Archive for setembro, 2012

Haeckels’ Recapitulation: Duvidas se era fraude ou não. Matrix/DNA interessada/Por Evolução continua e memorização

sábado, setembro 15th, 2012
  • ( Youtube – Bill Nye)

    The only reason you know about Heckel’s embryos or Piltdown man is because SCIENTISTS exposed them as frauds. Ignorant creationists contributed nothing because they don’t understand evolution or how it works.

    Also, do you have any evidence that these frauds are still being taught in Biology classes, as you claim?

    VesusSheist in reply to Angela Pearce (Show the comment) 2 minutes ago

  • lol you claim to know the one true god. and have a better explanation of evolution and life than world class professors and scientists. and I’m the know it all?

    tsub0dai in reply to baseballbro1000 (Show the comment) 2 minutes ago

  • How does creationism explain vestigial features in whales? Are whales not mammals? Why would some god put bones in an animal that serve no purpose?

    IDisnotscience 3 minutes ago

  • (cont.) I have a good friendship with one of the biologists/zoologists overseeing his museum and my wife’s cousin works in the “Haeckel House” and is responsible for cataloging 40,000 pages from Haeckel’s personal correspondence. As late as 1995 Haeckel’s drawing of Rekapitulation was included in a biology textbook authored by Ernst Mayr — who is the patriarch of the synthetic teaching of evolution. What excuse is there presenting evidence which has been exposed as a fraud for over 75 years?!

    RoccoP777 in reply to truvelocity (Show the comment) 4 minutes ago

  • Then why was the fraud of Haeckels Embryos published in 2006 American biology books? Those were exposed back in 1901. Looks like the darwin cult members prefer frauds in science books than facts.

    Angela Pearce in reply to Peter van der Meer (Show the comment) 4 minutes ago

  • hackels embryos were drawings. and usually used as a case for bad science. Again , if science knew evolution was a fraud. what do they gain from keeping it. exposing the fraud would win them the nobel prize.

    tsub0dai in reply to Angela Pearce (Show the comment) 4 minutes ago

Genética: Esta informação organizada a ser trabalhada pela Matrix/DNA

sábado, setembro 15th, 2012
  • Just for the clowns here,who think they are junk and the majority of their DNA is an Evo left over,The encode project team has published a very interesting results for you,i let Jubi the pleasure to slap you with it: /watch?v=pUlLp0xmsZ0#t=12m00s
    the clowns are: DarwinsFriend,rogerdenrog,Jarl­axleDearthe,Thezuule1,narco73,­mechanicmike69,Atharkas,TheHig­herVoltage,truvelocity.and not to forget the biggest clown PZ myers,the maker of this show:/watch?v=DRsN7w7iW08

    YamiYami17 8 hours ago

  • ROFL Genesis Week… You must have the reading and listening comprehension skills of a third grader. 13 Papers came out (which I know you didn’t read) that identified SOME function to DNA that was thought to have been “junk dna.” That’s nothing, so what? Congratulations they figured out a few bits of it do something, they’ve also figured out what a lot of it USED TO DO AND DOES NOT DO ANYMORE. Like the fact you still have the DNA for making a tail, some kids still grow them….

    Thezuule1 in reply to YamiYami17 8 hours ago

  • “they figured out a few bits of it do something” We went from 15% doing something which is PZ’s claim,to at least 80% of it doing something,you claim an increase of 65% to be a few bits? Yes congratulation to all real scientists who really care to study DNA rather calling it junk!

    YamiYami17 in reply to Thezuule1 8 hours ago

  • Junk DNA is an anachronistic term pulled out and waved about by people who are not in the field of genetics. It was a bad term for non-coding DNA which just meant that it did not code for a known protein – there are other functions that DNA performs besides coding for proteins. The whole Junk DNA discussion was a sidetrack off of the real questions of what the DNA was doing regardless of whether it coded for a protein of not.

    albdavidt in reply to YamiYami17 7 hours ago

  • This comment has received too many negative votes

    I’m not sure if you want to play on words,but anyone who saw PZ’s lectures or other Evo gurus lectures will understand that,Evo left overs is the majority of our DNA,and thus the majority of our DNA is pure junk! Encode papers slapped the evolutionary hypothesis very very hard!

    YamiYami17 in reply to albdavidt 7 hours ago

  • The “junk” term is not accurate in that it is not descriptive. If your knew more about genetics you would already know that “junk” is not used by anyone studying genetics and DNA, it is used by the media to sell more papers. DNA contains many areas that code for products other than proteins. Interesting genetic research looks at the DNA and what the gene products code for. The ENCODE papers do a poor job of actually describing specifics.

    albdavidt in reply to YamiYami17 7 hours ago

  • “If you knew more about genetics you would already know that ‘junk’ is not used by anyone studying genetics and DNA….” Que? You might want to inform Larry Moran of the U. of Toronto, who still uses the term to define the up to 90% of the genome he estimates is nonfunctional. Why would the papers use the term “junk DNA” except to write wildly overhyped articles about how ‘function’ has been found for it? “DNA sequence characterized: does absolutely sod-all” isn’t going to win any Pulitzers.

    Nullifidian in reply to albdavidt 7 hours ago

  • Coding for proteins is only one of the functions of DNA. Ignoring all DNA that does not code for protein and calling it junk simply because we do not know the function of it right now is sloppy science. Junk implies that that there is no use for it. A true scientific response would be to say that we do not yet know what that DNA is doing right now but are studying it. Junk is not descriptive either, if it is a duplication, call it a duplication, if it is a parasite, call it a parasite.

    albdavidt in reply to Nullifidian 3 hours ago

  • “Ignoring all DNA that does not code for protein and calling it junk simply because we do know the function of it right now is sloppy science.” Yes, that would be sloppy science, so it’s a good thing that that’s not what’s happening. There are persuasive positive arguments for why the majority of the genome must be junk, which were made after the existence of functional non-coding DNA was established. The only ignorance I’ve found is among those who insist the genome is primarily functional.

    Nullifidian in reply to albdavidt 3 hours ago

  • It would be ignorant to say that the majority of the genome must be junk when no one knows what if anything the the majority of the genome codes for or if it is used or not. Even if it never codes for gene products within an organism, extra DNA would be a source of future variation that would not be available if it did not exist in a gene pool. Lack of variating in a population makes extinction more likely so there are benefits to maintaining non-productive DNA. Junk is a sloppy term.

    albdavidt in reply to Nullifidian 3 hours ago

  • “extra DNA would be a source of future variation that would not be available if it did not exist in a gene pool.” *ring, ring* Excuse me, a Mr. Darwin would like to have a word with you. He says that no DNA ever becomes established in a population because of its potential future usefulness. That kind of argument is dangerously close to teleology. Natural selection requires that this DNA be expressed in the phenotype *now* or not at all. *click* Also it also doesn’t satisfy the onion test.

    Nullifidian in reply to albdavidt 2 hours ago

  • Populations go extinct for lack of competitive variation. Extra DNA is expensive in terms of the time it takes to replicate. If cost were the only factor, extra DNA would be selected against. Having additional variation available in the form of alternate genetic information means more variation to select against. Populations with higher variation are less likely to face extinction than populations with less variety.

    albdavidt in reply to Nullifidian 2 hours ago

  • This comment has received too many negative votes

    1) *Some* might. 2) Show me a selection coefficient that supports your claim that natural selection would sweep out extra DNA, and explain why it doesn’t apply to *this* DNA. 3) Show me that it is probable that this DNA will provide selectable functions, and how it is possible for natural selection to fix DNA in populations simply because of hypothetical usefulness. I’ll give you a starting point: 50% of the human genome consists of DEFECTIVE transposons. What’s their hypothetical function?

    Transposable elements can be means of duplication & mutation – a mechanism for creating new alleles, most still being deleterious. Errors in DNA replication make small mutations, transposable elements can make duplications & mutations. From what they do, transposable elements look like something between a parasite, in most forms, and a domesticated servants (like mitochondria and chloroplasts are to eukaryotic cells) in the case of our spliceosomes resemblance to type II introns. Nullifidian in reply to albdavidt 2 minutes ago

    “Any other functionality that they possessed…” …which would be none. What use is a transposon that doesn’t transpose? “…would still be available for production of gene products,…” The product of a transposable element *is* the transposon. It’s not like transposable elements also carry along the gene for ATP synthase. “…or as a candidate for a mutation event.” As I already said, junk DNA provides loads of opportunities for mutation because none of it is under selective constraint.

    albdavidt in reply to Nullifidian 7 minutes ago

    • Natural selection does select for efficiency in that individual organisms that use too much of their limited resources on one of many required tasks are out competed by other individuals with a better balance. In this case this would depend on the costs of reproducing DNA not currently being used, the costs of removing unused DNA, the benefits faster DNA reproduction, & the benefits of the availability of extra DNA information, rather duplication and subsequent mutations again.

      albdavidt in reply to Nullifidian 1 hour ago

    • You’re starting to understand the issue, and in the majority of eukaryotes the consensus is that there isn’t much if any advantage to compact genomes. The mechanism of loss for extra DNA would most likely be excision by misalignment in meiosis, but that produces one short copy and one long copy. How would nature know to select the right copy? Since shorter gametes are more likely deleterious (excision frequently is damaging), you’d need a very strong selective pressure, which has its own costs.

      Nullifidian in reply to albdavidt 2 minutes ago

    Nullifidian in reply to albdavidt 1 hour ago

  • We don’t know what the majority of DNA codes for, but for variation, you do have to have something to vary. Phenotypic variation come from recombination of available alleles in a population. New allelic variation can come from mutation or transfer. Most mutations are deleterious and in functional genes are catastrophic. A mutation in a gene that has already been duplicated allows for the original gene product to be produced while allowing variation on a duplicated version through mutation.

    albdavidt in reply to Nullifidian 34 minutes ago

    • Yes, and junk DNA does give you a lot of variation, granted, but it’s a lot of variation because none of it is under selective constraint. Sequences can be added, deleted, changed, and none of it has any effect on phenotype. If nonfunctional DNA is supposed to be a reservoir for variation, then it will rapidly degrade to the point that it can no longer encode for anything, and what possible use would that be? This is similar to the IDist notion of “front-loading” and fails for the same reasons.

      Nullifidian in reply to albdavidt 1 hour ago

    • Any amount of DNA is an area of DNA that is available for mutation. The larger the amount of DNA, the larger the area available for mutation and the larger the amount of variation possible under a given rate of mutation. Some portion of mutations are beneficial in some way to an organism. Having a larger portion of mutations available gives a larger portion of beneficial mutations and viable variations. In dynamic environments, variation in a population is important for survival.

      albdavidt in reply to Nullifidian 39 minutes ago

    • Again, none of this soul-sucking drivel in addresses what I said. “Having a larger portion of mutations available gives a larger portion of beneficial mutations and viable variations.” Only *if* those mutations are visible to selection. If they’re not, then they are not beneficial at all, but just neutral. And regions of the genome that are invisible to natural selection tend to accumulate mutations faster and without regard for how they might wreck the potential functionality of the sequence.

      Nullifidian in reply to albdavidt 4 minutes ago

      • @”Most mutations are deleterious” Prove it.

        emfederin in reply to albdavidt 1 hour ago

      • Most mutations are deleterious in that they confer reduced fitness if not outright inviability. You just have to get over the idea of a proof in science, there are proofs in mathematics but not in science. Concepts in science are supported with evidence. Most mutations are observed to reduce fitness or produce inviability.

        albdavidt in reply to emfederin 1 hour ago

      • @”Most mutations are deleterious in that they confer reduced fitness if not outright inviability” You’re pulling that out of your ass. Most mutations are benign. I never said science has any absolute proofs. Hell, You can’t prove your parents are your parents. What YOU have to get over is that remote possibilities are somehow competitive with high probabilities.

        emfederin in reply to albdavidt 2 minutes ago

        I don’t think albdavidt has gotten as far as neutral theory, frankly. And he is being consistent–if somewhat uninquisitive. He holds that all or almost all DNA is functional, and if it were most mutations probably would be deleterious. He doesn’t ask himself, though, how any species can survive this mutational load given a genome that is (almost) entirely functional. In any case, he’s wrong about the genome having widespread function, which is one reason why most mutations are actually neutral

        Nullifidian in reply to emfederin 4 minutes ago

        If “functionality of a sequence is wrecked” and this causes lower fitness, it is selected agains, just like the majority of all mutations are, which are deleterious to an individual. More and faster deleterious mutations are selected against – more often and faster. If a mutation is beneficial to an organism, that organism has greater success than individuals without the mutation and the frequency of that mutation increases in a population.

        albdavidt in reply to Nullifidian (Show the comment) 1 minute ago

        Transposable elements splice segments of DNA in and out of a genome. They can cary part or all of a gene product coding segment of DNA. This is gene duplication. The exon duplicating and shuffling process of transposable elements allows for rapid evolution as compared to mutation alone.

        albdavidt in reply to Nullifidian 3 minutes ago

Uniformitarismo: Como fica sob a cosmovisão da Matrix/DNA

sexta-feira, setembro 14th, 2012


uniformitarismo é uma corrente de pensamento geológico idealizada por James Hutton, que é considerado o pai da geologia moderna.

Os princípios da teoria são:

Assim, James Hutton concluiu que “O presente é a chave do passado“.

As leis da natureza são constantes. O estudo dos processos geológicos atuais permite interpretar a evolução geológica, “encaixando” os registos geológicos impressos nas rochas e em suas estruturas como em um quebra-cabeças.

A teoria do uniformitarismo foi posteriormente desenvolvida por Charles Lyell e corroborada por Charles Darwin através do estudo do evolucionismo.


A versão em Inglês é mais completa:

Uniformitarianism is the assumption that the same natural laws and processes that operate in the universe now, have always operated in the universe in the past and apply everywhere in the universe. It has included the gradualistic concept that “the present is the key to the past” and is functioning at the same rates. Uniformitarianism has been a key principle of geology and virtually all fields of science, but naturalism’s modern geologists, while accepting that geology has occurred across deep time, no longer hold to a strict gradualism.

Uniformitarianism was formulated by Scottish naturalists in the late 18th century, starting with the work of the geologist James Hutton, which was refined by John Playfair and popularised by Charles Lyell‘s Principles of Geology in 1830.[1] The term uniformitarianism was coined by William Whewell, who also coined the term catastrophism for the idea that the Earth was shaped by a series of sudden, short-lived, violent events.[2]


Versão da Matrix/DNA

Desde que essa teoria nasceu dentro da geologia e mais especificamente da geologia da Terra ela está correta em relação ã Terra, mas errada em relação à noção de que as leis da natureza são constantes. A Terra é parte do Sistema Solar, o qual, em relação ao Universo,  é o mesmo que os átomos são em relação ao corpo humano. A forma dos átomos são fixas, não evoluem mais, porem eles formam células, as quais continuam mudando. E as células do corpo humano são como as galaxias do Universo. Então como átomo do Universo nos dias de hoje as leis naturais que regem o sistema solar são praticamente constantes ( o que faz mudar o estado e forma dos sistemas estelares é o normal funcionamento do ciclo vital primitivo (nascimento, maturação, degeneração), mas os sistemas estelares e as galaxias do passado foram regidas por leis sob evolução, e não constantes.

O Espirito de Adão (Feito por Deus) Errou e Seu Offspring Caiu Na Sôpa Terrestre de Onde se Levantou Como o Adão Terrestre ?

quarta-feira, setembro 12th, 2012

Mud does not appear in the bible, but clay does as a parable. Adam was made from the dust of the earth and after the flood,the rain turned the dust int the clay.? The clay would be the offspring of Adam if you were to plug in the code.

RiddleforChristmas in reply to ergonomover 16 hours ago

Este post é incrivelmente encaixado na minha interpretação da parabola de Adão e Eva!

Observações da Saúde da Minha Mente e Racionalidade da Matrix/DNA: Texas sharpshooter fallacy

quarta-feira, setembro 12th, 2012

Texas sharpshooter fallacy:


The Texas sharpshooter fallacy is a logical fallacy in which pieces of information that have no relationship to one another are called out for their similarities, and that similarity is used for claiming the existence of a pattern.[1] This fallacy is the philosophical/rhetorical application of the multiple comparisons problem in statistics, and apophenia in cognitive psychology. It is related to the clustering illusion, which refers to the tendency in human cognition to interpret patterns in randomness where none actually exist.

The name comes from a joke about a Texan who fires some shots at the side of a barn, then paints a target centered on the biggest cluster of hits and claims to be a sharpshooter.

VER mais…

Mas observar isto:

The Texas sharpshooter fallacy often arises when a person has a large amount of data at their disposal, but only focuses on a small subset of that data. Random chance may give all the elements in that subset some kind of common property…

Então surge o problema: Quem realmente está selecionando dados e descartando outros dirigido por prévias intenções? Eu, Stephen Hawking, ou ambos?

Lista de Problemas Para o Modêlo Astronomico Acadêmico:Paradoxo do jovem Sol fraco

terça-feira, setembro 11th, 2012 _  O paradoxo do jovem Sol fraco ou problema descreve a contradição aparente entre observações de água líquida no início da história da Terra, e a predição astrofísica de que o brilho do Sol na época era de apenas 70% em relação ao presente, insuficiente para manter água no estado líquido em condições terrestres do presente. Este problema foi mencionado por Carl Sagan e George Mullen em 1972. Melhores explicações na versão inglêsa:

Faint young Sun paradox

(Google this name)


Ver tambem:

Age of the earth

101 evidences for a young age of the earth and the universe


The Decay in the Speed of Light and the truth about Red Shift

Junk-DNA: Atualizações de informações Sôbre esta área que pode provar os ancestrais sugeridos pela Matrix/DNA

segunda-feira, setembro 10th, 2012

The Week

The secret purpose of ‘junk DNA’: A guide

Scientists discover that a mysterious swath of our genome contains millions of switches that can mean the difference between John Doe and Usain Bolt



Ver interessante artigo:


Most of what you read was wrong: how press releases rewrote scientific history

Repeating myths may make good stories, but it breeds confusion. See the ENCODE news.

