pioneer

Humans are part animal but also part something more than animal. We have many of the instincts of animals but our instincts are not as natural. Humans also have free will ,which allows humans to pertubate instinct away from the purely natural instincts to create a human hybrid. The result is a composite instinct that reflects the tinkering by consciousness. According to evolution life began in the water or oceans. Land animals are not fish but still contain genetic traces that are also common to fish. They have other genes which better define their nature. The same is true of humans and animals. We have willpower and can copy behavior allowing us to act like fish or animals. But that does not reflect what humans are but only reflects what will power can do. The term "beast" better describes humans, with humans not exactly an animal in the natural sense. In mythology, they projected the human beast within characters who were part human and part animal, or into composite animals like the sphynx. These ancient people were closer to the transition from animal but had enough common sense to see the differentiation.

The easiest way to create the universe from nothing is to begin at C. In a C reference, the infinite-eternal universe of an inertial reference is contained within a point-instant reference. All you need to do is leave the distance aspect of the C reference unchanged, but make the time reference inertial. From this new reference the infinite-eternal universe of inertial reference will look like an eternal point in the new reference, since this new reference is a composite reference of both inertial (t) and C(d). What we have created is time potential with respect to the C reference, since that point that should only last an instant is now given infinite time. The time potential of this point with C (C is the majority phase) will lower becoming finite time as it moves back to the instant. This release of the time potential will increase the potential in distance, so the point reference expands. Where the two potentials of d increasing and t decreasing meet, space-time reforms, heading back to C. This gives off potential from which the material of the universe forms in space-time. It too returns to C. Mass returns to energy or mass forms the C reference of the blackholes, etc,

Say I was 10 light years away and sent a picture of myself to earth. The signal takes 10 years to reach the earth. What the earth sees is a picture of me 10 years ago. This tells nothing of today but only what I looked like 10 years ago. If we assume we can predict the future it is a crap shoot without an energy balance. One of the problem relative reference can create is a violation of energy conservation. SR has three eqautions, one for mass, one for distance and one for time. Although space-time references can be relative for moving references, mass can not be relative or else we could never complete an energy balance. For example, I am sitting on a train moving at V looking out the window. Another person is at the station watching the train go by at V. We can use relative reference and call either person v=0. However, if we try to do an energy balance, mass/energy adds up different for each reference. The one on the train sees the landscape appear to move, which will take much more energy than the reference that will see the train move. We can create extra energy for the universe if we decide we like the train reference, since reference is relative, right? If our reference choice creates energy out of the void ....

With the mail analogy, the letters from distant towns, would not reflect what was happening in those distant town, the day you recieved their letters, but would reflect what had occurred in the past. The data from that ancient galaxy tells us what that galaxy was doing 13 billion years ago. It tells us nothing about what it is doing today. If that galaxy made a U-turn 5 billions years ago and was now coming toward us, we would still see it moving away since it would take billions of years before the new data arrives. If we look at the data we see, the most distant red shifts the most. That means the farther back in time we go the faster the universe was expanding. As we get closer in distance and therefore in time there is less red shift. This indicates that the universe is contracting since closer and closer in distance means closer and closer in time. If the universe was expanding the most distant objects by being more distant in time should be less red shifted. That would mean when we go back to the oldest recorded time there was less expansion. As we go closer in distance and therefore in time, the red shift should increase to reflect expansion with time moving forward.

Dreams are a natural output product of the brain. To understand what these represent takes training. As an analogy, if the layman saw the spectral data from a star, it would look like a bunch of lines that have no significance to them. But to someone who is trained to understand this output, it tells many things. Unfortuneately in science, the laymen appear to have the final say when to comes to dream data, so this natural science appears to be hogwash. Say we decided to use this approach for astromony. We will let the biologists layman tell us if all those lines and colors means anything and then use that advice to stir the direction of research. I suppose astromony would look irrational now, since the laymen are in charge. Putting the layman aside, if you research and study this output enough there are patterns that appear. Many of these patterns are collective in nature, providing a way for individual dreams to reflect what the group is unconsciously thinking or feeling. President Obama had his dream that moved the crowd, but his lack of interpretation skills messed up the intent. Now we have a new collective dream, which hopefully is better interpretted so it reflects the unconscious intent. This approach is not new. Primitive cultures gave special significance to key dreams. They tended to use the raw data from the actual dream, which is often mythological, instead of an interpretation by laymen who try to force the dream along personal lines.

