Luchito:
It seems to be your habit to bluster and preen, all while providing nothing in the way of actual evidence or argument to support your claims. The little you do say on the content of just about any subject tends to be wrong. I don't think I need to take you seriously.
Do you realise that you can't disprove evolution by attempting to insult in into non-existence? I don't know why you bother saying things like "evolution is dumb" or "relativity is dumb" or whatever. If you've got no arguments to offer up, nobody actually cares that you think those things are dumb.
When you're talking to me, you might as well drop that act. It isn't advancing your case at all. You should start providing some reasons why evolution is wrong, or evolution doesn't work, or whatever. So far, you're just making yourself out to be another brainless science denier. It seems to me that you have the capacity to do a little better than that, at least. Want to try?
Species do not adapt to a new environment as if species have power to adapt. You have misunderstood nature. Species just survive after a change in their environment. That's all. There is not such thing a the "better adapted" and similar nonsense. It is how lucky is the species to be at the right or wrong place when changes happen. Wake up.
That's a silly claim you're making, if you stop to think about it.
Consider two groups of insects of the same species that, due to a small genetic variation, differ in the degree to which they look like leaves. Birds happen to like eating those insects, if they can find them. What do we expect to happen over time? Here's what: we expect that, over time, the birds will tends to eat more of the insects that have the worse camouflage. Some insects will be eaten before they reproduce. Over many generations, we would expect the insect population to be dominated by the better-camouflaged variant of this insect, because the numbers of worse-camouflaged insects will have been relatively more depleted due to bird attack.
In what sense would it be wrong to say that, in this example, over time the insect species as a whole has "adapted" to better camouflage itself?
You seem muddled in your understanding of how the process works. It is important to realise that the
variation between those insect groups was not produced by individuals developing a "power to adapt", or anything like that. The variation was a genetic accident, a random occurrence. Also note that, in this example, there was no change in the environment. Nevertheless, one group of insects was "better adapted", in the sense of having a greater chance of surviving. This is something you claim is impossible, without, of course, being able to back up your empty claim with anything, as usual.
On the matter of "luck", I guess you could say that the better-camouflaged insects were "lucky" to get their particular genetic mutation, if you want to put it that way. But the fact that they would come to dominate the population of those insects has nothing to do with luck, once the variation is in place. The reason they come to dominate is natural selection, which, again, is something you deny the existence of.
It seems clear that you have been poorly taught about evolution, and/or you have developed some bad misconceptions about it. I think you probably need to start again and learn what the theory is actually about. Then you'll be in a better position to discuss it without making yourself look like an idiot.
If you have questions, I can probably help you.
If I tell you I will have to ki... no... wait, let me find another answer...
You don't know how you know, then? Figures.
There is not a single release as a book or paper in a science journal explaining the process of how time dilates when a body travels at high speeds. For this task the observer must have to show time before dilatation, time when dilates by cause of the object, and time after the body has passed by.
On the contrary,
any reasonable introductory text on relativity will explain how and why time dilation occurs. Maybe you should try to acquire one.
I am debunking relativity and breaking it in pieces in front of your eyes, and this is an easy task when you enjoy wisdom.
This "debunking" of yours is an example of wisdom gifted to your by your God or your religion, is it?
Your God must be an insignificant God indeed, if this is the best he has to offer.