– – – – – – – – – — –  –

Vídeo extenso, completo, muito bom sobre Junk DNA, sob a perspectiva criacionista baseada no Encode Project:

Reasons to Believe

Dr. Fuz Rana reports on phase 2 of the Encode project, biochemical research that he calls the most important of his lifetime.

Luz e o Código da Vida: Relampagos Covertem Frequencias de Fótons para Gamma-Ray Gerar Biológicos?

sexta-feira, setembro 7th, 2012

Há 3,5 bilhões de anos atrás, a nua superficie da Terra estava pronta para a semeadura da Vida. Enquanto isso o Sol emitia para o espaço as ondas de energia de sua primeira interna camada que contem a ultima frequencia do espectro eletro-magnético, a qual é a mai baixa frequencia da luz ( ondas de rádio), como se fôssem radiações de cadáveres de um espectro. Ao se aproximarem da Terra e suas primeiras camadas atmosféricas, êstes “cadáveres” eram decompostos em seus fragmentos, os fótons. Fótons quase mortos adentravam nuvens pesadas, carregadas de vapor dágua, e ao penetrarem átomos de hidrogênio transferiam sua pouca energia para elétrons, que escapavam do cativeiro dentro de átomos. No intenso campo magnético destas nuvens êstes elétrons brincavam celebrando sua liberdade e se aceleravam até quase à velocidade da luz. Ora, nêste estado limitrofe da manifestação dêste mundo material, estes elétrons se encontravam com as particulas que anunciam o novo inicio dessa manifestação, que são os pósitrons, constituintes da antimatéria análoga aos elétrons. Nêste encontro entre matéria e anti-matéria as duas se anulam e se transformam em …LUZ! A luz recem-nascida sempre emerge primeiro na sua frequencia de raios gama – o mais energizado e agitado estado da luz, como são energéticos e inquietos todos os bebês dêste mundo, dos humanos aos gatinhos – e então descia para atingir a sôpa primordial, onde seus fótons penetravam as colonias de átomos que estavam vivendo em regimes sociais massificantes e inertes, formando rochas e oceanos, numa praia qualquer. Como se fossem agentes subversivos de um regime estrangeiro, os fótons iniciavam sua missão de implantar um novo regime social atômico: “Ao invés de massas inertes, como as rochas, se conectem como os astros no céu, que são sistemas quase-vivos… E aqui na Terra, com a graça da água como solvente universal, tornem-se de fato…seres vivos!” Claro, esta embriogenese cosmológica se deu no tempo astronomico, se arrastando por milhões de anos, passo a passo, molécula a molécula, mas por fim a galaxia se levantava como a Phoenix das cinzas, na forma do primeiro sistema celular que adornou a Terra com uma frondosa cabeleireira verde e brincos de frutos amarelos. Hoje a Terra vaidosa sorri agradecida para o Cosmos, e nós, humanos, vamos salva-la da caspa que nós mesmos criamos e fazê-la ainda mais formosa.

Êste foi mais um exemplo do ciclo criador que permite o fluir da evolução. É preciso que uma velha e estanque estrutura ordenada como o sistema solar comece a se desintegrar, e o Sol, enrolado como uma cebola por camadas de diferentes densidades, começa a se desenrolar enviando as unformações de seu corpo para o espaço, como genes semi-vivos duspostos a reiniciar uma reprodução de algo mais evoluido. A morte do velho implica no nascimento do novo.

Veja agora nas duas figuras abaixo e na figura da Luz segundo a nossa versão, os fundamentos desta mais nova descoberta que estamos realizando hoje. E vamos pensar numa maneira de testar cientificamente esta teoria, vamos sonhar com que alguns cientistas nos escutem e se animem à porem seus recursos cientificos a trabalharem nestas experiencias. Os gráficos foram publicados em:


The Evolution of a Scientific American Information Graphic: Gamma-Ray Flashes

By Jen Christiansen | September 6, 2012 |

Cientistas tem suspeitado que descargas elétricas como os relampagos teriam iniciado a Vida em uma sôpa primordial. Enquanto isso a Teoria da Matrix/DNA me levou recentemente a suspeitar que ondas de Luz natural, através de sua divisão em sete diferentes frequencias, carrega o código da Vida e ao adentrar qualquer massa ou matéria inerte ela agita e imprime seu código de maneira que a matéria inicia a abiogenese. Hoje me deparo com mais uma informação e muito bem ilustrada em gráfico animado que imediatamente me levou a adicionar mais peças no quebra-cabeças da abiogeneses. Vejamos os gráficos:

Light: Relampagos com Fótons em Gamma Ray -  Brian Despain's final illustration

Light: Relampagos com Fótons em Gamma Ray - Brian Despain's final illustration

Light: Relampagos de Fótons em Gamma Ray Brian Despain's final illustration2

Light: Relampagos de Fótons em Gamma Ray Brian Despain's final illustration2 (clique na imagem)

Cientistas concordam que raios gama terrestres provavelmente envolvam cascatas de elétrons que, uma vez tirados de seus átomos, aceleram até próximo a velocidade da luz nos intensos campos magnéticos dentro das nuvens com trovoadas. Então, quando êstes elétrons atingem os nucleos dos átomos do ar na atmosfera, êles liberam fótons de raios gama. Mas para explicar a energia dos fótons – a qual é comparavel àquelas das esplosões estelares – algum adicional desconhecido mecanismo deve estar influenciando. Na hipótese chamada “retro-alimentação relativistica” (relativistic feedback) – `a esquerda – alguns dos raios gama geram nova matéria –  pares de particulas consistindo de um elétron e um pósitron, que é a antimatéria análoga ao elétron. Porque os pósitrons tem carga elétrica oposta aos elétrons, êles desceriam mais na atmosfera e disparariam novas cascatas de elétrons. Na outra hipótese, chamada “líder hipótese” – à direita – um poderoso relampago se manteria liberando novas cascatas de elétrons enquanto êle cresce desde a base de baixo da nuvem até seu tôpo.

Light - The Electric-Magnetic Spectrum by Matrix/DNA Theory

Novidades Sôbre Junk-DNA: Bits of Mystery DNA, Far From ‘Junk,’ Play Crucial Role

quinta-feira, setembro 6th, 2012

( Reler êste artigo e registrar informações)

Bits of Mystery DNA, Far From ‘Junk,’ Play Crucial Role



Published: September 5, 2012

( E lembrar esta controvérsia:  This is one area in which intelligent design, far from being a science-stopper as Darwinists often claim, actually encourages scientific endeavor. Neo-Darwinism holds that new biological information arises as the result of a process of mutational trial and error, predicting that there will be a tendency for nonfunctional DNA to accumulate in the genomes of eukaryotic organisms. The theory of intelligent design, on the other hand, predicts that most of the nonprotein coding sequences in the genome should perform some biological function. DNA – Does it disprove design?

Ninguem me “Cutuca” No Maior Debate da História que Está Acontecendo Agora No Youtube? Brasileiros! Tucuta-me…please! (2)

terça-feira, setembro 4th, 2012

(Devido êste artigo estar se tornando lento devido ao tamanho, estou uniciando este segundo capitulo como continuação do primeiro. Foram perdidos muitos posts da Matrix devido uma revisão que desapareceu do blog ( principalmente posts do dia 08))

Ultimos posts da Matrix/DNA:


> Our Earth is open as it gets heat and light form the sun! <

Except for those pesky blood worms sucking their life from volcano vents 12,000 feet down in oceanic trenches and the other creatures that have evolved to live there, right?

Nope. Those worms are getting the same kind of Sun’s energy from the earth’s nucleus coming through volcano vents. Don’t you know that the nucleus of planets are germs of new stars?


If god had any decency whatsoever, he could have at least told noah it would be okay to skip the mosquitoes. Let the fuckers drown!

God did it but the mosquitoes returned back, camouflaged, not flying, but using the stair…


“Famous fossil expert, Niles Eldredge …”

Oh? The guy who agrees with the overall theory of evolution, but claims speciation occurs via punctuated equilibrium and not via phyletic gradualism?

Sorry man, quoting quote-mines from apologetic websites is not a good idea. Bullshit always backfires.

(CONT) “Could you participate in a debate with someone that has theoretical models suggesting a hidden source producing abrupt, punctuated, mutations?”

Not very well, but I could. Although, I don’t see the point. Debate is not empirical evidence. If you have any empirical evidence that confirms a ‘hidden source’, by all means present it. If not, then no amount of debate will provide any truth to the matter.

Thanks. Debate does not provide truth but changing informations and having our theories under anothers’ scrutiny help us to fix those errors we make in the connections of data, I think. You said about Niles: “apologetic website”. You means that he is defending a position (religious ?) through the systematic use of information. But how do you think if instead the “God of the gaps” acting over the evolution, suddenly we find a “not-known yet” natural material structure acting over evolution?

Without empirical evidence, all options are only speculation.

Even the amount of all empirical evidences seen at Earth’s surface are not enough for a final scientific statement that biological evolution have been driven only by the three mechanisms known as VSI – Variation, Selection, Inheritance. Human’s Science is made by humans who are inside the process of biological evolution, part of it, and the final statement must be made for an outside observer ( even an human at other space’time), or repeating the process in lab. Do you agree?


Yep, He did. And when He did the earth was in a state where lions could lay down with lambs. but that’s not the state of the earth anymore.

And what lions ate in that time? Melons and lettuce? But…but… then, why God design lions with those big teeth? And which mechanism God designed for control the super-population of lambs without predators? If you haven’t thought these real problems and has no rational answers, your hypothesis were made by shorts thoughts and couldn’t be elevated to the status of a theory…


God doesn’t engineer the “bad”, but rather man did with the original sin. In other words, the earth is in a fallen state. A good way of looking at this is to think of hell, the way I see it is that hell was not created as a place of torment, but rather a place that was neglected of any of God’s goodness. The bible says every good thing comes from above, so if it’s not good then it’s not from above. Satan was given dominion over the earth as man decided to follow him. (out of room)

To philosophers here, let’s try to understand how was hard-wired this brain?

Biosphere shows carnage and this carnage produced Humanity, in which there is the emergence of “intelligence”. The majority of this intelligence are prey, victim of this carnage, a minority play the predator and seems to be comfortable with the rules of carnage. The majority dreams with a utopia of a perfect world, under something like a God. Now every fact is forced to fit in this utopia. Can you elaborate this?


Churches for Atheists? Come back after you get educated on what a atheist is.

You are Atheist to hundreds of gods and goddesses. Why would you need a church not to disbelieve in Isis?

If atheism is a religion, then abstinence is a sex position.

Let’s compose the oration of Atheist Church? Some suggestions:

” My lovely creator Nothing beyond the Big Bang: let be Your will In the dark energy and the Higgs Field. Please, protect ours ancestors Adam Orangutan and Even Chimpanzee and our banana of each day give us today ( a little bit of Milles/ Urey soup also will be welcome). Give us a radiometric longlife in light/years and a playgame full of randomness. Vote in Bill Nye for President!


just out of curiosity question,what is a “sin”?on what basis is “sin” defined?is there a defined system for that?if there is,how is it different from how government makes laws?

The biblical sin is registered in genes and human memory. Who fell in this Earth was the photons-genes produced by entropy of biosphere’s creator – this astronomical systems – in which the bi-lateral symmetric flows of energy ( spirits of Adam, Eve), were deluded by pleasures and build a closed system (Paradise) which seems a serpent. Selfish gene is the inheritance as closed in itself. Here the galaxy and those spirits lift up as cells and living beings. Human memories remembered that sin.


The truth lies somewhere in between. Hard core evolutionists cannot see that they have thrown the baby out with the bathwater, by rejecting the idea of a Higher Intelligence behind the synchronisation of living tissue and the solar spectrum. They foolishly believe that belief in a Higher Intelligence would mean that they believe in the Biblical God. The Higher Intelligence responsible for life on Earth is not the same volcanic, angry God of the Old Testament.

You have a good point. If my theoretical models has something right, atheists evolutionists really have thrown the baby out and now having this problem with ToE that are being strategically used by creationists due: 1) Evidences suggests all natural systems were previous designed, naturally; 2) The mechanisms of evolution are universal and one of our ancestor, this galaxy, still drives evolution here as the Natural Selector applying mechanisms unknown to ToE; Godel’s Theorem: jump your system.


The reality is that evolution does not have all the answers for the origins for the life. There is more to life than evolution. Life has Guiding Intelligence behind it, in the same way a computer programmer and computer engineer is required to make the hardware communicate with the software. Living tissues have been intelligently guided to respond to the energy spectrum of the sun. Many people make the mistake in thinking that life comes from the God of the Bible. It does not.

You have touched intelligently good points, congratulations. As an agnostic our worldview seems very close. But, I can’t accept two names above: God of Bible and Guiding Intelligence. Try cleaning the ancient and wrong humans concepts, like “life” and see reality: biological organization of matter/energy into systems.Then look to a model of matter organized as a Newtonian building block of astronomical mechanical systems: its just the right design for “life”. The energy spectrum from the (cont)

Sun can be named light. See a model of this spectrum where the seven frequencies imprints into inertial matter motion and the shapes of vital cycles: from embryo to baby to child, till the fragmented cadaver. So, atoms, galaxies, humans are designed by light and as the seven shapes of a vital cycle of Universes.Things evolves for to build consciousness but this evolution is merely a larger process of reproduction of consciousnesses. Welcome to God, your naturalist creator. What do you think?


When you make Life in a lab,we’ll talk.

(Note:please don’t tell me Craig Venter created life.)

And when your God of the Bible teach you to make life by magic, we”ll talk ( Please don’t tell me Jesus created 5.000 fishes in the desert)

So because you don’t know how GOD (the all powerful the creator of this universe) managed to create life,then you concluded that he must be a magician?!

and why do you assume i’m a christian?!

Must be a magician because by natural means it is impossible to make a little human brain in this lost planet to know and understand what should be a God creator of this immense Universe(s). You don’t know God and telling to children that you know you are being a child-stopper in relation to the evolution of the knowledge of the Truth. Sorry but I can’t accept no human being saying how is God. Nobody never knew. You must bring your God on the table.


Atheists and Theists: There are free informations in the environment in shape of photons that answers to stimulus emitted by any tortured specie and after penetration in their genome produces those mutations that had been responsible for species diversification and survival. It is punctuation equilibrium and could be seen as previous design coming from an outsource, because the source is the building block of astronomical systems. Then, ToE and an ex-machine designer are possible… in theory.

TheMatrixDNA 1 second ago – 5:57 PM Sat – 15


Is this a big Machiavellian trick in children education? Brazillian-American philosopher fighting in Brazil for this thesis: “The reason of the astounding inertia and ignorance seen in the big mass of low class about the absurd flaws and biases in the Federal Legislation and Constitution made by rich politicians, is that in schools this people are educated that “laws” are something only relative to those in the Bible, the Laws of God, while is hidden the origins of laws as Social Contract. So?

If God was democratic. elections of gods and angels by humans should be normal. Demons too could participate, do you agree?


Silly Willy Nye implies that no scientific advances can be made unless we believe in the darwin monkey cult. He’s a liar and I can prove it. Isaac Newton never heard of evolution, yet he is known as “the greatest and most influential scientist who ever lived.” Even more, Newton believed in the bible! Isaac Newton invented the optical reflecting telescope (used on the Hubble space station), described universal gravitation, discovered the three laws of motion, and much more. Silly Willy lies!!!

Why are lying again? Newton main philosophical interests were about esoteric and occultism. He leaves lots of handwritten papers about. You did something with Einstein yesterday pulling him to Christianism when I informed you that the interview with the Einstein’s housekeeper revealed that “Secret Doctrine” and “Schimeon Ben Jochai”, the founder of all esoteric groups, were the books at the side of his bed all time. Please, when saying that, bring documents.

  • And why are you lying? You know as well as I do that Newton read the bible and he wrote a lot of documents about bible prophecies. It’s also a fact that Albert Einstein attended the 9th Christian Science Church in NYC and he read their book “Science and Health.” I suppose you’re dumb enough to be a certified member of the darwin monkey cult, so either your IQ is below average or you have been trained in perpetrating frauds for the darwin monkey cult. Pitiful.

    That’s stupid! It is not me trying to pull Einstein and Newton to one side, it is you! But if you want do it, do it honestly. If you mention the behavior of one scientists in relation to Christianity, and is known he was studying other religions also, it’s your moral obligation mention all them? Or the Christian morals are selective and discriminatory? And for your sake: I am remembering the right history here because all my life I have been a slave in a majority Christian nation, no Darwin.

  • Agnostic Philosophy:

    Who came first: the chicken or the egg?

    We are tired of learning that everything comes in pairs: if there is cold, there is hot, if particle, there is anti-particle. If there is this universe, there is the anti-universe. This universe begins when the other finishes for beginning this that will finish for begin the other… Chicken, egg, universes, does not care that humans says they are posing a question. Good. If one day our brain solve this last question, it will die.

  • Our life makes sense in this two universes? Yes, but understand this way: there is the hot water of the river coming from South America entering the ocean and going to the cold North Pole. But the hot water is transformed at the middle and never arrive to North Pole as hot. Samething when coming back as ice. The water never “die” so never is born. It is Eternal. Same for us as matter in this material universe and as energy in the energetic anti-universe. And I don’t care about your questions too


This man’s stupid!! Who the hell created man then?? Apes??? May god have mercy on this poor bastard…

  • Who created man was the Milk Way, through a soup with the right ingredients. Her intention was to make a statue with her image, but the Milk Way is a disaster in the kitchen, I already told her “go out from here!” but she never hear me…

    Who? And where else did man come from if not a common ancestor with the apes?

    Not  Published… of course… It depends. Some of them seems come from a commom ancestor with asinines…wait, I am talking about Sadhan Hussein, Hitler. The Pope Benedict sometimnes, when he is smalling remember me a poltry, but no, the ancestor with poltries is another Benedict…


  • Apparent contradictions that can be explained by people who actually study the scriptures are not contradictions. I guess it only works if you want to take the first step: believe. I guess you need to make that choice. Take care!

  • “study the scriptures are not contradictions. I guess it only works if you want to take the first step: believe.”