Omniscience only defines the limit of knowledge. But as humans, we are not anywere near that limit. Therefore we still need to think, act and experiment to approach that limit. We need free will for that. Without free will we would be stuck at where we are and need to wait for revelations to move foreward. As an analogy, you are a freshman taking physics. Your professor is a leading expert in his field. Since there is a such a huge gap between you and him, there is a limit to what he can teach you and what you are able to learn and understand. It may take a lifetime to approac him, like it took him. What helps along the way is you asking questions, doing your own research and running some experiments. These all require willpower. If your willpower fades, and you stop trying to know as much as the prof, then you reach a plateau relative to his omonscience. Knowledge intuitively senses final truths, but requires human will power to keep moving closer and closer, without knowing what the final truth might be.

One of the problems with correlation science is since it is not based on reason, interpretation can get irrational. The correlation may show the trend , but fails to address the individual. As an example, we do a study of a neighborhood centered on eye color. The data says there is a correlation in that neighborhood for brown eyes, since this is the most data; 51%. That does not mean the blue eyed people also have brown eyes, unless one has lost touch with reality. This correlation says nothing of cause and effect for the individual. However, there is a tendency to assume one size fits all, as though empirical science can actually define individual cause and effect. Some people can have a few drinks and do fine. Other can't. Correlation science can't tell who is who. However, the irrational try to impose a one size fits all, based on the correlation, even though this form of science is not advanced enough. It is like saying since the correlation says brown eyes, we will only sell make-up for brown eyed women. That is about as silly as the rest of the correlation extrapolations. But since this is irrational science, it tends to induce irrationality. I tend to thnk that the free market plays into this. If we can sell all women brown eyed make-up, this will create a new problem with all the blue eyed ladies. This will create the need for new goods and service to address the new problems.

Part of the problem with such data is it does not address the impact of secularism on religion. When America was held as the role model for other countries, back in the 1950-60's, religion was much more traditional and addendence higher. America was at the top in education and standard of living. With atheism and liberal secularism, the religion got watered down to where it began to dissociate and the USA is not considered in the same light by the rest of the world. Religion believes in family and community. The break up of the family was not driven by religion. That secular atheist brain storm, led to a whole new set of problems and social expense. It was atheist secularism based on an animal standard for human behavior instead of a higher standard. The irrational atheist can't see cause and effect and blame religion. In current times, the irrational liberal atheists were not rational enough to see cause and effect and started to bring the country into a deepening resession with massive debt. Pumping money to clean up the problems they had created, may have worked in the past, but with money tight the religious had to put down their foot and treat the irrational with a firm hand.

If we look at the transition between the pre-humans and humans, where civilization first begins to form and new human needs appear, it is reasonable to assume that those transition humans were the closest to the natural pre-human instinct. As an analogy, when the industrial revolution begins, humans migrate from the farm to the city. The first generation of migration still had one foot on the farm and the other foot in the city, and were closest to the farm, compared to later generations. The question becomes, how do you regulate the pre-human propensities, which had evolved over a million years, optimized for smaller non-civilized groups, so they can achieve what is not exactly in that instinct package. One would need something that is as strong as instinct, to regulate the instinct, so the present does not dissolve into the past. As an analogy, say we wanted to crowd many ape groups, into a much smaller space than is natural. Their instinct will be to reduce the group density back to natural. Yet we need them to stay at a higher than natural density and work as a team. We will need to regulate at some of their previous instincts, since these default back lower density. This is where the earliest religion comes in. It was part of evolution.

