As one commenter makes obvious: the idea of ‘evolution’ is often unclear to readers of Descent of Man Revisited, not because the book isn’t clear, but because the usage is seemingly strange for anyone who is a Darwinist.
There is a joker in the deck: the term ‘evolution’ is upside down, so to speak, in Darwinian usage. And those trained in the theory end up with a very implausible set of beliefs not based on evidence. Take a significant case: the emergence of whales from land animals: we are given to assume from Darwinists that this is natural selection at work: but that is an inference based on superficial high-level and non-existent low-level evidence. It may be partially true, but with something else involved, etc… The whole Darwin argument is like this.
In any case, since the Darwinian usage is false, the word reverts to semantic limbo: the term ‘evolution’ in Descent of Man Revisited refers to the dictionary definition ‘rolling out’ and from there any general process (speaking in reference to common usage, where the word is used all the time for non-biological situations) of development in time, a closer definition being possible.
My usage refers to the ‘process of development’ over time since the Paleolithic of civilization. This process shows a striking instance of ‘evolution’ in the general sense. Further it shows grounds for distinguishing two brands of evolution, macroevolution and microevolution. This distinction is then used to critique Darwinism once again. Then the suspicion is pursued that ‘evolution’ in this sense in civilization will tell us something about evolution of early man, on the grounds that organismic evolution and cultural evolution are really two sides of the same coin. That is merely a new hypothesis.
But the new definition is highly successful in throwing light on the ‘evolution of civilization’ and shows us an example of what a real process of evolution might be like in other cases.
The text is online at descentofmanrevisited.com