Posts Tagged ‘Evolution’

A malicia nas perguntas de radicais ateus, deístas e ideologistas

Tuesday, January 12th, 2021

Como tenho levado a Matrix/DNA Theory para divulgação apresentando-a nos debates e fóruns, preciso estar atento em protege-la dos venenos à espreita. Como por exemplo:

A imagem pode conter: texto que diz "HIDING ASSERTIONS IN RHETORICAL QUESTIONS Quite often the questions asked in posts are not questions, rather they are assertions that hide and protect themselves in the form of a question so that the assertion becomes immune to critical assessment. The way the question is asked reveals the author's position about the topic and the question itself strengthens it by the way it is composed. Such a question is often asked naively, but even then a reader can assume that the author of the question really wants to argue, not discuss, any alternatives to the predetermined rhetorical question."

Este texto foi inteligentemente apresentado como critica a uma estratégia de “engula a isca”, ou “click bait” , em inglês, ocultada numa pergunta de um radical defensor da teoria darwiniana: Can evolution itself evolve?if not why not?

Suspeito que o autor procura manter alta produção de posts no seu canal e fique maquinando assuntos para os posts. Então ele não está, em primeiro lugar, pedindo ajuda para obter conhecimento pelo conhecimento, e sim, em busca de retornos materiais. Mas creio que isto se justifica e é benéfico porque realmente a questão estimula a expansão da consciência dos leitores. O problema está no “sequitur”: If not why not?

Quem não está radicalizado numa ideia, perguntaria: Se sim, ou se não, por favor, explique”. Mas aí ele estaria focalizando como peixes-leitores apenas aqueles que aceitam a evolução, porem, seria um debate curto e cansativo, porque todo evolucionista automaticamente aplica a sua teoria da evolução sobre o hipotético processo natural de evolução. Haveria alguns poucos apontando algumas evidencias para provar este ponto que todos conhecem. Mas quando ele desafia com o “se não…”, ele está incitando os peixes leitores que não aceitam a microevolução, lançando a isca. E qualquer resposta destes, seria mais uma chance do autor reiniciar a longa verborreia dos argumentos prós teoria da evolução darwiniana. Aumentaria sua receita e ele não teria se disposto a debate mas sim a arguir, afirmar sua posição, como sempre.

Nos debates envolvendo a Teoria da Matrix/DNA temos que estar atentos a estas manobras.

Evolution: The fight against the moral values produced by the belief in Darwinian Theory

Friday, December 25th, 2020


Question: Am I irrational for not believing in Evolution (common descent), why or why not? (I don’t)

Suggestion from Matrix/DNA Theory: – No, it is not irrational don´t believing in this human theory of evolution. Sure, it is totally incomplete, in the way that prejudices our world view, hence, our behavior. The common descent not lived at Earth: it was the evolutionary link between this astronomic system and the first biological system. There is no separation between Cosmological and Biological Evolution. There is a unique universal natural process of evolution, with seven variables/mechanisms and not only the three variables pointed out by humans (VSI – Variation, Selection, Inheritance… is a poor understand and knowledge of universal evolution). But, the Matrix/DNA Theory is a human production, which discovered these holes in Darwinian Theory and The New Synthesis, it is almost reaching the whole history..

Question from Jason Harris : Could just be ignorant to the overwhelming amount of evidence gathered in its favor over the last 170 years and no competing theory to be seen with greater explanatory power. It would be irrational to know those things and then deny the reality of evolution. Why not?

Matrix/DNA Theory – The explanatory power is great but limited to a few sequences of mechanistic processes, limited to Earth materials and limited to the last millions of years. The theory need to be expanded to the whole Universe, its 13,8 billion years, and searching the effects of those invisible dimensions. With an analogy we can understand the point: Imagine microscopic intelligent microbes living inside a pregnant human, watching the transformations from morulae to fetus, to embryo. he will be able to be describing the mechanistic process inside the chemical processes, but only that. He knows nothing about the leaving human body driving the process, he doesn´t understand the genetic code, etc. We, humans, are microscopic microbes watching a sequence of events of transformations of a universal system that is coming from the Big Bang and we doesn´t know the whole thing producing this process. Atoms are our ancestral like bacteria are, but our theoretical models of atoms does not reveal the biological principles that must be there ( which I think are the responsible for the weirdness of quantum dimensions). The microbe in the womb is deluded, thinking that he is watching evolution, but we, humans knows that it is merely a process of reproduction. So, who are able to tell that this universal process of simplest towards complexity is evolution and not merely reproduction ( of the thing behind the Big Bang, for instance)?

WHERE is the working proof for evolution?

