Note that the "evidence" of galactic evolution, as summarized in Figure 1
, is dependent on redshift equaling distance, which also equals time, and which has not been proven. Of course, none of my contentions are reliant on precisely how much time is involved, and it wouldn't matter to me whether quasars were 6 billion years old, or 3 billion, or 1 billion. I'm not making specific enough contentions about the amount of time that it takes for a peculiar to evolve into a spiral that a compression in the time frame would make a liar out of me. I'm just saying "that" an evolution occurs, involving many repetitions of an implosion/explosion cycle, wherein magnetic pressure eventually gets everything rotating, and on the same plane. I don't know how many cycles it would take, or how long a cycle would last. Ignorance is bliss!
I'm just saying that I have identified forces which could
affect the transformation. But if redshift does not
equal distance, then we don't know the age of the light that we're seeing, and we don't have any data on the evolution of galaxies, and that piece becomes pure speculation. It doesn't mean that it's wrong — it just means that it does not, and cannot, be supported by early Universe observations, nor could any other galactic evolution theory.