Since I've always done those simple experiments to many animals
that I've encountered to see how they behaved in their life.
And one conclusion had only been around:
organisms change or interrelate by the mechanism of biotic preservaton and
not natural selection. Nailing the TOE on its own coffin.
For an experiment to make us favour one hypothesis or theory over another, it would have to be testing something where the two different ideas predict different results. You’ve claimed several times that your experiments have demonstrated ‘interrelation theory’ to be a better explanation than the theory of evolution. So, for this to be true, the results would have to, in some way, match the predictions of interrelation theory while differing from the predictions of evolutionary theory.
Let’s consider, then, what results we’d expect for these experiments from an evolutionary perspective. The theory of evolution states that heritable traits which increase a lifeform’s ability to produce successful offspring will spread in populations, so we’d expect most lifeforms to exhibit traits that aid in their survival and reproduction (at least in their usual environments).
We know that (most) plants need sunlight in order to survive. Evolutionary theory predicts that plants better able to extract energy from sunlight will be more reproductively successful, and so plant populations will exhibit traits which have made them good at getting access to sufficient sunlight. What we see in your experiment is that the plant with little direct sunlight will react by growing further, possibly enabling it to reach sunlight. This is a plant exhibiting a trait which increases its ability to reach sunlight, and thus survive and reproduce. The results of the experiment are perfectly in line with evolutionary theory.
Animals need to survive long enough to reach reproductive age before they can leave any offspring. Once they have, the longer they survive the more they can usually produce. For species like rats that care for their young, their continued survival also increases the survival chances of their offspring. From all this, evolutionary theory would predict that animals, generally speaking, exhibit traits that cause them to avoid mortal danger (except when necessary for a ‘higher cause’ like mating). Your experiment shows that a rat’s reaction to a physical threat from a big lumbering thing with a stick is to frantically try and escape, preserving its life. This is exactly what evolutionary theory predicts.
Now, I’m not trying to claim that these experiments demonstrate evolutionary theory to be accurate, just that they cannot be used to debunk it. Maybe the results of these experiments accurately match the predictions of your interrelation theory. But then they also fit the predictions of the theory of evolution. As a result, these experiments are useless when it comes to testing which theory has the better explanatory and predictive power.