Saturday, May 2nd, 2020

Somebody posted this question in Yahoo Answer, at Society & Culture, 02/05/20. Below is my answer:

I am seeing here and now, watching embryogenesis, that Nature applies the process of transforming one shape in a new different shape (blastula into fetus, so on) and turning on initial simplicity into terminal complexity. If Nature does it here and now, why not there and in the past? I never saw any miracle, like appearing all shapes from nothing. So, I think that is rational to elect evolution as the best theory. It happens that Darwinian theory is merely half of the whole universal process of evolution. There is a new and more accurate theory of evolution which found the evolutionary link between Cosmological and Biological Evolution, the DNA as a kind of ex-universe genoma that is encrypted into all natural systems ( from atoms to galaxies to biological systems). In the picture below you can see the evolution of this process called “vital cycle” from our astronomic ancestor to humans.

Attachment image

LUCA e a Teoria da Evolução

Saturday, May 2nd, 2020

A question posted in Yahoo Answers and my answer below:

Evidence to disprove evolution?

First define evolution. 

1. A change in allele frequencies in a population over time (aka micro evolution)

I don’t think there is any dis agreement that this happens and I doubt there is evidence to disprove it.

2. The theory that all life on Earth is descended from a Last Universal Common Ancestor (LUCA). 

Observations are inconsistent with this hypothesis which in scientific terms disproves the hypothesis.

My answer:

TheUniversalMatrix's avatar
TheUniversalMatrix ( 02/05/20)

LUCA was not biological, neither organic, and never lived at Earth, although Earths belongs to it ( The Universal Matrix/DNA Theory). That is why Science can not  find it. Due a defect in human brain ( separated into two halves), he sees separation everywhere. So he separated Universal Evolution into two blocks ( Cosmological and Biological evolutions) without any link between the two blocks. There is no such separation and the link is LUCA.

Debate no EvC Forum com minha participação

Thursday, January 30th, 2020
EvC Forum:
From: Matrix/DNA Theory
Message 1385 of 1385 (871207) 
01-30-2020 3:56 AM

RE: Any practical use for Universal Common Ancestor?

No, because Science has not designed the right model of UCA, yet. Are there any scientific practical use for your parents as the common ancestor species of you and yours brothers? You had the shape of an unique initial cell as also the shape of the initial cell after abiogenesis; you had the shape of fetus as the shape of reptilians: the shape of embryo as the shape of mammals. But, your parents as your UCA never existed inside yours little ovule universe during yours embryogenesis. So why the UCA of the first cell should be at Earth during abiogenesis?

So, the design of the model for UCA is not for Biology or Physics, it is for Astronomy, the space beyond this little egg-Earth, like your mother´s body was the space beyond your little egg. And why Astronomy did´n it yet? It happens that Academic Astronomy did not get the right theoretical model of astronomic systems, the formation of astros, etc, because the academy is under magical thinking: magic accidents which, instead destroying things, build on new complex things. Like any other non-existent magical gods.

Comparative anatomy between the last most evolved astronomic system from Cosmological Evolution and the first cell-biological system from Biological Evolution must be the unique rational and right method for finding the right model of UCA. I did it, I got a model, I don´t know if it is right, need more testing. But, if it is right, will be very, very useful not only for practical science and new technologies, meaning more useful for eliminating magical thinking from human mind.

It is weird thinking to make comparisons between living and non-living systems. I thought that also, till find that there is no such division between living and non-living when talking about natural systems: all properties of cells are there, working, at the right model of astronomic systems. And there where no “origins of life”, neither here neither other place, there are no “origins”, every natural system is under transformation from pre-existing systems, and evolution. The words “origins” and “life” are big prejudices to rationality because they lead us towards magical thinking with all the prejudices to humankind. Ok, mine is merely another theory, so…

There was no origins of life and universe, astronomical systems are half-alive, light waves contains the code for life and DNA is not a code: Matrix/DNA Theory

An strong and factual argument against the Darwinian concept of natural selection.

Friday, January 10th, 2020

Poor people have more babies than the rich people. Preys have more babies than predators. In fath, natural selection is selecting the less strong and less fitness?

Evolution x Intelligent Design controversy: data of pools in USA

Wednesday, October 9th, 2019


Mark Joseph
Posted April 25, 2013 at 7:44 pm | Permalink

“You sound as if you would resolve scientific issues in the court of public opinion, but that isn’t the way science works.”