    Ok, boss. I will read Harry Potter, I want believe in it, everything that people and the evidences of this my little world will say that are not real, they are “contradictions”, I will not hear…do you think it will work for me?


  • Correct. But if you read it correctly, Adam “from the dust of the ground” happened AFTER the 7th day. Because “there was not found a man to till the ground.” The hominids were hunter-gatherers, not farmers. Yes, Adam and Eve were formed just the way the bible says they were. But there were hominids before them.

  • bagyourface : Maybe you are prepared for to be a new light for us. Your interpretation is the most next to what I found by other method – comparative anatomy between living and non-living systems. This method suggests the picture of the link between then, a half-living and half/non-living being. It happens, for my surprise, that all symbols in the Garden of Eden, the fall and risen of life here, is seen in that picture. Adam, serpent, apple.. But it is an astronomical system !What do you think?


  • the law of biogenesis states that living matter can only come from living matter. evolution must have an origin. If living matter cannot come from non living matter, evolution cannot begin. and i’ll save you the headache. biogenesis is still accepted by the scientific commuty so if you’re going to respond please keep that in mind.

  • Matt, we have new models and theories that advances towards the solution to this puzzle. We are discovering that life was produced by and inside an astronomical system, which has its building blocks, which is the same configuration of nucleotides, the building blocks of DNA. All life’s properties were existing in that astronomical system, so, it is not alive. Life is a wrong word and had no origins of life, everything is results of a continuum development (evolution) from Big Bang.

  • And there was no abiogenesis. The long time for formation of the first cell system is the period of normal astronomical embryogenese. The mutations occurred here from the Newtonian watch into biological systems was due astronomical systems were made with two states of matter – gaseous and solid – without chemical reactions, and its reproductive result here was developed in an environment with new state – the liquid – which brought the novelty of organic chemistry. Don’t forget: it is theory.


  • ok first of all BILL, if there was no creativity, then how to you expect the world to move on, because all the technology we have now was based on an idea, based on a thought, and was made by someone who is vary creative! Even if it has to do with science everyone is creative! Everyone has their own hopes an dreams! And seriously, half the crap you use I bet you wouldnt have unless someone was creative! How would you expect he human race to survive all these years without people advanceing?

  • And I have a few questions, How? How did the stars come to be? How can the big bang be real? How can you prove this! How could anything have happened? Eventually you will be stupmed but I wont! The answer is God! Look it up ass hole

  • hannah894545, sorry, I think you are connecting facts and events in the netter way. First of all man has been not creative, all technology is mimicking mechanisms and process seen in Nature. Something new is merely derivation of “fuzzy logic”, mixing old informations. There is no evidence for creativity in the sense you extrapolate it to supernatural things. You are prove of an initial Big Bang: the explosion of a spermatozoon envelope inside ova. All questions above can be answered.


  • Assumptions based on the Bible. He does, however, say that you have to see things for yourself, not just believe what he says. It’s impossible to know everything about God. I believe it’s one of the reasons it’s going to take us forever to get to know Him. Why else would eternity be worth living?

    What we know from the Bible is enough because it says a lot and it’s fixed: God is good and He is love. He is light. If you want science here, destroyed matter always becomes a photon (light).

  • Lol…big surprise! Now we are going to something! Do you see? We can agree and having a good conversation when we focus on facts. My question: how, from where you arrive to the conclusion that ” God is light” ? My question is due just now I am very busy researching everything about light, since my theoretical models suggested that light is the carrier that imprints the vital cycle and motion to inertial matter. But “mi light”has an unknown source. Is like you saying: God isn’t the source. (?!)

    • Also, I’d really like to spare you from a mystical view of Christianity. Spiritual reality is as part of this as our spirit is a part of us. They are one. One is invisible, other is visible. Here we’d have to go into different dimensions but that’s way too much for my knowledge. Dr Missler does an excellent job there and he points to some good resources, even non Christian ones, if you think that all Christians tend to be biased. :)

    • “Here we’d have to go into different dimensions but that’s way too much for my knowledge.” That’s your problem. For sure there are different dimensions we are not perceiving it but you stops and says: too much for my knowledge. Do you know why. It is because you says “spirits is, Christ is..” No Dario, we don’t know what it is and different dimensions will be reached by us if a kind of science-stopper like the Bible and its produced convictions does not stop us.

      • I was telling you the facts before also. Light is a strange thing and science will, I suppose, never really touch the core of it’s nature. God is light, in what the Bible says, shouldn’t be interpreted in an opposite direction. That’s one of the fallacies of science (and of all of us in every day life tbh), that because A=B we suppose B=A. Should be in a sense but often it’s not. God is light but light isn’t God. He made everything according to His nature. That is the reason one other verse says

      • ‘God is light but light ins’t God”. That’s makes sense. Light could be the tentacles of God that reaches our human dimension, but God is not its tentacles, it is something else. That makes sense facing my recent research where light seems to be the carrier for the code of life and all natural systems. But my calculations are suggesting it seems that this light is coming as waves emitted from a kind of quantum vortex ex-machine. What i call “Vortex” you call “God”. No problem for me.

        • Bible isn’t a science stopper. You may disbelieve it if you want to. I’m not gonna say much more. You used my lack of knowledge to disprove the Bible? That further proves your inability to think critically. Bible is always true, those who read it aren’t perfect. You can call God vortex or whatever but by removing Him you will not get any different treatment that all else who disobey. We will be judged by how much light we reject. Repent and believe the Gospel. I really can’t say anything else.

        • Sorry, I don’t know the quality of your knowledge, so, I can’t find lacks in it and use it. We will be judged here at Earth. Natural selection will selects those that will find the secrets and powers of natural light and discards those that are rejecting the research due thinking it is supernatural. Just now natural selection is selecting to better welfare those that are applying more science. Repent and believe in the power of human mind, I can’t say anything else. The Vortex bless you!


  • My qualifications are that I’ve actually studied the subject of evolution. I began in high school, with high quality texts (like “Evolution: An Oxford Reader” by Mark Ridley (ed.) and “Evolution” by Dobzhansky, Ayala, Valentine, and Stebbins). Then I studied it in college as an undergraduate working on my degree (with an emphasis in biochemistry and cell biology, but taking classes on population genetics, evolution, etc.) and now I’m at work on my doctorate with an emphasis in biophysics.

  • ” I’m at work on my doctorate with an emphasis in biophysics.” It is possible that you have a great opportunity for fixing some things in neo-Darwinian theory. We can’t show the ultimate evidences proving the diversification of species from a common ancestor due Toe is not complete. Toe is based in three variables – VSI: Variation, Selection, Inheritance. But my personal research suggested seven variables, four being from systems’ thermodynamic physics that rules cosmological evolution. Think..


  • ABIOGENESIS DEFINITION FROM MERRIAM-WEBSTER: the supposed spontaneous origination of living organisms directly from lifeless matter


  • Hey I missed this before. you said :

    “ALL THINGS INCLUDING THESE ONCE TAUGHT TO SPONTANEOUSLY CREATE LIFE “i.e. maggots on bio-waste, mice in dark places, fruit flies from fruit, bacteria and germs from air, frogs and turtles from underground” IS NOT ABIOGENESIS. “

    Woohoo! You finally get it! Pasteur’s experiments did not disprove abiogenesis.

    How long did that take? Well done for figuring it out in the end anyway.

  • Could us to debate this issue? I think that Pasteur’s experiment did disprove abiogenesis. His conclusion is resumed in “vitalism”: (Omne vivum ex vivo “all life is from life”). And abiogenesis is:

    ABIOGENESIS DEFINITION FROM MERRIAM-WEBSTER: the supposed spontaneous origination of living organisms directly from lifeless matter.

    But… since that life did not come by magic, and could not came from non-life, where it came from?

    • Your concept of abiogenesis has been debunked many times by many people here including myself. M-W for want of room cannot go into all the steps of it but if you bother to read more you can find out for yourself. It is called research. Why do you keep bringing it up?

    • You don’t know my concept about abiogenesis, which are derived from models and theories that you don’t know. I merely repeated the currently concepts. Anything about facts other than concepts? Thanks.

      • Actually I think I have had enough of debating this particular issue.

        Look at Pasteur’s actual experiments, it’s not hard to figure out.

      • I know the Pasteur’s experiments 30 years ago and I hadn’t enough of debating/researching this issue because nobody solved it yet. Figuring it now is a big mistake. But I respect you, enough is enough, thanks.

  • I already told you. Your problem are your lusts that make you despise God, not your lack of knowledge. The Bible is perfect and it’s not a hypothesis. If you don’t want it, don’t take it. Your choice. Jesus is the Lord!

  • I don’t take it, never! Your problem as you said: “for those who don’t believe in God they want to follow their own lusts and worldly passions, which make them want to push God from their minds and knowledge. They can repent or argue their way into hell. Period.”

    The Bible was writing by people under foreign king, being tortured, their lusts and wishes were very high, out of control. I can’t understand how in this free country you are under same lusts. I don’t want you go to hell, be safe.


  • Actually, Natural selection is a fact. The theory of evolution is in no way a fact. It actually does require belief to infer that Natural selection drives evolution, because it takes millions of years (supposedly). The key difference, is Natural selection is observed, the origin of life from a single cell was not observed. Most scientists don’t recognize the difference because they haven’t been trained in philosophical thinking. To claim they are the same requires belief.

  • I think you are pretty right. Congratulations. We can elaborates theories about what was not observed and was not reproduced in lab. We have nowadays two main theories: neo-Darwinian evolutionism and Christian creationism. How to deal with this conflict? Searching and adding evidences, increasing lab experiments, and Christians asking the second return of God. Human beings are inside the life’s process, and nobody inside a process can know its truth. Matrix/DNA theory tried leave and…Eureka!


  • I’m going to go to bed now for work in the morning. I will try to respond in the weekend. Let’s assume there is evidence for organism populations changing over time. Organism 1001 was observed to change into 1002. We expect (assume) that both came from organism 1 because it looks that way (1, 2,…, 1001). But the only reason we think that is because 1001 produced 1002. But it all assumes that there was never another expected pattern (i.e. creator) that we haven’t factored in.

  • But… but…My Dog! If I am seeing the process by which 1001 produced 1002, why the hell I would not apply the same process for calculating how 1000 produced 1001?! And the same process when inferring how 1 produce 2? Why suddenly in the middle of this rational calculation I should escape to the reign of fantasies, appealing to different imagined process never saw?!

    Ok. You can ask: That’s not work because you can’t apply the same process how 0 produced 1. See how Matrix/DNA solved it easy


  • But in the end, we both interpret the evidence from certain a prior i positions. In these posts, time and time again, evolutionists deny that the evidence can be interpreted in any other way than in favour of evolution. The arguments by PhD biologists who propose creation as a valid concept are discounted as religiously conditioned. Any reference to them by creationists with less expertise is ridiculed. As you have access to this information, there is no point in me trying to address it here.

  • And the arguments by PhD biologists who propose evolution as a valid concept are discounted by creationists as atheism. So, we have a conflict about the foundations of our human and Universe existence. When I think about the vastness of billions of galaxies and the relativistic microscope size of my brain, I give out the search and beliefs in those first causes for having more time to research the past gradually. No religions, no beliefs: no conflicts. I don’t want conflicts to my children.


  • What the Bible says for those who don’t believe in God is that they do, but they want to follow their own lusts and worldly passions, which make them want to push God from their minds and knowledge. It’s that simple. They can repent or argue their way into hell. Period.

  • My Dog! These people can’t understand that denying the Bible is not denying the hypothesis of God?!!

    The Bible is a book tells the history and mythology of ancient and foreign people far away from my world here in America. Why I should prefer a foreign book than those talking about America’s history, and at least, about our ancestors in Europe, since that they describes such different worlds ?! Our life’s experiences never saw a God, our histories never registered the action of Gods. OK?


  • Don’t forget the naturalist’s assumption: uniformitarianism. You can’t apply something we know about things today to things (infinitely) reaching back into the past without assuming things have always been the same. That assumption denies that any God or God-like being was capable of influencing the past. In terms of belief and bias, it is no less flawed than religion.

  • That’s controversial. Accordingly Matrix/DNA Theory, uniformitarianism is right about Earth and stellar systems today, but wrong in relation to the past. An analogy: the human body is composed by atoms ( stellar systems in relation to the Universe); atoms composes cells ( galaxies in relation to Universe). Atoms are not under evolution anymore ( and stellar systems idem), but cells still can evolves. There are constant laws ( that’s the idea of geologist James Hutton) and laws under evolution.


But let’s not be so crude to put it on par with a theory of things in the present. The controversial element to evolution is the historical theory suggesting all life had a common ancestor. That is not something you can test today. You can learn about things today and make certain assumptions about the past, but many of those assumptions start with assuming things have never changed drastically. But if God exists, it is not reasonable to make that assumption. Don’t pretend this is about science.

  • “That is not something you can test today”.

    There is a possibility that we will be able to find the common ancestor with the advance of astronomy. But, then, ToE will be so changed that will be non recognizable in the new knowledge. It is happen that human beings are trying to figure out the process of evolution from the perspective of human beings, who are inside the process, then, can’t know the truth about evolution. The Matrix/DNA Theory is the first attempt and see how it changes ToE .


In this world everything breaks down. Nothing can build and structure itself, this is a simple fact. Even with an immense amount of aimless, rouge energy it does not happen. Imagine putting all the ingredients of a cake into a bag and shaking the bag for millions of years. Will you ever get a cake? Answering “yes, eventually.” is as misleading as saying that God disapproves of contraceptives, which is scripturally false. I see people bringing up the Bible but I don’t see many direct quotes.

NOT PUBLISHED: By other side, in this world everything is product of a long chain of causes, effects, causes, etc. Never nobody known saw some kind of magics. Then we have a big puzzle: if evidences suggests that neither creationists nor atheists’ solution are appropriate, which is the solution?! No closing my mind choosing one wrong solution above, and continuing searching for. Agnosticism: I don’t know the solution, I am watching both viewpoints, but I am watching the evidences and trying another alternative – 2:17 am – Fri – 14


Mutations are spontaneous, therefore new information is spontaneous.

Most new information is bad and gets tossed.

Some is not bad and gets passed on.

Some is good and gets passed on more often.

There is nothing but accident to remove new information.

Once the new information has been distributed through reproduction, it takes a lot more accidents to eliminate it.

NOT PUBLISHED : “Mutations are spontaneous, therefore new information is spontaneous.”

How did you get this information? For proving it you need show all information in this Universe before your “new information” emerged, for me checking if it is really new information.Your statement is not scientific, it is not falsiable, although a possible hypothesis. I am telling that because my theoretical models are suggesting that each natural informations has a manifested quantum and this Universe can not creates information from nothing.Ok?

“Mutations are spontaneous, therefore new information is spontaneous.”
For proving it you need show all information in this Universe before your “new information” emerged, for me checking if it is really new information.Your statement is not scientific, it is not falsiable, although a possible hypothesis. I am telling that because my theoretical models are suggesting that each natural
informations has a manifested quantum and this Universe can not creates information from nothing.Ok?


  • Really? A population of 7 billion diverse people stemming from a single couple makes sense without evolution? How do we have different races of humans if they didn’t evolve and everyone came from the same two people?

    If everything requires a creator then who created god?

    Wilbey Burns in reply to MoralDecay (Show the comment) 51 seconds ago in playlist More videos from bigthink

  • I am searching an answer long time ago: what or who created the process of evolution?! If you have any idea, I will appreciate. I mean: which were and where, in the non-living state of the world before life’s origins, the natural forces that could develop to nowadays evolution process? The mechanisms of cosmological evolution’s theories does not explain it. Evolution must be a process because only happens if occurs three variables at same time: Variation, Selection, Inheritance. Ok?

    TheMatrixDNA in reply to Wilbey Burns 1 second ago


  • How pithy. The way I see it evolutions champions are those who finds ways to cooperate, to work symbiotically. Nature works this way too! Murderous dictators don’t need any food. They are the way they are with no help from Darwin.

    I have a request: Could you keep the word salad to a minimum? I doubt anyone (myself included) understands anything you are saying.

    ExtantFrodo in reply to TheMatrixDNA (Show the comment) 55 minutes ago

  • Then you should ask to Max Plank and Einstein to keep the word salad to a minimum the first time they introduced their world vision and don’t was able to understand/ believing in it? I have other request: where are in the non-living systems, ancestors of living systems, the natural forces that evolved to a point creating the phenomena seen here called “prey/predator”? I said it is seen in systemic non-living circuit and you says it is word salad… what comfortable!

    TheMatrixDNA in reply to ExtantFrodo 1 second ago


  • No my case was this world is complex therefore there must be an architect to design it. If I told you a computer just evolved you would call me crazy and be right to. Yet the way our bodies work is even more complex than a computer and you say it happened by chance. This world, this Universe operates to well together for it to have happened by chance.

    Ryuyari in reply to Onithyr (Show the comment) 1 hour ago

  • I think your logic is almost right. A quick look to complexity leads me suspecting of a previous design and not chance. But you are forgetting the horribles scenes seen in this world which points to a bad design, absence of it, or chance alone. The results of comparative anatomy between living and non-living system suggests a third alternative: this Universe is composed by software+hardware that evolves by feed-back from a natural non-intelligent previous and ex-machine design, the Matrix/DNA.

    TheMatrixDNA in reply to Ryuyari 1 second ago – 4:31 PM, Thursday, 13


The Best Post for Matrix/DNA

science is not only about experimental observation but of testing hypotheses which can be done without a lab or experiments. You test a hypothesis by making a prediction then seeing if the prediction is accurate. As long as you don’t get wrong answers your hypothesis holds true. Google Richard Feynman on the scientific method

ExtantFrodo in reply to bradandnicole (Show the comment) 2 hours ago


  • Neo-Evos believe that from a tiny speck of inorganic, self-created matter, human consciousness and moral sensitivity evolved. That is utterly ludicrous; can a rock decide to think? Can a proton feel guilt? The notion that morality has developed merely as a survival factor is asinine in the extreme. Plants have survived; do they possess a moral code? And what if one decides that he doesn’t care about the survival principle? Can he do any “wrong”? Please keep sputtering. I’m enjoying the laugh.

    tarm778 in reply to TheHigherVoltage (Show the comment) 17 hours ago

  • You need to learn how the pieces of any natural system holds together. Included non-biological systems shows forces that were the primitive blueprints for morality. In closed systems, which is extremely selfish, all pieces are system’s prisoners but they are comfortable as such because they are protected. Then, every piece is altruist in relation to a selfish system, this altruism in matter becomes morality in humans. See the model of closed systems in Matrix/DNA and you will understand.