Relative to gay marriage, the debate is not about legal unions, but about an intrusion/confusion into traditions some people hold dear. If the name was different, there would be much less resistance. Let give an example of the effect. Say I wanted to use the "N" word to describe a violent person. The resistance by the PC crowd, would not be about my thesis about violent people, but the fact that I am using that particular word. If I called my POV about violent people something neutral, I could still get my point across. But if I insistent on using that very PC taboo word, I would be fought, since I am intruding into their dictionary of proper meanings. The reason this would be so is that particular word will create a fog that starts to merge into other things not related to my thesis. The "N" word has other meanings that are mean and derogatory, so if I use it, the ignorant might read too much into it. If I call it the effect violope (short for violent people), since I am not trying to intrude on the PC dictionary, the PC reaction will be different, with my thesis taking for what it is. But if I wanted to keep the controversy going, I would insist on the button pushing "N" word in the title of my thesis. I might even try to turn it around, and say those PC people support violent people, since they fight so hard against my thesis.

Christ was a sacrifice for sin. The righteous man shall live by faith apart from the works of the law. This thinking sort of reflected a return to instinct, away from the pseudo-herd instinct of collective human law. One needs faith, since the path of the inner voice is not always chartered as well as fixed human law. The practical problem this creates is faith can lead one one way, while herd laws can lead one another way. Although there was a sacrifice for sin, and it is OK to follow one's faith apart from herd law, the path of faith can still generate guilt. As a silly example. One hundred years ago if you wanted to go the beach, it was a man-made sin to expose too much skin; puritan laws. The inner voice of faith may sense less clothes is more comfortable in the heat. But the law was strict and said cover up. There is no real sin to your wearing less, however, there will be outrage and a need to enforce the law by the herd. One is sort of placed in the middle (cross) between following their instincts or following this man-made law. There might be guilt. The intent of wearing less clothes is not to incite the herd but to be comfortable, yet the law of the herd will result in group anxiety, in a conditioned way. The guilt stems from the Pavlov reaction, and knowing you will nevertheless push the button that allows the food pellet to drop. Although not obvious, prophesies tells of a guilt sacrifice that is suppose to address this. Guilt can prevent some from following their inner voice, thereby creating blaspheme against their spirit in favor of the sin and law. Then you also neutralize the sacrifice for sin. For example, say a mother is overly worried about her child. The child may have the urge to take some reasonable and calculate risk, to go wading in the pool. But since this creates so much anxiety in their mother, they are placed in the middle between her laws for peace of mind and the urge of their inner voice. Out of guilt, they may decide to appease her laws and deny their inner voice. It may appear one is doing the best thing, but it blasphemes the inner voice. The guilt led one back to her man-made law for sin. The guilt sacrifice is suppose to break the stalemate, so both sin and guilt are secondary to the inner voice. But this will have its pitfalls, due to confusion, leading to degeneration to below what law had evolved to. The outer voice of the herd, will pretend to be the inner voice for the individual. The analogy is rather than the child having their inner urge to take a calculated risk, with sort of a balance to their mother, someone outside them puts that idea in the child's head. This is not from their inner voice, but from an outside voice. With sin and guilt gone, the result is much different. Mother may decide to enforce her law using guilt, but since the child is being led from the outside, and there is no sin or guilt. The natural connection is broken for artificial and the entire situation starts to go retro to before the need for law.

It makes more sense if the light, close to the time of the BB, is looping back making a second pass. The light from the BB, or shortly thereafter, will get beyond all the matter of the universe, since light is not dependent on reference and can outrun matter according to SR. The light then follows a curved path and returns. We see the recycled light from the second pass. If we wait long enough, we will see the light from the formation of our solar system, after it follows a curved path and returns. If you look at GR and gravity, the bending of space-time is due to mass. We don't have zones of contracted space-time without mass in the center. Yet for some reason, we have decided to reverse cause and effect and place space-time before mass/energy. The practical problem this creates is mass/energy is not relative, like space-time references. If mass was relative, we could violate the conservation of energy. For example, we have two space ships side-by-side with parallel path at the same relativistic velocity. Since velocity is the same and parallel, there is no relative motion. That means for any common V, we would not be able to determine the relativistic mass of the two ships. It could appear to be zero,according to reference, not matter how much mass/energy was added to get this common velocity. If we have to place mass before space-time, the trick will not work. There is a different constraint; absolute reference. What we would need to do is find a reference that allows us to come up with a velocity, even if we don't see any relative velocity. If we do see relative velocity, we still need at absolute reference since relative reference can still violate energy conservation.