Ah, but the illustrious William Dembski would disagree with you. Here he is babbling in a ludicrous essay entitled “Skepticism’s Prospects for Unseating Intelligent Design” which is chapter 10 in the book of essays “Science and Religion: Are They Compatible?” edited by Paul Kurtz:

“A few years ago skeptic Michael Shermer wrote a book titled Why People Believe Weird Things. Most of the weird things Shermer discusses in that book are definitely on the fringes, like Holocaust denial, alien encounters, and witch crazes–hardly the sort of stuff that’s going to make it into the public school science curriculum. Intelligent design by contrast is becoming thoroughly mainstream and threatening to do just that.
Gallup poll after Gallup poll confirms that about 90 percent of the U.S. population believes that some sort of design is behind the world. Ohio is currently the epicenter of the evolution-intelligent design controversy. Recent polls conducted by the Cleveland Plain Dealer found that 59 percent of Ohioans want both evolution and intelligent design taught in their public schools. Another 8 percent want only intelligent design taught. And another 15 percent do not want the teaching of intelligent design mandated, but do want to allow evidence against evolution to be presented in public schools. You do the arithmetic.”

Evolutionary Accelerator : mais um website/movimento social apoiado pela Matrix/DNA

Monday, July 29th, 2019


Evolutionary Accelerator

Evolution science is revealing that humanity has a critical role to play in advancing the evolutionary trajectory of life on Earth.

It reveals that the next great step in the evolutionary trajectory requires humanity to envision and build a cooperative, sustainable and evolvable global society to ensure its continued success and survival.

This platform intends to accelerate the advancement of the evolutionary trajectory. It does so by bringing together people who are developing practical initiatives to advance evolution with others who might be interested in contributing time, skills and other resources to these initiatives.

If you are looking for opportunities to consciously and intentionally contribute to advancing the evolutionary trajectory on Earth, you are in the right place.

People tend to be motivated to advance evolution once they understand the emerging science-based evolutionary worldview and its implications for humanity. This evolutionary worldview is capable of providing meaning and purpose for human existence, both for individuals as well as collectively.

Teoria Darwiniana x Cambrian Explosion

Tuesday, July 23rd, 2019


Ha 540 milhões de anos atras apareceram grande quantidade de novas especies sem evidencias de terem vindo pela evolução das especies anteriores. No quadro abaixo se nota a diferença dos dados em fóssil record entre Cambrian e pre-cambrian. Isto esta sendo usado com insistência pelos contra-evolucionistas como “prova” de que evolução não existe. na teoria da Matrix/DNA, no entanto, isto não é problema para manter a teoria de que evolução existe. Senão vejamos:

– A Matrix/DNA sugere o modelo anatômico de LUCA, como building block de sistemas astronômicos;

– A Matrix/DNA sugere um mecanismo entropico pelo qual fragmentos de LUCA – que consistem nos bits-informação do corpo de LUCA – são espalhados no espaço sideral e por vários tempos diferentes:

– A Matrix/DNA, baseada no mecanismo genético, sugere o mecanismo pelo qual estes bits-informação caem nas superfícies de planetas e tentam reconstruir o mais próximo possível o sistema astronômico de onde vieram;

– A Matrix/DNA sugere como a entropia ataca inicialmente a periferia do corpo de LUCA. A partir da periferia vai se desprendendo bits cada vez mais internos ate alcançar o centro nuclear do sistema. isto implica que informações diferentes relacionadas a diferentes estágios da reconstrução de LUCA chegam aos planetas em pacotes em tempos e lugares diferentes.

– Assim a Matrix/DNA sugere todos os passos que seriam suficientes para provocar a explosão cambriana.

– A mesma explicação serve para elucidar as novas especies, como os primatas, que surgiram a 65 milhões de anos com a queda de meteoritos: meteoritos, por estarem no espaço sideral recebem em tempos e lugares diferentes, diferentes informações chegadas a Terra.

Vejamos como argumentam os anti-evolucionistas:

The Cambrian explosion of life has long been a major hurdle for the naturalistic theory. The fossil record shows the first three quarters of the earth’s history to have nothing but very simply structured organisms. Then all of the sudden, 542 million years ago, vast quantities of complex creatures emerged without any of the evolutionary precursors demanded from Darwin’s theory.

In fact Darwin himself was perplexed by this event and in his book stated; “It’s as though they were just planted there without any evolutionary history”. He concluded that the fossil record was incomplete and said “To the question of why we do not find rich fossil deposits belonging to these…periods prior to the Cambrian system, I can give no satisfactory answer”. This fact caused great doubt in Darwin’s mind. He proposed that the fossil evidence was yet to be found and that without it his theory would collapse.

Since publishing his book, “The origin of species”, there have been new discoveries. Advanced life forms from the Cambrian era were discovered all around the world. However the findings only served to refute Darwin’s theory as there was no evolutionary species found for the Cambrian animals.

It is clear that the fossil record does not support Darwin’s theory of a common ancestor but in fact it undoubtedly refutes it. Yet the Cambrian explosion is not even mentioned in many text books and when it is mentioned it is not presented as evidence against Darwin’s theory but instead as an event that requires no further justification.

