History, Evolution, and The Darwin Debate

Darwiniana header image 2

Getting evolution right?

May 19th, 2015 · No Comments

A New Model of History: there have been a lot of attempts to bring history into the realm of science, but they all fail because they are unable to take into account the issue of free agency, a soft version of ‘free will’. It doesn’t seem to occur to scientists that they have been unable to cover much of reality with sound analysis after the great and now nearly ancient breakthroughs of Newton et al, It has become a heresy to challenge the universality of ‘science’, but judging by the results, ‘science’ has made a massive breakthrough in physics, extended this to subjects related to these victories, chemistry to biochemistry….Then the rubric of science has attempted to rise on the scale of subjects, with a ‘next stop’ in the area of evolution. But it doesn’t seem to penetrate the science field that the character of evolution is different and requires a new account of what science is and how it could produce a science of evolution: that means a theory of evolution, not the multiple and massive gains of science taken as data collection, analysis, and biochemical reductionism. But none of these have solved the riddle of evolution.
It is here that the ‘macro model’ of WHEE can offer some hints: the legacy of darwinism is simply off the wall: the idea of evolution via natural selection doesn’t work and as Wallace early realized the issue of man forces the question to boundaries of the design argument. That is not the issue so much as the nature of the ‘hominid’ to be seen as evolving. Biology is unable to proceed here and doesn’t know that its current method is a failure.
The tactics of WHEE are very simple, because it finds a realm of real data: world history which shows a short run of ‘evolving’ something in an analysis using the idea of macro transitions. In general the idea of evolution corresponds to the nearly ‘archetypal’ notion of ‘punctuated equilibrium’, which is a brilliant terminology for an idea that was then applied to darwinism, a mistake. The basic ‘principle of sufficient reason’ behind the terminology is the very simple permutation of idea that something is required to produce change and in its absence the system doesn’t change! Note the verbal resemblance to Newton’s First Law. In biology we have a generalized ‘change factor’ argument: something ‘punctuates’ and this creates a disturbance from equilibrium.It reminds one of ‘Category Theory’ where we have a set a generalized equivalents whose ‘jargon’ shares a common set of general abstractions, and this can be extended to include a ‘macro/micro’ distinction (a different way of stating the ‘punctuation/force/change factor’ ideas). The method of WHEE forsakes this terminology because its usage is already claimed in the work of S.J. Gould, but the basic point of a ‘macro’ transition’ and its ‘micro’ correlate is to see the way world history shows a set of processes that give real meaning to the idea of ‘punctuated equilbrium’: we see drumbeat ‘transitions’ and the system reverts to equilibrium in the middles. Well, not quite: the system under punctuation begins to show ‘growth’ at a slower rate, but in general the relapse to ‘equilibrium’ or worse is what we see too often in world history: we call the process something else: medievalization, etc…
We can thus claim that despite its looseness and empirical framework using periodization based on a core ‘punctuated equilibrium’ type of model the construct of WHEE is a genuine model of ‘evolution’ in its core sense of showing the factors that produce change, where darwinism simply muddles through with an idea that structure just happens at random.
So we have a ‘transition’, the punctuation, which borrows the archetype of ‘PE’: macro and micro. In the form of ‘evolution’ given (often called ‘eonic’ or ‘macro’ evolution) the transition is macro and the micro can be any number of things: general development, if any, not in the transition; or, in one elegant formulation of the several in WHEE, ‘free action’ in the phase after the ‘transition’ as system action. We are in an entirely new form of analysis where ‘causality’ as some for of (macro) determination is a hybrid with the ‘evolutionary agents’ carrying out the consequences of the macro phase.
In general we have to expect analysis to change completely in a new subject matter, and that should be the case with evolution, save that biologists have become stuck on the natural selection artifice.

Tags: General

0 responses so far ↓

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

Leave a Comment