Another consideration is low energy randomization to describe changes in the DNA. As an analogy, if we start with a deck of new cards that are sequenced at the factory, and only cut the deck once (low energy randomization shuffle) the odds are different, than if we fully shuffle the deck (complete randomization). The DNA does not work using sufficient energy for a complete randomization at the level of genes. If it did, there would little that is genetically common between species, since the odds for genetic change would be evenly spread throughout the DNA. But what we observe are a large number of common genes that stay the same, which has lead to the conclusion that everything appears to have evolved from a single source. The DNA makes use of lower energy randomization, which changes the odds into something more favorable for evolution. If you look at the new deck of cards, we have fours suits, each in order. We cut the deck in half and flip the cards into each other. If we deal this low energy randomization deck to two people, each will get straight flushes since all we have done is alternate sequences. The hands would have low probability if we fully shuffled the deck, but with the low energy randomization, it occurs almost on cue. The water plays a role in the low energy randomization shuffle. For example, if we have lipids in water they form the lipid bi-layer. If there was no water and the lipids could interact in a vacuum, there would be more randomization with respect to the final shape. Once we use water, we loss this same level of random. If we added enough energy to overcome the potential within the water, we can begin to approach the more random situation of the vacuum. But life doesn't use that much energy. This also limits the shuffle of the DNA, so the odds can change with respect to full energy randomization, stacking the deck for evolution. As another analogy, say we have a six sided dice. If we throw it hard each side has 1/6 odds. Say we used a very weak or low energy throw that can only flip the dice 90 degrees. The bottom number can not appear since that would be 180 degrees. All sides should be 1/6 , but now the bottom is more like 1/1,000, while the 90 degree sides of the dice are 1/4. The top can't appear since it needs 360 degrees so it is 1/1,000,000. With respect to life, some genes carry forward without much in the way of change, since these are at 360 degrees.

Special relativity has three equations, one for mass, one for time and one for distance. Although space and time can appear relative to the observer, there is no such thing as relative mass. If mass observation was relative to a given reference, we could violate the conservation of energy simply by picking a relative reference. To maintain the conservation of energy, relativistic mass needs to be absolute, independent of reference. That means that at some level of observation, space and time also need to be absolute and not relative. The three variables move together, so if mass needs to be absolute to satisfy the energy conservation, space and time will also need to line up too. I tend to think since we use relative motion, we don't have the correct reference for absolute mass. Is it possible we are creating relative mass, such that we are in violation of energy conservation?

Political correctness appears to work under the assumption that emotion trumps reason and data. If you make up a warm fuzzy fantasy that makes people feel good or if the fantasy coordinates with what the herd is told to feel, this is OK. But if you state facts or logical arguments that deviate emotion from the emotional template, that is a violation of PC. Politics is less about presenting detailed ideas, as it is about using rhetoric, spin and mud slinging to cloud the water, so it comes down to an emotional reaction. If one is too honest, the other side will spin and misrepresent, which then takes a lot of energy to regain reality. Politically correct means the proper or correct spin and mudslinging, but not a logical discussion of issues. They wish to follow the correct procedure of politics. It is OK to say that Christians are a big problem. But one can not say the same of Muslims. We can only mudsling in one direction according to PC spin. This is not logical, but is based the illusion templates of politics, to create conditioned emotional reactions. This special effect may have worked better if the word political was not in it. But the choice of words helps us to see that the goal is not logic but spin. PC was a spawn of the democratic party and seems to use its platform and it spin templates. When in power, they ignored the will of the people, which in the case of PC, is free speech. The reason Williams got fired was a political move to create an example to scare others. The idea is to induce the emotion of fear to trump data and logic. Did anyone check to see the political orientation of the decision makers? What is interesting is Hollywood, the place of illusions, special effects and fantasy prefer the democrats. Birds of as feather will flock together, with PC spin, sort of using the Hollywood template that can turn a farm girl into a star.

