08.25.08
History and evolution
From
World History And The Eonic Effect
Historical research has greatly expanded our knowledge of world history, and the result is an unexpected discovery: that of a process of universal history in the action of a mysterious dynamic generating a non-random pattern. We call this the eonic effect. Further, the scale of this process is such that we can only call it ‘evolution’. Thus, for the first time we can detect the unmistakable evidence of non-random evolution, and this in world history itself. This leaves us with the question, What is evolution? And this forces another, long overdue, What is the relationship between history and evolution? This could be recast as the paradoxical question, When did evolution stop and history begin?
A moment’s reflection will tell us that no instantaneous passage between the two is plausible and that our terms have been left ragged. We must, by this logic, be able to detect a Transition between evolution and history. Can we find evidence to match this deduction? Indeed, we can, our non-random pattern, the eonic effect. In fact we can say more: if we apply that same logic to our Transition we should expect it to take the form of a series of transitions in an alternation between evolution and history, as if overlayed, the one emerging from the other. The eonic effect shows just this property of transitions in a series. Have we reached the end of the Great Transition? If not, then our evolution still constitutes our present and future. We should ask who man is, with such wisdom as would constitute achievement of the title, homo sapiens.
Our thinking is conditioned by Darwinism, which throws ‘evolution’ into the past, with a tacit set of assumptions about random evolution. The result is an enforced incoherence. This is often matched with a prejudice against any consideration of a science of history in the large, and/or any attempt using the philosophy of history to seek historical meaning. A further critique of the idea of universal history comes from the postmodern rejection of the Grand Narrative.
In this context the status of a science of history is ambiguous, as the philosopher Karl Popper in his critique of historicism insisted, with his rejection of the idea that history has meaning. Yet as the labors of archaeological research proceed a falsification of this perspective emerges. Karl Popper was wrong: history has meaning, and we can discover large-scale coherence in its unfolding. It is hard to break the habit of thinking universal histories have all been discredited. Suddenly we see the existence of a world system, but this requires looking beyond individual civilizations to the whole phenomenon of Civilization since the Neolithic.
As we proceed in search of history we will discover an irony, which is that we will find evolution in history, and then history in evolution, and this will give us an insight into the descent of man. We must move beyond the myth of purely genetic evolution, and the fixation on natural selection. We can recalibrate our definition of ‘evolution’ to include man’s past, present, and future, with a new kind of model that can carefully define the nature of our evolving freedom.
The evolution of man is, and remains, a complete mystery. There is something almost mythological in the projection of Darwinian scenarios of natural selection onto the Paleolithic. Such evidence as we have is mostly that of skeletal remains, highly incomplete, of a series of hominids stretched over millions of years. Dogmatism in such a situation takes on an almost religious character in Darwinists. In the midst of this void of hard information we are to believe that all the complex functions of the human advance are to be ascribed to processes of natural selection and adaptation. Such claims, pressed into service for metaphysical conclusions, are weak in their evidentiary basis. In contradiction to this, flagrantly out in the open, is the evidence of a Great Explosion in the period around 50,000 B.C. As if crossing a threshold homo sapiens suddenly begins to leave traces of all the forms of higher culture that are characteristic of man as we find him in history. The suddenness and depth of this rapid passage, if we can trust the data, call out for explanation beyond the standard and very vague claims of mysterious mutations. This is really a question of what we mean by ‘macroevolution’, as opposed to ‘microevolution’. Is not Darwin’s theory really one of microevolution? The problem is that observing anything that resembles macroevolution demands a very detailed record of evolutionary sequences, and this invokes a crisis of correct observation.
Lab Rat said,
August 26, 2008 at 7:24 am
“When did evolution stop and history begin?” What? What does this even mean? Evolution is a continuous process that happened and is happening. History is a look at past events. This sentance makes no sense.
“If not, then our evolution still constitutes our present and future.” of course. Evolution is a process not a thing that once happened.
“Our thinking is conditioned by Darwinism, which throws ‘evolution’ into the past, with a tacit set of assumptions about random evolution” How does the theory of natural selection throw evolution into the past? Like I said, it’s a continuous process that is still going on (and can be seen going on in bacteria)
The idea of a ’science of history’ though, sounds interesting. Although I think it’s already happening. Scientific studies into historical events certainly are.
ooh, I’ve heard of Popper but I can’t remember where. Could you provide a nice link about his thinkings on history, they sound, well rather insane, but also interesting. Science plays a large part in finding out about history, any archeologist will tell you that.
