ABIOGÊNESE

vPortuguêsEnglishHome Artigos A Matriz Livro Contato -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Arquivo para a ‘Abiogênese’ Categoria « Older EntriesBit por Bit: A Base Darwiniana da Vida sexta-feira, maio | 18 | 2012 Excelente “paper” apresentado para peer-revew será aqui analizado linha por linha sob o ponto de vista da Matrix/DNA. Por enquanto copiamos abaixo apenas o comentário da Matrix/DNA nos seguintes jornais: Bit by Bit: The Darwinian Basis of Life PLOSBIOLOGY.ORG. http://www.plosbiology.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pbio.1001323 Gerald F. Joyce - PLoS Biol 10(5): e1001323. doi:10.1371/journal.pbio.1001323 - Published: May 8, 2012 Comentário inicial da Matrix/DNA postado em: 1) http://www.plosbiology.org/annotation/listThread.action?inReplyTo=49741&root=49741 2) http://www.universetoday.com/95071/alien-life-may-not-be-so-alien-if-it-exists-at-all/ Alternative form of life? We can try another approach. Today nobody could accept that the cellular organelles are forms of life. because they are part od cell system. But… if the symbiotic hypothesis of Margullis is right? Ribosome, Mitochondria, chloroplasts, till the nucleolus were micro-organisms? If so, each one could evolve to specific life form? Today nobody could accept that astronomic bodies are life forms. Because their constitution seems so single and they belongs to stellar and galactic systems. The formation of the first cell system was different from the formation of modern cells. The cells does not need those millions years of abiogeneses because they learned to replicate themselves. If the formation of the first galactic system was different also from the formation of modern galaxies? I mean, the first galaxy was formed by symbioses? There is a natural mechanism that could be the solution for the process of symbioses for both, cells and galaxies: life cycle. If a different life form – one that seems to us a inanimated object or/and non-able to replicate – is under this mechanism, the object will be transformed into several different shapes, like a human body under this mechanism shows the forms of blastulae, embryo, baby, adult, etc. So, any molecular complex compound like a ribosome, under this mechanism could be transformed into mitochondria, cloroplast, all shapes of organelles. it is easy for seeing this if we think the different shapes of anumal specie under evolution, from reptiles to fish to mammals. Now suppose that before galaxies and even stellar systems origins, there were a unique kind of astronomical body, but, under the process of life cycle. Its transformations could be from planets to pulsars to stars to quasars, black holes, etc. Since that there is a conexion link between two sequencial shapes of any individual, this conexion is the responsible for symbiosis. It is weird to think that a kind of inanimated natural object could be under the process of life cycle. But there is a possibility, and it came from natural light. The electomagnetic spectrum of light shows that any laight ray or wave has seven diffferent frequencies. it means seven different speed of vibrations. Applied over a natural object, dense enough that the light can not escape, but it is not destroyed, each kind of vibration could perform different effects over that object. Maybe a light wave has the code for life, if the seven different vibrations can generate seven different shapes of a unique object. So, it is not weird at all. Now, think that the radiation of light from the Sun creates seven different fields of vibration around it. Seven different orbital fields. There is only those two intermediates orbital suited for the seeds of life being nurtured, because the initial ones are too much rapid and the last ones are too much slow. The planets in these orbitals are Earth, Mars, maybe Venus? Now suppose that a star is like an onion, each level is about each stage of its formation. It should means that the Earth surface receipts seven kind of photons, each one as bit of information of a shape of a life cycle. In another words, all seven shapes of photons together are the seed of life. The Earth nucleus must have at least the initial 50% of those bits, which reaches the surface through volcanoes, ocean vents, etc. Then we have the appropriate land for the seeds evolving. And the process of fecundation is like our sexual process; half of information coming from the sun, another half coming from Earth. Finally, which were the previous information for the first biological life? When I calculated what could happen to an initial astronomical body under the process of life cycle because it does not permit the escape of light, I got the existent another known six shapes. Those seven kind of bodies could be linked by the invisible connection of time, like a human teenage can be linked to its adult shape. But, doing it my models showed that the seven astronomic bodies are aligned like a circuit of a system, and, surprising, the system has the same shape of a lateral pair of nucleotides, the fundamental bit of information for RNA and DNA. So, the previous information for the first biological life form is the information about astronomical systems, whose that really created life inside them. Researchers has experimented all possibilities of miligram of RNA and not got a life form. What is missing in those RNA? The work of those photons? Inside terrestrial atoms they can work like a religion can work a human brain: changing the atoms normal behavior for to build a copy of the celestial system they came from. At my website there are the models of Matrix/DNA formula, the astronomical system under the force of life cycles, the electromagnetic spectrum as the code for life, etc. It could be everything wrong, but, I think is good food for thought in different ways like we wull need for to recognize different alternatives life forms. xxxx Análise do Artigo: Bit by Bit: The Darwinian Basis of Life Abstract All known examples of life belong to the same biology, but there is increasing enthusiasm among astronomers, astrobiologists, and synthetic biologists that other forms of life may soon be discovered or synthesized. Matrix: O primeiro problema agora é entender porque uma porção de matéria é dita “viva” pelo observador humano e outra não é aceita como viva. Não se trata de pegar um monte de terra numa mão e uma lagartixa na outra e dizer: isto é vivo e isto não é. Pois se cortarmos um pedacinho da pele da lagartixa e deixar na mão até secar teremos que dizer que aquilo em nossas mãos não é vivo. Então quem garante que a porção de terra em minha mão não foi retirada de um sistema vivo, astronomico? Ñunca podemos nos esquecer que a relatividade nos prega armadilhas imperceptiveis. Tamanhos, medidas existem em nossas cabeças como especificos observadores situados numa dimensão limitadissima do tempo e do espaço. Não vale comparar pedaços de sistemas com sistemas completos, e o problema é que muitas vêzes o sistema não é percebido. Mesmo assim, descontando-se êsse êrro comum, o ser humano diferencia sistemas naturais em vivos e não-vivos, alegando que para ser vivo um sistema tem que ser tão complexo a ponto de apresentar ao menos sete propriedades vitais. Não lhe interessa o fato de que sistemas atômicos e astronomicos são sistemas ancestrais dos complexos sistemas biológicos. Mas, ora, se são ancestrais de vivos deveriam ser igualmente vivos. Os modêlos da Matrix estão sugerindo que um sistema atômico já possue em si, na forma de pot6encia latente, mas não expressadas ao mesmo tempo, os principios de tôdas as propriedades vitais. Não é porque num baby o bigode, ou a atividade sexual, ainda não se expressam – mas já existe como potencial latente – que não vamos considerá-lo como não-vivo. O que impede, ou melhor, existirá alguma lei natural que impeça a existência de um ser vivo milhões de vêzes maior que nós? Tão grande para nossas medidas que poderíamos passar por dentro dêle, ou ver à distnacia partes dêle, sem nos dar-mos conta que é um sistema e vivo? O primeiro impecilho apontado seria o tamanho dos astros, que não deveriam, por exemplo, suster uma forma de vida maior que um sistema solar. Mas, ora, o Universo é quase ou talvez seja infinito e não está nem aí para nosso problema com tamanhos. O sistema solar pode ser um átomo do mundo de tal ser vivo assim como é um átomo na terra para nosso mundo. E a udade de tal ser vivo pode alcançar milhões de anos, no mundo dêle os movimentos são normaos para êle mas para nós apenas um ciclo de sua respiração seria um tempo igual ao que vasi do inicio ao desaparecimento da Humanidade na Terra, portanto nunca perceberiamos seus movimentos vitais. Êle andaria pisando em galáxias assim como andamos pisando nos grãos de areia de uma praia. Existe algum empecilho natural para sua existência? Qual seria o tamanho médio de seres vivos em Jupiter? E quem garante que o próprio Universo não seja um ser vivo? Nós não queremos ser micróbios ( em relação a tempo e espaço), mas nada natural está impedindo que o sejamos. É preciso trabalhar a definição dêste simbolo linguistico, “Vida”, para eleger-se uma definição que facilite a comunicação entre humanos por levarem todos a entenderem um unico e mesmo significado. É preciso estudar o que significa a Vida na natureza material. Por enquanto, para mim parece-me que Vida tem o significado de uma “mensagem”. Os mesmos tipos de átomos são encontrados formando os dois tipos de organização da matéria, então o que diferencia uma porção viva de uma não-viva? É um tipo de fôrça natural, por enquanto invisivel, que atua sôbre e talvez de dentro de alguns átomos e de outros não. Esta fôrça é a causa de átomos adquirirem comportamentos em sistemas vivos e é o efeito de tais átomos no mundo exterior. Portanto ela vem como causa e sai como efeito, ou seja ela “passa” pelos átomos como se ela fôsse um “siginificado” uma mensagem. Pasteur dava o nome a esta fôrça de “principio vital”, mas o que é isto, de onde vem e para que? Um automóvel em quase tudo imita um organismo, um cavalo: tem quatro membros de transporte, se alimenta de combustivel e produz movimentos, trabalho, cada parte do automóvel é uma imitação de um órgão do sistema organismo. Isto porque, consciente ou inconscientemente, a inteligencia humana tinha apenas organismos como conhecido parametro para realizar as tarefas que ela precisava e com isso criou o automóvel imitando organismos. Então porque um organismo é “vivo” e um automóvel nao é? Acho que a fundamental diferença está em que no organismo seus a átomos estão organizados dentro de substratos liquidos os quais provocam reações “quimicas” enquanto no automóvel falta êste substrato em meio a seus átomos. Se isto estiver certo, foi fácil encontrar uma diferença-chave. Poderíamos a partir de agora entender que a quimica é a diferença, ou seja, que para de dentro da não-vida emergir a vida seria necessario um fenômeno ao qual denominamos “quimica”. Mas lembrando-se do modêlo da Matrix para galáxias originais, temos que propriedades da vida, como a reprodução sexual, pode ser emergida da não-vida sem a quimica. E daí surge a possibilidade de que essa “vida” não-quimica se desenvolva como sendo viva porem por outro caminho que não o biológico. Qual? Por enquanto ainda não pensei nisso, só sei que parece possivel e se vamos vasculhar a natureza universal procurando coisas vivas temos que ter esta possibilidade em mente. O modêlo astronomico da Matrix é um modêlo de vida mecânica e o seu modêlo atômico é um modêlo de vida electro-magnética, seu modêlo da luz é um modêlo de vida luminosa, etc. Me parece que a principal diferença comum entre todos êstes modêlos está na quantidade de propriedades vitais que são expressadas por cada modêlo. O automóvel tambem expressa, no nivel abstrato de mensagem e significado existencial, algumas propriedades vitais, como por exemplo, um sistema digestivo. Mas para ser considerado “vivo” um sistema teria que expressar ao mesmo tempo um num ciclo de existência, todas as propriedades vitais, que me parecem ser em numero de sete. Então tem razão o autor ao dizer que todos os exemplos conhecidos de vida pertencem à mesma biologia, e os pesquisadores tem razão em ter esperanças em encontrar outras formas de vida que não biológica, mas é preciso ter alguns exemplos, mesmo que apenas teóricos, imaginados, de possiveis maneiras dos átomos serem combinados para formarem compostos vivos. E isto estou sentindo falta na comunidade dos pesquisadores, a falta de exemplos imaginados, a não ser que existam e eu os desconheço. This enthusiasm should be tempered by the fact that the probability for life to originate is not known. As a guiding principle in parsing potential examples of alternative life, one should ask: How many heritable “bits” of information are involved, and where did they come from? A genetic system that contains more bits than the number that were required to initiate its operation might reasonably be considered a new form of life. Postedo na Abiogênese, Biologia Celular, Coment/Posts da Matrix/DNA na Internet, Darwinism, Debates Criticas Defesas, Divulgação do Website e da Matrix/DNA, Evolução, Macro Evolução, Matrix/DNA: Divulg. Posts. Mens., Origem da Vida, Pesquisas da Matrix/DNA, Átomo | 0 Comments and 0 Reactions O DNA Contem Ou Não o Total Código da Vida? Se Não, Onde Está o Resto? quarta-feira, maio | 16 | 2012 Surpreendente reação e muito intuitiva veio de um autor de um post de codinome “Hkatcher” ao “paper” intitulado ”Bit by Bit: The Darwinian Basis of Life” publicado em… http://www.plosbiology.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pbio.1001323&annotationId=49669 Mas talvez tão surpreendente seja a resposta da Matrix/DNA, abrindo as dimensões da fenomenologia natural para reinos jamais imaginados pelos seres humanos. Vejamos o “post” e a seguir uma breve síntese da explicação da Matrix. Posted by hkatcher on 12 May 2012 at 23:30 GMT I think that any idea that the informational content of an organism is contained in its DNA is naive. If you were to take all the genes of that organism (in terms of DNA stretches that produced RNA) and transcribed and translated them (or no, if they’re meant to be RNAs), into all their final products, threw that mix into a bowl of growth media – you would not have an organisms. Every organism came from a cell, and any multi-celled organism is not a bunch of components but the result of an organized process, one we call its ‘development’. The organism is a structure ordered in both space and time, to think that a list of the twenty-five thousand different types of components, (its genome), is the same understanding the living organism is incorrect – I would like someone to build an advanced fighter jet from a list of its components – and a fighter jet is simplicity itself compared with a living cell. The codes for this four dimensional structure are not contained within DNA, the code for the sequence of amino acids constituting p53, the tumor suppressor protein doesn’t tell us what other proteins it will interact with, doesn’t tell the effects different phosphorylations will have on it and how it will interact with other proteins. The information content of the cell that makes all of the activities dependent on the transfer of genetic material (the chromatin code, the epigenetic code that controls development of organisms, something about which we know next to nothing, and then finally the simple genetic code). What the coding provided by the phosphorylation and other modifications of proteins by proteins, that change their behavior and how they interact with still other proteins – what about those interconnected webs of signaling molecules and transcription factors and DNA and how modifications affect them? How is that information coded in DNA? The interactions between chromatin, and chomosomal territories in interphase nuclei are of primal importance in cell differentiation, where is that carried in the DNA? A stem cell divides assymetrically, the chromatin of one daughter now different from the others’, where is that coded in DNA and how do you measure it’s informational content? So imagine that all that information about the interactions of proteins, DNAs, RNAs etc. with each other, the transcription factors, the kinases (some of which phosphorylate hundreds of different proteins, changing their activities, the, phospatases, acetylases, all that change the components of the cell. Those components now differ from their DNA representations (and alternate splicing extends still further the departure of a static list from the living process) , so that they are in a particular state (and what is the informational content of a ’state’ of a living cell?)wherein the activities of one of it’s proteins could no longer, even theoretically be predicted by the 100,000 letters in its name (nucleotides in it’s DNA representation) if simply because modifications changed its properties. Does it seem credible that all of this information could be contained within the three billion nucleotides of its genome? It is simply not possible. xxx Resposta da Matrix/DNA: That’s great, wonderful, Mr. Hkatcher! Then we have a problem: where are those informations encoded inside an organism? What else has an organism that we still not know it?! As a naturalist philosopher living and observing the biosphere of Amazon jungle I have no Biology knowledge like you but I usually search knowledge in all scientifc fields trying to understanding the whole and my currently theory is suggesting the answer for this question. So, from now I will describe the theory. The key are five words: photons, software, cosmological evolution, systems, light. First of all, the DNA is not a code of something existing other than itself as a system. DNA is merely a pile of sub-systems called “lateral/horizontal pair of nucleotides”. We call this pair as “bit” or fundamental unit of information. A kind of universal matrix. Why? Because the configuration of this bit is the same configuration of a primordial galactic system… So, there is a natural universal formula for organizing matter into systems, from atoms, to galaxies, to cell systems, to human beings. Well, I think that everybody will stop reading this here: this guy is away off the beam. But… A electromagnetic spectrum of light going from X-ray to radio is the code for any life cycle when imprinted inside matter. We need do experiment for testing this strong hypothesis, which arose when in the jungle my eyes were going from the Earth surface to the Sun’s surface radiating light and this light is presents at every step of life in its biosphere. Light is broken into photons, which each one is a copy of the whole wave. Photons are like atoms in the sense that they can have their behavior changed by the system who they belongs, but they can transfer the organization of this system when they fall into atoms belonging to other environment. This could be the principles of memory transference. At a new environment photons has the tendency to re-combination mimicking the configuration of their prior system. The result is a kind of software inside atoms/organisms composed by photons, performing a system that has informations not transferred to those atoms/organisms, which are the hardware. So, maybe here are hidden those informations that you, with good reason, are not seeing in the hardware DNA. Each nucleotide bit is a kind of fractal, a copy of a prior system which is the last universal common ancestor (LUCA) of all biological systems. The problem is that LUCA does not lives at Earth surface, he is the astronomical galactic system. LUCA is half-mechanical/half-biological, since that we can get a biological sexual reproductive process in a mechanistic fashion only aligning astronomic bodies like planets, stars, pulsars, quasars, black holes and comets into a circuit performing a system. These semi-biological kind of matter organization is transferred to terrestrial atoms belonging to rocks and oceans through photons from stars/planetary nucleus radiation. But in the new earth environment there are no exactly copy of the astronomical system, then, each nucleotide is a copy with a detail of variation. So, the sum of all nucleotides performs a new system, RNA or DNA, which has more informations than we can find at each part. These informations is the identity of an emerging system. Now, we need to consider that the sum of DNA’s of any organism performs a new emerging system that is the organism itself. The organism as a whole must have more informations than the contained in each DNA. But, this excess of information, which arises from the fuzzy logic produced by DNA’s connections and interactions, are hidden where? Again the aspect hardware/software. And we know that organisms are composed by a nervous system that obeys a command of instructions. At human brain this “command”are well expressed in which we call “thoughts” or “mind”. Now I am studying the brain searching how the synapses are building the mind as a new shape of the universal matrix formula. The final conclusion is that we need to re-build ours laboratories, the new ones based in the search for effects of natural light. Over atoms that composes life forms. And how is the interaction of a plan belonging to the mind of Bill Gates, transcripted into diagrams of softwares with the hardware of a computer. At my website there are suggestions about the matrix/DNA formula, the picture of astronomical bodies performing a system like nucleotides, the division of light spectrum into the shapes produced by life cycles, etc. Certainly it is not complete, it is not a theory of everything, our brain never will be able to do that, I believe. certainly there are a lot of errors in the models. But it suggest a new perspective, full of food for thoughts. Cheers… Tags: DNA, nucleotide, organism Postedo na Abiogênese, Biologia Celular, DNA, Debates Criticas Defesas, Divulgação do Website e da Matrix/DNA, Fóton, Luz, Matrix/DNA: Divulg. Posts. Mens., Origem da Vida, Pesquisas da Matrix/DNA, Sistemas, Átomo | 0 Comments and 1 Reaction Interessante Nova Visão em Profundidade do Conjunto dos Átomos Que Constituem a Matéria quarta-feira, maio | 16 | 2012 O artigo abaixo merece ser analizado linha por linha. O que faremos no próximo artigo sob o titulo “Bit por Bit: A Base Darwiniana da Vida”. Porem nêste capitulo vamos registrar e analizar um comentário postado no artigo por “bfmorris” que é de uma intuição sensacional: Universe Today: Alien Life May Not Be So Alien – If It Exists At All by JASON MAJOR on MAY 9, 2012 http://www.universetoday.com/95071/alien-life-may-not-be-so-alien-if-it-exists-at-all/ Comentários: bfmorris “This deterministic looking as opposed to stochastic looking phase space should give supporters reason to pause!”" How would this square with our stochastic universe? Life appears similar to the invisible dark matter I read about. We can’t see it, we can only observe its effects. It appears life is invisible; some kind of invisible management system or program, for lack of better word. We can only observe its effects. In this case, what appears to be invisible employment of organised chemistry that among other things, temporarily outwits the second law of thermodynamics. 3 days ago in reply to Torbjörn Larsson xxxx wjwbudro Very intuitive. I’d like more discussion on this thought. 