Which should survive: relativity or Evolution?

[Gottservant]

You just said the point of your demonstration. Could you explicitly explain your point? Put it into some detail? Right now, your question does not make a lot of sense to us. Go ahead and explain it in detail so we all understand what you're asking.

I keep breaking it down for you and you keep ignoring it.

Mutation: one (random).

Adapatation: two (evolution and relativity - a choice).

Natural selection: winner and loser (decision needed).

Evolution says these interact to select the fittest (rubbish, as you've demonstrated so far), but now evolution is not the fittest.

So what do you have to say?

That is the problem, what do you have to say?

 

[crjmurray]

I keep breaking it down for you and you keep ignoring it.

Mutation: one (random).

Adapatation: two (evolution and relativity - a choice).

Natural selection: winner and loser (decision needed).

Evolution says these interact to select the fittest (rubbish, as you've demonstrated so far), but now evolution is not the fittest.

So what do you have to say?

That is the problem, what do you have to say?

I'm asking you to elaborate before I ask anything. I don't understand what you are saying but I want to. Could you explain your question for a layman like me?

 

[Gottservant]

I'm asking you to elaborate before I ask anything. I don't understand what you are saying but I want to. Could you explain your question for a layman like me?

Ok, I see, you do not understand the theory.

The theory goes like this, first there was a mutation and that mutation desperately wanted to live, so it competed with other mutations until it became a cell and because that mutation fought for its survival, it went on to conquer all the other cells by strength and so when it came time to procreate it was the strongest and because it was the strongest it kept being the strongest.

That's evolution.

So in principle you just have to be strong to survive (which everybody knows is crap, but that's what they say) according to Evolution, but there's a problem to do with the internal consistency of this because relativity is stronger than Evolution, it describes planetary motion and the bending of light (established physics), details the fact that cells migrate together and cooperate to preserve the internal energy of the cell and the physical makeup of its design (my speculation). According to relativity, cells cooperate to grow, not compete, because of an inverse attractor of life that interprets distance from life as a journey that is more achievable because of the relative values of that distance (again my interpretation). The latter of which in principle is less relevant, to the strict comparison of the theories as simply theories with weight, but of importance all the same if you have an appreciation of the consistency of the weight of those theories.

Put simply relativity achieves more than Evolution and will always achieve more than Evolution, because knowing how to anticipate changing values across spacetime is of more efficacious value to systemic growth than the singular value of the nearest predator (assuming as is true in most cases, the predator remains ignorant of the growing system in its fledgling stages).

I mean its just simple numbers, relativity facilitates systemic growth, Evolution facilitates monofocal growth.

The point is, Evolution to date has made no such accommodation of anything else but itself and if it is to retain its integrity as a theory, must answer the dilemma of why something greater than it, should not crush it, as soon as it can be demonstrated that the failure to engage at the systemic level kills the theory.

 

[crjmurray]

Ok, I see, you do not understand the theory.

The theory goes like this, first there was a mutation and that mutation desperately wanted to live, so it competed with other mutations until it became a cell and because that mutation fought for its survival, it went on to conquer all the other cells by strength and so when it came time to procreate it was the strongest and because it was the strongest it kept being the strongest.

That's evolution.

So in principle you just have to be strong to survive (which everybody knows is crap, but that's what they say) according to Evolution, but there's a problem to do with the internal consistency of this because relativity is stronger than Evolution, it describes planetary motion and the bending of light (established physics), details the fact that cells migrate together and cooperate to preserve the internal energy of the cell and the physical makeup of its design (my speculation). According to relativity, cells cooperate to grow, not compete, because of an inverse attractor of life that interprets distance from life as a journey that is more achievable because of the relative values of that distance (again my interpretation). The latter of which in principle is less relevant, to the strict comparison of the theories as simply theories with weight, but of importance all the same if you have an appreciation of the consistency of the weight of those theories.

Put simply relativity achieves more than Evolution and will always achieve more than Evolution, because knowing how to anticipate changing values across spacetime is of more efficacious value to systemic growth than the singular value of the nearest predator (assuming as is true in most cases, the predator remains ignorant of the growing system in its fledgling stages).

I mean its just simple numbers, relativity facilitates systemic growth, Evolution facilitates monofocal growth.

The point is, Evolution to date has made no such accommodation of anything else but itself and if it is to retain its integrity as a theory, must answer the dilemma of why something greater than it, should not crush it, as soon as it can be demonstrated that the failure to engage at the systemic level kills the theory.

Without antagonizing you, you don't seem to understand much about the theory of evolution. And after that you talk about things that have nothing to do with the TOE. You may need to 1) understand what you're talking about or 2) find a way for us to understand what you are saying.

 

[Freodin]

I can solve this dilemma.

Evolution wins. Because it is fitter.

But because winning is relative, relativity wins also.

 

[lesliedellow]

Which is going to survive: apple pie or cherry cake?

I think we should be told.

 

[bhsmte]

Which is going to survive: apple pie or cherry cake?

I think we should be told.

As long as vanilla ice cream is available, it has to be apple pie.

 

[Gottservant]

I can solve this dilemma.

Evolution wins. Because it is fitter.

But because winning is relative, relativity wins also.

Unless you lied, to make your point.

Only you would say "but if I can lie and its therefore fitter, isn't it therefore true?"

Only that is just lying again, to cover up a lie.

 

[Queller]

Ok, I see, you do not understand the theory.

The theory goes like this, first there was a mutation and that mutation desperately wanted to live, so it competed with other mutations until it became a cell and because that mutation fought for its survival, it went on to conquer all the other cells by strength and so when it came time to procreate it was the strongest and because it was the strongest it kept being the strongest.

That's evolution.

That may be what you think is evolution but it is not anything like evolution as scientists and educated laymen and even high school biology students understand it.

 

[Paulos23]

I keep breaking it down for you and you keep ignoring it.

Mutation: one (random).

Adapatation: two (evolution and relativity - a choice).

Natural selection: winner and loser (decision needed).

Evolution says these interact to select the fittest (rubbish, as you've demonstrated so far), but now evolution is not the fittest.

So what do you have to say?

That is the problem, what do you have to say?

False dilemma. Neither theory exculdes the other, both can exist at the same time.

Theories are ideas, and ideas can be tested against reality. In which case both of these have stood up to the test of time and evidence, so far.

You wanting to pick on over the other is not a good claim of the truth of these ideas. That is found by comparing them to reality. And since they both discribe different parts of reality, they can co-exist.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

SR is the only valid one throughout the universe. GR just applies to the behavior of solids, liquids and gasses. But since 99% of the universe is plasma, we can basically discard it outside of any planetary system.

 

[Loudmouth]

It's very simple.

One mutation (random).

Two adaptations (relativity and evolution).

Relativity isn't an adaptation.

A bacteria finds itself in a culture with antibiotics. One of the bacteria gets a mutation for antibiotic resistance. One of two things will happen.

1. The antibiotic mutation is selected for, and light travels at 3E8 m/s in all frames of reference. Evolution true, Relativity true.

2. The antibiotic mutation is not selected for, and light still travels at 3E8 m/s in all frames of reference. Evolution false, Relativity true.

 

[Gracchus]

SR is the only valid one throughout the universe. GR just applies to the behavior of solids, liquids and gasses. But since 99% of the universe is plasma, we can basically discard it outside of any planetary system.

That is absolute nonsense.