Similar situations also occur throughout time including the period after the extinction of the dinosaurs 65 million years ago. This is where many modern animals, including primates, appear without any evolutionary evidence.

From observing the fossil data of the pre Cambrian period we should find evidence of evolution and a common ancestor as predicted by Darwin. We find no such evidence therefore, as Darwin himself knew, the theory is falsified. It also fails both criminal and civil legal standards of evidence.

But,… don~t forget that there are evolutionists, and they does not accept any assumption from the arguments above. Only as example, look haow they answer the text above:


I was impressed that you intend to use the ‘highest standard of evidence” in you arguments but you then spoiled it by immediately not using any standards of evidence at all.

Just taking your very first example of “A false representation of an evolutionary tree that would be typically presented as factual to young school kids“ you need to show, ‘with the highest standard of evidence’ where that diagram is used in schools, to whom and when, then show where it is wrong and why any errors might give a fatally false impression to its intended audience. Finally you have to show why it affects the ToE’s validity as settled science.

Maybe when you’ve done that to everyone’s satisfaction, you can move on to your second claim.

Biologia Evolucionária tem alguma aplicação prática na realidade?

Thursday, July 18th, 2019


Esta questão foi levantada no forum Creation v Evolution, e minha resposta postada vai abaixo:

Message 1 of 1319 (843755) 
11-20-2018 8:07 AM

I’ve been looking for a practical use in applied science for the information that all life on earth evolved from a microbe that existed billions of years ago, but can’t find any. It seems to me that the whole Universal Common Ancestor thing is completely irrelevant and useless outside the realm of evolutionary theory.

Louis Morelli
Junior Member
 post at 7/18/19

The common ancestor is astronomic, not microscopic.

Well, I have many suggestions for practical medicine and technology based on my models of LUCA. Comparative anatomy between the first living being (a complete and working eukaryotic cell system) and the last most evolved natural system (the building blocks of galaxies) drive us to build a model of the evolutionary link between the two. I got as model a surprising natural system that works like a perfect machine, almost a perpetuum motor. If mimicked technologically and applied here, we can develop a super-technology and fixing several mortal diseases. But,… neither creationists, neither materialists never thought about it, they will not help me applying it. If you want see the face of LUCA see my website.


Other post from mine: (7/19/19)

How is UCA relevant to protein folding?

From Evolutionary Biology theory of UCA, I think their model offers no use. But from Matrix/DNA model of UCA it is relevant to almost everything in technology, medicine, etc. UCA was/is a working system. Any natural system has its parts connected by a circuit, where is running the flow of informations, connecting all parts. Proteins are bits, slices of this circuit. So, if we align all proteins in the right sequence, we have rebuild the whole circuit. And we can replicate a system. And we can change the slices producing diseases, for example.

But UCA is/was more mechanical than biological. Because it is/was the evolutionary link between the last non-biological natural system (described by Newtonian mechanics and not by Biology). UCA became the fundamental unit of information of RNA/DNA because severe mutation due falling in a new environment ( Earth’s surface). Earth is inside UCA, so, it was merely a process of reproduction, or nurturing seeds.

The face of UCA is the face of DNA’s unit of information (two lateral nucleotides with 6 nitrogenous bases), which is also a wonderful working system in itself ( but the Science of Biology does not know it yet). Due Physics having the wrong cosmological model, they does not know everything about astronomic systems, our real parents in the sky, around us, and us inside them.

Now, if you are a theoretical deist, you will say Matrix/DNA is wrong, if you are a theoretical atheist you will say it is wrong. I think that rationally, any believe that separates Universal Evolution into two blocks (cosmological and Biological evolution) without a rational evolutionary link between them is magical thought, so, deism and atheism. I am here advocating a third world view, an agnostic one. I think it is my right to do it also.

ot by Biology). UCA became the fundamental unit of information of RNA/DNA because severe mutation due falling in a new environment ( Earth’s surface). Earth is inside UCA, so, it was merely a process of reproduction, or nurturing seeds.

The face of UCA is the face of DNA’s unit of information (two lateral nucleotides with 6 nitrogenous bases), which is also a wonderful working system in itself ( but the Science of Biology does not know it yet). Due Physics having the wrong cosmological model, they does not know everything about astronomic systems, our real parents in the sky, around us, and us inside them.

Now, if you are a theoretical deist, you will say Matrix/DNA is wrong, if you are a theoretical atheist you will say it is wrong. I think that rationally, any believe that separates Universal Evolution into two blocks (cosmological and Biological evolution) without a rational evolutionary link between them is magical thought, so, deism and atheism. I am here advocating a third world view, an agnostic one. I think it is my right to do it also.