2 days ago in reply to bfmorris xxxx bfmorris What I mean is, and I’m not arguing with you, it appears thus far that the most we can observe is life’s effects; ie on the matter it employs. The atoms in you or me are the same atoms found elsewhere. There is nothing special about them, and we would not be able to differentiate the atoms in us from those in a rock or a rain drop. However, no matter how many times we throw atoms in the proverbial air, we can’t recreate what we observe. The effects on those atoms, by life, are all we have at present for the observation of life. Thus my dark matter analogy, partly in levity, because we can’t see life we only see atoms and molecules behaving strangely together. Perhaps life is a form of unknown emergent energy; which reminds me that we don’t know exactly what energy is, either; we can only observe its effects. The entropy stage of life appears to be, death, which appears to be observable. The atoms and molecules in the dead organism immediately start acting like themselves again. The organism decays, atoms and molecules blow away, evaporate, get eaten and look special again because they are employed in another organism, or whatever.Like 2 days ago in reply to Torbjörn Larsson xxxx Torbjörn Larsson There are plenty of deterministic processes out there. Planetary orbits, star evolution main series, et cetera are short period deterministic. Or you can narrow it down to impact shocks (real short period) and so on. I can’t follow your argument in the middle part. The biosphere is plenty observable. The thermodynamics is besides the point of the existing and observed examples of chemical and biological evolution. Obviously there is no TD problem and nobody has ever claimed such a thing. Please specify what you had in mind. Since the 2LOT concerns entropy what is the entropy of life and how do we observe it? 3 days ago in reply to bfmorris xxxx xxx Resposta da Matrix/DNA Very intuitive, Mr. “bfmorris”. As wjwbudro, I’d like more discussion on this thought. Why atoms behaves different in living organisms? I think the answer is in the hierarchy of natural systems. Must be an invisible natural system inserted inside these atoms and acting from above over them, changing its normal behavior when free. The most clear example is the system of religion acting from and over a biological system called human being: the normal fighting for survival can became a suicide bomber. Or sun’s flares over Earth magnetic field. Then we have Matrix/DNA Theory models suggesting how a galactic system is half-mechanical/half-biological and how its building blocks are like nucleotides, and, how the laws and behaviors of this galactic systems penetrates earths’ atoms driving them to re-organize as a copy of that astronomic system. What you say “some kind of invisible management system or program” maybe is just the matrix formula showed in my website. But that is not the whole history. The formula is suggesting that any atom has the blueprint and non-expressed functions for all seven properties of life. The radiation from its nucleus produces seven different frequencies of vibrations, like the light waves. This is the magnetic field of any atom. When an electron is positioned over a specific electrosphere, the field expresses a function, like, let’s say, from your body we could see only one organ and its systemic function. if this is the right configuration of atoms systems, then became ease the bits from galactic entropy driving those atoms to re-organize in a biological fashion. About entropy, I think that the official theory is non-complete because they have no known complete natural system for observing. We can see the effects of entropy over natural systems, living or not living, in my model of a complete natural system. Cheers… Tags: alien life, átomos Postedo na Abiogênese, Coment/Posts da Matrix/DNA na Internet, Cosmovisão da Matrix/DNA, Debates Criticas Defesas, Divulgação do Website e da Matrix/DNA, Evolução, Origem da Vida, Pesquisas da Matrix/DNA, Vida, Átomo | 0 Comments and 0 Reactions Síntese das 8 Atuais Teorias da Vida, Incluindo a Teoria da Matrix/DNA terça-feira, março | 6 | 2012 Publicado em: Live Science http://www.livescience.com/13363-7-theories-origin-life.html 7 Theories on the Origin of Life 1- Electric Spark xxx Origem da Vida por Raios de Relampagos xxx Electric sparks can generate amino acids and sugars from an atmosphere loaded with water, methane, ammonia and hydrogen, as was shown in the famous Miller-Urey experiment reported in 1953, suggesting that lightning might have helped create the key building blocks of life on Earth in its early days. Over millions of years, larger and more complex molecules could form. Although research since then has revealed the early atmosphere of Earth was actually hydrogen-poor, scientists have suggested that volcanic clouds in the early atmosphere might have held methane, ammonia and hydrogen and been filled with lightning as well. xxx 2- Community Clay xxx Teoria da Origem da Vida por Cristals na Argila xxx The first molecules of life might have met on clay, according to an idea elaborated by organic chemist Alexander Graham Cairns-Smith at the University of Glasgow in Scotland. These surfaces might not only have concentrated these organic compounds together, but also helped organize them into patterns much like our genes do now. The main role of DNA is to store information on how other molecules should be arranged. Genetic sequences in DNA are essentially instructions on how amino acids should be arranged in proteins. Cairns-Smith suggests that mineral crystals in clay could have arranged organic molecules into organized patterns. After a while, organic molecules took over this job and organized themselves. xxx 3- Deep-Sea Vents xxx Teoria da Origem da Vida nos Respiradouros na Profundidade dos Oceanos xxx The deep-sea vent theory suggests that life may have begun at submarine hydrothermal vents, spewing key hydrogen-rich molecules. Their rocky nooks could then have concentrated these molecules together and provided mineral catalysts for critical reactions. Even now, these vents, rich in chemical and thermal energy, sustain vibrant ecosystems xxx 4- Chilly Start xxx Teoria da Origem da Vida do Frio Inicio xxx Ice might have covered the oceans 3 billion years ago, as the sun was about a third less luminous than it is now. This layer of ice, possibly hundreds of feet thick, might have protected fragile organic compounds in the water below from ultraviolet light and destruction from cosmic impacts. The cold might have also helped these molecules to survive longer, allowing key reactions to happen. xxx 5 – RNA World xxx Teoria da Origem no Mundo do RNA xxx Nowadays DNA needs proteins in order to form, and proteins require DNA to form, so how could these have formed without each other? The answer may be RNA, which can store information like DNA, serve as an enzyme like proteins, and help create both DNA and proteins. Later DNA and proteins succeeded this “RNA world,” because they are more efficient. RNA still exists and performs several functions in organisms, including acting as an on-off switch for some genes. The question still remains how RNA got here in the first place. And while some scientists think the molecule could have spontaneously arisen on Earth, others say that was very unlikely to have happened. Other nucleic acids other than RNA have been suggested as well, such as the more esoteric PNA or TNA. xxx 6 – Simple Beginnings xxx Teoria da Origem da Vida do Inicio pela Simplicidade xxx Instead of developing from complex molecules such as RNA, life might have begun with smaller molecules interacting with each other in cycles of reactions. These might have been contained in simple capsules akin to cell membranes, and over time more complex molecules that performed these reactions better than the smaller ones could have evolved, scenarios dubbed “metabolism-first” models, as opposed to the “gene-first” model of the “RNA world” hypothesis. xxx 1- Panspermia xxx Teoria da Origem da Vida pela Panspermia xxx Perhaps life did not begin on Earth at all, but was brought here from elsewhere in space, a notion known as panspermia. For instance, rocks regularly get blasted off Mars by cosmic impacts, and a number of Martian meteorites have been found on Earth that some researchers have controversially suggested brought microbes over here, potentially making us all Martians originally. Other scientists have even suggested that life might have hitchhiked on comets from other star systems. However, even if this concept were true, the question of how life began on Earth would then only change to how life began elsewhere in space. xxx 8 – Evolução Biológica Como Continuidade da Evolução Cosmológica (Matrix/DNA) xxx Nucleotideos = Galaxias = Células xxx Diagrama do Software de um Sistema Fechado xxx Ciclo Vital de Humanos e Astros Celestes xxx Comment Posted at Live Science Article: Louis Morelli · New York, New York There are 8 theories. The last one is “Matrix/DNA Theory”. It suggests a configuration of the building block of galaxies which is the same configuration of a pair of nucleotides, the building block of RNA/DNA. The astronomical building block in this figure is a perfect closed system that works like the best machine. But, attacked by entropy the whole system is fragmented in its “bits-information”, in shape of photons, which are radiated by stars and planet’s nucleus. These photons penetrates atoms of planets surfaces and when there are good conditions, the photons drive the atoms to new combinations reproducing the astronomical system, which final results is the cell system, which has the same configuration of the astronomical building block. Them the theory suggests that the network of photons works like a software, showing the diagram of this software and suggesting that the Universe is like a computer, where Evolution is resulted from the entropic cycles with feed-back between the lightning software and the massive hardware. The theory is surprising because it shows how all life’s properties can be performed in a mechanic arrangement like in astronomy, and electro-magnetic spectrum of light. If you want see the figures, search “the universal matrix.com”. xxx Tags: Origem da Vida, teorias Postedo na Abiogênese, Ciência Acadêmica Oficial, Coment/Posts da Matrix/DNA na Internet, Cosmovisão da Matrix/DNA, Origem da Vida, Vida | 0 Comments and 0 Reactions Na Pista de Uma Teoria Geral da Evolução: Estendendo a Teoria Darwiniana à Matéria Inanimada. sábado, fevereiro | 18 | 2012 O mundo está agitado porque a camada do subconsciente coletivo da Humanidade está dando um novo salto evolutivo. É o que está me parecendo. Estamos entrando no conhecimento de uma nova dimensão da Natureza que vai mostrar que a causa da emergencia da Vida na Terra mão reside aqui e não foi inventada por êste planeta como estão pensando e ensinando nas escolas, mas sim que ela pode ser percebida ao longo da História Natural de 13,7 bilhões de anos e reside em algum lugar além das fronteiras dêste Universo. Não passam mais que três ou quatro dias sem alguém em algum canto do globo publicar uma pesquisa ou idéia justamente na mesma direção em que chegou a Teoria da Matrix/DNA. Agora o Journal of Systems Chemistry publica um “paper” de cientistas do Department of Chemistry, Ben Gurion University of the Negev, Be’er Sheva, Israel, com o titulo acima. Êstes cientistas estão ainda muito longe do caminho porque estão supondo que a Vida evoluiu direto a partir do microcosmo dos átomos e partículas, quando com a nossa pesquisa fomos perceber que não foi assim: os átomos formaram os sistemas astronomicos onde receberam um banho de evolução e complexidade e aí, então sim, da complexidade dos sistemas astronomicos veio a Vida. Mas êsse “‘paper” é muito importante para nós porque fornece muitos dados cientificos e por isso vamos largar tôdas as outras centenas de pesquisas e aplicar um tempo para analiza-lo palavra por palavra. Por isso o reproduzo aqui, para a cada trecho fazer nossa anotação com análise sob o ponto de vista da Matrix/DNA. http://www.jsystchem.com/content/2/1/1 Toward a general theory of evolution: Extending Darwinian theory to inanimate matter Journal of Systems Chemistry 2011, 2:1 doi:10.1186/1759-2208-2-1 Correspondence: Addy Pross Abstract Though Darwinian theory dramatically revolutionized biological understanding, its strictly biological focus has resulted in a widening conceptual gulf between the biological and physical sciences. In this paper we strive to extend and reformulate Darwinian theory in physicochemical terms so it can accommodate both animate and inanimate systems, thereby helping to bridge this scientific divide. The extended formulation is based on the recently proposed concept of dynamic kinetic stability and data from the newly emerging area of systems chemistry. The analysis leads us to conclude that abiogenesis and evolution, rather than manifesting two discrete stages in the emergence of complex life, actually constitute one single physicochemical process. Based on that proposed unification, the extended theory offers some additional insights into life’s unique characteristics, as well as added means for addressing the three central questions of biology: what is life, how did it emerge, and how would one make it? Comentário da Matrix/DNA: Esta análise conduz à conclusão que abiogenese e evolução, mais do que manifestar dois discretos estágios na emergencia da Vida, realmente constitui um simples fisicoquímico processo. Bem… a 20 anos atrás registramos os direitos autorais da Teoria da Matrix/DNA sugerindo que o nome “abiogenese”é impróprio, pois o que houve foi uma embriogenese astronomica com forte mutação devido à intrusão do estado liquido da matéria e diferente meio-ambiente, por isso o periodo dessa embriogenese tomou um tempo astronomico de bilhões de anos. Eu nunca pude entender como o meio intelectual/cientifico pode acreditar numa abiogenese ocorrendo sem ser dirigida por um processo de evolução, mesmo que esse processo na época tenha sido mais simples que o memso processo atuante sôbre os sistemas biológicos. Aos poucos parece que vão se corrigindo. 1. Introduction Despite the enormous developments in molecular biology during the past half century, the science of biology appears to have reached a conceptual impasse. Woese [1] captured both the nature and the magnitude of the problem with his comment: “Biology today is no more fully understood in principle than physics was a century or so ago. In both cases the guiding vision has (or had) reached its end, and in both, a new, deeper, more invigorating representation of reality is (or was) called for.” The issue raised by Woese is a fundamental one – to understand the genesis and nature of biological organization and to address biology’s holistic, rather than just its molecular nature. Kauffman [2] expressed the difficulty in somewhat different terms: “….we know many of the parts and many of the processes. But what makes a cell alive is still not clear to us. The center is still mysterious.” In effect, the provocative question, “What is Life?”, raised by Schrödinger over half a century ago [3], remains unresolved, a source of unending debate. Thus, despite the recent dramatic insights into the molecular character of living systems, biology of the 21st century is continuing to struggle with the very essence of biological reality. At the heart of biology’s crisis of identity lies its problematic relationship with the two sciences that deal with inanimate matter – physics and chemistry. While the on-going debate regarding the role of reductionist thinking in biology exemplifies the difficulties at a methodological level, the problematic relationship manifests itself beyond issues of methodology and philosophy of science. Indeed, the answers to two fundamental questions, central to understanding the life issue, remain frustratingly out of reach. First, how did life emerge, and, second, how would one go about synthesizing a simple living system? Biology cannot avoid these questions because, together with the ‘what is life?’ question, they form the three apexes of the triangle of holistic understanding. Being able to adequately answer any one of the questions depends on being able to answer the other two. A coherent strategy for the synthesis of a living system is not possible if one does not know what life is, and one cannot know what life is if one does not understand the principles governing its emergence. Richard Feynman’s aphorism (quoted in [4]) captured the issue succinctly: “What I cannot create, I do not understand”. Remarkably, the laws of physics and chemistry, the two sciences that deal with material structure and reactivity, have as yet been unable to adequately bridge between the physicochemical and biological worlds. xxx Matrix/DNA: O problema está na palavra “Vida”. A qual arrola dois grandes êrros: a crença em “origens” e a crença em “matéria inanimada”, aliás um nome usado já no titulo dêste mesmo “paper”. A 30 anos atrás nossos modêlos teóricos gritavam aos quatro cantos: “Não houve origens da Vida pois antes dos 3,8 bilhões de anos a matéria estava organizada em sistemas que já possuiam funcionando todos os principios das propiedades do que denominamos “Vida”. Matéria inanimada só poderia ser um nome aplicado a cadaveres e pedaços soltos e separados de sistemas, como um galho de uma árvore, ou um meteórito no espaço. Mesmo assim essa matéria está animada pela fôrça da entropia que dirige sua decomposição. Excetuando-se os casos citados acima, tôda matéria faz parte de sistemas funcionais. Teria nexo dizer que um osso do nosso corpo é matéria inanimada? A Biologia está encontrando dificuldades em avançar no entendimento dos sistemas biológicos porque está alicerçada na Física e na Quimica que estudam fenômenos concernentes a níveis de organização da matéria em sistemas diferentes do nivel biológico, apesar de ancestrais na mesma linhagem evolutiva. Os instrimentos cientificos disponiveis à Física para observar o macrocosmo apenas capta o esqueleto ósseo do Cosmos e não sua cobertura carnosa, mole, que é onde jazem os principios das propriedades dos sistemas biológicos. Não há como transportar as fôrças, mecanismos e movimentos do esqueleto para as fôrças, mecanismos e movimentos das substancias e órgãos da cobertura biológica. A Física interpreta o mundo através da linguagem e lógica Matemática mas na cronologia da Evolução Universal êste mundo saiu do tronco da árvore da Evolução a 3,8 bilhões de anos atras para se tornar um galho lateral e apenas suportar, enquanto existir, a emergencia dos frutos da continua Evolução do mesmo tronco. A Biologia tem que elaborar outra linguagem para interpretar o seu reino, uma linguagem mais modelada por formas, relações, conexões sistêmicas. O próprio processo da Evolução não se encaixa na lógica matemática pois nêle o tempo não é linear, vindo do passado ao futuro, apenas, e sim se torna reverso nos finais dos ciclos evolutivos, retornando ao passado, deixando como pegadas uma trajetória curvelínea ( por exemplo, os mamiferos não surgiram cronológicamente direto dos dinossauros, o topo evolutivo da linearidade reptiliana, mas a Evolução voltou lá atrás no tempo até encontrar o pequeno cyanodonte, para reencetar sua marcha progressista). Uma equação matematica é sempre linear no sentido para a frente e não tem como incluir um parentesis no meio da equação com valores negativos que reverte o sentido até algumas incógnitas iniciais e depois retorna no sentido anterior. Não existe essa plasticidade, essa fflexibilidade na lógica matemática, mas a Vida é plastica e flexível. Quanto à química, seu infortunio é causado por se sustentar na Física cuja lógica linear sugere que as leis que controlam as reações entre elementos na escala atômica molecular teria que serem as mesmas ou prosseguimentos das leis que governam o microcosmo. Ao não ser capaz de detectar a complexidade “carnal” do Cosmos e limitar-se ao esqueleto a Fisica conduz a quimica a se distanciar do entendimento que seria apenas possivel considerando-se a influencia dos sistemas superiores em complexidade dentro da hierarquia dos sistemas. Os fenômenos da quimica organica de fato surgiram antes das origens da Vida terrestre e foram fundamentais na elaboração desta, porem, antes disso a quimica foi produzida pela “Vida” astronomica. As fôrças reguladoras que vem da astronomia, ao não serem conhecidas e consideradas pelos quimicos modernos, impedem-nos de dirigirem seus compostos moleculares sob a sequencia evolutiva natural até alcançar a complexidade dos sistemas biológicos. Tal como ocorreu com os átomos, que foram tomar um banho de complexidade como partes constituintes de sistemas astronomicos, os cientistas quimicos precisam tomar um banho da real astronomia. xxx Despite the above-mentioned difficulties we believe that the problem is resolvable, at least in principle. If the widely held view that life did emerge from inanimate matter is correct, it suggests that the integration of animate and inanimate matter within a single conceptual framework is an achievable goal. This is true regardless of our knowledge of the detailed historical path that led from inanimate to animate. The very existence of such a pathway would be proof for that. If indeed such a conversion did take place, it suggests that particular laws of physics and chemistry, whether currently known or not, must have facilitated that transformation, and therefore those laws, together with the materials on which they operated, can form the basis for understanding the relationship between these two fundamentally distinct material forms. xxx Matrix/DNA: Está tudo correto porem, não é suficiente conhecer as leis da fisica e da quimica. Deixa-me fazer uma analogia tentando esclarecer isso. Se apenas conhecemos a na História Humana as regras que regeram as tribos primitivas reunidas no que denominamos “usos e costumes”, e depois desconhecessemos o período transcorrido desde estas tribos até o século passado, poderíamos entender a evolução que culminou com a Constituição dos Estados Unidos? Jamais. No principio a cosmovisão era selvagem e depois de 1900 voltou a ser quase selvagem porque baseada na visão de luta e sobrevivencia darwiniana. O meio desta História, recheado com o periodo em que proliferaram as cosmovisões religiosas e romanticas, com o direito romano, a revolução francesa, etc., periodo êste desconhecido, não poderia levar ao entendimento dos conceitos relacionados aos direitos humanos e à democracia que são a base da Constituição Americana. Assim tambem o desconhecimento na História Universal do periodo em que ocorreu a evolução da matéria para sistemas galácticos faz com que a Física e a Quimica não nos apresente as formas intermediarias das Leis Naturais indispensaveis para entender a transição da matéria aqui no planeta Terra constituida de átomos e suas leis para os sistemas biológicos. Raios, o que estou fazendo nêste mundo senão estar empregando todo meu tempo justamente na busca desta história perdida? xxx In this paper we wish to build on this way of thinking and to draw the outlines of a general theory of evolution, a theory that remains firmly rooted in the Darwinian landscape, but reformulated in physicochemical terms so as to encompass both biological and non-biological systems. Such a theory, first and foremost, rests on a basic assumption: that the physicochemical principles responsible for abiogenesis, the so-called chemical phase – the stage in which inanimate matter complexified into a simple living system – are fundamentally the same as those responsible for biological evolution, though for the biological phase these principles are necessarily dressed up in biological garb. xxx Matrix/DNA: É engraçado! Passamos um século desde Oparin, passando pela experiencia de Stanley/Miller e uma infinidade de outras, aplicando as leis do microscosmo atômico do passado para criar a vida em laboratório mas nunca conseguimos fazer que os aminoacidos dessem por si mesmos o proximo passo evolutivo para se constituirem em proteínas. Agora resolvemos testar o contrário: aplicar as leis do futuro, da evolução que seguiu depois da Vida ter surgido, ao passado, à fase da transição quimica na matéria inanimada. Bem… meu avô já dizia que temos de quebrar a cara nos dois extremos para entender que o certo é o caminho do meio. O que concluo aqui é que quando chegar ao final da leotura do paper vou constatar que mais uma vez a teoria não vai elucidar a questão. Raios: ao estagio da quimica correspondeu um especifico estagio da Evolução, o qual foi justamente o que imperava nos tempos da quimica, o que conviveu no momento presente da quimica. E naquela época a evolução não estava mais trabalhando com átomos na nebulosa de átomos que terminou a 10 bilhões de anos atrás, a evolução estava trabalhando com galaxias, organizando astros em sistemas astronomicos. É como supor que, quando a Evolução tinha todos os materiais e ferramentas para fazer automoveis no céu, ao mesmo tempo ficasse fazendo carroças na Terra! Como vamos levar o trabalho já feito por nós ao conhecimento dos cientistas para evitar que a Humanidade perca mais um século de evolução? Entenda que se os modêlos que construímos estiverem errados, o conceito geral de que a Evolução saiu do mundo atômico e deu um passeio pelo mundo astronomico antes de vir ao mundo biológico é impossivel de estar errado. xxx Darwin would no doubt have drawn enormous satisfaction from such a proposal, one that attempts to integrate Darwinian-type thinking into the physicochemical world. However such a sweeping assumption needs to be substantiated. Accordingly our analysis is divided into two parts. In the first part we argue for the basis of that assumption, and in second part we attempt to describe key elements of that general theory, as well as the insights that derive from it, in particular with regard to the three central questions of biology, referred to above. The analysis draws heavily on data from the emergent research area termed by Günter von Kiedrowski, ‘Systems Chemistry’ [5,6]. xxx Matrix/DNA: Sistemas… em Quimica?! O pessoal finalmente está acordando para o pensamento sistêmico? Claro, preciso saber como está isso, mas o artigo 5 precisa comprar e o 6 tem que registrar antes, para o qual não tenho tempo agora. xxx The essence of this emergent area is to fill the chemical void between chemistry and biology by seeking the chemical origins of biological organization. 