I often wondered what was the logic behind the order of male than female in religion. One logical approach is too look at nature. The female, is connected to pregnancy, birth and caring for children. In the wild, these creates a higher level of vulnerability. The male would then have to become the hunter, provider and protector, since he does not have the same constraints. To maximize the family unit, the female would be placed closer to camp in a more defensible position. The children are also vulnerable so they are placed there too. Since that defensible position is not enough to provide food for all, the male has to leave that position to gather food, which is often beyond the perimeter of the defensible position. What this does is create two distinct data fields for evolutionary learning. The male is in the perimeter and therefore is in a better position to see how the perimeter will impact the interior defensible position in the future. The female is more sheltered, but understands the real time dynamics of the interior, so she leads the real time needs of the home. The perimeter is one step ahead of the interior, since the perimeter will generate new variables that can impact the interior. For example, there is no food gathered in the last hunt. The male already knows there will be a problem. This data has a time delay until it reaches the interior. The interior is more real time, but will react to this information, trying to integrate this future into the present. The females store food. Even today, males do most of the inventing, since they are more likely to live at the perimeter of culture. The females and children tend to maintain the real time cultural capacitance, but are also the among the first to react to changes, and try to integrate them. Males are also the one's who anticipate apparent future threat, causing the interior to make this real time. Say we switch this around, to have the interior lead the perimeter. This amount to real time defining the future. This situation becomes more hit or miss. For example, the interior needs food, now, in real time. If this need occurs when all the animals are hiding for sleep, it can be a fool's errand. However, in some cases, the real time interior need may precipitate the need for ingenuity. It can come out well. But all in all, the process is more efficient when those at the perimeter make use of what they know about the future, to hunt when it is far more efficient. The breakup of the family occurred when the rules of the interior changed (women's liberation) with female's attempted to define the perimeter for the males. The fool errands got sort of old and the male left that perimeter, to find a better perimeter to act from. Even the females found their better interior position. Religion saw the natural way, and the pitfalls of stirring from the interior real time, and made the order an institution. In modern times, the defensible position is an entire culture. The perimeter is blended within culture, such that the two are not as clear cut, as a tribal homesite. Religion takes the approach of male then female since it still reflects future leading real time to avoid the inefficiencies of real time leading the future. The latter is more reactionary and might solve one problem but create another. The hunter is sent out at night to hunt on a fool's errand. He comes back realizing now the animals are easy to hunt, but he is too tired. Religion saw this and said stir from the perimeter to benefit the interior.

So what you are saying is the brain plays a role in evolution, since all your arguments place reasonable restrictions on birthing, based on the logical inferences created by the brain, either through reading or through one's own common sense. I agree with you. But evolution has been defined to only be about genetics, drift and reproduction. The church dogma is actually consistent with the current science dogma of the DNA being exclusively behind evolution. The reason we need birth control in the first place is because of the genetic impulse to breed. The same result as birth control could be achieved by controlling these impulses, using the brain and will power. Instead, we accept the natural DNA impulses of sex, then use the brain, after the fact, to prevent another natural DNA process. The church stays more natural since it allows the impulse, in marriage, and then allows the cause and effect of sex to go to fruition. But out of marriage, it does use the brain to nip the DNA at the bud; no sex. This avoids a lot of social cost due to unwanted pregnancy where there will not be two parents, thereby having the child lose something that would give advantage. The brain then figured out a way to modify this last result, and called it abortion. But in nature and evolution, the DNA did not figure out an external method to end pregnancy. That was the brain figuring out how to impact evolution. The church stays with natural, unless nature provides a way; miscarriage. Ironically, the church score higher on evolution via DNA.