    TheMatrixDNA in reply to tarm778 1 second ago


  • It’s the lion’s using the least energy to catch the slower deer that selects the faster deer as winners who get to reproduce.

    It’s the predator not using more energy than needed that is satisfied with the easy to see prey that leaves the camouflaged ones to breed their tricks

    You think it doesn’t work, but it does

    ExtantFrodo in reply to bibleblvr39 (Show the comment) 2 hours ago

  • That’s a sample of my fear about the morals that arises from ToE. You are describing the horrendous act of lions, under the slogan “how Nature works”. I think this is food for murders dictators. Its OK to be predator as the real world is showing.But, ToE is only half process of evolution, the half-face of chaos. Prey/predators is the chaotic reproduction error from the deep mechanism of vital cycles, like yours: you, adult, have “eated” you as child and this prior shape does not reproduces.

    TheMatrixDNA in reply to ExtantFrodo 1 second ago


  • Where did Albert Einstein spend his spare time? Inside a Christian Science reading room, where he read the book “Science and Health with Keys to the Scriptures” by MBE. This is what Silly Willy Nye won’t tell you, because he’s afraid you might become smarter than him.

    Angela Pearce 1 hour ago

  • Everybody now want to pull Einstein to their side. I have read that the housekeeping of Einstein’s house said in a interview the first book Einstein kept at the side of his bed was untitled: “The Secret Doctrine”, by Blavatsky. In fact is curious how the cosmology talks about cosmic vortexes which leads one to thinking something like black holes, so on. Should be good Jesus coming back resuscitating Einstein for him pointing out who is telling the truth is me, with my Matrix/DNA Theory..hehe..

    TheMatrixDNA in reply to Angela Pearce 1 second ago – 2:56 PM – Thursday, 13


Actually we know the process of replication with errors, and selection of those error based on suitability DOES “organize itself upwards in complexity”, and it has been observed. I can even show you a video on youtube if you like.

narco73 in reply to bibleblvr39 (Show the comment) 1 hour ago

I got it! Evolution IS a Blind Watchmaker

Take a watch

smash it with a hammer

put the pieces in a box

shake it around

open the box

and see what you get.

The problem with this ID argument is that if we take the astronomical Newtonian watch, smash it with entropy, put it at Earth surface, we get a beautiful cell system. At least it is what the results of my method (comparative anatomy between living and non-living systems) showed. The sky’s designer is real, but not intelligent neither magical.


Darwinian Evolution is not relevant in modern science. The premis of mutation and natural selection are relevant, but Darwinian Evolution is still based on the idea that life started on Earth. The truth is that energy evolved into sub atomic particles, and those particles evolved into mass, that mass evolved into the stars and planets and debris, and earth’s mass evolved into life.

Evolution does not start at the first signs of life. It starts at the beginning of existence.

ZennExile in reply to Travis Frazier (Show the comment) 4 minutes ago


You might be able to use the term “evolve” to explain something changing, but the theory of evolution only deals with the process of living organisms. The theory of evolution is not tied to the big bang theory, string theory, abiogenesis, ect.

No body who debates evolution uses it the way you are. If they were then the ‘evolution’ of the computer would be used as proof for evolution. Please use the term as it’s defined by 99% of people debating this.

Travis Frazier in reply to ZennExile (Show the comment) 1 minute ago

I’m not really concerned about what batshit crazy people want to fixate on.

Evolution also explains the origins of life. And in many respects stars and planets are also living entities. They consume energy, process it, grow, and die. They fit near every accepted criteria for life as we know it. And all life “EVOLVED” from our planet. Not ON IT, FROM IT. Let that sink in a little.

Pure energy is the beginning of evolution. You can’t just skip forward and draw a line.

ZennExile in reply to Atharkas (Show the comment) 1 minute ago

Zenn, we had this discussion before. In science, the scientific theory of evolution is about the diversity of life. How the first self replicating organic molecule forms is abiogenesis. How planet forms would be the nebular hypothesis. How heavy element forms would be nuclear fusion, ect, ect. You may use the term “evolution” for all of them. But in this video, it specify it is about biology.

Atharkas in reply to ZennExile (Show the comment) 27 seconds ago

Definition for theory of evolution:

Web definitions:

a scientific theory of the origin of species of plants and animals.

Notice that it’s completely different that what you are saying. The theory of evolution (the things thats debated here) is about living matter. Its that simple.

This modern human myopia about the real process of evolution reducing it to biological evolution is just the cause the neo-Darwinian theory gives room to creationists denying the theory and with reason because it is full of gaps. The stupid matter of this lost planet has not created by itself the process of evolution, it is coming since the Big Bang with the same mechanisms. If we don’t search to learn how evolution has acted over ancestors atoms and galaxies we will not understand it here.


We quit literally evolved from star formation, and subsequently planetary formation.  You can’t just skip ahead and assume a starting point.

ZennExile in reply to Travis Frazier (Show the comment) 1 minute ago

That’s great! That’s what Matrix/DNA models showed when suggesting that the universe is a kind of egg where is occurring a process of reproduction of a unique natural system, from atoms, to galaxies to human beings to… If so, this system obeys the vital cycle and there is a parameter: you can’t say the exact point when the shape of teenager ends and the adult begins. Same way: there was no origins of life.


All matter is energy.

ZennExile in reply to S1lkSole (Show the comment) 3 minutes ago

Also ‘mass’ isn’t a thing. Its a quality of matter. Matter is effected by the higgs boson field, causing matter to have mass. And no scientist says that energy evolved into particles. The term you want is coverted

Travis Frazier in reply to ZennExile (Show the comment) 2 minutes ago

So you have seen all matter, inside and outside the Universe… Ok. And energy is what? In physics, energy (Ancient Greek: ἐνέργεια energeia “activity, operation” is an indirectly observed quantity that is often understood as the ability of a physical system to do work on other physical systems. Now I have a problem: if all matter is energy, and all physics systems are made of matter, how the ability of the final product is transformed in the substance that it is made of?!


i was clearly corrected about a misunderstanding i had a bout the big bang. im sry if i offended you. but i do have one other question if u dont mind answering. i only mean to learn from my questions and the answers given.

Elisabeth Kessie in reply to ZennExile (Show the comment) 4 minutes ago

Why are you saying sorry?! Did you know who fells offended and is correcting you in a non educated way? Have you checked in the paper reviewed papers if he is telling it right? Watch my debate inquiring his theories here. That’s the problem with creationists: they believe in anyone that says talked with gods even that the talking was non logic and evidencies suggests the opposite. But don’t do the same with everybody. Asks if it is Science or theory. If is theory, ok, we like to debate theories for improving our own. If he says that is Science, is not enough. Give the ling for the paper.


I disagree. In order for the theory of evolution to remain valid, it must now include the evidence we have discovered using the LHC. Evolution doesn’t start with living organisms that we are familiar with. It starts with energy condensing and separating into ordered systems of mass.

ZennExile in reply to Travis Frazier (Show the comment) 3 minutes ago

That’s a good theory but then you need to prove that condensed energy is able to create ordered systems. Please do not confuse systems with process. My theory is suggesting that the first cause that produced the simplest ordered system was the waves of light emitted by quantuns vortexes, because we can identify in any vortex seven brute natural forces that could be the ancestors of seven properties of systems, and the seven frequencies of a light wave are the carrier of information from vortex.


The collapse of a super dense object that contained more mass than is visible with our current technology. The term used to refer to it is a singularity. New research is suggesting a singularity happens when a black hole becomes so dense that it explodes and creates a new bubble of the universe.

ZennExile in reply to S1lkSole (Show the comment) 4 minutes ago

What?! And nobody has informed the Max Planck Institut for changing his page “Fundamental Physics in Radio Astronomy” where is said: “The composition and behavior of matter in these conditions is not known. Measurements of the physical characteristics of neutron stars (mass, radius, spin frequency, moment of inertia) can constrain the equation of state of super-dense matter.” Please give me a link about who did it ( the observation and not the theoretical equation) ?


Actually we live on a rock in space that orbits a start that orbits a black hole in the spiral arm of a spiral galaxy in the middle of a galaxy cluster along an arm of a strange galactic web.

So the Big Bang has everything to do with evolution. Energy evolved into particals and particles evolved into mass. Mass evolved into life and life continues to evolve using the exact same processes.

We are all made of tiny points of energy separated by vast empty spaces.

ZennExile in reply to Travis Frazier (Show the comment) 3 minutes ago

If this is a scientific information, could you please give information where I can find the paper peer-reviewed of the lab that made energy evolving to particles till life? Did they got consciousness also?

You said: “We are all made of tiny points of energy separated by vast empty spaces” This is theoretical. My theory suggests that energy and mass are two stated derived from a primer essence: information. We are made of information.


What you prefer doesn’t matter. The evidence of black holes is clear. We have the ability to directly detect them. We can see the hyper velocity stars orbiting these super massive black holes. We can also see gravitational lensing. We can also see quasars.

There is an overwhelming amount of evidence for the existence of these super massive super dense objects and all models of physics agree with this evidence.

Learn more. It is good for you.

ZennExile in reply to TheMatrixDNA 2 minutes ago in playlist New Releases

Then, what theory you prefer doesn’t matter, either. The evidence of something in that point is clear, but not the almost supernatural ghost imagined by mathematicians, maybe leading Mathematics beyond reality. As you said we can see the effects surrounding such object, like hyper velocity stars, gravitational lensing, quasars, but when talking about black hole you did not says we can see it, you said “we can detect…” . A simple vortex caused by galactic rotation could produces all that effects. Learn others theories also, it is good for you.


  • Your in fantasy world right now, “the doppler effect has all but proven the big bang”

    Wow….. what a statement!

    Forget it, believe what you want, fight for what you think, debate to win, argue to be on top for the moment, prevail, survival of the fittest right!

    Just one little thing, your are very wrong and the judgment of a holy God is coming upon this world and when the so called science you profess is useless to cover your sin who/what will you turn to then?

    cto511987 in reply to Roons5858 (Show the comment) 3 minutes ago

  • “Just one little thing, your are very wrong and the judgment of a holy God is coming upon this world”

    Wow….. what a statement! Have you talking with God recently? By telephone or cosmic telepathy?

    Your in fantasy world right now.

    Forget it, believe what you want, fight for what you think, debate to win, argue to be on top for the moment, prevail, survival of the fittest right!

    TheMatrixDNA in reply to cto511987 1 second ago 11:11 PM Wed, 12


  • Its overwhelming and mentally stressful to even think about though. I fully understand how people are driven to religion in order to calm their minds. The more I learn, the less I understand, and the more overwhelmed I become.

    Knowing the universe is vast beyond any possible figment of my imagination just shrinks my sense of self down to the point of a pinhead and takes a big crap on it. But I have to keep trying to learn more. That is my imperative and no religion involves learning.

    ZennExile in reply to TheTexanCanadian (Show the comment) 1 minute ago in playlist New Releases

  • I knew a factual experience that’s a good hope for us, overwhelmed. Living at Amazon jungle by seven years I watched how natives reacts at the first time they see a car’s motors or a picture of a cell. They get impressively confused, becoming more confused while you explain those things. Finally happens something in their minds ( maybe the discovery of a pattern) which makes them understand everything, and the complex becomes the simplest. We must go further hoping for this point.

    TheMatrixDNA in reply to ZennExile 1 second ago –


The Truth is neither creationism, nor Darwinian macro-evolutionism. We are discovering now the origins of life and biological evolution were guided by a previous design, which is the building block of astronomical systems, which has vital cycle and all properties of life in mechanic fashion. It is the responsible for lots of new species. But the design is coming from the Big Bang, naturally, so without intelligence. The source is beyond the Universe, we don’t know what’s it. Matrix/DNA Theory

TheMatrixDNA 1 second ago – 955 PM – Wed 12

  • The big bang is an over simplified opinion. It is widely accepted but it is still an opinion. We are finding new reasons to theorize that there was no big bang in the sense that everything started from a singularity.

    It is becoming far more likely with every cosmic discovery, that what we can see of the universe using the most advanced deep field telescopes, is comparable to what we could see of the moon 500 years ago.

    We may only inhabit a nat’s ass sized piece of the universe.

    ZennExile in reply to TheMatrixDNA (Show the comment) 4 minutes ago in playlist New Releases

  • I should use the words “the central point at the beginnings” instead Big Bang? I think the problem is about the interpretations of the event in the beginnings. The name “Big Bang”was coiled from the perspective of Physics and pass on to the public the idea of “explosion” as seen physically. But our body also began with a physical explosion ( the abrupt rupture of spermatozoon’s envelope inside ova) which was a biological event but from Physicists perspective was an explosion. Wrong?

    TheMatrixDNA in reply to ZennExile 1 second ago – 10:00 PM Wed, 12

    • There is no reason to believe the Big Bang is the beginning of existence. Black holes devour each other and keep growing. If a Black Hole becomes large enough, what do you think would happen? I think a very big explosion of material that could create an entire new region of the universe while at the same time pushing the existing region outward so far and so fast that we could no longer see it.

      ZennExile in reply to TheMatrixDNA (Show the comment) 53 seconds ago in playlist New Releases

    • I think the Big Bang theory is a possibility due two factors: 1) The universe is under expansion which suggests a starting central point; 2) It is proved that Nature produces new bodies from microscope “central points” which grows expanding (example: the human body). About black holes, sorry, we are betting in a different model of cosmology, where those “not seen” things that are called “black holes” are merely vortex created at the center of dust from died stars. But…we have only theories…

      TheMatrixDNA in reply to ZennExile 1 second ago – 10:29 PM – Wed, 12

      The Doppler Effect seems to suggest the galaxy is expanding for sure, but it doesn’t explain why. The big bang theory was an attempt to explain why. But since we have discovered what we believe is the higgs, and since our most powerful telescopes in space are now showing galaxies and stars far beyond the predicted big bang theory model, we have no choice but to accept that the Big Bang theory is flawed in some major way and needs to be reevaluated.

      ZennExile in reply to Roons5858 (Show the comment) 2 minutes ago in playlist New Releases

      • You should probably do a bit more research. Black holes are not pretend. The term is crude and over simplified but they exist. A Black hole is simply a super dense clump of mass. A clump of mass so dense that its gravity can manipulate photons of light in motion. Think of it like a million stars are smashed down to the size of the moon.

        Now consider that these giant masses also combine to form even larger masses.

        ZennExile in reply to TheMatrixDNA (Show the comment) 3 minutes ago in playlist New Releases

      • Sorry, I still prefer the model of normal vortexes because I think there is natural limits to gravitational pushes and densities and I am not seeing how the prior atomic nebulae could produces such theoretical black holes.But it could be, I don’t know. About photons, The Matrix/DNA models are suggesting that light never can be manipulated by other natural force than itself. Light is revealing to contain the code for vital cycles and as the motor that imprints motion to inertial matter. Theories

        TheMatrixDNA in reply to ZennExile 1 second ago 11:03 PM Wed, 12


Para responder aos criticos da minha teoria:

You wouldn’t be convinced the color blue exists if papa smurf took a big blue dump in your mouth.

But the burden of proof lies with the one making a claim. You assert God exists, therefor you are to bare the burden of proof. Prove your assertion that God exists.

Scientific theory doesn’t need to be proven because it is simply a reflection of the available evidence and has every opportunity to be modified or thrown out entirely if new evidence discredits it.

So prove God is real.

ZennExile in reply to chucktowne (Show the comment) 4 minutes ago in playlist New Releases


There are three groups in this discussion and watching it is really funny! Each group think that found the method for doing every natural phenomena at earth surface and denies the other two ways of making things. The so called creationists which method is God, he answer all questions; the so called atheists which method is neo-Darwinian evolution; and the so called matrixistas – a group of one alone – that finds all answers in its LUCA, a theoretical model of this astronomical system. My Dog!

TheMatrixDNA 1 second ago – 4:44 PM, Tuesday, 11


  • Don’t tell that to these guys: Riftia pachyptila, was totally unknown to science until researchers exploring the deep Pacific Ocean floor discovered strange, hydrothermal vents. Powered by volcanic heat, these vents recirculate water that seeps down through cracks or faults in the rock. The organisms that live near these vents are unique because, unlike all other living things on earth, they do not depend on sunlight for their source of energy.

    DarwinsFriend in reply to Bruce Johnson 2 hours ago

  • Matrix/DNA are suggesting an explanation: these organisms must depends of volcanic heat, which came from planet’s nucleus. It happens that the planet nucleus by radiation produces a kind of energy similar to energy of stars…

    TheMatrixDNA in reply to DarwinsFriend 1 second ago


  • Wait this is science fiction but is it possible to live with two hearts? and if so what benefit would it provide our race, assuming you can fit the thing in there. i ask because you would know more about this than i would.

    Jack fauen in reply to tsub0dai (Show the comment) 1 hour ago

  • Well, I suppose that two hearts are aligned in sequence and the second pumps less than the first due less blood. That’s what happens in LUCA – the Last Universal Common Ancestor of biological systems…if the theoretical models of Matrix/DNA are the right ones.

    TheMatrixDNA in reply to Jack fauen 1 second ago

  • There are worms that have multiple hearts. You just have to have the coordination of pumping so they don’t work against each other.

    ExtantFrodo2 in reply to Jack fauen (Show the comment) 1 hour ago


You don’t answer my question,but you keep replying to me!

Anyway,Let’s imagine i’m an atheist,my response is,our brain and morality evolution led us to our current state of absolute awareness and intelligence,now we can understand the world around us,we can see that at bottom there is no Good no Evil and the most important No purpose !,each one makes his own purpose,each one makes his own objective morality.we would both be right no matter what our actions will be.

