History, Evolution, and The Darwin Debate

Darwiniana header image 2

WHEE: how to think about ‘evolution’

December 23rd, 2014 · No Comments

The previous post begins to see beyond natural selection (this is very old news), but the basic confusion is always passed back into the paradigm.
WHEE gives a very much better way to look at ‘evolution’, put in quotation marks because the term ‘evolution’ should be qualified: it is used in hundreds of ways, almost always in terms of developmental sequence of some kind.

Although ‘evolution’ in WHEE should be qualified as referring to civilizational ‘evolution’ (in older editions it was ‘eonic evolution’, ‘discrete/continuous evolution’, or ‘macro’ evolution, or finally ‘punctuated equilibrium via macro transitions’, etc…) it induces a ‘model’ that gives a very good, and probably more general, snapshot of ‘evolution’:
“eonic’ evolution is non-random, and shows evidence of a hidden driver
this driver is discontinuous and operates in a series of transitions
These transitions apply some kind of ‘form factor’ that induces a set of possible transformations
the drivel is directional, i.e. teleological
The process shows a strong design factor, which is not a theological argument
The driver operates globally and can multitask in parallel streams
The transitional phases show a ‘field’ factor in which a ‘process’ operates over a field (i.e a subset of a geograpical region or continent) over a range of centuries (ca. three) and can return to a set of zones over a tens of millennia, a system with memory and able to ‘see’ or locate particular areas.
This is a very strange set of statements, but a little reflection shows that the minimum set of complicated processes needed to construct an evolutionary civilization is being listed as properties. Darwinism simply assumes random luck will construct complex entities. It is the most unrealistic and unproven of assumptions. An evolutionary process must have a pattern to realize in time, a way to operate on objects/organisms, a way to act intermittently to allow the changes to work themeselves out, a way to return to those objects at a later date, a way to operate over regions where the ‘species’ or objects live, exist….etc…
Such properties are truly no-brainers….
The idea of transitional regions is very odd, at first, but in biological evolution, the location or terrain of a species is crucial and apparently (this is a different case, for which observation for any theory is weak) something must operate on a ‘whole’ or part of a species, in time, and over time, over a region. The alternative is for a random change in one organism in a species to change the whole species. (Actually, the genetics of recessive genes has produced one ingenious way to work around this problem). That is highly improbable. But we can’t automatically apply our model to earlier biological evolution, although the basic properties must exist in some form.

Tags: General

0 responses so far ↓

  • There are no comments yet...Kick things off by filling out the form below.

Leave a Comment