2. Discussion 2.1. Unification of abiogenesis and evolution Darwinian theory lies at the very heart of modern biology, and rightly so. As Dobzhansky [7] famously noted: “Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution”. Yet despite the extraordinary and overwhelming impact of Darwin’s ideas on biology and beyond, Darwinian theory does not address the Origin of Life problem, even though the nature and source of early life could well impact on the theory itself. Interestingly, this limitation was already obvious to Darwin’s contemporaries. Thus just three years after the publication of Darwin’s monumental thesis, Haeckel [8,9] pointed out that “the chief defect of the Darwinian theory is that it throws no light on the origin of the primitive organism–probably a simple cell–from which all the others have descended. When Darwin assumes a special creative act for this first species, he is not consistent, and, I think, not quite sincere…”. Surprisingly, this early concern seems to have dissipated with time. Thus a leading biologist, Richard Dawkins, in the opening line of his book ‘The Blind Watchmaker’ writes: “… our existence once presented the greatest of all mysteries, but that it is a mystery no longer because it is solved. Darwin and Wallace solved it….” [10]. Yes, Darwinism did resolve the dilemma of how microscopic complexity was transformed into macroscopic complexity, however it did not resolve or even address the most vexing of questions: how did the extraordinary microscopic complexity of the simplest living system emerge in the first place? It is not surprising then that the emergence of complex life on earth is divided into two phases – abiogenesis, the chemical phase, and evolution, the biological phase (as illustrated in 1), with the first phase being the one that remains a source of confusion and continuing controversy (for a recent special issue on the origin of life, see [11], for general reviews, see [12-15]). But what if these two stages could be conceptually merged into one single continuous physicochemical process? Such unification could significantly impact on our understanding of the life phenomenon, as we would then be faced with the need to understand just one single process, rather than two separate and discrete processes. And given our broad understanding of the Darwinian phase, that understanding could be immediately applied to the poorly understood earlier chemical phase. But are there reasonable grounds for such a sweeping proposal? We believe the answer to be yes, and base this view on recent developments in systems chemistry. Recent work on molecular replicating systems has revealed that several phenomena associated with replicating chemical systems are also manifest in biological systems. This general observation is crucially important because it provides the empirical basis for the conceptual link between chemistry and biology, not just at the self-evident structural level (i.e., both animate and inanimate matter are constructed from atomic and molecular entities), but at some deeper organizational level. Indeed this evidence will form the basis of our proposal that the chemical and biological phases are in fact one single process. Let us first review the relevant empirical data. Scheme 1 xxx Two-phase (chemical and biological) transformation of non-life into complex life. Two-phase (chemical and biological) transformation of non-life into complex life. xxx Matrix/DNA: Jamais vão responder aqu6ele ponto de interrogação na fase quimica com êsse esquema, senão acrescentarem às três variaveis da teoria darwinista as outras quatro que vieram da evolução astronomica. xxx 2.1.1. Natural selection at the chemical level Already in the 1960s, Mills et al. [16] noted that a molecular replicating system, Qβ RNA, when reacted with activated nucleotides in the presence of the appropriate replicase, underwent a process of replication, mutation, selection, evolution, in striking analogy to biological systems. The RNA oligonucleotide, originally some 4200 bases in length, replicated, mutated and evolved into a much shorter oligonucleotide chain just 17% of the original length, that replicated much faster than the original chain [15,16]. This observation, even on its own, suggests that Darwinian behavior, a fundamentally biological phenomenon, has its roots in chemistry. No one would seriously argue that a single molecule, whatever its structure, is in any meaningful sense ‘alive’, yet Darwinian-type behavior is strikingly evident at this inanimate, molecular level [15,16]. Since then in vitro evolution procedures have been developed and extended to cover a wide range of nucleic acid systems as demonstrated by the work of Bartel and Szostak [17], Johnston et al. [18] and Joyce et al. [19,20], thereby emphasizing the generality of evolutionary-like processes at the molecular level. xxx Matrix/DNA: Então uma simples molécula de RNA pode replicar, mutar, evoluir. Porem quando ela faz isso sózinha, sem estar no contexto sist6emico celular, a sua cópia sai apenas com 17% do tamanho da original. Isto está previsto nos modêlos da Matrix/DNA. Explico: O RNA é o instrumento biológico da Função Sistêmica Universal n.5. Portanto êle têve um ancestral nos sistemas astronomicos, o qual era uma peça, uma parte do sistema. Ora, o sistema astronomico foi montado pelo processo do ciclo vital. Num ciclo vital, tôdas as suas formas possuem tôdas as informações, apesar de só expressar efetivamente as informações de sua função, as quais correspondem à sua faixa etária. Por exemplo, tomemos o ciclo vital humano. Se separar-mos das várias formas que o corpo humano adquire, a forma do adolescente, êle terá em seu DNA todas as informações de todas as formas do corpo, inclusive das futuras formas de adulto, idoso. Mas as informações do futuro não se expressam ainda e as do passado já não se expressam mais, embutidas que estão nas informações do presente. Temos dividido o ciclo vital em sete fazes para facilitar calculos porque são as sete formas marcantes de um corpo. Então considerando-se o sistema como sendo 100% e uma das sete formas como um sétimo (1/7) e dividindo isso, obtemos 14,3%. Ocorre que a F.5 é a função que nasce e sai fora do circuito esférico em F.4, cria um novo trecho e amadurece quando está percorrendo o centro do sistema. Adicionando-se o trecho de informações obtido nêste avanço chegamos ao calculo de 1,618. Em outras palavras: mede-se o comprimento total do circuito esférico e divide-se pelo comprimento percorrido pelo fluxo de informação até atingir o ponto central onde se enccontra F.5 e obtem-se o valor 1,618, como já o fiz a muitos anos e tenho n6este website postado um artigo justamente a respeito desta descoberta, A qual é fantastica porque o numero 1,618 é o numero Phi. E então descobri que é considerado o numero da sagrada geometria e faz todos os efeitos surpreendentes que faz porque é o numero da Função Universal reprodutora. Sendo assim, ela é quem replica meia-face esquerda da Matrix em meia-face direita e com isso estabelece uma perfeita simetria. Assim ela faz em todo e qualquer lugar onde estiver, da palma das mãos às folhas das plantas. Perfeitamente inteligivel porque o RNA se replica e porque a cópia não expressa 83% de suas informações. xxx An even more striking expression of natural selection at the chemical level that further highlights the extent of the chemistry-biology nexus has recently been reported by Voytek and Joyce [21]. A key ecological principle, the competitive exclusion principle [22] states: “Complete competitors cannot coexist”, or in its more positive expression: “Ecological differentiation is the necessary condition for coexistence”. That principle informs us that two non-interbreeding populations that occupy precisely the same ecological niche (i.e., both competing for the same resource) cannot coexist – one will drive the other into extinction. The striking aspect of Voytek and Joyce’s study was that it demonstrated that the roots of this quintessential biological principle can be found in chemistry. They reported that two RNA enzymes, when allowed to replicate and evolve in the presence of an essential substrate, were unable to coexist. One of the enzymes drove the other into extinction in line with the prediction of the competitive exclusion principle. More significantly, however, when the two enzymes were simultaneously reacted with five alternative substrates, the two enzymes were able to coexist. Each RNA enzyme evolved so as to optimize its utilization of one of the 5 substrates (a different substrate for each of the two enzymes) so that the system effectively mimicked biological niche behavior, again in accord with the exclusion principle. xxx Matrix/DNA: O quadro é inteligivel porque se o vê todo desenhado no sistema astronomico que dirige ambos, quimica e biologia. Os dois competidores devem ser vistos como partes de um nicho de sistema, seja o ecológico ou o essencial substrato. Tais nichos são abertos, o individuo pode fugir de um competidor mais forte para um nicho vizinho, ou do substrato 1 para o 2. Mas quem comandava estes competidores era o sistema astronomico que é fechado em si mesmo. Tôda a biosfera terrestre foi e será uma tentativa de um sistema fechado se reproduzir aqui. E no sistema astronomico todas suas peças são predadoras em relação à peça anterior e prêsas em relação à peça posterior. Não pode ter duas peças iguais. Então o sistema fechado se recicla, apenas quando morre antes. Sua cópia sobrevive no mesmo espaço, no mesmo nicho que viveu a original. Tudo isso desce governando as reações quimicas e biológicas primarias, apresentando o quadro descrito como ” principio da exclusão da competição”. xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Analize parada aqui xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Darwin’s classic finches niche behavior [23] at the chemical level! As noted above, both chemical and biological replicators respond in a strikingly similar way to the replication-mutation-selection-evolution causal chain. But there is an additional consequence of that causal chain that manifests itself at both the chemical and the biological levels – the process of complexification. Let us explain. 2.1.2. Complexification at both chemical and biological levels Within the biological world there is no doubting that a definite process of complexification over the extended evolutionary time frame has taken place. Though the detailed path toward cellular complexity remains controversial, the existence of that evolutionary drive toward greater complexity cannot be denied. Thus it is conventional wisdom to believe that the more complex eukaryotic cell evolved from simpler prokaryotic cellular organization, most likely following some endosymbiotic event [24], and in a more recent evolutionary saltation, that multi-cellular organisms evolved from single cell ones. The evolutionary dynamic appears to be driven, at least in part, by the biological advantages associated with complexification. Given the unambiguous evidence for complexification during biological evolution, it is of cardinal interest to observe whether that same complexification tendency can be discerned at the chemical level, i.e., within relatively simple chemical replicating systems. In view of the relatively brief period of time such systems have been studied the amount of data remains limited. Nonetheless some preliminary conclusions may be tentatively offered. The idea of a hypercyclic cooperative network at the molecular level was first proposed by Eigen and Schuster [25], but it was only in 1994 that replication based on the cross-catalysis of two oligonucleotides was reported by Sievers and von Kiedrowski [26]. Subsequently other functional groups were also shown to exhibit autocatalytic behavior through the establishment of cooperative cross-catalytic networks. Thus Lee et al. [27] and Yao et al. [28] demonstrated network formation in self-replicating peptides and, more recently, Kindermann et al. [29] and Kassianidis and Philp [30] have observed cross-catalysis in a self-replicating Diels Alder reaction, suggesting that cooperative molecular behavior within a replicative context may be quite general. A more explicit demonstration of the replicating advantages associated with a network as opposed to an individual molecular replicator, however, was recently demonstrated by Lincoln and Joyce [31]. Whereas a particular RNA autocatalyst was incapable of more than two successive doublings, each of which took about 17 h to occur, conversion of that RNA ribozyme into a cross-catalytic network based on two RNA ribozymes resulted in the formation of a rapidly replicating system with a doubling time of just 1 h, which could be sustained indefinitely. Thus a cooperative cross-catalytic system derived from an autocatalytic parent through an evolutionary process, proved to be a more effective replicator (“fitter” in biological jargon), than the autocatalytic parent precursor. The above results, though still limited in scope, suggests that cooperative behavior can emerge and manifest itself at the molecular level, that the drive toward more complex replicating systems appears to underlie chemical, and not just biological, replicators. The implications of these preliminary findings appear to be far-reaching. They suggest that the biological drive toward greater complexity has its roots in chemistry, that the entire evolutionary process can be traced back to kinetic forces at the molecular level! 2.1.3. Significance of common patterns at chemical and biological levels The observation of the same complexification tendency in both chemical and biological phases is significant in yet another sense. Complexification is not just a phenomenon associated with the two phases, it can also be viewed as the mechanism by which the chemical phase eventually merges with (and into) the biological phase! Ultimately the primary distinction between the chemical and biological phases appears to be in the degree of complexification that has come about, rather than in the nature of the process itself. Clearly then, the trend toward greater complexity that is manifest at the chemical level could be expected to lead over the extended evolutionary time scale to the enhanced complexity that is evident at the biological level. Thus complexification, primarily through network establishment that maintains the system’s holistic replicative capability, is the means by which the simple replicating systems of chemistry are transformed over time into the highly complex replicating systems that we term biology. The implication is clear: life’s emergence began with the chance appearance of some relatively simple replicating chemical system, which then began the long road toward increasingly complex replicating entities. Matrix/DNA: Perfeitamente aceitável e intelegível para nossa teoria. Um outro talvez melhor exemplo de cooperação e resultante complexificação de moléculas no mundo quimico: cada nucleotideo é uma molécula que se replica e assim se forma a grande pilha de nucleotídeos que é o DNA. Os nucleotideos são cooperativos quando se unem a outros e formam genes. Os genes são moléculas mais complexas que se auto-cooperam em tarefas e disso resulta algo muito mais complexo que êles: o DNA. Mas todos êstes mecanismos vieram do ancrestral galáctico, lá já acontecia tudo isso. 2.2. Toward a general theory of evolution 2.2.1. Uncovering the chemical roots of Darwinism We have already pointed out that the Darwinian-type thinking has been applied to molecular replicators, thereby extending its reach to the chemical domain. However a methodological difficulty arises with this approach. Consider, Darwinian theory was proposed on the basis of data, terminology, and concepts that are all biological. Darwinian theory is therefore, by definition, a biological theory. Indeed, being a biological theory, Darwin himself considered the possibility of an earlier chemical phase preceding the biological phase as one that could not be adequately addressed within that biological framework. In a now famous letter to Joseph Dalton Hooker written in March 1863, Darwin wrote: “…it is mere rubbish thinking at present of origin of life; one might as well think of origin of matter” [9]. Matrix/DNA: Sim, mas o problema da dificuldade em solucionar êstes mistérios é que não existem tais mistérios. O problema está na palavra “origens”. Não existe origens, no sentido que se entende essa palavra como se fôsse um evento fora da longa cadeia de causas e efeitos naturais. Existem transformações, lentas, graduais de maneira que não é possivel se definir um momento que a quimica termina e tem inicio a biologia, ou que o que havia antes do Universo terminou quando o Universo material têve “origem” num Bing Bang. Teria nexo dizer-mos a “origem” da adolescencia ou da senilidade? Qual o momento exato e o evento espontaneo em que se divide uma criança de um adolescente? xxx Accordingly, if the chemical and biological phases constitute a single physicochemical process as we have suggested, then it logically follows that Darwinian theory needs to be extended and reformulated so that it can also encompass inanimate chemical systems. xxx Matrix/DNA: Justamente como elaborei a Teoria. Enquanto a evolução biológica de Darwin tem apenas três postulados universais como variaveis, eu acrescentei mais quatro vindas dos sistemas termodinamicos anteriores, e às quatro dos sistemas ancestrais acrescentei as três biológicas. De que outra forma teria percebido que o building block das galaxias é semi-mecanico/semi-biológico? xxx Note that it is not sufficient to simply conclude that Darwinian concepts are applicable to chemical systems as well as biological ones. While not denying the didactic value of such thinking, the application of biological concepts to chemical phenomena is, in a scientific methodological sense, problematic, even flawed. Deeper insights into the biological-chemical connection can be provided, but only when the connection is approached in the reverse direction. Let us elaborate on this key idea. Scientific reductionism, a central scientific methodology, teaches us to seek understanding within higher hierarchical level sciences by using concepts from lower hierarchical level sciences, not the other way around. That suggests we should seek to explain biological phenomena in chemical terms, not chemical phenomena in biological terms. To clarify the point with an extreme example, consider the two sciences, chemistry and psychology. While a proposed molecular explanation for some psychological phenomenon might be intriguing and arouse interest, a psychological explanation for some molecular phenomenon would only be met with derision! To quote Weinberg [32]: “Explanatory arrows always point downward”. Thus we routinely attempt to explain psychological phenomena in biological terms, biological phenomena in physical and chemical terms, chemical phenomena in physical terms, and so on, not the other way around. The observation of Darwinian-like behavior at the chemical level is highly significant, not because it suggests that molecules behave in a biological fashion, but because it opens up the possibility of explaining biological behavior in chemical terms. It enables the chemical roots of that most central and profound biological theory, Darwinian theory, to be laid bare, thereby providing a truly fundamental basis for the biological – chemical connection. xxx Matrix/DNA: Ah!