Email exchange on evolution
I think that scientific biology, as current, is confusing people trying to do evolution. There is no such science as yet. Physics speaks to one domain, biology to another, while evolution remains beyond both. And the ‘mind’ and the human instrument of self-consciousness are not really in the extensions to physics. Noone can even manage the emergence of life.
My work on the evidence of macroevolution in world history holds the clue to this failure, and a clue to what evolution really is: the equivalent of ultra-fast biofield computer-like entities able to direct the teleological fine-tuning of forms over global regions (that’s a guess and not part of my theis, my evidence is very specific in its historical detail). That is perhaps the reason the trap of Intelligent Design hovers over the question. Is it really a trap? we don’t know, but the likelihood is that meta-biological entities don’t qualify as ‘ID’ entities.
Note that my portrait of macroevolution shows extreme fine-tuning as greater nature ‘evolves’ higher culture, and manages the fine detail down to poetic meters. Check out the facts. It is spooky.
This biofield must be able to act over tens of thousands of years (and more) in brief bursts perhaps, operate on large-scale geographical regions, on a planetary scale, and be able to scan its fields of direct action.
The Axial Age shows an example: examine the detail. The attempts to suppress discussion of the Axial Age shows that scientists are not capable of evolutionary thought at this point.
We can see that this ‘evolution’ has nothing whatever to do with ‘genetics’, although it is possible that some variant of this can manipulate random mutations (not a claim I have ever made, however).
Physics style theories are not going to explain this situation. It is ultra sophisticated, probably beyond human intelligence, as yet.
It is like the stage and a play: physics explains the stage, but won’t ever explain the play.
I don’t think that human emergence is anywhere within the ken of current science. Science is doing more harm than good, and driving religionists to revolt.
Anyway, my snapshot of historical evolution shows that we must have real time continuous data to detect evolution, otherwise we end up with speculative theories like Darwinism, trying to generalize about eras we don’t really observe.
Meanwhile issues such as the evolution of language beggar any current type of explanation. It is a really hard problem.