Paul was the person who took the teachings of Christ to the Roman Senate, although in handcuffs. The Romans were rational and cynical so to reach them, one needed a different approach beyond the religious appeal of faith. Christ was addressing a different audience, spreading a message of faith, love and hope. But when you address Romans; when in Rome. Paul talks about the pitfalls of the law of commandments contained in ordinances. He goes on to talk about the psychological effects that law creates. One would not know about a particular sin, if the law did not point it out and tell us it is a sin. Once you know it, some will be experiment. Sin taking opportunity through the command, then produces sin of every kind. As a modern example, the alcohol prohibition made drinking a social sin. Once that commandment was created, violence and corruption then appear centered on alcohol. Then he says, sin is not imputed when there is no law. It was not a sin before we made it so. Once prohibition was repealed, and the social sin was removed, the violence and corruption centered on the commandment disappear. Now it was not a sin to have a drink, so the level of sin goes down. After his reasoning, he says Christ removed the burden of law by nailing it to the cross. The righteous shall live by faith apart from the works of law. That part made the Romans nervous since what about Roman law? After that the Christian were not tolerated by Rome the same way as the time of Christ, less they teach others to ignore even Roman law. Ironically, once Rome created their new prohibition against Christianity, sin increased; persecution, murder,etc. It only proved the point that Paul had been making. Even in modern times, this wisdom is beyond most people, since many seem to repeat the same mistake over and over again.

One simple way to engineer this would be to have a pool of water on a hill, that could be rain or spring fed. We run a pipe down the hill to the fountain. At the fountain, we bend the pipe and have a section of pipe that goes straight up to the top of the fountain. Based on the height difference between the pool of water on the hill, and the top of the fountain pipe, we can regulate the flow of water in a very passive way. This passive device can also tell use something about our pool height, with the fountain able to predict drought.

One way to explain this is the wave nature of an electron is associated with its emitted EM waves. The particle natures stems from an electron being a tiny zone in space, which is the center from which the EM waves are emitted. If we try to measure an electron at one of the slits, we will need some type of device tuned to an electron which means we will use EM. This will interfere with the electron's EM waves so the interference pattern will be altered. As an analogy, we have a small boat moving on the water making a wake. Since EM waves can travel at C which is faster than an electron, in the analogy the wake precedes the boat. If there are two openings under the bridge for the boat to travel, the boat can only use one at a time. But since the wake is a wave, preceding the boat and expanding, it can enter both at the same time. If we stand on the other side of one of the two tunnels and are making a wake (use the wave nature of electrons to detect the electron), we can cancel the waves. If we separate the openings of the double slit enough, until the interference stops, one might be able to calculate the electron velocity since we know the speed of the EM wake is C. If our boat was making a wake but the openings are to far apart, the wave may not spread out enough to enter the second tunnel. Knowing the speed of the wake and the critical distance, we can sort of figure out the speed of the boat needed to prevent the wave from spreading out enough.

Too many people fall for the media illusion, which is used to create emotional news for ratings. The way the illusion works is to not present all the data, but only a handpicked segment of the data, and then draw global conclusions for all the data, using only the small fraction. For example, based on all the data flying is safer than driving. The illusion will focus on a few data points that involve crashes, since this will bring out the rubber necker who likes to watch accidents. They may complain but they secretly like to watch this. Then based on two data points, out of millions of data points, we create a theory that will lure the irrational in, who then assume planes are falling like rain from the sky. This special effect uses the same method as the lowest form of science, called risk analysis. One data point in a thousand can satisfy the parameters of risk theory. This watered down standard of science is considered valid. Trying to figure out why the other 999 data points are, may be too hard for many scientists. The easier standard is then preferred. I am not sure whether the the chicken or the egg came first. Did the media figured out how to create these illusions for ratings and then science saw it as a way to create professional ratings using this media template? Or did science create this form of science, and then media saw how this could be a useful way to create entertainment illusions for ratings? Science should differentiate these distinctions. Rational science is the highest since it can make predictions. One data point out of place is enough to refute such a theory, since the standard is so high. Empirical is second since it will try to use a much of the data as possible. Then we have risk science, which only needs one data point to generalize, using fear to help narrow the mind so the illusion works. We could call these gold, silver and bronze science. I understand the media template and risk science being used to create global religion theory. But bronze science is too easy to create and is not much of a challenge. Reach for the gold and silver and don't settle for bronze. It will become a sorry state for science when it enters the bronze age.

