Despite my interest in epigenetics, I am not confident it has all the answers for a new view of evolution that is post-Darwinian.
I have made clear what that would look like: it wouldn’t even depend on genetics. I strongly suspect, based on the data of the eonic effect, that real evolution transcends genetics and that the genes have to follow the macro template as it impinges on real ‘micro’ processes. But, without getting into speculations, we can get a sense from world history of the way that a template source generates historical outcomes, without any direct one-to-one programming.
We have to suspect that such template sources are present in relation to genetic pools that are influenced but not determined by that high level set of processes. The test of adaptation still must be passed.
Again, world history should be the source of an important lesson about evolution: it is not random at all.
And the Axial Age gives us a hint, perhaps, of the way this kind of ‘template’ works, because we see multiple parallel outcomes that are similar, but distinct.
In a word, Darwinists are so far off the mark it isn’t funny. They are almost worse than religious mythologists, because they are fanatics who think they have all the answers.