“The evolution of man is, and remains, a complete mystery. ” Uh, no. They have quite a good fossil record now (well, a better record certainly). As as you pointed out earlier, this is all using the scince of history.
“There is something almost mythological in the projection of Darwinian scenarios of natural selection onto the Paleolithic.” Why is this mythological? Evolution has been happening since time began, and all the scenarios work.
“Such evidence as we have is mostly that of skeletal remains, highly incomplete, of a series of hominids stretched over millions of years.” Well yes, there is not a totally complete record, but there’s enough. There never will be a complete record because fossils are so darn tricky to find.
“In the midst of this void of hard information we are to believe that all the complex functions of the human advance are to be ascribed to processes of natural selection and adaptation.” Yep. And? It’s not all belief either, the evidence just grows. And, crucially, there’s no evidence for any alternative theories, in fact, there aren’t any alternative theories.
“As if crossing a threshold homo sapiens suddenly begins to leave traces of all the forms of higher culture that are characteristic of man as we find him in history.” What? Wasn’t he in History before? Also, it’s not that sudden, although it is impressively sudden.
“The suddenness and depth of this rapid passage, if we can trust the data, call out for explanation beyond the standard and very vague claims of mysterious mutations.” Why? Why do you need more than mutations? Mutations are incredibly powerful. Just because you can’t concieve it happening. And they aren’t mysterious, lots of people study them, and they certainly aren’t vague.
“This is really a question of what we mean by ‘macroevolution’, as opposed to ‘microevolution’” With all politeness - bollocks. This is like saying that you can call spare change ‘money’ but not lump sums. There is no defining line between ‘micro’ and ‘macro’ evolution (although if you’ve thought of one I would be interested to hear it).
Lab Rat said,
August 26, 2008 at 7:28 am
heh. have just realised you didn’t actually write this.
now feel stupid
Ah well, it was a good critique…
nemo said,
August 26, 2008 at 8:22 am
What do you mean? The text of World History And The Eonic Effect was written by John Landon, blog owner of Darwiniana.
nemo said,
August 26, 2008 at 8:27 am
Your comment raises a lot of points, and I will set up a post or two on the main blog stream on this. I certainly agree that evolution is a process, but its relation to history remains a paradox that requires some analysis.
The question of a science of history is a very old one, there is as yet no such science, for reasons the study of the eonic effect makes clear.
Popper is famous for his The Poverty of Historicism.
You can find some introductory material at:
http://eonic-effect.net
More to say here.
nemo said,
August 26, 2008 at 8:28 am
Here is a Google books preview of Popper’s The Poverty Of Historicism
http://books.google.com/books?hl=en&id=6jd2mfbD3BUC&dq=poverty+of+historicism&printsec=frontcover&source=web&ots=X2M9Z46XDC&sig=-rXoTHf-s1oLVkn3up58zRDCZ6U&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=1&ct=result
also:
http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=10496441
Lab Rat said,
August 26, 2008 at 9:52 am
Do forgive me for being a bitslow on this but the sentance: “I certainly agree that evolution is a process, but its relation to history remains a paradox that requires some analysis.” Does not seem to me to make any sense. Evolution happens throughout history, and throughout time.
I am sorry about the mix-up with thinking you didn’t write the piece. I saw that it was an exerpt from a book and unfortunately didn’t realise that you were the author of the book, I thought you’d quoted a chapter from something that you had found interesting.
Thanks for the links! I’ll take a look at them.
nemo said,
August 26, 2008 at 4:52 pm
Here’s a link on this issue of history and evolution:
http://eonic-effect.net/eonic_model.htm
I will also put up a post today on the subject
nemo said,
August 26, 2008 at 5:04 pm
Here is the post I promised on the question of history and evolution:
http://darwiniana.com/2008/08/26/whee-selection-history-and-evolution/
A selection form World History And The Eonic Effect:
http://www.amazon.com/World-History-Eonic-Effect-Landon/dp/1436318688/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1217368880&sr=1-1
nemo said,
September 4, 2008 at 5:24 pm
Check out Kant’s Challenge the blog
http://kantschallenge.net
for a continuing study of the question of history and evolution
in light of the philosophy of history.