YamiYami17 in reply to ExtantFrodo2 (Show the comment) 22 seconds ago

NOT PUBLISHED: Really you have a good point here, it is my dumb opinion. The fault of atheism falling in this supposed final conclusion you have figured out should be “fundamentalism”. It is impossible acquiring absolute awareness and intelligence ( like lots of creationists and most, muslin, believe they have acquired) by someone living inside this Universe. For knowing the Truth about this Universe only going out and seeing it from above. You can lie saying that a God came from there for talking to you…


  • nope… cause and effect… You don’t grow wing nubs and after a million years have wings… The effect of flying has to have a cause… or a single mutation that would let something fly. De-evolution to a flightless bird… fine… but evolution.. the adding of new features… not possible.

    Bruce Johnson in reply to mechanicmike69 2 minutes ago

  • Bruce, the mechanisms related to a body flying should be inserted in that primordial soup before life’s origins. The ingredients for that soup were furnished by a planet that is part of an astronomical system were there are bodies flying, like comets, etc. This mechanism was not invented at earth surface. My models are suggesting that it is really registered in the region called junk DNA. Birds are merely a system that expressed those genes due their needs.

    You need to understand how nature and universal evolution works. The comets’ tail are the ancestors mechanisms that brought the phenomena of “cilia” to the first cells systems. The genes for cilium can be developed as legs, tails or wings, at the flavor and needs of the host. from here you can understand why the ciliare motor is reducible to LUCA – the Last Universal Common Ancestor of all biological systems. Ok, I have only a theory, like you have one. But, I don’t believe in mine, I test it.

    TheMatrixDNA in reply to Bruce Johnson 1 second ago – 11:40 Tuesday, 11

    comets don’t need lift… that was a clever feature in our atmospheric condition to create, which we as creative imitators have learned to use… I don’t call that chance…. and DNA really could not come from cosmic soup… ain’t possible.

    Bruce Johnson in reply to TheMatrixDNA (Show the comment) 4 minutes ago

    DNA is only chains of molecules, so yes it is possible.

    TheTexanCanadian in reply to Bruce Johnson (Show the comment) 1 hour ago

    My models suggests further: DNA is not a code, in the sense it is expressing a message with symbols. DNA is a pile of lots of copies of a unique prior system, each one different from the others due a small variation, like human beings are copies of a unique system with smalls variations. The basic system is a horizontal pair of nucleotides, which has the same configuration and functions of the building block of astronomical systems. This is a weird idea, but, with models and it is testable.

    TheMatrixDNA in reply to TheTexanCanadian 1 second ago

    Comets need lift if my theoretical astronomical model is right: they are lifted through volcano eruptions in pulsars. I don’t understand you. Are you saying that the vision of leafs flying leads reptiles to mimic them and wishing to fly also, and through such effort was created the wings?! Who were those creative imitators? And DNA did not came from cosmic soup because DNA is the biological version of a universal matrix that came from there..if my theory is right.

    TheMatrixDNA in reply to Bruce Johnson 1 second ago

    “The genes for cili[a – not -um] can be developed as legs, tails or wings, at the flavor and needs of the host.”

    If you’ve tested this ‘theory’, then it must have already become apparent that this claim is wrong. You’re proposing a Lamarckian-sounding mechanism and there is no homology between ciliary genes and the developmental genes that lead to the formation of vertebrate limbs–or any animal’s limbs for that matter.

    Nullifidian in reply to TheMatrixDNA (Show the comment) 1 hour ago

    Thanks, that’s what I need. Do you have any link of paper proving the evolution of genes for vertebrates limbs since prokaryotes/eukaryotes cells? Maybe them had passed throught crustaceous limbs? Are you saying that genes for vertebrates limbs were created prior-determined only for building vertebrates limbs?

    TheMatrixDNA in reply to Nullifidian 1 second ago

  • That’s Gods work… not evolution.

    Tell me how a creature can go from simple to complex… ADDING FEATURES, not merely rearranging its colors, patterns, size, etc… that is environmental adaptation… not what Evololution claims it can be… of sludge to man.

    Get a grip folks… it ain’t possible.

    Bruce Johnson in reply to rogerdenrog (Show the comment) 2 hours ago

  • It is possible if the information for complexity is inserted in the environment. That’s what is suggesting my theoretical evolutionary models: the astronomical system that built this biosphere at Earth surface is physically simpler than any living being, but is functionally more perfect than any biological system from bacteria to apes. The real Milk Way is more complex and perfect as mechanical system than the Newtonian watch…if my model is the right one, and there is coming complexity.

    TheMatrixDNA in reply to Bruce Johnson 1 second ago


  • It was through the study of theoretical physics and theoretic math that ultimately showed me the utter weakness of the evolution hypothesis. It is a hypothesis, not a theory. Study the definitions of these words to discover why (maybe). It is also belief system that, slowly, bit of evidence by bit of evidence, is slowly unraveling. The evidence is in the rocks. But how is it interpreted? This is just one of the big problems. Interpretation.

    Brewster Gisbourne 55 seconds ago

  • I think theoretical physics and theoretic math are not good parameters and tools for understanding biological evolution. At least my personal theoretical models are suggesting that cosmological physics is selecting some data and ignoring others, obeying the relativistic human condition as observer. This “physics” describes the skeleton that support the world, and my models are suggesting that above the skeleton has the soft c overture, like meat, with vital properties. Don’t bet in it.

    TheMatrixDNA in reply to Brewster Gisbourne 1 second ago


  • “The spirit of God demonstrated by the death of Jesus Christ is one of love and compassion.”

    WOW … and this statement really does not strike you as the least bit self-contradictory? The brutal torture and killing of someone is seen as a token of love and compassion 😀

    This religion around this YHWH Tzevaot, seems to be a blood cult where pain, death and torture is revered … even its symbol is the wearing of a miniature torture device around one’s neck … and they’re even proud of it!

    GapWim in reply to anthonyrstirlng (Show the comment) 2 minutes ago

  • Better words would be impossible. Congratulations! The weird fact is that we see “well , looking old ladies” saying “God proved his love sending his son”, and not completing the sentence: for being tortured by a selvage tribe. How is hard-wired the neurons in the these creationists’ brains ?! Should they be able to send their sons to be tortured?! Why they can not understand that this is not love, but evil ?! The big mystery is how a human brain can be sick and cruel in this way!

    TheMatrixDNA in reply to GapWim 1 second ago


  • “to kill so the earth can survive does not make you morally acceptable”

    Who says what is acceptable or not? you with your subjective view? the government with its subjective laws? the society which consists of individuals where each of them have his own view?

    Who can say i’m wrong? your logical deductions that started from your subjective general statements? I’m absolutely right,and i will save this beautiful planet !

    YamiYami17 in reply to Jack fauen 1 minute ago

  • More important than the goal of ” saving this planet”, at least to me, is the goal of “saving the Humanity against its enemies”. It happens that the “enemies” can also be a kind of “minded anti-humans ideas” that infects humans. This evil is inside humans, like the selfish gene. It means that these humans are sick and they are dangerous to humans like me, we need separate them far away and offering the antidote. If you are able to kill humans, you are host of one our enemy. You are amoral.

    TheMatrixDNA in reply to YamiYami17 1 second ago – 9:50 AM – Tuesday, 11

    • My atheistic response: If you are with killing the planet,then you are amoral,Humans are the virus of life,we need to kill them all,you are the enemy,and you need to save the planet from yourself.

      (It’s fun to be an atheist!)

      YamiYami17 in reply to TheMatrixDNA 9 seconds ago

    • Are you joking? Or trolling? This is not what some of my atheists friends tell me as their morals. One said: ” As our own DNA has code for creating viruses inside our body, maybe non-rational animals are like viruses created inside the Universe’s body. We, rational beings should be something evolutionary advanced, like bacteria, in relation to the Universe. He will be friendly to us if we are good bacterias. That’s what I fight for: to be natural good bacteria. I think is a wonderful moral.

      TheMatrixDNA in reply to YamiYami17 1 second ago


If you look in your Organic Chemistry textbook you will still see the Miller-Urey experiment as the foundation for chemical evolution, which is rediculous as that has been proven to be inaccurate even by secular scientists

  • quigpower23 in reply to ArticulatedHypernova (Show the comment) 4 hours ago
  • Funny, they reopened the Urey-Miller experimental vials and discovered a dozen more amino acids than Urey-Miller had found. The same vials. It seems just sitting around for years was enough for more recombinations to occur and produce a greater variety of organic compounds than the original experiment so profoundly discovered.

    U-M are cited because they were pioneers and we try to encourage that in our children. Many have taken their experiments and improved on it in many ways since.

    ExtantFrodo2 in reply to quigpower23 (Show the comment) 4 hours ago

  • The point is that amino acids can form “by themsleves” if the conditions present themselves. It doesn’t matter if they were wrong amino acids, or whatever, they can still form.

    ArticulatedHypernova in reply to ExtantFrodo2 (Show the comment) 4 hours ago in playlistRandom Crap

  • Yup, and that’s just amino acids. They have found analogs to nucleic acids in the spectra of asteroids. These have and equal number of left and right handed versions so they know these are not of earth origin.

    ExtantFrodo2 in reply to ArticulatedHypernova (Show the comment) 4 hours ago

  • Most people overlook the significance of the fact that complex molecules can form with a quick application of chemicals, mixing, and electricity… and by quick I mean a long time. lol.

    ArticulatedHypernova in reply to ExtantFrodo2 (Show the comment) 4 hours ago in playlistRandom Crap

  • lol they used an inaccurate atmosphere and when using a “correct” atmosphere according to recent theories you get polypetide chains of the entirely wrong chirality lol

    quigpower23 in reply to ExtantFrodo2 (Show the comment) 4 hours ago

  • Excuse-me entering into your debate here. I need help for developing my own personal investigation. It seems that all aminoacids got in U-M experiments and also the most recent experiments are not able to produce the next evolutionary step – polypeptide chains like proteins ans even RNA. Am I wrong? If that is the case, those aminoacids are sterile and evolution-stoppers. Right? If still right, this whole thing suggests that is missing a hidden variable in those reduced atmospheric conditions?

    TheMatrixDNA in reply to quigpower23 1 second ago 9:15 Am Tuesday,11


  • 3 weeks and 162,525 comments, that’s only an average of 322 comments an hour. We started out at over 500. Hey folks why so slow?

    ExtantFrodo2 3 hours ago

  • I think the peoples’ thoughts here are becoming slower due the opposition working as correction of established beliefs. This is the “Reason filter” effect ?

    TheMatrixDNA in reply to ExtantFrodo2 1 second ago


  • OK, viruses! You really are scraping the bottom of the barrel here. Did any of your viruses turn into actual prokaryotes? Please understand that I do understand a bit about genetics and a virus turning into a different virus is perfectly believable – I have no argument there, but a virus turning into a cellular organism just doesn’t happen. See, it’s evolution’s requirement for “uphill” change that’s the problem. Sideways change happens. Downhill change dominates. Uphill change? No.

    MrIan9876 in reply to Lynx787 (Show the comment) 19 seconds ago

  • Viruses, prokaryotes, and every other biological system are things that appeared inside an astronomical system and composed by atoms. There is no rational way for searching the “creator” of biological systems other than atoms and galaxies. Then we are facing a big problem: how atoms and/or astronomical systems did that?! The solution could be the real knowledge of these systems as LUCA, the Last Universal Common Ancestor of all biological systems. Matrix/DNA Theory got a model. Test it now.

    TheMatrixDNA in reply to MrIan9876 1 second ago – 7:55 AM Tuesday 11

    • “Matrix/DNA Theory got a model. Test it now.”

      Ask the scientific community to test it. They have the necessary expertise and equipment to do so. Going on internet forums and comment sections is a futile effort.

      Would you go to a shoe store and ask if they can check your wristwatch? No? Than why are you in the comment section of a YouTube video asking people to test your “Matrix/DNA Theory”?

      GapWim in reply to TheMatrixDNA 46 seconds ago

    • You didn’t understand my comment. Here we are debating theories, not testing them scientifically. The debate is itself a good test, since you can bring on facts and evidences of your theory against others theory. But everything here is a theoretical level. So, bring on facts and evidences against my theory.

      TheMatrixDNA in reply to GapWim 1 second ago


“According to a recent Gallup Poll, 46 percent of Americans believe in creationism, 32 percent believe in evolution guided by God, and 15 percent believe in atheistic evolution.”

There is a fourth alternative: universal evolution is a product of a larger process of reproduction of unknown natural thing existing before the Big Bang. So everything in this Universe came from previous things that had its design, naturally, without any intelligence applied. This is agnostic viewpoint. Subscribers?

TheMatrixDNA 1 second ago 7:43 AM – Tuesday,11

  • I doubt I would call it agnostic.

    It appears to be religious based since there is no evidence that would warrant such a hypothesis.

    Peter van der Meer in reply to TheMatrixDNA 2 minutes ago

  • I think it is agnostic, not religious, since is a product of inquiring by philosophical naturalism. There is no evidence for what? The Universe as a reproductive event? Even that the “unknown thing before Big Bang” could be the smallest atom, the inflationary theory and others predicts the Universe going back to be something like that atom.This is reproduction. And I would appreciate any evidence that any natural systems or parts of them has no previous design.

    TheMatrixDNA in reply to Peter van der Meer 1 second ago


  • In the beginning was the word, the word was with god, the word was god… We were not created by accident and we even have written and dated proof of those who lived long before ancient times only 15000 years ago, this is the truth, the bible speaks it all, if it were an accident we wouldn’t be here, accidents dont create beautiful things !!!

    chasedave1 41 minutes ago

  • Nope. All known facts today, all scientific proved data are suggesting that in the beginning of this world was the Universe, and the rational theories suggesting that before there was something natural that triggered this Universe. Since my grand-grandparents nobody never heard words professed by supernatural things since the beginning of this universe. The ancient writers wrote a fiction book.

    TheMatrixDNA in reply to chasedave1 1 second ago – 7:13 AM , Tuesday, 11


  • I don’t believe evolution takes god out of the equation. I believe the opposite in fact. Evolution fits right in with god. How else can you explain the driving force behind evolution. I don’t believe in religion or creationism but certainly see the hand of god in every part of evolution. It is impossible to deny that intelligence is at work in every part of the universe just because of the complexity of the universe Science and God have allot in common.

    BigWater59 1 hour ago

  • The problem is about “What should be a God?”, under the viewpoint of an observer like modern humans beings. The ancient Hebrews suggestions about this God through the bible is totally non-sense when facing the facts known today. The little human brain facing the enormity of this Universe indicates that we can not know God, yet. The very fact that since yours grand-grandparents to you today never had heard the word of God, directly from him, indicates that God does not talks to human beings.

    TheMatrixDNA in reply to BigWater59 1 second ago


Why atheists and creationists are fighting here. Evolution and Creation are facts and are theories, at same time. For to prove that evolution is the ultimate Truth, one need go outside of this Universe and coming back telling it. Because like in embryology, there is a process of evolution, a shape becoming a new shape, etc, but the ultimate Truth is not evolution, is reproduction. If the Universe is a reproduction process, what’s being reproduced is the son of the universe’s Creator. Then… ?!

TheMatrixDNA 1 second ago – 6:11 Am Tuesday, 11

  • I think you’re the only one that relates evolution to some kind of ultimate truth. The theory of evolution is the change in the frequency of alleles within a gene pool from one generation to the next.

    Do you see any mention which can be reinterpreted to an ultimate truth?

    GapWim in reply to TheMatrixDNA (Show the comment) 16 minutes ago

  • My Dog! What are atheists doing here if not using natural evolution for fighting the creationists belief in a supernatural ultimate Truth?! If you are saying it right, what hell has natural biological evolution against the Garden of Eden, the creation of Universe by God, etc.?

    TheMatrixDNA in reply to GapWim 1 second ago


  • I notice that creationists make widespread statements, but when asked to back them up with evidence they go quiet.

    rogerdenrog 17 minutes ago

  • Yes. But it seems the same for atheists. Creationists are posting a question and I did not see valid answer: “… lots of tests done, labwork..collaboration… and yet no evidence whatsoever that one animal type has actually come directly from another…no fossil record showing intermediatiary changes… onlyl real, existing critters in their natural forms….”- Bruce Jonhson. For instance: which was the natural force that leads reptiles to create the placenta?

    TheMatrixDNA in reply to rogerdenrog 1 second ago – 5:56 AM – Tuesday, 11

    • Pakicetus to whales? Only one example. The evolution of the horse is well documented, as is the fossil record of primates, including us. DNA evidence linking all living creature (the lates unravelling of the human genome last week adds even more to this). there are plenty of transitional fossils with the gaps getting ever smalller as new discoveries are made. Existing critters? Like the dinosaurs, trilobites, Ther is a skink in Oz that is adapting (evolving) to lay live young. Uterus change.

      rogerdenrog in reply to TheMatrixDNA (Show the comment) 30 minutes ago

    • I agree, but I don’t know one gap that is totally fulfilled with final proof. This give opportunity for the existence of something that is unknown yet acting at the last moment of all transformations, and this possibility is being used by creationists to hold their beliefs. The skink phenomena is suggesting to me that a natural pressure (cold temperature) is forcing the development of uterus. Cooling temperature could be part of a larger uterus known as solar system, not considered in ToE.

      TheMatrixDNA in reply to rogerdenrog 1 second ago

      • “no evidence whatsoever that one animal type has actually come directly from another.”

        If you’re going to use non-specific, non-scientific, ambiguous terms like ‘animal type’, you’re not going to get an answer from science, as your term has no meaning.

        Can you define what an ‘animal type’ is?

        TheHigherVoltage in reply to TheMatrixDNA (Show the comment) 28 minutes ago

      • Search Google for “animal type”. By the way I was paraphrasing the comment from Bruce Johnson, is not my idea.

        TheMatrixDNA in reply to TheHigherVoltage 1 second ago – 8:30 AM, Tuesday, 11


Variations are not transformations. They basically remain the same.

  • Life forms do not have programmes for algorithms.

    The change is usually a loss of function.

    Eventually those losses of function will result in no function at all.

    JungleJargon in reply to Onithyr (Show the comment) 15 minutes ago

  • I would appreciate you thinking about this:

    1) algorithms is human creation; humans are God’s creations; then, algorithms is God’s creation in first place.

