Analogy between Genetic Mutation and the Theory of Gravity

How could the current theory of gravity be wrong? It explains so much so easily, doesn't it. Think again and compare to the new revelations in 'Virolution' by Frank Ryan in his groundbreaking book on evolution. I quote:

Does anybody get the analogy?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

It can't be wrong. It can potentially be improved. Same as evolution. Same as any other well-supported scientific theory.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I’m not sure I do. Are you drawing an analogy between what Ryan said about the relationship between mutation and evolution on the one hand and between gravity and GR on the other? Are you pointing out that gravity works because it is the natural solution to the relationship between mass, energy and space, and that GR quantifies the outcome of that natural sorting out of the constituents of the universe?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

OK, so when you make links between disparate things, you may be suffering from which syndrome?

 

It is not clear to me if your response is directed to the originator or to me. Which?

 

It's this part of the quote: "..evolution took place through the action of natural selection on a single source of genetic change, mutation". This is wrong in the eyes of Frank Ryan. Viruses can also transfer genetic material apparently. It's a very new field of research.

It's the simple idea that something so easy to understand, with so many examples to confirm it becomes established as mainstream fact. The reality is something a lot more complex, yet attainable.

 

I didn't see any mention of viruses in the quote and you mentioned gravity in the lead in. Where are you going with this thread since your point seems to be related to GR and yet your last response seems more directed to the new field of virolution?

 

It's his phrase: "How could it be wrong?". Just like the question with the basic law of gravity "How could it be wrong?". I'm not going very far with this thread, I don't think. Hopefully someone will simply read the book.

 

Or you could do the simple and immediate thing of explaining WTF you're talking about rather than playing 'hard to fathom'. Your thought processes are hard to follow when you're trying to be coherent, never mind when you're being deliberately cryptic.

 

lol. (well done)

 

Did I quote you? No, so it's rather obvious then that my post relates to the OP, isn't it?

 

No. It's more usual to think that you're responding to the last post IMHO

 

NO, without a quote, the response is to the OP. You cannot guarantee upon submission that your post will appear underneath the one you just read, as somebody else could easily submit a post before you. One should always quote if one is not replying to the OP.

 

Why not quote the original post, then there's no room for confusion, is there?

 

There's no need. You are just being stupid now.

 

Do you have an opinion on the non-random virus DNA transfer mechanism proposed by the author of 'Virolution'?