelligence.

xxxxx

Louis Morelli

Posted a few seconds ago

In reply to:

A giraffe would still be a giraffe: it would not “evolve” (nor did it) into something else. There is Zero evidence for evolution. There is no missing ape-likes into humans. You make it up. Its an assumption from the start. Yet, you must believe it therefore it afterwards becomes a fact when it there was never any evidence for it. There are no fossils which explains evolution as fact. Its all manipulated and forced as fact.

Oscar Lunezi

You are right saying that there are no fossils and no enough mechanisms in the Darwinian theory of evolution that could explains evolution as a fact. But, the Darwinian theory of evolution is not the natural process of evolution, like the map is not the territory. So, you can not use a human-built theory for denying a natural process that has all evidences and rational logics pointing towards it.

The problem with Darwin and modern evolutionists (Modern Synthesis) is that they are separating cosmological evolution from biological evolution as it f they were two blocks with no evolutionary link between them. There is no way for explaining biological evolution without its ancestor cosmological evolution which built the astronomic environment inside which emerged biological evolution. At MatrixLight/DNA Theory we solved this problem and is explaining both, biological and cosmological evolution, very well. For explaining biological, the three variables discovered by Darwin ( VSI – variation, selection, inheritance) does not works for explaining the evolutionary jumps got by Gould ( punctuation…). These jumps are natural process occurring by the influence of four more variables coming from thermodynamic systems like those of cosmological evolution.

As I said above, evolution is universal because nature is not earth’s biosphere, it is the universe and beyond it. So, evolution is thousands time more complex than Darwin thought. It is such complex that needs a more powerful intelligence than I have, that’s why I said above that you are diminishing the intelligence of yours God… because you are trying to tell what God did through the intelligence of the humans Bible’s authors. There are billions of planets hosting life. Do you think that God went billion times at each planet for creating millions of species in each one? But… he could do it merely spreading its genetic Matrix/DNA formula, as your human father did

xxxx

Sevan Bomaer

Posted 2 years ago

She was almost on it and then blew right past it. Its about energy, humans are on a higher vibratory frequency because they have more developed Chakra Centers which function as wheels driving up the current of the body. Until science is ready to recognize what is already known, they sound very left brain logically boring. lo

Louis Morelli

Posted at 5/6/2016

Yes, while Science is guided by the nowadays dominant worldview the brain will continue to be undefined. Same for the big secular mortal diseases. I have posted here a different hypothesis than Ms Suzana hypothesis and they delected the posts. What I am suggesting is looking to the brain from an outside human and even terrestrial perspective, but they are not unable to do that because their brains are indoctrinated for to see from the inside out, plus the reductive method. The other aspect of my posts is the systemic approach, based on the universal patterns for natural systems because if we does not understand the brain as a system we never will known it. A selective and discriminating scientific method insists in doing experiments only with what is aligned in the ideological box, selecting the same line of data and ignoring those events that ate caused by things outside their world view. Unfortunately, the mental diseases have yet long life…