… meu Deus… como faz falta o uso do pensamento sistêmico, de totalidades. Vai ser possível sim, explicar muitos dos comportamentos dos elementos nas reações quimicas pelos comportamentos dos elementos nas interações biológicas, mas não porque vamos por a carroça na frente dos bois, não porque vamos aplicar as leis de Darwin como regulando o mundo quimico, e sim porque a semi-biologia existia antes da quimica organica, é dela que vem regras semi-biológicas que parecem biológicas e atuou na abiogênese. Como disse acima, é muito mais facil entender cooperativismo, replicação, complexificação na quimica se comparar-mo-los com o estado do mundo antes da biologia na Terra. O que estão querendo fazer seria comparavel a um estudioso que tendo assistido o desenvolvimento de um embrião se dirigisse a assistir agora o momento de fecundação de um outro óvulo, assistisse todo o desenrolar quimico das fases iniciais e tentasse entende-los acreditando que o as leis do embrião se aplicam àquelas reações. E o pai do embrião que existia antes e deflagrou a fecundação? xxx 2.2.2. Chemical kinetics as the basis for Darwinian behavior As mentioned above, the temptation to interpret the behavior of molecular replicators in biological terms – fitness, natural selection, survival of the fittest, etc., should be firmly resisted. Chemical phenomena are more usefully explained in chemical terms, and the competitive reactions of molecular replicators are readily addressed by the specific branch of chemistry that deals with the rates of chemical reactions – chemical kinetics. As has been appreciated since the early pioneering work of Lotka [33], the replication reaction, exemplifying an autocatalytic process, is kinetically unique in that unmitigated replication will often result in exponential growth. However, exponential growth is inherently unsustainable, so, at best, a replicator steady state would be formed in which a balance between the rates of replicator formation and replicator decay is established. This kinetic pattern can be expressed by a differential kinetic equation, such as eq 1, where X is the replicator concentration, M is the concentration of building blocks from which X is composed, and k and g are rate constants for replicator formation and decay, respectively. A steady state population, a state that is effectively ’stable’, is achieved and maintained as long as dX/dt remains close to zero. A direct consequence of this steady state description is that the stability of the resulting state is of a dynamic kind – the population of replicators is stable even though the individual members are being continually turned over. (1) xxx Significantly, the very existence of such dynamic states has profound chemical consequences since, as we have noted in previous work, a distinct kind of chemistry with different selection rules arises [34-36]. An example of that selection rule pointed out some years ago by Lifson [37] is the competitive reaction of two replicators competing for the same building blocks. The likely result – one of the replicators will be eliminated. Thus, at the chemical level, the competing reaction of two replicating molecules, where one of the replicators is ‘driven into extinction’, is a straightforward and well-understood chemical kinetic phenomenon. Given that chemistry is the more fundamental science, one can therefore say that biological natural selection emulates chemical kinetic selection, i.e., biology reduces to chemistry for this most fundamental of biological phenomena [36]. The process of complexification, the second pattern observed in both biological and chemical evolution, can also be understood as a kinetic phenomenon. It is at the chemical level, where the transformation of a simple molecular replicator to a autocatalytic network of minimal complexity can be examined directly [26-30], that the kinetic advantage of the network over the single replicator appears to manifest itself. More experimental data are needed to fully establish the connection between kinetic selection and complexification, but the preliminary evidence, particularly that provided by Lincoln and Joyce [31], is highly suggestive. Thus kinetic selection, an inherently chemical phenomenon, one that is well-established at the molecular level, is increasingly seen to be at the root of Darwinian-type behavior, thereby providing a basis for a more fundamental understanding of Darwinian behavior at the more complex biological level. We have identified biological ‘natural selection’ as an extension of chemical ‘kinetic selection’, but what is the chemical analogue of ‘fitness’, that other central Darwinian concept? What physicochemical property, if any, is being optimized by that process of chemical selection? Just where in physicochemical terms is kinetic selection leading the replicating system? In chemical processes a system is invariably driven toward a state of greater thermodynamic stability, but living systems do not seem to follow that directive as all living systems are inherently thermodynamically unstable. It turns out that the answer does lie in the system’s stability, but not its thermodynamic stability, the one we normally address in chemistry. Within the replicating world there is another kind of stability, one quite distinct to thermodynamic stability, a stability kind we have termed dynamic kinetic stability (DKS) [38,39]. Let us briefly comment on the nature of DKS and discuss how the two kinds of stability inter-relate. 2.2.3. Dynamic kinetic stability (DKS) and dynamic kinetic states of matter A system is considered stable if it is persistent, remains unchanged with time – that is an operational, phenomenological definition. Within chemical systems we recognize that a system’s stability can arise for either thermodynamic or kinetic reasons and, accordingly, we speak of thermodynamic and kinetic stabilities. Importantly, both arise from lack of change. Paradoxically, however, there is another kind of stability in nature that is actually achieved through change, rather than through lack of change. This stability kind is a dynamic stability. Consider, as an example, a flowing river or a water fountain. The river or fountain, as an identifiable entity, would be classified as stable if it maintains its presence over time. That, as already mentioned, is the manifestation of stability – unchanging with time. But, of course, the water that makes up the river or fountain is changing constantly so the river’s (fountain’s) stability in this instance is of a dynamic kind, one that comes about through change. So though the river (fountain) as an entity is stable, its stability is of a distinctly different character to that associated with static entities. As already discussed above, a stable population of replicating entities, whether chemical or biological, also manifests a dynamic kind of stability. The population of replicators can only be ’stable’ if the individual entities that make up the population are continually being turned over, just like the constantly changing water content of the river or fountain. Thus one might think of the population of molecular replicators as a ‘molecular fountain’. The significance of the term ‘dynamic kinetic stability’, as applied to a stable population of replicating entities, may now become clear. The term ‘dynamic’ reflects the continual turnover of the population members, the term ‘kinetic’ reflects the fact that the stability of the replicating system is based on kinetic parameters, such as k and g of eq 1, i.e., on reaction rate constants, rather than on thermodynamic parameters. It is the values of these parameters, together with the availability of resources, which determines the stability of the particular replicating system. Accordingly we may characterize stable replicating systems (i.e., those that persist over time), whether chemical or biological, as dynamic kinetic states of matter. The utility and significance of this term can be more clearly gauged by comparison with the term frequently used to describe inanimate systems, the more traditional thermodynamic states of matter that characterize much of chemistry. 2.2.4. The physicochemical driving force within replicator space Let us now specify the factors that would tend to enhance the stability of a replicating system. Fundamentally all physicochemical systems tend to undergo transformations from less stable forms to more stable forms. The second law of thermodynamics is the formal expression of that general drive. But within the constraints of the second law a range of outcomes is possible, and for reasons described above, for replicating systems, kinetic factors predominate. Specifically, within replicator space, the space in which dynamic kinetic stability is effectively in control, the selection rule becomes: from kinetically less stable to kinetically more stable. Thus, within that space the driving force is effectively the drive toward greater DKS. In other words, whereas the second law requires all chemical systems to be directed toward their most stable state (lowest Gibbs energy state), within replicator space a second law analogue effectively governs the nature of transformations [36,39]. A recent study by Boiteau and Pascal [40] also reaffirms the idea of a fundamental evolutionary driving force. The above discussion now makes clear a major distinction between events within the physical and biological worlds. Within the physical world the second law is a useful predictor of what is likely to take place. That is how we are able to predict the melting of ice when placed in warm water, or the explosion that results from the mixing of hydrogen and oxygen gases. Generally speaking, that is the law that allows us to relate reactants and products for any reaction in an intelligible fashion. Within the biological world, however, that world of replicating systems, the second law provides effectively no predictive power. Neither the behavior of a stalking lion nor the single cell phenomenon of chemotaxis is explicable in terms of the second law. Of course all biological phenomena are consistent with the second law, but that global requirement in itself is of no predictive value. Rather, biological phenomena can be best understood and predicted on the basis of their teleonomic character [41,42], a character that is totally unrelated to thermodynamic stability and the second law. The behavior of a hungry lion or of a bacterium in a glucose solution with a concentration gradient are each readily understood and predicted in teleonomic, not thermodynamic, terms. As we will discuss shortly, teleonomy, that quintessentially biological phenomenon, can be given a physicochemical basis, but it will be by relating it to kinetic, as opposed to thermodynamic, parameters. 2.2.5. Quantification of dynamic kinetic stability Having established the existence of a discrete kind of stability that differs from the previously recognized stability kinds, it would be clearly beneficial to be able to quantify the concept. Unfortunately there is inherent difficulty in the formal quantification of DKS and this difficulty manifests at several levels. First, one cannot formally compare the DKS of any two arbitrary replicators, say, a bacterium and a camel, because these two entities are not directly related. In this regard the issue is not too different to thermodynamic stabilities, where one cannot formally compare the stabilities of two systems that are not isomeric. Thus, just as one cannot legitimately ask whether a molecule of water is more or less stable than a molecule of benzene, one cannot compare the relative stabilities of two replicating entities if they do not compete directly for the same material resources. Accordingly, the relative DKS of two arbitrary replicators will, in most cases, not be formally measureable. Second, if two replicators do compete directly, as in the case of RNA oligomers competing for the same nucleotide building blocks, then the relative dynamic kinetic stabilities can be ascertained, and even quantified, based on the relative rates of replication and decay for the competing replicators. However, since DKS derives from kinetic rather than thermodynamic factors it is likely to be significantly influenced by minor variations in reaction conditions, so the significance of any particular measure would be of limited value. For example, the presence of ethidium bromide in the reaction mixture during competing RNA oligomer replication leads to a quite different competitive outcome than in its absence [43]. Accordingly, the actual magnitude of DKS for any replicating system, like its static counterpart, is highly circumstantial, and therefore is not readily amenable to meaningful quantification. In fact the difficulty in quantifying DKS is clearly reflected in attempts over many years to quantify the biological equivalent of DKS – ‘fitness’, one that began with Fisher’s use of the Malthusian parameter [44]. Since that early proposal, different fitness kinds have been suggested – relative fitness, inclusive fitness, individual fitness, population fitness, and different empirical measures of that parameter have been offered, reflecting the intrinsic difficulty in quantifying the fitness concept [45,46]. All these different quantification proposals may in a sense be viewed as attempts to square the circle. Indeed, having reduced the biological concept of ‘fitness’ to the chemical concept of DKS, helps clarify the source of the difficulty by stressing the kinetic, and hence circumstantial nature of stability within a replicative context. 2.2.6. Toward a general (extended) theory of evolution Once we have satisfied ourselves that the chemical and biological phases of life’s emergence and evolution can be unified within a single physicochemical description, one that rests on an identifiable physicochemical driving force, the central elements of a general theory of evolution can be outlined. We begin by pointing out that the terminology employed in that formulation is necessarily physicochemical so it can address the initial phase of life’s emergence, the so-called chemical phase. It follows therefore that the biological phase will also be described in physicochemical terms, but that poses no methodological difficulty – a reductionist methodology underpins much of the scientific endeavor. Accordingly the following statement will serve as the central element of the general theory: ■ Certain oligomeric replicating systems, through a process of imperfect replication and on-going kinetic selection, will tend to evolve toward replicating systems of greater DKS. While initially that process of imperfect replication might involve the preferential formation of the more rapid replicating oligomeric sequences, as demonstrated in the classic RNA replication experiments of Mills et al. [16], the emergence of replicating networks (also termed autocatalytic sets) [2,6,47,48] with their enhanced replicating capability in comparison with individual molecular replicators, would open up new kinetic options within replicator space. And those particular sequences that would be capable of catalyzing the formation of other chemical classes, e.g., peptides, that exhibit catalytic activity with respect to the replication reaction itself, would further add to the process of complexification and evolution toward more stable dynamic kinetic systems. So while the process of kinetic selection between competing replicating systems can show a range of kinetic characteristics, depending on the precise replication mechanism and its particular kinetic parameters, the general trend from less complex and kinetically less stable to more complex and kinetically more stable replicators would manifest itself. Accordingly the second element of the general theory that addresses the process of complexification may be formulated as follows: ■ Complexification within replicator space, through the establishment of increasingly complex chemical networks, will be the primary mechanism for the enhancement of replicator dynamic kinetic stability and the generation of stable dynamic kinetic states. From the above discussion it becomes apparent that central Darwinian (biological) terms are just special cases of more general physicochemical terms, as indicated in Table 1. Biology, through a reductionist perspective, can be seen to merge smoothly into chemistry. Table 1. Key Darwinian concepts and their underlying chemical equivalent 2.2.7. Relationship between dynamic kinetic stability and thermodynamic stability – origin and role of metabolism Notwithstanding the above discussion and its emphasis on DKS, the relationship between that stability and thermodynamic stability needs to be clarified. After all, thermodynamic requirements, as articulated by the second law, cannot be ignored in that all transformations in the physicochemical world, regardless of whether the particular system is biological or not, must conform to its strict demands. It turns out that metabolism (in the energy-gathering sense) is the means by which Nature can have its cake and eat it. Incorporation of an energy gathering capability into the system is what enables the drive toward greater DKS to comfortably coexist with the strict requirements of the second law, despite the often opposing requirements of these two stability kinds. Let us consider this point in more detail. Metabolism is broadly defined as the complex set of reactions that takes place in the living cell. So in that sense metabolism is the direct manifestation of the tendency toward increasing complexification that lies at the heart of the evolutionary process. However, as noted above, all chemical reactions are bound by the second law so the drive toward greater DKS and the greater complexity that frequently accompanies that stability must be consistent with the thermodynamic directive. This is true even though not all paths that seek to enhance DKS will be thermodynamically feasible. Indeed, one can presume that in many cases the greater complexity associated with enhanced DKS will actually be disfavored thermodynamically, thereby effectively blocking such pathways. So how is this apparent conflict between two stability kinds resolved? The potential conflict is resolved through the emergence of a very special kind of metabolic complexification – the one specifically associated with energy gathering. It is this particular kind of metabolic capability that enables DKS and thermodynamic stability to comfortably coexist. Let us see how this can come about. In a recent theoretical study [49], we have demonstrated that a replicating molecule that acquires an energy gathering capability through a chance mutation, e.g., through the formation of a photoactive site within the original molecule, can be expected, through a process of kinetic selection, to drive the original non-metabolic replicator into extinction. In other words, the chance emergence of a metabolic capability would lead to the formation of a replicator of greater DKS than the original non-metabolic molecule. Significantly, this result was observed even if the metabolic replicator was postulated as being inherently slower in its replicating step. Effectively the incorporation of the metabolic capability ‘frees’ the replicating entity from thermodynamic constraints in much the same way that a car engine ‘frees’ a car from gravitational constraints. A motorized vehicle is not restricted to merely rolling downhill, but through the utilization of an external energy source (gasoline), can travel uphill as well. In other words, just as a motorized vehicle is a more effective vehicle for travel, so a metabolic replicator is a more effective replicator than a non-metabolic one. The significance of the simulation described above is that it demonstrates that a metabolic capability, once acquired through a chance mutation, is likely to become incorporated into the system through a process of kinetic selection. At that point the drive toward greater DKS is no longer critically constrained by thermodynamic impediments. As we will subsequently discuss this mechanism for metabolic (energy-gathering) emergence has clear implications regarding the mechanism for the emergence of life. In fact that step may be considered the critical one in the transformation of a thermodynamic (‘downhill’) replicator into a kinetically driven, teleonomic one – the critical step that could be taken as signifying the beginning of life. Considered in this way, death is just the reversion from that (sustained) dynamic kinetic state of matter back to the traditional thermodynamic one. 2.3. Applications of the general theory 2.3.1. Explanatory power of the general theory Since the beginning of recorded history, man has been acutely aware of the fact that living and non-living systems are distinctly different. One key test of a general theory that attempts to encompass both animate and inanimate (as opposed to a purely biological theory) is that it should be able to address these key animate-inanimate differences. Life’s central characteristics that require explanation are the following: (a) Diversity and adaptation (b) Complexity (c) Homochiral character (d) Teleonomic (purposeful) character (e) Dynamic character (f) Far-from-equilibrium state Of these characteristics, diversity, adaptation and complexity, seem explicable in Darwinian terms, though a recent monograph has suggested that evolutionary theory does not adequately explain diversity and complexity, and a new probabilistic principle is offered instead [50]. With regard to the remaining characteristics there is little room for argument – none have a simple Darwinian explanation. In fact Monod [41] went as far as to claim some years ago that understanding life’s teleonomic character was “the central problem of biology”, while Woese [1] saw in life’s dynamic character an inexplicable characteristic that necessitated the abandoning of a traditional reductionist approach to the subject and to seek, as he put it, “a new biology for a new century”. Let us briefly consider how each of these characteristics may be better understood in the light of the general theory. (a) Dynamic character of living systems As Woese [1] makes clear, living things transcend the machine metaphor: “Machines are not made of parts that continually turn over, renew. The organism is. ….Organisms are resilient patterns in a turbulent flow – patterns in an energy flow”. Woese clearly recognized life’s dynamic nature, but was troubled that a satisfactory explanation within the traditional molecular biology framework was lacking. Let us now show how a description of life as a dynamic kinetic state of matter may go some way toward resolving Woese’s dilemma. A stable population of replicating molecules, as discussed earlier, is a dynamic state in that the population is stable even though the individual molecules are constantly turning over. Of course a dynamic population of replicating RNA molecules does not constitute life, so how does the dynamic character that we have described manifest itself in a simple life form, say a bacterial cell? For cellular replicators (say, bacteria) the dynamic character manifests itself at two levels, molecular and cellular. At the molecular level cellular proteins, a key component of all cells, are continually degraded and regenerated as part of the cell’s mechanism for protein regulation [51]. As a consequence most cellular proteins have half-lives measured in hours, some even in minutes, meaning that cellular protein, a primary constituent of all living cells, is effectively completely turned over within several days, serving as yet another example of the ‘molecular fountain’ in operation. And, of course, at the cellular level, continuing turnover also takes place – new cells are generated through cell division, while existing cells are constantly being degraded. Thus the dynamic character of living systems, central to their function and very existence, becomes clear through a description of life as a dynamic kinetic state of matter. Lastly, it is of interest to note that this dynamic character may also underlie multi-cellular function. For example, in the brain a significant proportion of brain cells are firing at any given moment, and consciousness, one of the most remarkable and intriguing manifestation of biological organization, has recently been attributed to highly transient groupings of neurons that are in a continuing dynamic process of change [52]. The message is increasingly clear – the dynamic nature of life’s processes, at whatever level, is central to every aspect of biological function. (b) Life’s far-from-equilibrium character The second law teaches us that systems are driven toward their lowest Gibbs energy state. Of course for kinetic reasons systems may be trapped in higher energy states for a time (e.g., a hydrogen – oxygen gas mixture), but life’s far-from-equilibrium state is not simply explained in this manner. Living things continually expend energy to maintain that far-from-equilibrium state, and ion concentration gradients