    2) Waves of natural light has seven different shapes ( frequencies) in its life’s cycle; natural light penetrates matter like living beings bodies; then, living beings gets the code in shape of algorithms from natural light, and that’s life;

    3) The primary source of natural light is unknown. It could be the method of God doing evolution.

    TheMatrixDNA in reply to JungleJargon 1 second ago – 12:09 PM monday, 10


  • Only our Maker Himself is able to remake us again because there is no one else who can.

    JungleJargon in reply to Onithyr (Show the comment) 19 minutes ago

  • Nothing has the power to control the very matter which governs our universe making your statement false. There is no evidence anywhere in the universe of the laws of physics being played with by some creature for its amusement. Sorry but that doesnt fly.

    Jack fauen in reply to JungleJargon 2 minutes ago

  • Sorry, but your own body is evidence for a real creature playing with matter and the laws of physics for its amusement. Your “makers” were your parents, they had the previous design for doing you, they triggered a process in which matter and the physic laws where played by instructions in DNA. This makers are not gods, not magicals and didn’t used intelligence, everything was natural. Do you think is more rational to infer what’s is the universe based in imaginations or what you see here?

    TheMatrixDNA in reply to Jack fauen 1 second ago – 10:58 AM – monday, 10

    • You are twisting my words for when i say “playing with matter and the laws of physics for its amusement” i mean it knows what it is doing, and understand exactly how to at that very moment in time do what it wants when it wants, and how it wants. when i was born and during my growth in the womb i had no control over the physics of my body let alone change it at my very well. We do not have this capability and i never suggested my parents did when they created me in the first place through sex.

      Jack fauen in reply to TheMatrixDNA 42 seconds ago

    • We agree: parents make babies for amusement, but they have no control over matter and the physics laws in this process of making. I was trying to get your idea about my sample/parameter since you sad “nobody has the power…” My theoretical models in Matrix/DNA are results of comparative anatomy between living and non-living systems, they suggests this universe is a genetic reproductive event of a natural system ex-machine, not God.

      TheMatrixDNA in reply to Jack fauen 1 second ago – 11:46 AM – monday, 10


  • The variation is not transformation billions of times over.

    You are describing variation of the same kind.

    A virus is not a life form. It is rogue information from when Adam and Eve wanted to know what bad information would do.

    JungleJargon in reply to nilbog44 25 seconds ago

  • “A virus is information from when Adam and Eve wanted to know what bad information would do.”

    My Dog! You have touched the most fundamental secret never knew by other human being! Really you are right: virus still is from the time of Adam and Eve. The models of Matrix/DNA Theory explained: viruses are biological sub-systems made with information related to comets, which, in the “Garden of Eden” had the function of male organs and spermatozoon. One problem: this “garden” was the Milk Way.

    TheMatrixDNA in reply to JungleJargon 1 second ago


  • uterus does not equal a shell, nor is the the whole system of hormonal involvement that is required to set off the birthing process equal to that of egg laying. Check your facts. Try to lay out a pathway getting from one type to the other. It can’t be done. That’s why I say it’s an impossibility. Google all you want, you won’t find it.

    marykow555 in reply to ArticulatedHypernova (Show the comment) 1 hour ago

  • Marykow555: Please, if you can answer this question:

    Reptiles are like beasts, some eat their own eggs,ok ? And pregnancy prejudices the ability for hunting, escaping from predators, ok? I am curious how worked the mechanisms of Darwinian evolution (Variation, Selection, Inheritance) over a female reptile laying eggs out for transforming it in a mammal, keeping egg inside and developing the extraordinary enginery of pregnancy. It doesn’t seem to you such female never should be selected?

    TheMatrixDNA in reply to marykow555 1 second ago – 10:33 AM – monday, 10

    • Google “Evolution in Action: Lizard Moving From Eggs to Live Birth”

      ExtantFrodo2 in reply to TheMatrixDNA 1 minute ago

    • Thanks. Very helpful. And since I would appreciate a debate about this issue,while I am reading your links, I ask you reading a short article “From Reptile to Mammals: A Heroic Act?” – Google it and read the first from the universal . I think this debate will be on topic here because the article suggests previous design ruling evolution. Cheers…

      TheMatrixDNA in reply to ExtantFrodo2 1 second ago – 11:23 AM – monday, 10

      Actually mammals eat their own young, lions, bears etc. Going from egg laying from mammals bearing their young live then having to care for it, does seem backwards in some respects but then again it could be comparing apples to oranges.

      marykow555 in reply to TheMatrixDNA 57 seconds ago

      marykow555: In which respects it does seem backwards? I think the first female reptile that kept the egg in only one day added to the normal should be discarded by natural selection. Every self-effort from the female makes no sense ( she even did not know “thought” about her offspring welfare) and every mutation by transcriptional error should be discarded, evolution should be skidding eternally around the reptile never advancing to mammals. There was an external force acting over this event?

      TheMatrixDNA 1 second ago – 5:36 AM Tuesday, 11


  • I haven’t had a chance to watch this yet, but in looking at the stats for this video, I have one question; why are the top demographic groups watching this exclusively male? It’s an honest question. Why aren’t women in the mix as well? I’m not meaning to start some sort of comment war. I’m just asking for opinions on this.

    Ethan Rogati 36 minutes ago

  • This is more one evidence for previous design, evolution and Matrix/DNA models. The model “the origins of chromosomes X and Y” suggests how were previous designed the ancestors of chromosomes on galactic systems before biological systems’s origins.X has tendency to be closed system and Y, to be opened system. Science is something related to opening the system to evolution and external world, then, the majority of man here

    TheMatrixDNA in reply to Ethan Rogati 1 second ago – 9:39 AM monday, 10


  • Go ask the teacher if complex, mechanisms needed to decode the DNA, and to proof-read it for errors are themselves proteins, coded in the DNA, and since proteins are needed to read, check and manufacture DNA, and DNA is needed to make proteins, which came first in the alleged evolutionary process? This is based on actual research, go and ask him if that is correct then how can evolution be possible?

    staceyjoe in reply to whiteowl1415 (Show the comment) 1 hour ago

  • You are right, Darwinian theory did not explained the puzzle RNA/proteins. The problem of ToE authors is Godel Theorem: nobody inside a system can know the Thru about that system. Humans are inside the process of evolution, so, they can’t understand how works or what’s behind evolution. It is clear there is previous design but we need go out biological evolution and trying to see it from the viewpoint of cosmological evolution. The models of Matrix/DNA Theory did it, and they explains the puzzle

    TheMatrixDNA in reply to staceyjoe 1 second ago2:47 PM – Sept, 09

    The brightest evolutionary “scientists” are completely out witted by simple logic

    • Every physical thing in nature consists of matter and matter does not have a mind so it can do nothing of its own, It can only do what it’s made to do

      The programmed matter inside of you proves you have a Maker that is not made of matter, because matter is not able to programme itself, nor can humans program any matter, let alone their own.

      Matter only ever does what it’s made to do and proves you have a Maker.

      ethaneros1 in reply to TheMatrixDNA (Show the comment) 16 hours ago

    • Nope. The Godel’s Theorem is for you too, not only for neo-Darwinist. Nobody went out or above matter end came back telling the Truth. The best rationalism is trying to understand what is far from us having what we can see and experiment here as parameter, and not inventing things with imagination. I was made by makers ( my parents), there was a previous design for me, but my parents did not used intelligence for doing me. Reason suggest: it is all about Nature.

      TheMatrixDNA in reply to ethaneros1 1 second ago –  724 AM Sept, 10, monday


  • No, nothing “decodes” DNA, that is a layman’s term. DNA triggers chemical reactions. All natural.

    DNA comes first. Molecules bond then create reactions.

    MEanwhile, even if you had been right, it wouldn’t matter, its a god of the gaps fallacy

    whiteowl1415 in reply to staceyjoe 2 minutes ago

  • But these chemical reactions replicates chemical compounds and foulding them into specific future functions, a process never seen before. But if creationism is a science-stopper due the appeal to the appeal for the “god of the gaps fallacy”, we are seeing the presence of another science-stopper that is fighting alternatives methods that leads to different theories of evolution, and it seems this force is coming from dogmatic Darwinists occupying the academic boards of Biology.

    TheMatrixDNA in reply to whiteowl1415 1 second ago

    • As I understand it, TheMatrixDNA accepts evolution, but has his own unfounded, incoherent, and vacuous crank theory about how it occurs and how the origin of life came about. So he’s not a creationist, but he is just as much a science-denier as one.

      Nullifidian in reply to whiteowl1415 15 hours ago

    • You are a sample how an ideology is established in the academic boards of Biology and working as Science-stopper. Which are the real facts denying the Matrix/DNA models? Facts, not personal judgments.

      TheMatrixDNA in reply to Nullifidian 1 second ago – 7:12 AM – Sept., 10, monday


Go ask the teacher if complex, mechanisms needed to decode the DNA, and to proof-read it for errors are themselves proteins, coded in the DNA, and since proteins are needed to read, check and manufacture DNA, and DNA is needed to make proteins, which came first in the alleged evolutionary process? This is based on actual research, go and ask him if that is correct then how can evolution be possible?

staceyjoe in reply to whiteowl1415 (Show the comment) 1 hour ago – 2:15 PM

You are right, Darwinian theory did not explained the puzzle RNA/proteins. But many thing in the Bible are being debunked while the scientific method advance. The problem of Bible’s authors and ToE authors is the same: Gospel Theorem: nobody inside a system can know the Thru about that system. We humans are inside the process of evolution, so, we can grasp that there is a system a process, but we can’t understand how works or what’s behind evolution. Every biological system “life”, came from a genetic previous design then, which natural system was the previous design for the first cell system? We need go out biological evolution searching the answer.


Agnostics asks: Who created God? Who created Evolution?…

Creationists and atheists are both orphans…Poor People!

TheMatrixDNA 2 hours ago – 7:00 AM Sept.,09, 12)


  • Actually, theories are the models of how the universe works, explained by Stephen Hawking in his book: The Grand Design, and laws are the points in a theory.

    ArticulatedHypernova in reply to MultiAxian (Show the comment) 3 minutes ago

  • But this is just the problem. You said first that “theories are the models of how the universe works” and then you conclude; “the universe works as explained by Stephen Hawking. You are transforming a theory into a fact! Hawking does not explain how the Universe works, for doing that he needs go outside the universe and coming back telling it to us. Hawkins has a theoretical model suggesting how the universe works, but, probable it is not complete or it is wrong.

    TheMatrixDNA in reply to ArticulatedHypernova 1 second ago


  • theory: maybe both theories have their points. at this point, there are even things science still can’t understand, like dark energy. just because something can’t be shown to be real does not, in any way, prove that its not. what if our planet DID have help? science might never show it, but if we can cultivate a garden, who’s to say some entirely different life form couldnt theoretically cultivate our planet? at that point, evolution would happen, but with a help from an outside cosmic source

    dantemoose420 25 seconds ago

  • You should be more incisive: biological evolution would happen, but as a continuum of a prior cosmological evolution. That’s the is point of matrix/DNA Theory, but the models indicates that Darwinian theoretical mechanisms are not the whole history. There are place for previous design for biological systems seen in the cosmological architectures, but we are not seeing intelligence applied over those designs. So, ToE and ID have 50 % of the Truth each one.

    TheMatrixDNA in reply to dantemoose420 1 second ago


  • What do you mean why creatures evolved hormones and feelings? This is fallacious nonsense. Why the hell would nature create a being that feels and is aware of its surroundings. Stop giving this ridiculous evolutionary perspective. God is the one who created immaterial things like love.

    OldaurGold 2 minutes ago

  • Why Nature would create a being that fells and is aware? Observing the final product of this process we see consciousness. There is a factual parameter where you can see the same process: nature produces a fetus that has no feelings and is not aware, which evolves to a baby that is aware. It is not reasonable ignoring a parameter here and know and replacing it with imaginations about things never saw. The parameter leads us to conclude that the Universe is a genetic reproduction process.

    TheMatrixDNA in reply to OldaurGold 1 second ago


  • Theory and fact are not the same things (evolutionists are under this delusion). A fact is a fact. Like for example, WW1 occured in 1914 – that’s a cold hard fact that no one can deny. Evolution, on the other hand, is a concept that is made up of many ideas. There you go, that’s the difference.

    OldaurGold 3 minutes ago

  • You are right. There are so many facts in Nature that this considerable amount permits to any biased concept to be alive long times, because the concept can selects some facts that fits its Procrustes’s bed and ignoring those that does not fits. The worst is that human sensory ability only grasps phenomena inside few frequencies of electric-magnetic spectrum. Those that believes in theories are crazies. I elaborated my own theory of everything for being tested, but never will believe in it.

    TheMatrixDNA in reply to OldaurGold 1 second ago


  • Evolution is validated by the overwhelming amounts of evidence spanning six distinct fields of science. There is validation in geographical distribution, geological strata, the extensive transitional fossil record, modern medicine, comparative physiology, and comparative genetics. And even if five of those examples never existed, the study of DNA and genetics all by itself is enough to confirm common ancestry as an undeniable fact.

    scotttebben 2 minutes ago 3 

  • Sorry, your conclusion makes no sense. All six items are scientific disciplines studying six natural phenomena by a specific branch of Science, the reductionist method. It is missing the study by the scientific method called “systemic”, which is the another half of Science. The common ancestor of those six phenomena could not be a biological organized structure, and Reason points towards the Newtonian watch, the previous solar system. The final result seems more degeneration than evolution.

    TheMatrixDNA in reply to scotttebben 1 second ago

    • Sorry but your rebuttal is pseudoscientific claptrap.

      ergonomover in reply to TheMatrixDNA 5 seconds ago

    • Since that you have not showed the last common ancestor of those six bottom lines for the following events, to me your rebuttal seems pseudo scientific claptrap. Who knows the Truth? Only time will be the judge of this controversy.

      TheMatrixDNA in reply to ergonomover 1 second ago

      • If you wish to convey some semblance of intelligence and a coherent dialog, then you must first begin by showing more insight and cognitive skill than that of a ruffled caged bird.

        scotttebben in reply to TheMatrixDNA 15 minutes ago

      • My friend?! How are you asking more intelligence to me and not to the comment that resumed geology and genetic to a common ancestor standing at earth?! He says that has a common ancestor. If so, it should be the producer of those geological features, then, something bigger than the planet. Resuming the common ancestor as he did is just like you, ruffling like caged bird limited by short horizons of time and space.

        TheMatrixDNA in reply to scotttebben 1 second ago


  • Get rid of the idea that organisms were put together like a puzzle. First there were cells filled with fluid then the cells became organisms filled with fluid surrounded by fluid then the organisms developed cavities then the cavities became tubes filled with fluid. then the tubes developed structures to move the fluid then part of the tube bulged and moved larger bits of fluid. Then the bulge grew stronger and moved more fluid. Then the bulge divided itself and became a two chambered fish heart

    svenypoodles in reply to marykow555 (Show the comment) 1 hour ago

  • Really??? That’s an answer??? This proves my point about the unscientific answers out there.

    marykow555 in reply to svenypoodles 1 hour ago

  • Marykow, he is describing how worked the process, and so, it is not unscientific, this is the scientific reductionist method: describing natural phenomena and processes. Every natural process happens under a sequence of events, which seems steps of evolution, even that it could be product of hidden design. From “a cell filled with fluid” to a final product as the fish heart, it is a process never saw by human eyes, so, opened to two possibilities: chance or hidden design? Nobody knows.

    TheMatrixDNA in reply to marykow555 1 second ago

    • That “science” is ruining our minds then. We need to get back to a more proper form of scientific method that does not speculate as such.

      marykow555 in reply to TheMatrixDNA 4 minutes ago

    • I think that neo-darwinist theory is working temporary as a science-stopper in the study of biological phenomena. The scientific method needs evolve, its is missing the systemic approach, which need to be added to reductionism for a more wise science. But the theory of Intelligent Designer also will work as science stopper if it gets the academic power from darwinists just now. Just my worries.

      TheMatrixDNA in reply to marykow555 1 second ago


  • yeaaah bill nye, thats most definitely the best idea you’ve had yet! let’s all tell our children to believe in something that we don’t believe in, therefore damning them to hell! why didn’t anybody else think of that first???

    haha come on, let’s get real.. what he’s saying is ridiculous. the world was/is fine with the amount of believers there are today. just leave it alone, and stop trying to convert other people to your crazy atheistic religion.

    321penguinss 37 seconds ago

  • How do you want that we “get real” if you are coming telling about things that we never saw and makes no sense, like your “hell”?! What you are saying seems to us ridiculous. No, the world is not fine today, there is to much suffering outside, about 5 billion people still are under tortures like slave work, stupid diseases, poverty, etc. But it is better and smarter to be a friend of magic powerful ghosts in the sky than friend of slaves brothers humans living here, right?

    TheMatrixDNA in reply to 321penguinss 1 second ago


  • yes, because you could never get people to think how you want by using a title or position of authority… imagine if people where so stupid that they would pick up a book by a “research scientist” and believe the thing they write without testing it themself… only bible readers are that dumb to believe someone elses research.

    imfamouseviewer in reply to whiteowl1415 (Show the comment) 15 seconds ago

  • You are right about bible readers. But, are you not doing the same? How had you tested the three fundamental mechanisms of ToE (Variation, Selection, Inheritance) in the transformation – for instance – of a reptile that lays eggs out into a mammal that keeps eggs inside and develops the extraordinary engineer of pregnancy?! I am trying to expose my worries: while religions are science-stoppers, a non-complete theory as ToE also works as science-stopper when ignoring others new theories.

    TheMatrixDNA in reply to imfamouseviewer 1 second ago


This well-read dumbass/intelligent fool fails to bring up the most fundamental argument of all creationists. WHO CREATED THE MATERIALS (PARTICLES) SO WE COULD EVOLVE? We did not form by happenstance, any moron can figure that out. If we did EVOLVE, we did so through intelligent design. This guy IS NOT Carl Sagan and IS NOT brilliant.