The whole idea of random is an assumption or a result of an incomplete theory. Life, as we know it, needs water. Without water the cell can not function. Water is a huge variable that is not yet fully added to the analysis. The current theory by using primarily the organics as the main variables, will off by default, making the observation appear random. Let me give an analogy to this theoretical effect. Say we drop objects in a vacuum. They will all accelerate at the same rate due to the gravity. But in practice, since we are not in a vacuum, there are other variables like wind resistance that can impact the rate of falling of objects. If we stick to only the vacuum theory, in practice we will observe different rates of falling, which appear random based on the weather conditions. That appearance of random is an illusion based on the theoretical assumption of a vacuum, which does not fully reflect reality. Once we add the other variable called wind resistance, what had appeared random, magically becomes more logical and predictable. By not using the water to the degree of its impact in the cell, we assume the vacuum and ignore this wind resistance, so it appears to be random. Once water is included, there is cause and effect since the weight of the variables will better reflect the reality of the phenomena. If you look at a seed, it is inanimate. To get life going we add water. If we let the seed dry out the life stops. If ignored water as being a variable in sprouting seeds, then it appears like seeds randomly sprout or not, based on only a random genetic mechanism. We lose this simple cause and effect.

There is action and equal and opposite reaction. The action of gravity is to collapse matter, an equal and opposite reaction means to expand. If you look at it logically, the universe expands relative to the galaxies. The galaxies just so happen to be the strongest zones of accumulative gravity action. The universal reaction will occur relative to this action. One possible study is to do a star count as a function of time to see if the number of stars increased over time. This makes sense if second generation stars get to use heavier elements to begin their centers of gravity, making the formation of stars faster and faster. Our sun gives off more energy than its original cloud of gas and debris.

Science is the best at defining the external world. But the inner world of human nature is not one of science's strongest suits. Philosophy often uses common sense observation of human nature, motivations and manipulations to help science target these humanistic phenomena. Why do we have two main political parties? This not be something science can address, other that tell the proportions within each party. The principles of human nature that results in this situation, requires a slightly different approach. Once you know that, one can extrapolate this to other polarizing effects, even within science, for why more than one theory for any given physical situation can exist side-by-side. For example, in cosmology we have many theories some of which are mutually exclusive, meaning they all can't be right at the same time. Most can be supported by data and math, but since they all can't be right, how is it they all have a place in science? You have to go back to human nature, so one can understand human nature special effects that allow this. It could be political, which implies prestige and subjective inductions that cloud fully rational judgements in favor of math logic, even when mutually exclusive.

Newton and Einstein developed rational models based on cause and effect, both of which can make very exact predictions. Darwin's theory of evolution is more empirical, and can not make accurate predictions of the future states, although it can show basic trends. As an analogy, it would be like Newton's theory of gravity only saying the apple will fall to earth if it is thrown or dropped. However, we can not use it to predict distance or terminal velocity. That is still a mystery. At that level of theoretical utility, one would still thank Newton for this basic understanding, but one would want to take it to fruition. However, if the traditionalists want to maintain, " it will fall theory and nothing else", those concerned with the progress of the theory, will have to figure out ways to break the traditionalists strangle hold over the common sense of the flock. Darwin gets stuck in the middle. Darwin built a good solid foundation, but the house is still being built.