cannot be simply viewed as (static) kinetically stable states. In past years a feasible approach to this question was through the implementation of the theory of non-equilibrium thermodynamics [53]. That theory was able to explain how spontaneous order – so-called ‘dissipative structures’, can come about through the action of a perturbation on a system at equilibrium. However that approach toward biological systems ended up being increasingly questioned. The problem was that modeling living systems as dissipative structures – whirlpools, heated liquids, and the like – was unable to provide any insights into biological structure and function [54]. As was pointed out by Collier some years ago, there is no evidence that non-equilibrium thermodynamics applies to biological systems in a non-trivial manner [55]. The introduction of the DKS concept appears to resolve this dilemma. In the replicating world the stability that matters is not thermodynamic stability but DKS, of course consistent with the requirements of the second law. Thus living systems are highly stable entities despite their far-from-equilibrium character, but the stability kind is dynamic kinetic. And, as discussed above, the second law constraint is responsible for the emergence of metabolism (in the energy-gathering sense) as a critical component of all living things, enabling the two stability kinds, DKS and thermodynamic stability, to comfortably coexist. (c) Teleonomic character Life’s teleonomic character is arguably the most striking of all of life’s unique characteristics. In contrast to non-living things all life forms appear to follow an agenda. As Kauffman [2] put it: “living systems are autonomous agents – they act on their own behalf”. We have recently offered a physicochemical explanation for life’s teleonomic character [42], so the issue will not be discussed here in detail. Suffice it to say that its central element rests on life’s description as a dynamic kinetic state of matter. Once a replicating system has taken on a metabolic (energy gathering) capability by kinetic selection (so as to enhance its dynamic kinetic stability), it is effectively ‘freed’ of thermodynamic constraints, and at that point the replicating system will have taken on teleonomic character. Its directive is no longer the thermodynamic directive, which defines so-called ‘objective’ behavior, but rather the drive toward greater DKS, whose manifestation is interpreted and understood by us as teleonomic character. (d) Diversity Life’s diversity is clear and unambiguous. The number of species inhabiting the earth is estimated to be in the millions, occupying every conceivable ecological niche, from the poles to the equator, from the bottom of the sea to high in the atmosphere. Despite the clear evidence for diversity, the Darwinian model has provided different explanations for that diversity, from natural selection to random drift [50], the latter in line with Spencer’s early concept of the “instability of the homogeneous” [56], and the topic remains a source of continuing debate [57]. In this context we would like to add the insights provided by the dynamic kinetic stability model of living systems. One interesting distinction between the ‘regular’ chemical world and the replicative world lies in the different topologies of their respective spaces. As we have discussed previously [39], in the ‘regular’ chemical world all chemical systems are directed toward their thermodynamic sink so that the topology of that space is inherently convergent (as illustrated in 2). In contrast, within replicator space the path toward systems of greater dynamic kinetic stability is not well-defined. In principle any replicating system may enhance its DKS in any number of different ways so that each system becomes a potential branching point for other kinetically stable systems, though which systems will be able to maintain that stability over time (i.e., survive), is a separate question. Accordingly, the topology of replicator space is divergent and it is this different topology that provides a simple explanation for the enormous (and constantly growing) diversity we find in the biological world. Thus Darwin’s principle of divergence, a subject of continued debate [57] since it was originally proposed by Darwin, receives a simple topological explanation. This picture of convergent and divergent spaces for the two chemical worlds also explains how in the world of replicators we are able to go back in time and seek our evolutionary roots (convergent going back in time), but cannot predict future evolutionary changes (divergent going forward in time), whereas in the ‘regular’ chemical world we can often predict the outcome of future chemical reactions (convergent going forward in time) but are unable specify how those reacting systems came about (divergent going back in time) [39]. Scheme 2 xxx Schematic representation of topologies for transformations in regular chemical space (convergent) and in replicator space (divergent). xxx Schematic representation of topologies for transformations in ‘regular’ chemical space (convergent) and in replicator space (divergent). (e) Complexity Much of the difficulty in explaining life’s complexity is associated with the inherent thermodynamic instability associated with the organized complexity of life. Why would increasingly complex and unstable systems tend to form? However, once the nature of stability in the replicator world is clarified through the concept of DKS, the issue of complexity, at least with respect to its thermodynamic consequences, appears largely resolved. As we have already pointed out, the stability that matters in replicator space is not thermodynamic but DKS, and complexity, primarily through cross-catalytic network formation, contributes to that stability kind. We have already remarked on how two RNA enzymes were able to establish a sustained autocatalytic network, where no single enzyme on its own possessed that replicative capability [31]. An additional biological example may help to clarify the point – virus functionality. Think of a virus simplistically as a two-molecule aggregate – protein + nucleic acid. Within a biotic environment viruses are highly stable entities (in the DKS sense) in that they are able to be successfully replicated in large numbers, and thereby maintain a large population. Note, however, that the high kinetic stability arises through the cross-catalytic effect of the viral components. Each component facilitates the replication of the other, i.e., the two components are replicatively coupled. However, in that same biotic environment neither individual component will, on its own, be replicated, i.e., each individual component would manifest zero DKS. It is the system’s complexity, as expressed by the cross-catalytic relationship between the viral components, which provides the means of replication, leading to the system’s high DKS. (f) Homochiral character The stability of chiral systems in ‘regular’ and replicator space is strikingly different. In ‘regular’ chemical space a racemic mixture is inherently the more stable one; chiral excess is thermodynamically unstable, and with time all homochiral systems will tend to become transformed into the more stable racemic form (if aggregation effects are ignored). Within the replicative world, however, where kinetic factors dominate, the reverse pattern is observed. Stereochemical recognition is crucial in biological processes, particularly in the process of replication, so that in a replicative context, homochirality, which facilitates such recognition, is the preferred stereochemical outcome. In other words, due to the importance of stereochemical recognition, homochiral systems exhibit greater DKS than racemic ones. Thus the tendency of ‘regular’ chemical systems toward racemization, and replicating systems toward homochirality, becomes understandable in terms of the stability types within the two chemical spaces. As a final comment it is worth noting that the importance of autocatalysis is not just manifest in maintaining that homochiral dynamic kinetic state, but also in generating it. The symmetry breaking Soai reaction [58,59] in which a chiral product can be formed in almost 100% enantiomeric excess from an achiral substrate, is explicable in identical terms. Thus both the generation and the maintenance of persistent autocatalytic systems derive from the predominant influence of kinetic factors in governing those processes. 2.3.2. Defining Life The only uncontroversial statement one might make regarding attempts to define life is to say the issue is highly problematic [60,61]. Yet a working definition is important and forms the basis for the on-going attempts to overcome at least some of the difficulties. As recently pointed out by Cleland and Chyba [60], one of the major obstacles to successfully defining life is that we are attempting to define something we don’t fully understand. There are sufficient philosophic and linguistic difficulties in defining something we do understand, so the problem is only exacerbated when we attempt to define an entity whose essence remains in dispute, a source of endless debate. Extending the evolutionary theme to inanimate systems, thereby helping to bridge the animate-inanimate gap, leads quite naturally to greater insight into what constitutes a living system. That insight, in turn, opens the door to a functional definition that may avoid at least some of the commonly recognized difficulties associated with attempts to define life in the past. A functional definition that seems to overcome at least some of those difficulties is as follows: A self-sustained kinetically stable dynamic reaction network derived from the replication reaction. Note that a central feature of the above definition is that it attempts to specify the chemical essence of life, i.e., what life is, rather than what living systems do. Consider by comparison the widely cited NASA definition of life: A self-sustained chemical system capable of undergoing Darwinian evolution [62]. The fact that the NASA definition suffers from a number of deficiencies, including trivial exceptions (e.g., infertile animals, single rabbits), has been noted and discussed [60]. But the difficulty with the NASA definition appears to be more fundamental. The NASA definition is anchored in a term that is itself biological – “capable of undergoing Darwinian evolution”. Ideally a life definition that strives to place living things within a general material context should be detached from its biological context. It should not contain elements that are inherently biological, as to some degree it is then defined in terms of itself. As a final point we note that the above definition suggests that other life forms could exist, at least in principle. The general definition, here in agreement with the NASA definition, suggests that life forms not related to the protein-nucleic acid format as we know it, would be possible, and would likely exhibit the same phenomenological manifestations of the established protein-nucleic acid form that surrounds us. A detailed discussion of this issue is beyond the scope of this article. 2.3.3 Further insights of the general theory Let us now point out some additional insights provided by the general theory beyond those described above. Two central questions raised in the introduction were: How did life emerge? How would we go about synthesizing a living system? What insights into these key questions does the above theory offer? Let us first address the question of life’s emergence. The proposed general theory of evolution cannot address the historical question of life’s emergence from inanimate matter. Historical questions can only be addressed by uncovering the historic record and, for the early stages of abiogenesis, no historic record is available, or is likely to become available. Neither the fossil record nor phylogenetic analysis can take us back to the earliest stages of life’s emergence. However, uncovering the physicochemical principles that would have facilitated such a transformation should be an achievable goal. After all, those principles would be independent of time and place and no less applicable then, as now. Indeed by viewing abiogenesis and biological evolution as one single continuous physicochemical process, we have in effect outlined the physicochemical framework that would facilitate such a transformation. In a nutshell that framework rests on the simple idea that in nature there is a special stability associated with entities that can self-replicate, a stability kind that we have termed dynamic kinetic stability. Thus autocatalysis is at the very heart of both abiogenesis and evolution. Once some relatively simple self-replicating entity would have emerged, whether a single molecule or a minimal molecular network, the drive toward greater DKS would have induced that minimal replicating system to further complexify. The precise chemical nature of that primal replicator and its precise complexification pathway, historical facts, are unlikely to be ever known. These are historic events buried deep in the mists of time, but given the centrality of the nucleic acid system as the replicating heart of all living systems, it would seem that either a nucleic acid system, or at least one closely related to nucleic acids and evolvable from it, would have been likely candidates. Importantly, however, the manner in which a thermodynamic replicator, one whose replicating reaction would have been strictly governed by thermodynamic constraints, was transformed into a far-from-equilibrium energy-gathering teleonomic replicating system, is addressed by the theory. One might go as far as to say that the step in which a thermodynamic (down-hill) replicator was transformed into a metabolic (energy-gathering) replicator was the critical step, a saltation. That was the step, one might argue, in which a non-living chemical system began to take on the central life characteristic – teleonomic character [49], thereby crossing the threshold separating animate from inanimate. How would we go about synthesizing a living system? We certainly are unable to provide an answer to this question, but the extended theory may provide some useful pointers, particularly as to what is unlikely to work. First, it is important to recognize that a key distinction between life and non-life is organizational, the former being a dynamic kinetic state of matter. Thus the living state is induced by the dynamic character of the biomolecules from which living things are constructed. A simplistic physical analogy that may capture that dynamic character of life is that of a juggler juggling several balls. A state where a man is standing next to those same balls is identical materially, but distinctly different organizationally. And just as it is easy to transform the juggling state to a non-juggling one (a hefty shove of the juggler is likely to do the trick), but more difficult to go in the other direction, so it is easy to transform the relatively fragile dynamic state that is life, to the static thermodynamic state representing death. So a strategy that we predict would not work would be to simply combine the molecules of life into some supramolecular aggregate. Such an aggregate would be thermodynamic in nature, not one that is dynamic kinetic. Based on the general model presented above, a living system could be synthesized through accessing a replicative state with a relatively simple replicating system. Once that replicative state is accessed, it could then be modified and built upon, one step at a time, ensuring the holistic replicative capability is maintained at each step. The juggler analogy is once again helpful. A juggler wanting to juggle 5 balls might start with just 2 balls and then add additional balls, one at a time – step by step. Simply tossing 5 balls at a man does not lead to a juggling state. Of course the above comments provide no practical guidance in how to achieve that desired end, and we make no pretense to suggest otherwise. Nonetheless, a general theory of evolution may provide a keener awareness of where the difficulties lie thereby helping to avoid strategies that the theory would identify as problematic. Finally, in closing this section we briefly mention the ‘metabolism first’ vs. ‘replication first’ controversy, a long standing question at the heart of the origin of life debate [35,63]. In the absence of historical data that can throw light on the question of whether life began through the emergence of some replicating system which then complexified, or with the initial emergence of an autocatalytic metabolic network, a definitive resolution of the question appears unlikely. Nevertheless, having a physicochemical model that provides a basis for the transformation of inanimate to animate could provide useful insights. As the general model described above makes clear, the essence of life derives from the unique kinetic characteristics associated with autocatalysis. That, in turn, suggests that all models for the emergence of life should be analyzed with respect to that critical element. So did life begin with some primal metabolic system that was holistically autocatalytic, as proposed by the ‘metabolism first’ school of thought, or with some self-replicating molecule, as proposed by the ‘replication first’ school of thought? Consider, Joyce’s work has recently demonstrated that a single RNA enzyme with its constituent building blocks is a poor replicator and is unable to bring about sustainable replication. However, the cooperative cross-catalytic system involving two RNA enzymes was able to generate a self-sustained system [31]. This key result suggests that both template-directed autocatalysis and network formation may well have been critical elements in the emergence of life, most likely closely synchronized. That being the case, we would argue that the ‘replication first’ – ‘metabolism first’ debate, as a fundamental issue in the Origin of Life debate, may no longer be of real relevance, and should be replaced with a bridging ‘replication and metabolism together’ scenario. Simply put, complexification (of the special kind found in biology) could not have taken place without replication, and replication without complexification had nowhere to go. The idea that the distinction between ‘replication first’ and ‘metabolism first’ schools of thought may be largely artificial was recently expressed by Eschenmoser [64]. 3. Concluding remarks Darwin’s contribution to modern scientific thought is profound and irrevocable. It has forever changed man’s view of himself and his place in the universe. By demonstrating the interconnectedness of all living things, Darwin brought a unity and coherence to biology that continues to impact on the subject to this day. But a paradoxical side product of that extraordinary contribution with its specific focus on living things, was that it resulted in a distancing between the biological and the physical sciences, one that continues to afflict the natural sciences. The disturbing result – despite the enormous contribution of the Darwinian theme, Darwinism remains unable to explain what life is, how it emerged, and how living things relate to non-living ones. The challenge therefore is clear. The scientific goal – the relentless striving toward the unification of science – requires that the chasm that divides and separates the biological from the physical sciences be bridged. In this paper we have attempted to demonstrate that by reformulating and incorporating the Darwinian theme within a general physicochemical scheme, one that rests on the concept of dynamic kinetic stability, the animate-inanimate connection can be strengthened. What the general scheme suggests is that life is, first and foremost, a highly complex dynamic network of chemical reactions that rests on an autocatalytic foundation, is driven by the kinetic power of autocatalysis, and has expanded octopus-like from some primal replicative system from which the process of complexification toward more complex systems was initiated. Thus life as it is can never be readily classified and categorized because life is more a process than a thing. In that sense Whitehead’s process philosophy [65] with its emphasis on process over substance seems to have been remarkably prescient. Even the identification and classification of separate individual life forms within that ever expanding network seems increasingly problematic. The revelation that the cellular mass that we characterize as an individual human being (you, me, or the girl next door) actually consists of significantly more bacterial cells than human cells (~1014 compared to ~1013) [66], all working together in a symbiotic relationship to establish a dynamic kinetically stable system, is just one striking example of the difficulty. As humans we naturally focus on what we identify as the human component of that elaborate biological network, but that of course is an anthropocentric view, one that has afflicted human thinking for millennia. A description closer the truth would seem to be that life is a sprawling interconnected dynamic network in which some connections are tighter, others looser, but a giant dynamic network nonetheless. And it is life’s dynamic character that explains why identifiable individual life forms – small segments of that giant network – can be so fragile, so easy to undermine through network deconstruction, whereas the goal of creating life is such a formidable one. A closing remark concerning life’s complexity. Life is complex – that is undeniable. But that does not necessarily mean that the life principle is complex. In fact we would argue that the life principle is in some sense relatively simple! Indeed, simple rules can lead to complex patterns, as studies in complexity have amply demonstrated [67,68]. So we would suggest that life, from its simple beginnings as some minimal replicating system, and following a simple rule – the drive toward greater dynamic kinetic stability within replicator space – is yet another example of that fundamental idea. A final comment: this paper has discussed the concept of dynamic kinetic stability in some detail, and the question as to which stability kind – dynamic kinetic or thermodynamic – is inherently preferred in nature, could be asked. There is, of course, no formal answer to this question. In contrast to thermodynamic stability, dynamic kinetic stability is, as noted earlier, not readily quantifiable. Nevertheless an intriguing observation can be made. Since the emergence of life on earth from some initial replicating entity some 4 billion years ago, life has managed to dramatically diversify and multiply, having taken root in almost every conceivable ecological niche. Just the bacterial biomass on our planet alone has been estimated to be some 2.1014 tons, sufficient to cover the earth’s land surface to a depth of 1.5 meters [69]. The conclusion seems inescapable – there is a continual transformation of ‘regular’ matter into replicative matter (permitted by the supply of an almost endless source of energy), suggesting that in some fundamental manner replicative matter is the more ’stable’ form. What implications this continuing transformation might have on cosmology in general is beyond both our understanding and the scope of this paper. Tags: Teoria Darwiniana, Teoria Geral da Evolução Postedo na Abiogênese, Evolução | 0 Comments and 1 Reaction Nós, Mamíferos Fomos Feitos Tambem Por Virus! Mamma mia! sexta-feira, fevereiro | 17 | 2012 xxx Quando você