Codename73 3 minutes ago

No, a “spiritual” intelligent designer would be no such stupid wasting time with particles – he would created ready evolved spirits. So, when we will be ready as spirit, all matter will be go to garbage?

You said: “If we did evolve, we did so through intelligent design”. The conclusion is wrong. If humans evolves under the rules of intelligent design, it is the designer that evolves humans, humans did nothing. Don’t close our mind with answers now, the human little brain can’t reach them.

TheMatrixDNA in reply to Codename73 1 second ago


  • the whole world is dominated by one large satanic cult of mutual degradation and pathetic Godless surrender to evil. this is the trend that really took hold particularly after ww2 which saw the slaughter of christian europe by satan worshiping faggots and malicious child devouring witches. this is probably the worst generation of humanity the world has ever seen, divine intervention is imminent

    iorixs in reply to joemitchell69 (Show the comment) 13 seconds ago

  • Who think that are seeing bad things where those bad things does not exist, indicates that the non-existent image is a self-projection of things going is his mind. Evil does not exist, so, only in your mind.

    TheMatrixDNA in reply to iorixs 1 second ago


  • Following my last post, I would appreciate any criticism about the worldvision that emerges applying comparative anatomy between living and non-living natural systems for to build a theoretical image of the evolutionary or supernatural link. The link is a perfect closed system working in the macro as building blocks of galaxies and in the micro as building block of DNA. But, the foundation of both is waves of light, with the code for life. So: what is the source of this ex-machine light?!

    TheMatrixDNA 1 second ago – 10:05 PM – Sept, 06


  • Just my “one grain in the sand”opinion, I would appreciatte someone here trying to be an observer non-personal, outside humanity. In fact still today 95% of Humanity fight for survival under torture, slavery, existential ignorance, and Science, technology is doing nothing to these people. Natives in Amazon jungle are happier. It means that nobody in Humanity got the right worldview for control/change/improve matter and its Nature at Earth surface. Why do you teach your worldvision as Truth?!

    TheMatrixDNA 1 second ago

    I thought we were talking about evolution. What the hell does this have to do with that???

    IDisnotscience in reply to TheMatrixDNA 1 minute ago

    ( Não Postado) Don’t you agree that Christianism, Darwinian theory of evolution, native primitiveness, else any other kind of religion and existential theories are concerned with its world visions? U think that the state of Humanity’s life is due environment plus the world vision that determinate the relations of humans with the environment. Since I consider this state as bad ( you can see it as good) my conclusion is that neither of these world visions are right, then, no reasons for fundamentalism.

    Lição 1 – Não sei porque, mas a falta da palavra “evolução”, ou “criacionismo” no post faz com que o leitor pense que o post está fora do topíco. Isto indica que não se pode fazer rodeios ou ser indireto ou sugerir o significado entrelinhas: tem que ser direto no assunto do tópico escrevendo as palavras do tópico.


  • Evolution is the most well documented, most established and MOST TESTED scientific theory we have today. It ranks above the theory of Gravity, the atomic theory, the theory of heliocentrism, the theory of plate tectonics in terms of how certain we are that its true – Everytime we test the theory we get the right answers, everytime we discover something new about biology, it is consistent with Evolution, so to say:

    “Evolution is in dispute” means by default that you know nothing about science.

    DrDopehat 11 minutes ago

  • Just an opinion from another theory: Why are you jumping straight from “the natural process of evolution” to “the Neo-Darwinian current scientific theory of evolution”? In the first phrase you made this “big leap”. Almost everyday Science is discovering something that “was not as predicted in the theory”, the last one today the NYT article about junk DNA. Evolution is fact, but there are others theories, and teaching the less complete is also no good for students. Teach all them, kids choose

    TheMatrixDNA in reply to DrDopehat 1 second ago – 9:58 AM – sep, 06


  • evolution is nonsense. there is no one who will assert that order can come about by random chance. evolution is part of a global anti-God sentiment that seeks to honor evil and put satan on God’s throne. evil however never results in good. copernicanism, relativism, evolution, freudianism, moral relativism and the big bang ancient earth/giant cosmos doctrine are all fruits of the same tree of falsehood. it is Allah who set the heavens in motion and He is witness to all things.

    iorixs 9 minutes ago

  • Let’s see how the force of order is coming through this chaotic biosphere driving evolution. At 4 billions years ago, the state of the world was a perfect ordered machine, the Newtonian watch. But any closed system gets degenerated by entropy which dissolves the system into fragments, creating chaos. The chaotic arrive of fragments built a chaotic, salvage, biosphere, but when organized, those bits lift up as cells systems, towards order and perfection. Captcha alguna parola here?

    TheMatrixDNA in reply to iorixs 1 second ago


  • The forward progress of biological sciences in areas like medical science, genetic engineering, even animal husbandry and herbalism owes everything to evolution and its study. Trying to deny it is like attempting to land a rover on Mars while denying the existence of gravity. Without the underlying factual science, the engineering skills and accompanying mathematics would never exist.

    applepei00 7 minutes ago

  • Just an opinion from another theory: ” You are right, the knowledge of the process of evolution has greats contributions, but… still 5 billions human beings are being tortured due not solved technical problems. I think we should doing even more if the process of evolution was better known and having a better theory than neo-darwinism. The NYT article today ( Bits of Mystery DNA, Far From ‘Junk,’ Play Crucial Role) is a sample, if you know the controversy between ToE and ID about junk DNA.

    TheMatrixDNA in reply to applepei00 1 second ago


Post não postado porque tenho criticado muito o lado dos criacionistas e preciso contrabalançar com criticas aos evolucionistas:

NDirtyDown:  As a Christian I don’t deny science, or how things change over time. Science to me is the study of how God creates. However, you should not use science to disprove God, it just won’t work. God calls us to believe through “faith”. “For we walk by faith, not by sight.” -2 Corinthians 5:7 God has never said we are to believe through proof, but faith. Faith requires something more which is another discussion.

TheMatrixDNA: I think the scientific community is not using Science to disprove God; they are disproving that adults talks to innocent children what you are talking above: “God calls us to believe through “faith”. We know that God did not tell that to you. You says that God told to the authors of an ancient book. We can’t believe in that because we never forget the unimaginable dimension of this world, so, if there is a God, we give him His appropriated dimension, which must be far away from humans.


  • Warning: Once you know the truth, there is no turning back. You can no longer teach falsehood because if you teach the truth the academical world will crucify you. They will fire you. You can kiss your retirement good bye.

    danielxu94560 8 minutes ago

  • My friend, if someone know the truth he becomes most powerful than the Universe, so he could easily firing the “academical world”.

    TheMatrixDNA in reply to danielxu94560 1 second ago


  • A physiotherapist told me that because evolution is assumed to be true, she was taught that the human spine has not had time to evolve to suit our upright gait. The fact is that someone who believes in creationism is better equipped to deal with back pain than the evolutionist is because the creationist has better science.

    MrIan9876 2 days ago

    You says there are two approaches: the evolutionist doctor believes we evolved from animals that used to have a horizontal spine and therefore our spine ain’t quite right for the job; the creationist believes that the spine was designed correctly and that faults are introduced rather than inherent and it is related to “the Fall”. The two alternatives are right, by Matrix/DNA Theory. The ancestor in the sky was perfect, attacked by entropy had “the Fall” and is lifting up again = evolution.

    TheMatrixDNA in reply to MrIan9876 1 second ago

  • I’m eager to hear you explain that assertion :)

    GapWim in reply to MrIan9876 2 days ago

  • It’s simply about “my body was designed” rather than “my body is an accident”. The person who (wrongly) believes that it’s an accident imagines that he could come up with a better design. He’ll say, “Spines shouldn’t be curved! That’s bad design!” He’s wrong. The curves are a brilliant design.

    MrIan9876 in reply to GapWim 1 day ago

  • true, fortunate no one actually says the body is an accident … unless you want to count the straw mans that’s been built around evolution.

    Curves may be a brilliant design, but they’re also rather painfull if in the wrong pace on your spine.

    Do you think this is also a brilliant designed curve?


    GapWim in reply to MrIan9876 1 day ago

  • OK, so maybe I should have “the end result of a very long chain of accidents selected by a poorly defined process”. (Genetic mutations are accidents, are they not?) As for scoliosis, and at this point I must make it clear that my scoliosis only causes me very minor pain, that wasn’t part of the original plan. You might need to look into some theology of “the Fall” and its consequences.

    MrIan9876 in reply to GapWim 25 minutes ago

  • In fact you are right, the spine was previous designed, but in this way: Pick up any disc of those composing the vertebral column and put it over a drawn of a nucleotide. The shapes are the same. Now pick up two nucleotides composing a horizontal base-pair of DNA and put it over a drawn of the building blocks of any galaxy. The shapes continues being the same. The spine was designed in the stars because there is one unique universal evolutionary lineage. Nature is the great designer!

    TheMatrixDNA in reply to MrIan9876 (Show the comment) 1 day ago

  • I must confess that I’m not sure what religion your comments represent. It is clearly a religion and it would appear to be monotheistic, but I’m not familiar with your theology. Is your “God” (or “god”) a “person” in any sense – does he/she/it have thoughts/plans/intentions? One assumes that “the great designer” must have thoughts, etc. Does your god love?

    MrIan9876 in reply to TheMatrixDNA 15 minutes ago

  • Mrlan, my post talks about spine, nucleotides and galaxies, real natural things that

    everybody agree as existent, despite different interpretations. Talks about design, which is natural in the sense of genetic transmission. No time for religions, beliefs, politics. My elaborated theory, The Matrix/DNA suggests there is evolution inside a process of universal reproduction and reproduction means designer, but, natural, not supernatural. I can’t know how operates the mind of ex-machine designers.

    TheMatrixDNA in reply to MrIan9876 1 second ago

    Following the observation that vertebral discs has the same shape and structural function of nucleotides ( have you observed that DNA is a flexible column also?… the spine function is structural, the bone-axis of thorax) and these shapes are located as the shape of the axis of galaxies, we see here a universal process of macroevolution by design through genetic transmission. It is comprehensible that had time to evolve to suit our upright gait. I solve this pain with my meditation techinic.

    TheMatrixDNA in reply to MrIan9876 1 second ago


  • You go! If nature or the material world is devoid of love then evilotion is denial of Jesus! I can’t go a day without knowing God loves me. You are truly blessed.

    moronfifty in reply to MrIan9876 (Show the comment) 13 minutes ago

  • Ok, do not change your beliefs due what I say, because I know I don’t know the Thru. But be advised, we are separated in everything. My days are supported by the belief that Humanity loves me and I love Humanity. It is such a felling that if I meet the God described in the Bible, and “if” he confirms that he tortured and killed those human beings, I will ask to FBI arrest him, bring on him to Justice and apply the death penalty.

    TheMatrixDNA in reply to moronfifty 1 second ago


  • I must confess that I’m not sure what religion your comments represent. It is clearly a religion and it would appear to be monotheistic, but I’m not familiar with your theology. Is your “God” (or “god”) a “person” in any sense – does he/she/it have thoughts/plans/intentions? One assumes that “the great designer” must have thoughts, etc. Does your god love?

    MrIan9876 in reply to TheMatrixDNA 15 minutes ago

  • Mrlan, my post talks about spine, nucleotides and galaxies, real natural things that

    everybody agree as existent, despite different interpretations. Talks about design, which is natural in the sense of genetic transmission. No time for religions, beliefs, politics. My elaborated theory, The Matrix/DNA suggests there is evolution inside a process of universal reproduction and reproduction means designer, but, natural, not supernatural. I can’t know how operates the mind of ex-machine designers.

    TheMatrixDNA in reply to MrIan9876 1 second ago


The denial of ToE by creationists is not feed by anger against the supporters of natural evolutionary process, it is due a big mistake of Darwin when said something like: “the transformations of species producing this big diversification indicates that species were not created one by one…” Darwin attacked religious too. Now there are theories showing lots of evidences that diversification could be created one by one through transformations, like Matrix/DNA Theory. Maybe everybody is right.

TheMatrixDNA 1 second ago – 11:47 PM – Sep, 05


  • Why would you think such a being was limited in that way? When I say God is outside the universe, clearly what is meant is that He is not bound within it. But there would be nothing stopping Him from manifesting Himself within it. And, in fact, that is what He has done occasionally….. although I accept that you would not believe any record of those occasions.

    beingenius in reply to dangerouslytalented (Show the comment) 12 hours ago

  • But if there is no way of getting from outside the universe to inside it, then something that exists outside it can’t affect things inside it, and if something was able to be outside the universe but IS able to affect the things inside it, there should be some kind of link (and with your all pervasive god, that thing would have to be everywhere).

    dangerouslytalented in reply to beingenius 11 minutes ago

  • Such hypothetical being outside of the Universe can affect inside it without getting inside it, like a doctor outside the womb-universe of a fetus can affect inside the womb, or still, man can affect inside the hardware of a computer changing the software. We are discovering that natural light has the code for imprint the vital cycle into matter, so, theoretically, any modified waves of electric magnetic spectrum can affect things here. Light can be the software of a natural “god” ex-machine.

    TheMatrixDNA in reply to dangerouslytalented 1 second ago

    But there is a link between the world outside the uterus and the world inside the uterus, there is the umbilical cord, the amniotic fluid etc, these things are plainly evident, the same with the input/output devices on a computer.

    But what the hell are you talking about natural light having the code for imprinting a vital cycle?

    dangerouslytalented in reply to TheMatrixDNA (Show the comment) 3 minutes ago

    Remember, this is merely one more theory, with lots of evidences. You bring a good point: what kind of link, mimicking the umbilical cord, could be the channel for a flow of light waves?! Strings? Quantum fluctuations? About the code, there is a picture of an electric-magnetic spectrum graphic in Matrix/DNA website suggesting how it works if  the following tests will prove it is real.

    TheMatrixDNA in reply to dangerouslytalented


  • There *is* evidence of Creation. The programmed matter inside of you proves you have a Maker / Programmer not made of matter because matter only ever does what it is made to do. Matter is not able to programme itself.

    “Scientists” are so empty headed.

    They need to stop teaching evolution immediately. Life does not reprogramme itself. It only does what it is made to do.

    Matter only ever does what it’s made to do and proves you have a Maker.

    PROOF OF GOD in less than 10 seconds


    JungleJargon 1 minute ago

  • Mater is not programmed, like any hardware is not. But maybe you right, maybe there is a Maker. The method comparative anatomy – applied over living and non-living systems suggests a theory that all natural systems (from atoms to galaxies to human brains) are composed by hardware and software. Memory and dynamics for matter’s motions are carried by light, which seven different frequencies observed in electric-magnetic spectrum is the code for life. Maybe the source of this light is your Maker.

    TheMatrixDNA in reply to JungleJargon 1 second ago


  • They need to cut the evolution segment out of science in put schools. They say they don’t involve religions, well aren’t they right! They’re teaching our kids atheism! That’s frivolous!

    killafromspaze102 2 minutes ago

  • If a doctor does not understand the evolutionary steps from blastula to fetus to embryo, and the mechanisms that changes the shapes from baby to child to teenager, he will not be able to deal with embryology and keeping it health. These steps are merely phases of a larger process: reproduction. We are discovering that the evolution in the whole Universe is about systems, from atoms to galaxies to humans. Why not the wonderful hypothesis it is the reproduction of the God’s son? Keep evolution.

    TheMatrixDNA in reply to killafromspaze102 1 second ago


  • continued2- Fred Hoyle, one of the greatest scientists of the 20th century, and his colleague Chandra Wickramasinghe calculated the odds that all of the functional proteins necessary for life might form in one place by random event. The calculation is 10(40000). Since there are only 10(80) subatomic particles in the entire visible universe, the physicists concluded that s this was “an outrageously small probability that could not be faced even if the whole universe consisted of organic soup!”

    MrWiseinheart 20 minutes ago

  • The problem is that proteins’ origins were not random events. It was designed. How? By who? These proteins appeared inside a star system, under the action of forces from a planet and a star. These systems has inter-connections among its constituents parts. These connections are composed by energy that works as flow of informations. When these systems creates cell’s systems, the organelles are produced and linked by proteins that functions as those flows of information. See Matrix/DNA models.

    TheMatrixDNA in reply to MrWiseinheart 1 second ago


  • One of the biggest discoveries since Darwin is that cells are not just blobs of plasma as he thought, but are incredibly complex (we can’t even make one from scratch). When it was 1st discovered that there is a code there, and explicit instructions for carrying on its functions, that should have been the end of the debate. It’s like walking on the beach and finding in the sand “Mary loves John”. You can believe that the actions of the wind and waves caused that, but you would be wrong.

    glhancox in reply to whiteowl1415 (Show the comment) 8 hours ago

  • How can you prove that DNA is a code, like a set of symbolic instructions? There is a theory introducing models of DNA suggesting it is not a code. DNA is composed by horizontal pairs of nucleotides. Those pairs are working individual systems, just the biological copy of the building block of astronomical systems. There4 is no pair identical to another, each one has a small speciation. Then, DNA is merely a pile of mutated systems from an original one. See the model at Matrix/DNA Theory.

    TheMatrixDNA in reply to glhancox 1 second ago – 7:11 AM Wed, Sep, 05


All ancient religions made their good jobs at their time. The human mind (the electrical flashes of sinapses) is surrounded by a circular ring of plasma, like a cloud, which is called “imagination”. Like any baby, the young human mind needs fantasies for keeping this imagination under exercise. If there is no immediate use for a thing, you know, natural selection wouldn’t keep it. But the plasma is getting solidified, it is time to change those fantasies by this wonderful secrets of Nature.

TheMatrixDNA 1 second ago

  • Its not plasma and its not like a cloud. They are chemical impulses in specific regions of the brain. The brain is malleable and it slows down its cellular replication with age. This is why there is a window of opportunity with learning while you are a child and this is why Bill Nye is pleading with parents who don’t believe in evolution to please not hamper their children from knowing the truth or they will grow up unable to comprehend science properly.

    truvelocity in reply to TheMatrixDNA (Show the comment) 22 seconds ago

  • I don’t think so. The chemical impulses are “effect” of imagination. How could chemicals creates the complex histories of your dreams? By the way you could be right. I suggest you reading the topic “imagination”in Wikipedia, it is interesting and explains my references about fairy tales for children. Cheers.