era apenas um feto, necessitou de nutrientes para sobreviver e se transformar em embrião. Claro que tais nutrientes só poderiam vir do corpo da mãe. Mas como ter acesso aos nutrientes se você estava dentro de um utero que estava isolado dentro do corpo da mãe? Os nutrientes estavam na placenta que existe logo após as paredes do utero, separada dêste. Pela lógica das coisas você não era para ter nascido, todos nós seríamos abortados como fetos mortos. Mas a Natureza tem uma sabedoria extraordinária! Aconteceu então uma espécie de milagre: surgiram entre as paredes do útero e a placenta umas camadas de células preenchendo o espaço, camadas estas que permitem a passagem de tais nutrientes. E quem fêz estas camadas de células? Virus !!! Quem poderia ter imaginado uma coisa destas?! Fomos instruídos para odiar os virus porque alguns dêles nos matam, mas agora percebemos que a existência dêles nêste mundo foi necessária e inevitável para a Evolução produzir seres vivos como a espécie humana. A Natureza convocou os virus quando a espécie mais evoluída aqui eram os répteis e usou seu trabalho para transformar um réptil num mamífero. Impressionante! Bem… leia meus comentários aqui e o artigo publicado em: Discovern Magazine – Seção Blogs – The Loom http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/loom/2012/02/14/mammals-made-by-viruses/ Título: Mammals Made By Viruses February 14th, 2012 11:48 PM by Carl Zimmer Em 2000, uma equipe de cientistas de Boston descobriram um peculiar gene no genoma humano. Deram-lhe o nome de ERVWE1. Êle tem o código para produzir uma proteína feita sómente pelas células da placenta. Êles chamaram essa proteína de “syncytin”. As células que produzem syncytin estavam localizadas apenas onde a placenta faz contacto com o útero. Estas células se fundem, ou se unem, para criar uma unica camada de células, chamada de “syncytiotrophoblast”, a qual é essencial para o feto sugar, drenar, nutrientes de sua mãe. Os cientistas descobriram que o que liga as células como uma espécie de ponte é essa proteína, a syncytin. Então, para que no futuro as células possam se conectarem, precisam antes fabricar a syncytin, como nós do lado de cá de um rio, para atravessar-mos mercadorias à outra margem, precisamos antes fazer uma ponte. Até aqui tudo bem, nos maravilhamos com as previdências e fantástica engenharia da Natureza, mas estamos acostumados a aceitar isto. O que torna o caso realmente formidável é que êsse gene que faz essa ponte, essa proteína, não é um gene humano! Êle tem todas as características dos genes dos virus. Algum antepassado nosso extorquiu êsse gene do DNA de um virus e nenhum de seus descendentes nunca mais o devolveu. Agora tem virus nascendo aleijado, outro vêsgo de um ôlho, porque lhes falta êsse gene. Devolvam o gene ao virus, meu amigo, minhas amigas, senão vocês podem ir para o inferno… O problema é que se meu pai tivesse devolvido o gene eu não teria nem nascido e não estaria aqui agora blogando… Se eu devolver o gene nunca terei filhos. Vou ficar triste pelo resto da vida com êsse tremendo pêso na consciência. Somos ladrões de genes de criaturinhas indefesas. O artigo é longo e continua com informações valiosas. Apenas para ilustrar reproduzimos a figura abaixo mostrando como foi a evolução da inserção dêsse gene: xxx Ciclo Evolutivo do Gene para Syncytin xxx Observe o desenho na base onde se lê “maternal vessel”, a faixa ou camada de células formada pela syncytin. Virus têm se infiltrado por êles mesmos no genoma de nossos ancestrais por centenas de milhões de anos. Êles tipicamente têm conseguido isso ao infectarem ovulos e espermas, inserindo seus próprios DNA dentro do nosso. Existem 100.000 conhecidos fragmentos de virus no genoma humano, perfazendo cêrca de 8% do nosso DNA. ( Tem um casal vizinho lá de casa que quando a mulher ficou grávida só se expressaram êstes 8% de genes e quando o filho nasceu era apenas um virus, por isso êles criam seu filho escondido numa caixa de fósforos na casa… Mas, agora falando a verdade, acho que você já sabe que muitas vêzes êstes fragmentos de genes viróticos se replicam e se tornam virus completos, por isso nosso corpo cria virus dentro de nós mesmos!) A maioria dêste DNA de virus tem sido atacado por tantas mutações que hoje nada mais são que meras bagagens que nossas espécies carregam de uma geração a outra. Ainda assim há alguns genes virais que ainda fazem proteínas em nossos corpos. Syncytin aconteceu de ser uma proteína extremamente util para nossa biologia, por isso a Evolução, através de seu mecanismo da seleção natural, permitiu a êsse gene que a produz, a se expressar e o mantêve até hoje no DNA dos mamóferos. Originalmente, syncytin permitiu aos virus fundirem células dos corpos de seus hospedeiros para que êles pudessem se propagarem de uma célula para outras. Agora essa proteína permite a bebês se colarem ao corpo de suas mães. Agora vamos analisar êsse fenômeno, como e porque aconteceu essa espécie de milagre, à luz da fórmula da Matrix/DNA, e prepare-se para vibrar de emoção com a sabedoria da Natureza. O que são os virus, como e porque surgem na Terra? Virus são apenas uma das sete peças de um sistema natural. Observe a fórmula da Matrix. xxx Fórmula da Matrix/DNA no Estado de Sistema Fechado xxx Virus são os instrumentos materiais, os representantes no ecossistema da biosfera terrestre da Função Sistêmica Universal n. 5. Esta função que nasce em F.4 – o elemento masculino do sistema – sai fora do circuito esférico rumo ao interior do sistema, para terminar na F.1 – o elemento feminino do sistema. É a unica peça movel dos sistemas naturais e a unica intermitente, quer dizer, só aparece quando um sistema está maduro e começa sua fase de reprodução. É uma peça fundamental na reprodução e perpetuação das espécies. Ela funde duas outras peças, une-as, a F.4 à F.1. No céu, o unico astro que perambula entre outros é o cometa, e estudando suas demais características descobrimos que cometas são os instrumentos materiais dentro dos sistemas astronomicos fabricados pela faixa do espectro da luz natural correspondente à Função Sistêmica Universal n. 5 quando a luz adentra a matéria inerte e lhe imprime a dinâmica do ciclo vital, quer dizer, organiza a matéria em sistemas funcionais. O cometa é o espermatozóide do espaço. Não os que vemos passar por aqui, êstes são espermatozóides que nunca alcançaram o alvo, vão vagar até se desfazerem. No sistema celular essa função criou o RNA, o mensageiro, o transportador. Na divisão dos orgasnismos pelo sexo essa função entrou criando o espermatozóide. No sistema nucleotideo ela criou a base uracila, a unica que só existe no RNA e é intermitente, só aparece quando é formado um novo nucleotideo que vai compor a fita do DNA. Cada Função Universal criou uma das cinco principais organelas do sistema celular. A F.1 criou o nucleo, A F.2 criou o centríolo, a F.3 criou o ribossomo, a F.4 criou a mitocondria (por isso a mitocondria tem DNA tambem pois ela representa o elemento macho que precisa ter DNA para a reprodução, e por isso ela emite os bólidos de energia ATP como seu ancestral no céu, o pulsar, emite os energéticos cometas). A F.6 criou o lisossomo que faz a limpeza da célula retirando seus detritos como sua ancestral no céu, a estrêla decadente se fragmenta expulsando seus detritos. A F.7 criou o cloroplasto, que só existe na célula vegetal e como representa o seu ancestral no céu, a estrêla, é êle que conecta a célula vegetal ao Sol e faz a fotossíntese. E a F.5, criou qual organela? Uma que fôsse intermitente, quer dizer, só aparece na reprodução, os virus. Por isso os virus tem a tendencia de penetrar na célula, ir até o nucleo onde se situa a fêmea, e só sabe se reproduzir desenfreadamente, ou juntar o aparato masculino ao feminino se fazendo de ponte, como a syncytin. As organelas eram, antes de ser formado o primeiro sistema celular, apenas compostos moleculares como o ribossomo, o lisossomo, ou pré-organismos já com RNA/ou DNA como as mitocondrias. Existiam separadas, porque foram pacotinhos de genes semi-vivos vindos do sistema astronomico, eram apenas certos trechos do circuito daquêle sistema. Com o tempo e por simbiose se juntaram dentro de uma membrana, perfazendo o circuito completo e assim o primeiro ser vivo saiu a se arrastar na superficie da Terra. Os virus são tambem uma organela celular. E porque êles tem a capacidade de fazer uma proteína que funde o utero à placenta? Ora, já respondemos acima, basta dar uma olhada para o céu, êles lá só sabem fazer é fundir dois corpos. E a maioria dos cometas que não chegam no horizonte de eventos do vórtice formado no meio da poeira estelar (vórtice êsse errôneamente teorizado pelos físicos como se fôsse um buraco negro), porque não tiveram a fôrça necessária para penetra-lo, ficam orbitando no meio da poeira que mais tarde vai justamente se constituir na ancestral celeste da placenta dos mamíferos, ao se agregar ao nucleo da semente de uma nova estrêla e se tornar o depósito de nutrientes para o germe se alimentar até desabrochar. Por isso a syncytin só existe ali entre o utero que imita o buraco negro onde se desenvolve o embrião de uma nova estrêla e o resto do Universo, o qual, nêste caso, é o corpo da mãe. Êste é o pêso, a fôrça, de uma teoria consistente. Não é porque descobriram no ano 2.000 a syncytin, o gene do virus no DNA dos mamíferos e por causa de eu saber disso tudo apenas hoje quando leio êste artigo que estou descobrindo agora a identificação com minha teoria. Essa história da placenta como imitação do horizonte de eventos, dos virus como reprodutores e organelas, e constantes do DNA, já a escrevo aqui nêste webisite há anos e já a registrei com direitos autorais a 20 anos atrás, antes da syncytin ser descoberta em 1998. É a capacidade de previsão certeira desta teoria que a cada dia me convence mais que algo nela, ou muito dela, deve estar correto. A formula da Matrix/DNA surge nêste Universo material codificada no espectro electro-magnético de qualquer raio de luz natural, (como explico aqui em outro artigo), mas de onde vem essa luz, qual sua fonte natural, A Teoria da Matrix/DNA não sabe dizer. Vou morrer levando comigo êste mistério não-resolvido para meu tumulo… Mas se assim for, se a teoria da Matrix/DNA está correta, os cientistas estão interpretando algo de forma errada. A teoria diz que tôdas as informações vindas de LUCA – o nosso ultimo ancestral comum astronomico – já existiam no primordial DNA. Isto significa que os genes dos virus tambem surgiram no DNA dos seres vivos à mesma época. A presença dêstes genes no DNA, provavelmente localizados na região chamada DNA-lixo, independente da inserção dêles pelos virus, pois são partes do trecho do circuito sistêmico, o qual está completo no DNA dos vegetais e apenas sem os genes para cloroplastos nos animais. Acontece que aqui o problema se torna complexo e ainda não tive tempo para estudar essa questão. Os genes dos virus são genes biológicos, derivados dos genes semi-vivos astronomicos e a maioria dêstes está inativa na região que denominamos DNA-lixo. Êles só se despertariam para novamente se expressarem se alguma condição de sobrevivencia atuar como um estimulo. Como no ancestral astronomico êles trabalhavam com material mais simples, deve ter tido mutações nos seus derivados que compõem os genes biológicos dos virus. Por isso talvez os cientistas não os encontram no meio do DNA: já não mais se parecem com seus mutados descendentes nos virus. Mas isto levanta uma suspeita: talvez êstes genes não tenham sido inseridos por virus. Talvez estes genes no DNA dos organismos vivos tenham produzido os virus, mesmo que mais tarde, devido à maior eficiência dos genes virais mutados, e devido à proximidade de coexistência de ambos no nucleo celular, a Natureza preferiu selecionar o material viral e deixou o material do DNA primordial inativo. Outro fator a considerar: porque êstes genes só aparecem dos mamiferos para cá, e não nos ancestrais anteriores como os répteis? Se não aparecem nos anteriores, a Teoria da Matrix/DNA explica o porque. Tenho outro artigo aqui explicando como a engenharia de manter os ovos e nutrir os embriões dentro do corpo da fêmea surgiu e se desenvolveu nos ancestrais não-mamiferos. O artigo, se não me engano chama-se ” Dos répteis aos Mamiferos: Um Ato Heróico?” Isto aconteceu porque no céu, no ancestral sistema astronomico, já existiam as duas fases, a primeira de botar os ovos fora, e a segunda, de manter os ovos dentro. Quer dizer, o aparato de reprodução dos mamíferos já estava estabelecido na fórmula da Matrix desde as origens do Universo. Então, é comprensivel que, mesmo já registrados no DNA desde as amebas, os genes responsáveis pela produção da syncytin só iriam se expressar quando se iniciasse a segunda fase, a formação dos mamiferos. Que estivessem já no DNA dos organismos ou voando por aí nos virus, não importa: estava determinado por uma onda/raio de luz que entrariam em ação no momento certo. xxx A seguir, alguns de meus comentários postados na Internet em artigos, foruns de discussão, etc. http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/loom/2012/02/14/mammals-made-by-viruses/comment-page-1/#comment-76450 34. Louis Morelli Says: February 17th, 2012 at 12:03 pm Thanks! I had a lot of information here, useful for my work. But, I am asking the opportunity for debating a different approach about these phenomena, based in the viewpoint of Matrix/DNA Theory. The existence of virus, the origins of placenta and mammalian reproductive apparatus are explained by the Matrix formula that was present in the state of the world before biogenesis. Hence, this information here about syncytin, the fuses, already was predicted by this theory 30 years ago, as proved by copyrights. What’s virus? There is a universal natural formula for all natural systems and viruses are the performer of systemic function number 5 at cells systems (See the formula at my article “Nós, Mamíferos Fomos Feitos Tambem Por Virus! Mamma mia! (Portuguese – fevereiro | 17 | 2012). Google it. How was the origin of placenta and mammalian reproductive apparatus? It is explained in my article “From Reptile to Mammals: A Heroic Act? (English – November 13th, 2011)” There is a controversial point between the two theories. Matrix suggests that the original genes that later produced syncytin already were registered in the primordial DNA and they are there, at the junk DNA. But they were prohibited to express because the evolution of biological systems obeys the same chronology ordered by the formula and the formula first makes system laying eggs out, only in a later phase the system keeps the egg within. So, in parallel was evolving the virus which DNA had several mutations at the point that some genes are not re-cognoscible when faced with its similar genes at the living beings’ junk DNA. There is this possibility: the living beings genes produced the viral genes which had mutations and went back to living beings DNA when evolution determined that it was time for their expression. Viruses, as performers of F5, are supposed to be cells organelles. This function build tools for reproduction and perpetuation of species, then it appears only at intervals in the cell system. Viruses are the performers of male functions, the cells tool as their spermatozoon. The cause evolution had keep this viral organelle outside the cell system is because they have the bias to reproduce by re-cycling closed systems. Then, the virus keeps orbiting around the female apparatus (in this case, the uterus) and mixing at ingredients and cells in that region they produces syncytin. Everything equal when the Matrix formula was building the galaxies building blocks: uterus is the black hole at the galaxy nucleus, placenta is the formation of events’ horizon with stellar dust. Fetuses are seeds of a new star and virus are the comets that make the fecundation, fusing the black hole with the external Universe, which, in this biological case, is the mother’s body. This is a different theory, maybe has a lot of wrong things in their models, but his ability to make predictions has been incomparable with others theories. xxx http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/loom/2012/02/14/mammals-made-by-viruses/comment-page-1/#comment-76450 35. Louis Morelli Says: February 17th, 2012 at 12:19 pm Besides the debate among different theories, there is this practical and urgent case related to these viruses: Wikipedia: Clinical significance HERV-W has been associated with multiple sclerosis and schizophrenia in humans. (HERV-W_7q21.2 provirus ancestral Env polyprotein also known as Env-W or enverin or syncytin is a protein that in humans is encoded by the ERVWE1 gene. Then, my job just now is searching information everywhere about these diseases and trying to understand it from the Matrix/DNA formula viewpoint. xxx A seguir começa a compilação de dados para mais esta pesquisa da Matrix/DNA Wikipedia ; Syncytin > ERVWE1 HERV-W_7q21.2 provirus ancestral Env polyprotein also known as Env-W or enverin or syncytin is a protein that in humans is encoded by the ERVWE1 gene. Function: Many different human endogenous retrovirus (HERV) families are expressed in normal placental tissue at high levels, suggesting that HERVs are functionally important in reproduction. This gene is part of an HERV provirus on chromosome 7 that has inactivating mutations in the gag and pol genes. This gene is the envelope glycoprotein gene which appears to have been selectively preserved. The product of this gene, syncytin, is expressed in the placental syncytiotrophoblast and is involved in fusion of the cytotrophoblast cells to form the syncytial layer of the placenta. The protein has the characteristics of a typical retroviral envelope protein, including a furin cleavage site that separates the surface (SU) and transmembrane (TM) proteins which form a heterodimer.[3] Clinical significance: HERV-W has been associated with multiple sclerosis[4] and schizophrenia in humans. Multiple sclerosis From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia: Multiple sclerosis (abbreviated to MS, known as disseminated sclerosis or encephalomyelitis disseminata) is an inflammatory disease in which the fatty myelin sheaths around the axons of the brain and spinal cord are damaged, leading to demyelination and scarring as well as a broad spectrum of signs and symptoms.[1] Disease onset usually occurs in young adults, and it is more common in women.[1] It has a prevalence that ranges between 2 and 150 per 100,000.[2] MS was first described in 1868 by Jean-Martin Charcot.[3] Comentário da Matrix/DNA: Nesta primeira breve abordagem, aprendemos que a esclerose decorre de uma inflamação nas camadas gordurosas de myelin formadas em volta dos axons dos neuronios, geralmente em jovens e mais nas mulheres. O quadro nos lembra imediatamente o mesmo quadro das camadas de syncytin em volta do utero. O que nos traz a essa comparação de padrões é o fato de que os genes envolvidos em syncytin tambem estão envolvidos nessa inflamação, tambem estão presentes no myelin. Temos do syncytin e da formula da Matrix/DNA a teoria de que se trata de gene viral, que virus se localizam em órbita de aparatos que representam F1, o qual é extritamente feminino, por isso já se entende porque a doença ataque mais as mulheres. Tambem sabemos que a maior atividade dos virus é na fase de inicio da reprodução sexual, por isso já se entende porque a inflamação surge mais nos jovens. Deduzimos que os sinais que correm dentro dos axons são entendendidos pelos virus ou seus genes como fetos de uma nova mensagem, por isso os genes virais se dirigem aos axons e ao orbitarem-no acabam criando uma camada-ponte entre o axon e o resto do cérebro, assim como a syncytin funde o utero com o resto do corpo da mãe. Vamos continuar buscando mais informações para penetrar mais fundo nos segrêdos e causas desta doença, buscando uma solução de cura. Que Deus, ou seja lá qual é a fonte por tras da luz natural, esteja conosco. Nossos irmãos estão sendo torturados por essa doença e precisam de nossa ajuda, sempre é bom a mim mesmo lembrar isso para manter-me recolhendo energia de onde for possível e fazer êste trabalho. Inflammation From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Inflammation (Latin, īnflammō, “I ignite, set alight”) is part of the complex biological response of vascular tissues to harmful stimuli, such as pathogens, damaged cells, or irritants.[1] Inflammation is a protective attempt by the organism to remove the injurious stimuli and to initiate the healing process. Inflammation is not a synonym for infection, even in cases where inflammation is caused by infection. Although infection is caused by a microorganism, inflammation is one of the responses of the organism to the pathogen. However, inflammation is a stereotyped response, and therefore it is considered as a mechanism of innate immunity, as compared to adaptive immunity, which is specific for each pathogen. Myelin From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Myelin is a dielectric (electrically insulating) material that forms a layer, the myelin sheath, usually around only the axon of a neuron. It is essential for the proper functioning of the nervous system. Myelin is an outgrowth of a type of glial cell. The production of the myelin sheath is called myelination. In humans, the production of myelin begins in the fourteenth week of fetal development, although little myelin exists in the brain at the time of birth. During infancy, myelination occurs quickly and continues through the adolescent stages of life. Schwann cells supply the myelin for peripheral neurons, whereas oligodendrocytes, specifically of the interfascicular type, myelinate the axons of the central nervous system. Myelin is considered a defining characteristic of the (gnathostome) vertebrates, but myelin-like sheaths have also arisen by parallel evolution in some invertebrates, although they are quite different from vertebrate myelin at the molecular level.[1] Myelin was discovered in 1854 by Rudolf Virchow.[2] xxx Myelin Em Tipicos Neuronios xxx Pathogen From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia A pathogen (Greek: πάθος pathos, “suffering, passion” and γενής genēs (-gen) “producer of”) or infectious agent – in colloquial terms, a germ — is a microbe or microorganism such as a virus, bacterium, prion, or fungus that causes disease in its animal or plant host.[1][2] There are several substrates including pathways whereby pathogens can invade a host; the principal pathways have different episodic time frames, but soil contamination has the longest or most persistent potential for harboring a pathogen. xxx Sôbre: Doença de Borna Estudo aponta vírus comum entre o genoma humano e o de outros mamíferos publicado em 07/01/2010 às 08h24: http://noticias.r7.com/tecnologia-e-ciencia/noticias/estudo-aponta-virus-comum-entre-o-genoma-humano-e-o-de-outros-mamiferos-20100107.html xxxx Tags: células, placenta, syncytin, vírus Postedo na Abiogênese, Celula, DNA, Evidências da Matrix/DNA, Macro Evolução, Origens, Proteína, vírus | 0 Comments and 1 Reaction Construção das Moléculas Vitais Primordiais pela Matrix terça-feira, fevereiro | 7 | 2012 Aos poucos os bits-information vindos das radiações estelares e nucleos planetários na forma de photons à superficie da Terra foram se infiltrando nos átomos terrestres e assumindo o contrôles dêles para conduzi-los a se conectarem de novas formas que depois, tudo ajuntado, resultaria na reprodução do building block astronomico. Assim a galáxia criou a Vida na Terra. É importante prestar-mos atenção nas moléculas tanto primordiais como as que ainda fazem partes das substancias e órgãos dos nossos corpos, identificar nelas como estão os bits-informação arranjados, para comparar tudo à fórmula da Matrix e assim consertar-mos o que está errado causando doençãs e disfunções físicas, bem como desenvolver fisicamente melhor nossos corpos. Vamos aqui reunindo o que fôr-mos detectando por aí: xxx Guanosine triphosphate Guanosine diphosphate G protein xxx As três figuras acima se relacionam a mecanismos da visão, photoreceptores de luz como G-proteína. (Vide em wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G-protein G proteins function as molecular switches. When they bind guanosine triphosphate (GTP), they are ‘on’, and, when they bind guanosine diphosphate (GDP), they are ‘off’. Observe as moléculas de guanosine. I pentagono central é formado de OH. Oxigênio é o átomo que expressa a face direita entrópica degenerativa que termina como “poeira estelar” em F1. Hidrogênio é o átomo que representa o inicio da face direita, crescente, tambem em F1. isto significa que o pentagono nada mais é que uma forte expressão de F1. Do pentagono saem dois ramos laterais. É supôsto que o da esquerda represente a face esquerda e o outro a face direita. Realmente, os átomos daí são todos compativeis com a fórmula da Matrix, inclusive, o Nitrogênio, com sete protons representa a F7 ao lado direito. Acima temos a proteína G-proteina e o texto diz que ela funciona como uma chave liga/desliga: quando se conecta com um difosfato ela desliga e quando se conecta a um trifosfato ela se liga. Acho que a matrix explica o porque. Observe que o braço esquerdo do trifosfato é mais longo que o do difosfato, o que quuer dizer, no trifosfato estão representadas as três funções da esquerda, enquanto no difosfato, apenas duas. Ora, rapidamente podemos ver que a glunosine é uma ordem à proteina, ou para ser um sistema fechado em si mesmo (quer dizer, desligado, off ), ou para ser um sistema aberto ( ligado, on). Porque a molécula que tem todas as funções completam o circuito fechado e a que tem apenas duas, faltando uma função, não liga o circuito da face esquerda com o da face direita. Mais um problema resolvido pela Matrix/DNA Tags: moléculas, proteínas Postedo na Abiogênese, Biologia Celular, Evidências da Matrix/DNA, Luz | 0 Comments and 1 Reaction Origens da Vida: Importante Descoberta na Busca da Solução Dêste Mistério quinta-feira, fevereiro | 2 | 2012 Fontes: 1 – Ciência Diária Cientistas recriam processo químico para a origem da vida http://cienciadiaria.com.br/2012/01/25/cientistas-recriam-processo-quimico-importante-para-a-origem-da-vida/ 2 – Mail Online British scientists recreate the molecules that gave birth to life itself http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2092494/Life-sweet-New-clue-chemical-origins-sugar-molecules-DNA-recreated-scientists.html xxx Origens do DNA na Sôpa Primordial xxx - “Há uma porção de perguntas fundamentais sôbre as origens da Vida e muitas pessoas dirigem estas perguntas à Biologia. Mas para a Vida emergir da matéria inanimada, tem que ter um momento – o tempo que a matéria sem vida consumiu para se organizar numa arquitetura viva. E tudo até êste ponto é Quimica, não é Biologia.” – disse Paul Clarke, da Universidade de York e líder da equipe que realizou uma notável façanha: recriou um processo que poderia ser o que ocorreu no mundo antes da existência dos seres vivos. Os cientistas descobriram que as moléculas mais simples nos corpos dos seres vivos, os aminoácidos, tem a capacidade de catalizar (acelerar) reações químicas formando outras moléculas tambem simples mas muito importantes: lembre-se da figura do DNA, aquelas moléculas grandes que ficam nas hastes e parecem trapézios, formando os nucleotideos, denominadas ribose e desoxiribose, ou ainda simplesmente açucares. Aqui nêste artigo dão-lhes o nome de “treose” e “eritrose” ( é absurda a falta de atividade e de respeito, de consideração, para com os estudantes e o publico em geral dos responsáveis pelo departamento de educação no Brasil, principlamente dos responsáveis pelos textos do curriculum escolar. Uma unica molécula tem mil nomes e cada escritor ou comunicador usa o que lhe apetece, tudo colaborando para tornar a aprendizagem e assimilação demasiado confusa. Porque uma molécula não pode ter um nome só e obrigatório fora da restrita área dos profissionais de Biologia?!) Diz o Artigo: Todas as moléculas biológicas têm uma capacidade de existir em duas formas de estrutura, canhota ou destra – como um objeto (forma destra) e seu reflexo no espelho (canhota). Todos os açúcares em biologia são construídos como moléculas na forma destra e também todos os aminoácidos que compõem os peptídeos e as proteínas são compostos em forma canhota. Os pesquisadores descobriram que o uso de simples aminoácidos canhotos para catalisar (acelerar) a formação de açúcares, resultou, predominantemente, na produção da forma destra de açúcares. Isso pode explicar como os carbohidratos originaram-se e o porquê da forma destra ser dominante na natureza. E Paul Clarke explica: “Estamos tentando compreender as origens químicas da vida. Uma das questões interessantes é de onde vêm os hidratos de carbono, porque eles são os blocos de construção de DNA e RNA. O que conseguimos é o primeiro passo nesse caminho para mostrar como açúcares simples –treose e eritrose – se originam. Geramos esses açúcares de um conjunto muito simples de materiais que a maioria dos cientistas acredita terem estado em todo lugar no momento em que a vida começou.” xxx Análise pela Matrix/DNA: Êste assunto interessa a nós filósofos naturalistas, pois a origem da vida é tema relacionado ao sentido da vida, o qual é um dos nossos objetos de investigação. Nós nos informamos sôbre o que o método cientifico reducionista obtem de dados e tentamos conectar os dados como quem monta quebra-cabeças para ver no final o quadro geral. Um dêsses quadros obtidos e que é o tema dêste website, denomina-se “Teoria da Matrix/DNA Universal”. Os modêlos teóricos sugerem visão e abordagem diferentes dos fenômenos naturais, desconhecidas pelos cientistas, e no tocante a esta descoberta, temos que recordar alguns postulados gerais da teoria. Mas é surpreendente a explicação que ela sugere para as origens dos carbohidratos. A Matrix seria o DNA, o código universal, de todos os sistemas naturais, de átomos a galáxias, a seres vivos. O DNA biológico seria apenas uma das formas da Matrix, derivado da forma astronomica, a qual foi o ancestral direto. Segundo esta teoria, o carbono foi o átomo escolhido como base dos sistemas biológicos porque é o unico átomo dos existentes na Terra que contem a forma da Matrix quando ela era o DNA dos sistemas astronomicos, das galáxias. Como o átomo de carbono é o representante do “DNA” astronomico? Êle é o unico átomo com numero atômico seis. Ou seja, possue seis protons e considerando-se que cada particula num átomo executa uma função especifica sistêmica universal, as seis funções que haviam e eram expressadas no circuito sistêmico da Matrix astronomica são expressadas no carbono. Se um átomo tem numero atômico cinco, por exemplo, êle peca por deficiência, e se tem mais de seis, peca por exagêro. A Matrix astronomica na verdade apresenta sete funções, mas a função numero 5 é intermitente, ela só aparece e entra em atividade na reciclagem/reprodução do sistema. Ora, a Matrix na forma de building blocks dos sistemas astronomicos é a unica situação no Universo onde aparece um sistema fechado em si mesmo. Portanto o átomo de carbono veio representar o tipo de sistema fechado. Mas no Cosmos, no espaço sideral, o sistema fechado se recicla e não se relaciona com nada do mundo exterior. No ambiente terrestre as condições ambientais e os diferentes materiais impedem essa reciclagem, por isso a Função n.5 não existe no carbono e nem no átomo com numero atômico sete, em nenhum átomo. Cada partícula a mais que as seis necessárias e suficientes é uma duplicata das seis originais e reforça a expressão da função que ela executa. Se o carbono se replicasse tambem aqui, e suas cópias ficassem ligadas entre si, teríamos combinações atômicas apenas de carbonos numa longa fileira como um rosário onde as contas fôssem tôdas iguais. Mas ao invés de se manter como sistema fechado e se replicar o carbono se torna na Terra o átomo mais social, mais amigável, mais versátil e maleável, pois êle se torna o centro de grupos de átomos combinados, os mais diversos. Porque? Quando o building block das galaxias foi formado, só haviam os estados gasoso e sólido da matéria. Mas a constituição de astros passando por regiões congeladas e depois aquecidas criou o estado liquido e principalmente a água. A teoria sugere que o aparecimento do estado líquido, principalmente da água, fêz com que a Matrix fechada no céu se abrisse na Terra. Mas como a água faz isso? A teoria explica, mas para tanto é preciso observar o software da Matrix enquanto sistema fechado astronomico. xxx Matrix no estado evolutivo de software de sistema fechado xxx A água é formada por dois átomos de hidrogênio (H) e um átomo de Oxigênio (O). O H é numero atomico 1 porque tem duas particulas, um proton e um eletron, enquanto o “O” tem numero atômico 8, com oito partículas de cada. Isto significa que o H é um átomo incompleto como Matrix, tem apenas duas funções da Matrix, e como seu circuito termina na F 2, êste átomo exerce no mundo ao redor, esta função. Oberve na figura a F.2. Agora saiba que um detalhe muito importante da Matrix é sua divisão em duas metades, pelo meridiano formado pela F. 5. Mas o fator mais importante que a divide conceitualmente em duas metades é a transformação dos estados da energia/massa que flue como fluxo de informação no circuito esférico sistêmico: a partir de F.1 e até F. 4 a massa/energia estão em estado crescente, e a partir de F. 4 até F. 7 a massa/energia decresce, degenera. A entropia ataca o sistema entrando pela F. 4 a qual é o divisor superior e como a massa/energia de F.7 é que “morre” e vai constituir F.1, significa que F.1 é o divisor inferior. Assim a Matrix é como a face humana, com duas partes simétricas na forma (porque a face humana é modelada sôbre a fórmula da Matrix). Diremos que a Matrix tambem tem sua face esquerda e face direita. Ora, na água, o H é um pedaço da face esquerda enquanto o “O” ao possuir duas particulas a mais que as seis da Matrix, deve representar um pedaço maior da face direita devido que as funções 6 e 7 são duplicadas. O átomo de carbono é o representante fiel na Terra do aspecto de sistema fechado, o que significa que deveria estar em equilibrio termodinamico. Êle tenderia a não se relacionar, a não fazer combinações com nenhum átomo, porem sua defesa se limita aos átomos formando sólidos e gasosos. Êle não veio da Matrix conhecendo o estado liquido e êste pode invadi-lo para compartilhar seus eletrons de ultima camada. Mas ao se ligar uma molécula de água a um átomo de carbono acontece o que acontece nos nucleos dos átomos: sabemos que prótons não se ligam, repelem-se entre si, mas assim mesmo se ligam nos nucleos atômicos porque entre cada dois protons entra uma particula denominada neutron que funciona como cola entre os dois. Então a molécula de água forma o carbohidrato, ou seja algo como “carbono molhado”, e ela faz o papel de neutron, forçando o carbono a ser ligado com outros átomos. Mas, fisicamente, como isso acontece? A molécula de água contem dois H, dois representantes da face esquerda, e um O, um representante da face direita. O que significa adesões de mais faces ao carbono? Vamos recorrer a uma analogia e imaginar o carbono como sendo uma tábua de uma gangorra. Por ser sistema fechado deve estar em equilibrio termodinamico, e isto significaria que na gangorra a tábua está parada em equilibrio. Então se aproxima a água. Dois átomos de H se sentam na ponta esquerda da tábua, somando, diremos, 2 quilos. No centro da tábua – e não na ponta direita, se senta um Oxigênio ( no centro porque o Oxigênio tem os seis protons formando a Matrix completa que se sobrepõe à sua imagem dentro do carbono). Mas O é maior que C e tem a face direita dominante, então sobram-lhe duas partes que por ser da face direita, se deitam na tabua à direita. Assim a tábua fica com dois quilos à direita e dois quilos à esquerda. Ora, novamente se estabeleceu um segundo equilibrio. Êste conjunto chamado carbohidrato vai continuar com a tendencia de sistema fechado do carbono central, assim a Natureza não pode avançar na evolução no sentido de construir a primeira arquitetura viva que tem de ser um sistema aberto. Ficará a evolução patinando aqui sem sair do lugar? Existe um detalhe importantítssimo que estamos esquecendo. É o sentido do fluxo da energia/massa no circuito da Matrix. Na face esquerda a energia nasce no divisor inferior e corre para cima na direção do divisor superior. Em qualquer ponto que o circuito for separado do total, na ponta do pedaço separado a energia tende a crescer e para cima. Na face direita é o contrario, e qualquer ponta de um pedaço, ou mesmo da meia-face inteira, a energia tende a degenerar e para baixo. Voltemos agora à gangorra. Na parte esquerda da tábua o que ali se assenta tem força para mover a gangorra para cima e na parte direita o ali assentado tem força para a mover para baixo. Talvez até mesmo os dois juntos constituam uma segunda face completa se os dois meios circuitos de encontram nas duas duas pontas. Isto significa que as duas forças não são exercidas ao mesmo tempo, pois na Matrix o fluxo ora está avançando pela esquerda, ora pela direita, nunca ao mesmo tempo. Se fôssem exercidas ao mesmo tempo, a intensidade de dois quilos de uma anularia a de dois quilos da outra e o sistema ficaria parado em equilibrio. Mas assim, intermitentes, significa que a gangorra está balançando. E para que “balançar”um átomo de carbono? Para que tanto trabalho a Natureza dispendeu em criar a água, apenas para vir balançar o carbono?! Se tudo na Natureza fôsse estático, se não houvesse movimento na matéria, não existiria evolução, ou seja, agregação de novas informações á ultima arquitetura mais evoluida. Em outras palavras diriamos que não haveria aumento da complexidade. Se colocar-mos bananas, maçãs, morangos, no copo do liquidificador e ficar-mos esperando, as frutas nunca vão se misturar e se tornar o delicioso suco cremoso. É preciso imprimir energia ao liquidificador, o qual mexe as frutas e as mistura. Da mistura emerge um novo produto, mais complexo que todos os seus três ingredientes. A Natureza faz isso quando constrói os rodamoinhos no centro das nebulosas de poeira de estrêlas mortas. O rodamoinho é o copo do liquidificador ligado, misturando massa com energia e produzindo como novo produto, sementes de estrêlas. E segundo a teoria da Matrix a Natureza fêz isso tambem quando colocou a Lua no céu da Terra, para imprimir movimento às águas dos oceanos, com a maré indo e voltando, batendo nas costas dos continentes, misturando elementos do continente com elementos do oceano para produzir um novo produto, a célula viva. Ela tem que chacoalhar os estáticos, os acomodados e que se recusam a se moverem. Por isso a Natureza mais uma vez repetiu seu método ao chacoalhar, balançar o carbono: para obter novas misturas. O carbono é a tábua, os dois H sentados à esquerda, o grande O sentado no centro mas estendido com a cabeça à direita, e assim temos a gangorra da Vida. Paul Clarke diz que “… estamos tentando compreender as origens químicas da vida. Uma das questões interessantes é de onde vêm os hidratos de carbono, porque eles são os blocos de construção de DNA e RNA.” Assim como êle descobriu que a Natureza é capaz de executar um processo que até então era desconhecido, e que tal processo, se foi realmente aplicado pela Natureza a 4 bilhões de anos atrás na superficie da Terra, vem trazer uma grande explicação a um dos mistérios nas origens da Vida, os modêlos da Matrix/DNA descobriu um processso que se foi aplicado pela Natureza seria o gatilho disparador da evolução em todos os tempos e lugares. Tal processo, lógico e possivel porque explica todas as origens, de galaxias a células vivas, forneceria a Paul Clarke a resposta que êle está buscando: de onde veio, e como veio, e para que veio, o carbohidrato. Porque os aminoácidos – sempre canhotos, esquerdistas – produzem sempre uma molécula direitista?! Para entender-mos primeiro o que são moléculas canhotas e destras é preciso relembrar uma matéria do colegial: quiralidade. Para começar apresentamos uma figura: xxx Mãos e Aminoácidos em Pares Quirais com Imagens Não Sobreponíveis xxx Definição da Wikipedia: Quiral, que conduz ao termo quiralidade, é um termo usado em Química, para definir objetos não sobreponíveis à sua própria imagem no espelho. ( Mas se queres te informar sôbre quiralidade é melhor ver no idioma inglês, mesmo que tenha de usar um tradutor, pois é mil vêzes mais completo e elucidativo). Alí se lê: “Human hands are perhaps the most universally recognized example of chirality: The left hand is a non-superposable mirror image of the right hand; no matter how the two hands are oriented, it is impossible for all the major features of both hands to coincide. This difference in symmetry becomes obvious if someone attempts to shake the right hand of a person using his left hand, or if a left-handed glove is placed on a right hand. The term chirality is derived from the Greek word for hand, χειρ (cheir).” Eu sei que o assunto da quiralidade é para os profissionais em Quimica e não para leigos como nós. Só para se ter uma idéia dessa complexidade veja o mapa abaixo ( e o nosso espanto é maior se clicar-mos duas vêzes na imagem para ler os detalhes). xxx Quralidade em sua Complexidade xxx Mas a Matrix/DNA é uma visão de conjuntos resultantes das associações dos detalhes onde os detalhes não precisam serem mencionados para descrever os conjuntos. Porque moléculas canhotas de aminoacidos produzem a molécula central no tijolo fundamental do código genético e sempre como molécula destra, normal? Observe o software da Matrix como sistema fechado. Aminoacidos, assim como as proteinas que eles formam, são compostos de átomos que surgiram quando a Matrix tentava se recompor na Terra. Cada aminoacido é um pedaço, um trecho, do circuito total da Matrix. Ora, na Matrix o sentido do fluxo de informação, ou seja, da massa/energia, e ainda do aspecto onda/particula, é sempre o sentido horário. Se o fluxo estiver em F.3 com certeza êle vai para F.4 e não para F.2. E assim por diante. Isto significa que em qualquer lugar que se cortar o circuito, a energia que escapa pela ponta cortada tende a ir da esquerda para a direita. E isto significa que o pedaço é esquerdista, ou seja, em suas veias corre o sangue de carater esquerdista. Mas existem dois pontos no circuito que fogem a essa regra. São F.1 e F. 4. Alem de esquerdistas são tambem centristas. Porque dirigem seus petardos um na direção do outro e os dois ocupam posições de centro, tanto na base como no topo. F.4 envia seu espermatozóide para F.1, o qual envia para F.4, um bebê (é sempre bom lembrar que a Matrix é a fórmula universal em que se modelam todos os fenômenos naturais, por isso ela pode ser interpretada de tôdas as maneiras). Mas são justamente F.1 e F.4 que se assentam como os acúcares nos nucleotideos. Ora, eles não são esquerdistas nem direitistas, possuem todas as tendencias de maneira que no final da soma se tornam neutros. Pois neutros são todos os objetos reais, em termos de quiralidade. Tanto que na Wikipedia diz: “The term chiral in general is used to describe an object that is not superposable on its mirror image.” A imagem no espelho não é o objeto, êste sim, em si, e por si, sem espelhos e sua imagens, não é chiral, não é nada, é neutro. As moléculas canhotas são trechos do circuito da Matrix em busca dos outros trechos faltantes para recompor a Matrix. Quando elas se juntam, juntam-se os bits informação que cada uma conseguiu sôbre o que lhes falta. E o que falta a elas são as duas funções centrais. Por isso aminoacidos produzem carbohidratos, como descobriu na pratica, Paul Clarke. xxx Nota: Êste tema continuará sob pesquisa e desenvolvimento, falta ler os outros artigos publicados como o MailOnline e tentar conseguir o paper no jornal de bioquimica. Tambem estamos estudando assuntos da treose, eritrose, carbohidratos, etc. Tags: aminoacidos, biologia, carbohidrato, Química, quiralidade Postedo na Abiogênese, Evidências da Matrix/DNA, Origem da Vida, Pesquisas da Matrix/DNA, Sem Categoria, molécula | 0 Comments and 1 Reaction Feche a Porta da Entrada Principal a um Virus, Êle Dá a Volta Por Trás, Fabríca uma Chave e Entra por Outra Porta sexta-feira, janeiro | 27 | 2012 Impressionante a noticia publicada ontem nos meios cientificos! Que vem fazer a alegria dos evolucionistas na polêmica controvérsia com religiosos. Artigo: TG DAILY This virus evolves and mutates Êste Virus Muta e Evolui http://www.tgdaily.com/general-sciences-features/61076-this-virus-evolves-and-mutates Posted on January 27, 2012 – 15:36 by Trent Nouveau Artigo: The Scientist http://the-scientist.com/2012/01/26/the-making-of-a-trait/ The Making of a Trait A produção de uma nova característica genética By Megan Scudellari | January 26, 2012 xxx Virus Lambda xxx Nosso Comentário: A bactéria E. Coli tem um inimigo mortal, o virus Lambda, que entra nela através de um receptor para alimentos que ela tem na membrana, chamado LamB … Cientistas mudaram o código genético dela para pararem de fazer êste receptor. Inicialmente os virus ficaram perdidos, muitos morrendo por não encontrar pastagens a tempo. Mas ficaram em volta da bactéria sondando sua superficie e estudando os outros tipos de receptores, os quais, para êles eram impenetráveis. A fôrça de vontade destas criaturas é tanta que, ( inacreditável !!! ), se contorceram, se espremeram, se ampliaram, forçaram mudanças em seus genes, transformaram a aparência de seus corpos de maneira que se forjaram, se tornaram uma chave exatamente certa para abrir e entrar em outro receptor! É como se acontecesse o que ví acontecer com meu amigo Pinóquio da Silva. Êle trabalha dia e noite teclando no computador, usando duas mãos, mas êle quer fumar, tomar café, se coçar, discar no celular, etc.. Então fica no desêspero para por a idéia na tela antes que ela lhe suma da cabeça mas a ânsia da fome e da vontade de fumar querendo que êle pare de teclar é torturante. No seu subconsciente começou a bombar flashes com a seguinte idéia: “E se eu tivesse três, quatro mãos!”