    TheMatrixDNA in reply to truvelocity 1 second ago

    • Its not a cloud or plasma. That’s a stretch to call it that when it isn’t.

      truvelocity in reply to TheMatrixDNA (Show the comment) 2 minutes ago

    • The important here is understanding the function of fairy tales and if you go to Wikipedia, imagination says just that. Do you know how is the physical substance of imagination? Please, if so, give me a link, thanks. I have read there are theories, like mine is my theory.

      TheMatrixDNA in reply to truvelocity 1 second ago


  • evolution is no matter of belief. true, it’s still called a “theory” but that is only because it can’t be proven. why? because of this idea of “deep time” that bill nye speaks of. people who don’t accept the theory of evolution don’t understand the concept of deep time. once you get it, it’s all logical.

    btw, it’s not only fundemantal for all of “life science” (however that is defined) but can be transferred to anything that is subjected to the progress of time.

    teeds88 55 minutes ago

  • Maybe the scientific community is doing the same error in relation to cosmological evolution. The current astronomical model of astro’s origins is based in idea of spontaneous generation, where stars and planets are formed once time and the definitive shapes. The bad result is that they can’t find in this model the forces and elements that produced life. But… what happens when we try to expand this time? The result is seeing the vital cycle there, life explained.

    TheMatrixDNA in reply to teeds88 1 second ago


Creationists forget that God is showing how evolution works: the process of embryogenesis, where a shape (blastulae, remembering the primordial atomic nebula and galaxies), then the shape of fetus, embryo, baby, kid, etc. You know that is watching a big process of reproduction through evolutionary steps. Till the first moment of a human body is made with a Big Bang ( the explosion of spermatozoon envelope). When seeing universal evolution you are watching the reproduction pf the God’s son.

TheMatrixDNA 1 second ago

  • Embryonic recapitulation? Sorry but that’s just not true at all.

    EternalDensity in reply to TheMatrixDNA (Show the comment) 21 minutes ago

  • I know the refutation to Haeckel’s theory (ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny) . And I don’t agree with the technical arguments of that refutation. The problem is that Haeckel theory is full of errors and not complete, like the Darwinian theory of evolution is not complete. But theories are here for being improved and temporary suspension does not invalidates it.

    TheMatrixDNA in reply to EternalDensity 1 second ago


  • You’ve likely heard the phrase “dust to dust”. Humans are essentially composed of disparate non-biological components (carbon, oxygen, hydrogen, etc.). When we die, we decompose back into these elements.

    Interestingly, these heavier elements can only be forged under the massive pressure of a dying star.  Everything in your body was originally inside a star that eventually exploded, scattering its contents across the universe and providing the fertile soil for life, and eventually you.

    RedZeshinX in reply to Grimmsoul (Show the comment) 2 minutes ago

  • The biggest surprise, Mr. RedZeshinX, is the stars content could work like half-biological/half-mechanica­l genes, and scattering its content is the same scattering the seeds for producing its offspring, complete biological systems (aka life). The reason of this evolution from half to complete is that the stars system were made only with gaseous and solid states, while its seeds falls in places where exists the liquid states, which enable organic chemical reactions. See Matrix/DNA models.

    TheMatrixDNA in reply to RedZeshinX 1 second ago


  • Given enough time, a breeding isolating mechanism occurs where one population of birds that came from the original population of birds can no longer have viable off spring with each other. See “Ring Species.” Otherwise, you’ve got some explaining to do if you think your version of science is more worthy to teach our children.

    truvelocity in reply to MrWiseinheart (Show the comment) 22 minutes ago

  • Fact #2 – ring species are not an example of evolution, which requires an increase in genetic information. They are an example of a loss of genetic information, a degradation of life, and the opposite of what evolution is supposed to be. There is no support for evolution in ring species. Because ring species show the effects of genetic degradation, they demonstrate we live in a fallen world created by God.

    MrWiseinheart in reply to truvelocity 3 minutes ago

  • I can’t understand from where you got the idea that it is genetic degradation. The three lines of ring species are opened, not closed as a ring, which means open to complexity, evolution. Can you explain your interpretation? Thanks.

    TheMatrixDNA in reply to MrWiseinheart 1 second ago


The problem of scholar education is that Science did not find a good metaphorical fantasy for fulfill the empty space of imagination in human mind, like creationists did it with fairy tales. The theory of evolution suggests a world without love, sensitiveless, emotionless, not appropriated for human mind. And the problem of creationism isn’t believing in God, but reducing God to the proportion of ancient illiterate people. If you want, think God ” give him glory, as mystery beyond the Universe.

TheMatrixDNA 1 second ago


Someone who purely believes in evolutionism please explain how life suddenly springs into existence. Not denying evolution, there’s evidence of that all around… I just find it amusing how pure evolutionists can deny a process in which a single celled organism suddenly sprouts into existence and starts to live….

Grimmsoul 6 minutes ago

You will find it mist amusing when you will take out the fake superstitions that the young counciousness of human kind has covered Nature, and discovering that words like ” life” makes no sense. If there is God, he did not create the non-living, and in fact, it does not exist. Change the word “life” by the name “biological systems” and search to know how is the half-mechanical/half-biologica­l system (Matrix/DNA) that genetically produced it. But do not believe in my theory, search your own.

TheMatrixDNA in reply to Grimmsoul 1 second ago

A process of “creation” took place to create a biologic organism from non-biologic components. I have never seen proof of non-biologic components creating a living biologic being…. If that was possible why not scientifically create sperm and an ovum without a human donating them and make our own biologic being… we can’t do it.

Grimmsoul in reply to TheMatrixDNA (Show the comment) 1 minute ago

But, the fact we never saw “non-biologic components able to be transformed into biological components” only give us the right to elaborate a theory suggesting they do not exist. Non knowledge of evidence does not means absence of evidence. So you have a theory, anything else, and a good theory. I have other theory with pictured models suggesting that the astronomical state of the world was not “non-biological” but half-mechanical/half-biologica­l, is only theory but can be falsified.

TheMatrixDNA in reply to Grimmsoul 1 second ago


I believe you are mistaken, and that mutations are indeed random and are then acted on by natural selection, which is a culling effect and only selects from what is already present, not creating anything new. As I see it, the biggest difference between creationists and evolutionists is that we believe that the vast amount of information found in even the simplest living organisms has an intelligent source (reminiscent of Pasteur’s law of Biogenesis) and evolutionists believe it has no source.

glhancox in reply to OstensiblyTrue (Show the comment) 52 seconds ago

Then, there is a third worldvision, which found that “there is a source”, but it is “a natural, primitive, non intelligent source”. And we bring the face of this source, pictured as LUCA ( the Last Universal Common Ancestor). See the picture of the face of life’s creator at Matrix/DNA Theory and bring on real facts trying to debunk it.

TheMatrixDNA in reply to glhancox 1 second ago – 9:13 PM Tuesday, Sep, 04.


Here a quick test for science: what or who did the first act to begin the whole process? Science can’t answer that but maybe you could. Science says that every effect has a cause. If that cause is a machine, then who built that? If it be a person so to speak-then who is it?

KLPLAB in reply to BrandoftheSacrifice (Show the comment) 16 minutes ago

That’s easy. The first act to begin our bodies is a Big Bang: the “explosion” of the spermatozoon envelope inside the ova. It is made by natural agents, without using any kind of intelligence. This is what the Universe ( and maybe some kind of God) is showing and answering your question just here and now. Any other idea is not based in natural Reason.

TheMatrixDNA in reply to KLPLAB 1 second ago


You are saying that you and your wife or girlfriend can create a baby in 9 months or even 6 or 7 months (babies can survive at that age) but God could not create a human in a day. If evolution, which Wikipedia has starting 3.7 billion years ago were true it should require many years to have a baby. I am giving you a break forget about all life other than human and deal with just human life. If it is magic to create life in 1 day than it is moronic to believe it took billions of years.

Dan Dillon in reply to kallistiX1 (Show the comment) 14 minutes ago

Dan Dillon, babies are made by embryogenesis not abiogenesis. The first cell system was made by same method, embryogenesis (abiogenesis is wrong name, the right is “cosmological embryogenesis). It took 3 billion years because the parents are astronomical systems, which time is astronomical. Your confusion is due the ignorance about the astronomical system that rationally is the real creator of biological systems, and in which “body” life arises like viruses arises inside your own body.

TheMatrixDNA in reply to Dan Dillon 1 second ago


Neither, but like any good student I have continued to study subjects that interest me in the 20+ years since I graduated. Open your eyes. Study the subject of irreducible complexity and you will begin to understand the microscopic world is unbeliveably complex and can’t be explained by evolutuonary theories.

angelgirlsdad in reply to filthypigdaddy (Show the comment) 17 seconds ago

There is no irreducible complexity if you know the real creator of biological systems (aka “life”) . All living properties were identified in its half-mechanical/half biological shape in the building block of astronomical systems. The first cell system is a biological copy of a astronomical working structure and reason indicates that biological systems are merely continuation from cosmological evolution. Everything is reducible to LUCA (Last universal Common Ancestor): Earth is part of LUCA

TheMatrixDNA in reply to angelgirlsdad 1 second ago


Yes. It does say that. The Bible talks about slavery a lot. I am a slave, in fact, to Christ. But we’re not talking Civil War slavery here. This is a completely different form. Slaves in this sense served their masters but were taken care of in a kind and gentle way. The Bible does not specifically say that slavery is wrong. And while I am not saying that we should still have enslaved persons, I am saying that we are not talking about the same kind of slavery.

Amanda Eunpu in reply to Peidanful (Show the comment) 4 seconds ago

You have loosed the control of your mind! Slavery, be it where and when it is, is an aberration! I never wish any kind of slavery for any human being, and a God that proves the existence of slavery is not my god, it is my enemy!

TheMatrixDNA in reply to Amanda Eunpu 1 second ago


Posts Interessantes:

Hebrews 11:1 Tell us “Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.” Religious faith and Christian faith are two differing points, regardless of whether or not so-called “scientists” believe it or not. To be religious is not Christian, Christ called us to follow Him, not the church. I really don’t see how people can say “Faith leaves unanswered questions.” I have learned that often times, I get more from God than I do from science.

dougdunning 1 hour ago


I don’t think there is a need for personal attacks here. We are all trying to prove our points…

Slithlou in reply to mastersman1 (Show the comment) 1 minute ago


Lista de Plausiveis Argumentos Contra ToE


The second law of thermodynamics and genetic science destroy the “millions of years of evolution” theory, but you don’t know it yet. Actually, if you’re looking for the most simple explanation, the “Goddidit” theory is simpler than the more complex and illogical theory of “millions of years of a chemical soup with lightning bolts forming a few inanimate proteins which magically became an amoeba which magically replicated itself and magically joined with other amoebas to become a dinosaur.”


The haters for a hundred years after Darwin can be tied to Darwin starting with Nietzsche (who asserted that God was dead, called for the breeding of a master race and for the annihilation of millions of misfits), followed by Hitler, Mussolini, Marx, Engels, Stalin, etc. Evolutionary teachings have resulted in soaking the soil of Europe in innocent blood. After all, evolutionists tell us that man is only a little higher than the animals


Mitchell Urey merely show that inanimate chemicals can be randomly created from the supposed conditions at the supposed time of creation of life. That was 1952. Since then, despite having reverse engineered the genomes of many species, NO ONE HAS CREATED LIFE!


Goglar isto: Top Ten Creationist Arguments

“… the number of intermediate varieties, which have formerly existed [must] truly be enormous. Why then is not every geological formation and every stratum full of such intermediate links? Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely-graduated organic chain; and this, perhaps, is the most obvious and serious objection which can be urged against the theory [of evolution].” Ibid., p. 323.

HISTRUTHBEKNOWN in reply to coffey3c (Show the comment) 1 hour ago

Not sure how you figure that??? Secondly, re the scientific method….. it involves the ability to test a proposal repeatably and repeatable arrive at the same result. Neither evolution nor creation is testable in that way. The so called “proven” hypothesis of evolution is really only historical science – which involves looking at the evidence and suggesting what it means. If one does not believe that God created everything in 7 days, then one chooses to interpret the evidence differently

  • First of all the very reason that the USA is the most advanced technological country in the world is because of its deep heritage in the Word of God and following the principles laid out in that word. If you look at the dark ages or the middle ages in history, science was suppressed for many years. The Protestant Reformation started in Germany and the countries (Britain, USA) who accepted it were blessed the most with science and development. Please no comments! Read your Bible or be ignorant…

  • Thats why we don’t have CERN, a working fusion reactor, or a super safe fission reactor. We are probably dead last in alternative energy research (1st world countries) and our congress has gotten nothing done. We are 16th in education and around the 40s for healthcare, unemployment is around 13% and we have a very high teen pregnancy percentage. If I got any of these statistics wrong, then please correct me.


Lista de Plausiveis Argumentos contra ID e Criacionismo


Creationists attack Darwin because they sincerely view evolution as a competing “religion” and Darwin as its “prophet”. If I could prove that Jesus had never died on a cross or resurrected, that would end Christianity. Likewise they think that evolution is a cosmogeny for atheists, and by attacking the prophet Darwin they can shatter the belief of atheists in evolution. Because clearly the whole of evolution is organized around the personality of Darwin and not anything so mundane as *evidence*.


Not all of us hold to the idea that science is intrinsically restricted to methodological naturalism. I myself hold to a provisional methodological naturalism: if an interventionist deity actually intervenes, then such an intervention is in principle capable of being examined scientifically. Unfortunately for the intelligent design creationists and others, no such evidence has been forthcoming.


I cited the existence of lens crystallins in vertebrates and molluscs. In vertebrates, the alpha-crystallin is homologous to a heat shock protein and in molluscs the omega-crystallin is homologous to aldehyde dehydrogenase. What I’d like a creationist to explain is why the creator is using two separate proteins for the same function when either would work just as well and why they’re homologous to proteins of different functions when he could have created his own special crystallin for the job.


Really? A population of 7 billion diverse people stemming from a single couple makes sense without evolution? How do we have different races of humans if they didn’t evolve and everyone came from the same two people?

If everything requires a creator then who created god?

Wilbey Burns in reply to MoralDecay (Show the comment) 51 seconds ago in playlist More


Pretty sure its the evolutionary/atheistic life style that is taught. Seriously, do some research, and prove me wrong if you can. I will happily accept it, though notably I will research what you say.

BeejofNOMM in reply to ExtantFrodo (Show the comment) 1 hour ago

Um you do know that as little as 100 years ago woman were still traded like livestock in the united states and a 10-14 year old bride could be purchased with a dowry. Right?

Cool story though my baked brotato with chives and sour cream.

ZennExile in reply to BeejofNOMM (Show the comment) 1 hour ago


You have to understand that my entire point of contention is the fact that for the creationist argument to be valid it MUST contain an objective means by which it can be determined whether or not “macro” evolution has taken place. If such a method does not exist then not only is there absolutely no cause to say it does or does not happen, there is no cause to say that evolution requires it AT ALL.

Creationists refuse to objectively define their terms and methods because they are dishonest.

Onithyr in reply to YamiYami17 (Show the comment) 3 minutes ago


only two things needed to disprove intelligent design and support evolution – the appendix and the coccyx. if you can explain to me why “god” gave us those two things, then you may continue to argue for it. if not, your argument is over and invalid.

ylze74428 in reply to Codename73 (Show the comment) 4 minutes ago



I will leave saying look how the geologic column confirms evolution. Look at the radioisotope ratios that correlate column depths. Look at how they are confirmed through atomic physics & astronomy. Look at how astronomy confirms the geologic column & the age of the earth & the universe. Look at the genetic data which tracks the morphologically derived phylogeny with predictable perfection.Look at the phylogeny which is laid out in order in the geologic column when sorted according to date.

ExtantFrodo2 3 hours ago


A Favor da Ciencia/Evolução



Famous fossil expert, Niles Eldredge confessed, “…geologists have found rock layers of all divisions of the last 500 million years and no transitional forms were contained in them.” Dr. Eldredge further said, “…no one has yet found any evidence of such transitional creatures.”

Oh? The guy who agrees with the overall theory of evolution, but claims speciation occurs via punctuated equilibrium and not via phyletic gradualism?

Sorry man, quoting quote-mines from apologetics websites is not a good idea. Bullshit always backfires.


Evidence for evolution: the progression in the fossil record of forms from primitive to derived, ERV’s, fruit fly speciation, the Italian Wall Lizard, nylon-eating bacteria, the E-coli experiment, Tiktaalik, Archeopteryx, Pakicetus, the Kettwell experiment, Mendel’s pea plant experiments, ring species, nearly everything we eat, vestigial organs like the appendix and the tail bone and I’m just scratching the surface.


Actually in the past 10 years the crime rates have gone down.

Pregnancy rates have decreased over the past two decades among all races, ethnicities and age groups except for women in their 30s

Pregnancy rates for teenagers (ages 15 to 19) fell 40 percent from 1990 to 2008

budd1475 in reply to BeejofNOMM (Show the comment) 1 hour ago

You were given an example–evolutionary theory predicted that the reason humans have 46 chromosomes and chimpanzees have 48 is that there must have been a chromosome fusion, and it was found on human chromosome #2, precisely as predicted. Test applied. Result confirmed. No such test or confirmation has ever happened with creationism. Your ego writes cheques you can’t cash.

This has been flagged as spam hide

Here’s the thing, let’s say 0 evolves into 1. We find evidence of species .5. Then you ask where the transitional fossils are. Then we find .25 and .75, and you ask again for the transitional species. Then we find .125 and .875, and you ask once more for the transitional fossils. There’s no end with you people, we could find a fossil for every century along the human evolutionary timeline and you would ask where the fossils in between those centuries are.

He’s 100% right. I’ve helped teach at universities in 3 countries, and the American college freshmen have a HUGE knowledge deficit in terms of biology. Having to spend a significant portion of the semester just teaching them the very basics of evolution is a big problem. It’s the cornerstone of modern biology and they have no clue…how is this legal? It’s based on a trial that happened so long ago…well before the science was even fully understood. Wtf America?