. Bem o desejo foi tão forte que começou a surgir caroços embaixo dos braços, levaram-no ao hospital, ninguem entendeu nada, os caroços cresceram e surgiram mais dois braços com mãos… Pinóquio da Silva é realmente um virus, glup, quero dizer, um homem com fôrça de vontade! Só em sonhos. Isso jamais seria aceitável em bases racionais. Mas… a nossa Razão Humana que enfie a viola no saco e engula mais essa: é possível e acontece! Ao menos no mundo desta espécie cuja existência é um flagelo para a Humanidade, o inimigo publico numero um, os terroristas vitoriosos mais odiados pelos humanos em todos os tempos. Em tôdas as familias êles já derrubaram alguem na cama ou até mataram. Tàdos nós já choramos inconsoláveis à beira do leito de um ente querido atacado por estas bêstas, sem que nada possamos fazer. Êles estão séculos na nossa frente em têrmos de tecnologias da Vida. Êsse virus forçou-se à uma mutação, experimentou-a não era suficiente. Recolheu-se a seu laboratório, mudou a mutação, tentou novamente, sem suscesso. Por quatro vêzes êle mudou as mutações anteriores, em apenas 12 dias! Êle como que transformou uma carroça tocada a burro num Rolls-Royce com possante motor em 12 dias, e nada conseguiu impedi-lo em seu intento! Ou nós humanos nos dediquemos com mais energia e investimentos de tempo e trabalho, exploremos o maximo de nossa inteligencia e criatividade, na guerra para acabar com os virus ou êles ainda acabarão conosco! Por isso é válida qualquer tentativa, qualquer idéia deve ser testada, experimentada, por mais louca que pareça. É uma questão de vida ou morte, é hora de equipar nosso exército de defesa e ataque para ir lá, libertar da cama aqueles milhares que nêste momento estão sendo consumidos por essas feras minusculas, como as vitimas da Aids, dos canceres, etc. Uma destas idéias estranhas é a proposta da Matrix/DNA Theory sôbre o que são, de onde vem, qual é a fonte criadora dos virus. Se mesmo apenas a titulo de curiosidade os pesquisadores, investigadores, tiverem conhecimento dessa idéia, ela pode ser lembrada em dado momento enquanto observam e se questionam um mecanismo, um processo, um comportamento dos virus, e experimentarem algo inusitado e pode ser que… bingo! Matam a charada, causam consideráveis baixas no inimigo, minando suas estratégias! Diz a Matrix/DNA: “Não houve biogêneses, o que houve foi “embriogênese astronomica” que perdurou por 3,5 bilhões de anos porque esta é a escala do tempo nas dimensões astronomicas. O sistema astronomico que nos envolve, criou, gerou, dentro dêle, em material novo e estados da matéria nunca experimentados antes, tudo isso provocando enormes mutações, tipos de seres vivos que são como virus, assim como nosso DNA possui códigos para produzir virus e nós mesmos os produzimos dentro dos nossos corpos. Acontece que os genes, bits-informação, na forma de fótons, emitidos pelas radiações estelares e nucleares planetárias, não se encontram juntos num mesmo ponto do espaço/tempo, porque ao contrário da carga genética humana, que é transmitida por inteiro dentro de envelopes cromossomicos, os genes semi-vivos astronomicos são separados e espalhados no espaço sideral. Ora, em pontos-receptores com enorme capacidade de recepção e sob intenso bombardeio destas emissões, como certas regiões do planeta Terra, muitos dêsses emissores do ancestral astronomico chegam, se encontram, se reunem, e tentam reproduzir a sequencia em que existiam antes, do circuito do sistema a que pertenceram. Assim aqui se formam pedaços de frases, pacotes com conjuntos, arquiteturas com inteiros paragrafos reproduzidos, e depois quando tudo se reune, um novo ser, uma célula viva sai se arrastando e procurando alimento na superficie dos planetas. Virus são pedaços incompletos do sistema ancestral, êles contem informações apenas das funções 4, 5 e 7 do sistema natural-matriz que organiza a matéria amôrfa em sistemas. A função quatro é a do vulcão emitindo cometas, espermatozóides do espaço, a Função 5 é o próprio espermatozóide e a Função 7 é a que organiza a poeira oriunda do cadaver estelar num horizonte de eventos que circunda buracos negros, e quando aqui no meio biológico ela produz as capsulas proteicas, as membranas que envolvem os elementos internos. Por isso o virus invade a célula, porque lá, no nucleo está a fêmea que ele precisa para se reproduzir. Porque virus tem tanta plasticidade, ou seja, capacidade rápida de mutar? Ora, são pedaços, frases, paragrafos, de um texto cujas outras frases e paragrafos estão disponiveis ao seu redor. Existe uma fôrça de atração entre os fótons dentro fos virus com os fótons livres em seu meio circundante, ocorre uma simbiose natural, basta o virus querer e absorver do ar, ou do sangue, etc., estes fótons. Para humanos como Pinóquio da Silva isto é impossivel porque humanos não são pedaços, são inclusive mais que o texto completo, a evolução os fêz ultrapassar os limites de informações do ancestral e já está absorvendo informações de um sistema hierarquicamente superior ao ancestral, um sistema que tem capacidade mental. Pois bem: mas em que nos ajuda essa nova estapafurdia idéia? Numa situação desesperada de guerra contra um poderoso inimigo? Infelizmente sou pobretão e tenho que sair para trabalhar agora, senão não pago o aluguel e vou acabar teclando na rua embaixo da ponte… Mas eu voltarei! Eu vou esmiuçar a cabeça à exaustão em cima dessa idéia, vou estudar o virus como ela o pinta por todos os angulos, tenho que ver uma estratégia antes até mesmo que êles me peguem tambem! Por exemplo, quais são os bits-informação que existem nas substancias onde o virus está, relacionados às Funções 6, 1, 2, 3? Se as descobrimos, inibir-mos sua presença ali, será como deixar os virus como ficou o exército nazista na Russia, no gêlo de Leningrado e sem provisões? Podemos produzir o inverno-inferno para nossos inimigos dentro do nosso corpo? Isto já o fazemos em muitos casos. Tags: E. Coli, Lambda, vírus Postedo na Abiogênese, Doenças, Evolução, Fóton, Pesquisas da Matrix/DNA, vírus | 0 Comments and 0 Reactions O Robot Curiosity Vai a Marte Procurar a Vida Que Cientistas Tentam Definir da Terra. Assista o Debate! terça-feira, janeiro | 24 | 2012 O debate, com nossa participação, continua acontecendo em: http://www.science20.com/carl_zimmer/can_science_define_life_three_words-86052#comment-96132 xxx O projeto mais ambicioso da NASA, de 2,5 billions de dolares, foi lançado: o robot denominado Curiosity será levado ao solo de Marte para procurar Vida. Porem existe um problema, semelhante ao que aconteceu outro dia com a Dilma. Dilma Roussef telefonou altas horas da noite para o agente secreto 000 e disse: - “Arrume a mala correndo e pegue o primeiro avião para Londres. Sua missão: procurar êsse ou essa porcaria que chamam de Vladzolin” - “Ok, chefe, é pra já…” Desembarcando em Londres o agente liga para a Dilma: - “Chefe, agora me lembrei que esquecí de perguntar quem é ou o que é Vladzolin…?” - “Ora, eu já nem entendo o que é a minha vida, vou lá saber o que é isso? Procure Vladzolin e pronto!” Coitado do agente 000 ! Foi um pedido do departamento cientifico que tinha decifrado manuscritos antigos dizendo que os magos resolveram todos os problemas da Vida e ganharam todas as guerras usando vladzolin, mas em nenhum lugar se explica o que é isso. O problema do Curiosity é parecido: mandaram êle a Marte procurar por Vida mas não lhe explicaram o que é Vida. Porque podemos ter uma idéia do que é a vida terrestre mas quando pensamos astronomicamente ficamos confusos. Enquanto o Curiosity está lá desembarcando, cientistas e pensadores aqui estão correndo contra o tempo debatendo o que é vida para encontrar uma definição e avisar o Curiosity. Senão, daqui a cinquenta anos vai ter uma cena esquisita em Marte. No solo desconhecido do silencioso planeta um robot se arrasta gritando: “Ei…alguem aqui? Alguem pode me explicar o que é Vida? Meus deuses que me criaram me disseram que minha missão é encontrar a Vida. Por favor, me ajudem!” Coitado, pobre Curiosity… E é isto que mais interessa agora a nós, da Matrix/DNA , que está testando seu conceito sôbre o que é Vida, e vem bem a calhar o artigo de Carl Zimmer no Science20.Com, que está fomentando um debate nos comentários postados: êle fala da história e evolução da busca por uma definição da Vida. Abaixo vai o link para quem quiser ler e assistir o desenrolar do debate, e um comentário que enviei para participar. Sience20.com http://www.science20.com/carl_zimmer/can_science_define_life_three_words-86052?nocache=1 Can Science Define Life In Three Words? By Carl Zimmer | January 11th 2012 08:31 PM xxx Curiosity rover: Will it know life if it finds it? Courtesy: NASA xxx Meu Comentário: Louis Morelli: 16/01/2012 Curiosity will search for biological life. But it could be equipped for searching non-biological life also, in places at Mars’ surface that there is not liquid state for chemical reactions. And we can make these equipments. How Nature created life? There was – at 10 billion years ago – a unique kind of astronomical body resulted from the aggregation of primordial atoms. This body was being transformed by a physical force that came from the spectrum of light, and we call this law as “life’s cycles”. The life’s cycle makes that a body has transformations of shapes, then, the seven principal shapes were planets, pulsar, quasar, comet, supernova, red giant, black hole. The Universe was populated by these shapes. The next step is the same that human beings created the familiar system, by symbioses. Seven shapes aligned in the same sequence of a body under life’s cycle, then Nature got a system. I designed this system and discovered that it has all life’s processes in a mechanic way. But this system was created only with the solid and gaseous state of matter, where there is no organic chemistry. Attacked by entropy and fragmented in its bits-information, if these bits fall in a place where there is the liquid state, they reproduces the astronomic system in a biological fashion. It is nanotechnology, that’s the explanation of microbial life. I am alone testing this model because nobody, neither me, can believe in it. But, it was made 30 years ago, and the following scientific discoveries matches with its previsions. Then I am looking for scientific data, and collecting thousands of evidences. If the secret behind life’s origins lies in this model, there is no way to define life, as postulated by Gödel’s theorem: no one can define a system from inside the system. We are inside a cosmological system that seems alive. I have extracted the circuit of both systems – biological and astronomical – and discovered that it has the same configuration of nucleotides. It means that astronomical systems have DNA also, or in another words: every natural system has a Matrix/DNA. Then, Curiosity shall be equipped with a template of this model of Matrix for to search for life that does not use organic chemistry. xxx Comentários importantes: 1) http://world-news.newsvine.com/_news/2012/01/11/10122168-can-scientists-define-life-using-just-three-words#comments T’omm J’Onzz Lt. Commander Data: What about fire? Doctor Beverly Crusher: Fire? Lt. Commander Data: Yes. It consumes fuel to produce energy, it grows, it creates offspring. By your definition, is it alive? Doctor Beverly Crusher: Fire is a chemical reaction. You could use the same argument for growing crystals, but obviously we don’t consider them alive. – Star Trek: The Next Generation; “Quality of Life” and what about a person or animal or plant where the reproductive system is defective and it cannot self-replicate? is that being not alive? and the end of that scene from STNG: Lt. Commander Data: I am curious as to what transpired between the moment when I was nothing more than an assemblage of parts in Dr. Soong’s laboratory, and the next moment, when I became alive. What is it that endowed me with life? Doctor Beverly Crusher: I remember Wesley asking me a similar question when he was little, and I tried desperately to give him an answer. But everything I said sounded inadequate. Then I realized that scientists and philosophers have been grappling with that question for centuries without coming to any conclusion. Lt. Commander Data: Are you saying the question cannot be answered? Doctor Beverly Crusher: No – I think I’m saying that we struggle all our lives to answer it, that it’s the struggle that is important. That’s what helps us to define our place in the universe. #1.1 – Wed Jan 11, 2012 8:14 PM EST xxx John Mack Data in STTNG was alive because he was conscious. It is that single property that separates life from non-life. Even the smallest one-celled creatures are conscious of their environment and react to it. Ever watch an amoeba encounter an object and decide whether to eat it or not? How does it know? How does a paramecium decide to travel one way or another? Plants are responsive to their environment, perhaps even to the point of perceiving emotions. There is no way to comprehend what life is without understanding consciousness. It is the key to understanding everything. Where does it come from? When does it start? What causes it to end, or does it ever do either? Are our physical bodies just some temporary manifestation of an individual consciousness that is shed when we “die”? How can people dream up stuff that has never existed before? xxx Dale3242 As to the question of what is life, I don’t think there is an easy answer. Take for example a virus. Is it alive or not. Is a virus alive only when infecting a cell and not alive if frozen in a lab? If an organic RNA or DNA virus is alive, what about a complex computer virus? At present, human embryos can be frozen for extended amounts of time. While frozen, they do not grow, take in nutrients, or excrete, is a frozen embryo alive? I think that life as we know it, is a self replicating group of molecules with the capacity to evolve. The evolution part eliminates fire and crystals.) #1.14 – Thu Jan 12, 2012 3:24 PM EST xxx MikeyMike John Mack, your definition of “consciousness” seems overly broad to me. You argue that an amoeba should be considered conscious because it senses and responds to it’s environment. However, amoeba are not self-aware, which is generally considered to be one of the hallmarks of consciousness. Plants also sense and respond to their environments, as several people have described above. Their phototropism gives them the ability to “sense” the sunlight and move toward it, but this is not really the result of consciousness on the part of the plant. It is related to photosynthetic rates and water retention within the cells. Plants are certainly alive, but are they conscious? If you agree that they are, perhaps you might be Buddhist or Jainist in your philosophical outlook. But back to animals and consciousness… one of the key tests of consciousness in animals is whether or not they recognize themselves in a mirror. Elephants and dolphins always do. Cats and dogs, not so much. They mostly respond to the image in the mirror as if it were another animal that might represent either a threat or a playmate. With elephants and dolphins repeated tests have been done with tags or colored pieces of paper attached to the animals shoulder, or whatever, and when they see themselves in the mirror, they almost immediately take action to remove the tag, “Oh, what’s that on my shoulder?” The concept of ‘my shoulder’ and a recognizable response to it being the important marker in the test. Again, dogs and cats don’t respond the same way. Now then, all that said, I wouldn’t argue that my wonderful pets are completely unconscious beings, they are simply just not fully self-conscious, which brings us to DATA, on Star Trek. The interesting case with Data, and all other science fiction cyborgs, or cybernetic organisms, for that matter, including the Terminator, is that they are self-conscious. They are a marvelous (and of course fictional) combination of a self-aware computer “brain” and some form of techbical/biological body construct, often with supposedly living skin and flesh supported by a metallic skeleton. But are they alive? This is the question. Data seems to believe himself to be alive. He certainly is self-conscious. Is he capable of self-replicating? Maybe not on his own, or even in tandem with a possible Dadette partner, but given an army of clones of himself, enough to build a factory in order to construct and program more, then we might say that he was capable of self-replication. Interesting ideas… Other things to consider… an automobile consumes fuel, excretes exhaust, and moves on it’s own power, but I think we’d all agree that a car is not alive. (Yet) So to respond to Skip’s challenge: Metabolizing, reproducing & evolving. Does that cover it? xxx JRS-619990 Why not a more scientific definition of life as “a continuous chemical reaction that started and continuously branches off more like chemical reactions.” After all, you cannot get life from something that is dead. So, somewhere on this planet life (the chemical reaction) started and has been going on ever since. And, life is not spontaneous generation…so there was one point long long ago that life began, caused by something, and so far, we have no evidence that life ever started again in another place or time in the past…so life is continuous from when life first began and everything on this planet stems from the first instance of life…when the chemical reaction began. Kind of makes you become philosophical…of why life does not just emerge out of nothing if it did so once in the past…why did it only happen once on this planet? Since life does not just spontaneously generate when you have CHNOPS together (Carbon, Hydrogen, Nitrogen, Oxygen, Phosphorus, and Sulfur) as the late Carl Sagan demonstrated in his Cosmos show…what energy was added that assembled life and began that continuous chemical reaction? Resposta da Matrix: Primeiro, lembre que não concordamos com o conceito usual de “Vida”. Trocamos esta palavra por “sistema biológico” O primeiro sisttema no Universo surgiu com algo sendo invadido pela luz. os sistemas biológicos surgiram com a Matrix no estado astronomico trazida pela luz e invadindo os atomos da Terra. Reações quimicas organicas foram possíveis pela primeira vez porque aqui havia mais um estado da matéria, o liquido. xxx Shuklack So, somewhere on this planet life (the chemical reaction) started and has been going on ever since. And, life is not spontaneous generation… I’m with you on this, although your definition is hardly one that would catch-on lol. I’m not sure exactly why people have no problem with the idea of other things always having existed, in one form or another, but not life…. I think that life (ie the seeds of life) are just another intrinsic property of the Universe, developed through natural processes like how gold comes out of supernovas, or iron is produced in the center of a star. It just takes that right combination of factors to ‘create’ it. Matrix: Grande! Êste guy captou o cerne da coisa! And – much like alchemists of old trying to create gold from lead…. trying to recreate life from its initial elements isn’t easy either. #2.7 – Thu Jan 12, 2012 7:32 AM EST RESPOSTA DA MATRIX – COMENTÁRIO POSTADO NO ARTIGO DA CNN: Louis Morelli I think that life (ie the seeds of life) are just another intrinsic property of the Universe, developed through natural processes like how gold comes out of supernovas, or iron is produced in the center of a star. It just takes that rightcombination of factors to ‘create’ it. This is the most rational thought in my opinion. No appeals to supernatural, neither the easy position of emergences from random. But, you must convey that the state of the world as described by currently astronomic theory moments before beginning the first chemical reactions that triggered life does not explain the forces and process in that chemical reactions. It is not like iron is produced in the center of a star. And once produced, iron does not follow the any properties in the course of life. This is the problem at the center of Stanley/Miller experiment: why those amino acids do not performs the next step to proteins and so on? To me is clear that in the primordial soup there was something else, something as a hidden variable. But it must came from the state of the world before that. What is this thing that our modern knowledge cannot see in the Cosmos? As naturalist philosopher interested in natural systems I was in Amazon jungle applying the method of comparative anatomy between living and non-0living systems, then, the astronomic systems were forced into my exercise. For to fit the initial conditions for having a living system, the astronomic and atomic theoretical models need some improvement, and trying it, suddenly the creator of life showed his face. It is all about natural forces but the world is more complex than we think it is. Maybe the new theoretical models are not right or no complete, but it is very good food for thought. XXX O QUE É CLADISTICS ? I think the answer lies in cladistics. That is by determining the respective characteristics that are not shared between life and non-life. For example, fire has some characteristics of life, but does not have or pass on a genetic code. It does not evolve. It is a physical phenomenon. The same holds with crystallization. In contrast, a virus has a genetic code and does evolve ! #33 – Wed Jan 18, 2012 12:38 PM EST Tags: Curiosity, Vida Postedo na Abiogênese, Astronomia, Vida | 0 Comments and 0 Reactions « Older Entries Categorias A Grande Causa da Humanidade (78) Abiogênese (36) Agnosticismo (2) Assuntos Fora da Matrix/DNA (20) Astronomia (119) Ateísmo (2) Átomo (11) Big Bang Theory (2) Biologia Celular (20) Biomimicry (1) buraco negro (1) Celula (5) Cérebro (25) Ciência Acadêmica Oficial (27) Circuítos Sistêmicos (4) Coment/Posts da Matrix/DNA na Internet (41) Cometas (1) Cosmologia (9) Cosmovisão da Matrix/DNA (13) Culturas (1) Darwinism (5) Debates Criticas Defesas (15) Diálogos Publicos da Matrix/DNA (4) Divulgação do Website e da Matrix/DNA (6) DNA (26) Doenças (15) economia (6) educação (8) Energia Solar (1) Epigenética (3) Esoterismo e Mistica (6) Evidências da Matrix/DNA (49) Evolução (90) Evolucao Cosmologica (3) Fábrica Ecológica da Matrix/DNA (2) Filosofia (32) Física (11) Fóton (10) Fractal Universal Matrix/DNA (2) Frases da Matrix/DNA (2) galaxia (5) Genética (17) Geral (45) Humor (9) Inglês para Lingua Portuguesa (2) Intelligent Designer (18) Linguística (2) Lista de Links (2) Lista Sint Noticias Vitoria p Matrix (1) Lista Sites New Age (1) Livro (2) Livros Lista Para Ler (2) LUCA (12) Luz (29) Macro Evolução (13) Matrix/DNA: Divulg. Posts. Mens. (62) Medicina (1) Meditação e Musica (3) mente (12) molécula (5) neurologia (4) Numero pi, phi (2) Origem da Vida (51) Origens (17) PageRank no Google (1) Panspermia (1) Partículas (2) Pesquisas da Matrix/DNA (69) Proteína (3) Psicologia (2) Quântica (11) Química (6) Quorum Sensing (2) Redes Sociais na Internet (2) Relativismo (4) religiões (8) reproducao (3) Reptilianos (1) Sem Categoria (110) sexo (6) Sistemas (22) Teoria do Relógio Astronômico (9) Teorias Existentes Atuais (18) Teorias Sôbre Matriz/Matrix (4) Termodinâmica (2) Universo (21) Utilidade Pública (3) Vida (11) vírus (4) Website – Construção (10) Tópicos recentes Bíblia: O livro dos contadores de histórias não-racionais cujas palavras alguns aceitam como provas de um mundo fantaziado que a Natureza desconhece. Se Tens Saúde, Tens 1,5 kg de Micróbios no Corpo. Veja Interessantes Descobertas Sôbre Êles. A COSMOVISÃO E IDEOLOGIA DA MATRIX/DNA Filosofia Existencial: Invenção da Oração dos Agnósticos 10 Maneiras de Libertar-se da Escravidão da Pobreza e Derrubar as Piramides Burocráticas que Controlam o Sistema Social Lista de Links American Association for Advancement of Science Ciencia dos Sistemas Darwin200 Meta Registrar-se Login Posts RSS RSS dos comentários WordPress.org Tags Abiogênese A Matriz A Matriz e as Religiões Astronomia Biogenese Biologia Celular Curiosidades da Matriz Cérebro Deus Divulgação DNA Doenças estrela Evolução Filosofia Física galaxia Genética Geral Humanidade Intelligent Designer Lista das Evidências LUCA Luz Matrix/DNA Matriz Mensagens da Matriz mente Mente e Auto-Consciencia NASA Noticias Cient. c/Comentarios Origem da Vida Origens Pesquisas da Matriz planeta Quântica Sem Categoria sexo sistema Sistemas Sistemas Biologicos Super-Ciência da Nova Era Universo Vida Átomo Szybkie pożyczki Kredyty Ogłoszenia Kredyt hipoteczny -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- U.S.A: Copyright Washington n. 000998487/2001-02-20 | Brasil: Reg. Dir. Autorais - Brasília n. 106.158/11-12-1995 | Louis Charles Morelli COPYRIGHT WASHINGT5ON A.