Many people never get to first base with the use of the term ‘evolution’ in World History and The Eonic Effect (WHEE). In reality its usage is the onset of sanity.
Consider this point carefully: the standard ‘scientific’ usage is a generalization about ‘random evolution’ by natural selection applied to all cases of ‘evolution’ since the onset of life, which is unexplained. That’s what should be called a wildly speculative thesis, one that gives no direct evidence of natural selection as claimed. None. Not a single case. Take the evolution of land animals to whales. This is clearly evolution. But by natural selection? This has never been verified. It couldn’t be, in fact.
With WHEE we use a different approach: we infer ‘evolution’ as a ‘process’ in deep time (you may with less justice challenge this as unobserved, but…), but make no assumptions about its mechanism…
We look at ‘development’ in world history and we can discover a recursive process of ‘driven development’, and that’s ‘evolution’. BUT…our treatment is an empirical set of observations about directly observed (almost) world history. It is not a theory about the whole of history nor the whole of evolution.
We are lucky: ‘evolution’, or ‘development’, shows evidence of operating in finite transition intervals, a windfall ( a continuous version would be hardly to detect), with fast development clustered in periods of transition at the start of the intervals. ————–transitionxxxxxx——————-transitionxxxxx————– etc…
We see two and a half and probably eight such intervals in world history….Very suggestive, still not enough for a theory, which would be impossible anyway. But this gives us an unmistakable sense of how evolution might work in deep time.
Thus our usage as defined is far more rigorous than darwinian science fiction/ideology….
It is completely useless to say that because this contradicts darwinian theory, and the sayso of academic/scientific windbags, is a waste of breath…
The Meaning of Evolution We are so accustomed to Darwinian or reductionist definitions of genetic evolution that we forget the meaning of the term: evidence of developmental emergence by any process or dynamic. By that definition history shows a clear pattern of non-random evolution in the development of civilization (and the parallel development of human individuality).
Limits of Observation Biologists often distinguish the ‘fact’ of evolution from the ‘theory’. The difference is crucial, for it is relatively easy to see from the fossil record that evolution occurs as a succession/progression of animal forms, but to confirm that this occurs by a process of natural selection is far more speculative, and probably false. Truly observing evolution is difficult, and we cannot easily infer the mechanism from generalizations about immense vistas of time. What if evolution is an active or intermittent process that occurs at high speed in short intervals that we never observe?
History and Evolution A paradox confronts the distinction of evolution and history: when did evolution stop and history begin? This odd question is the clue to seeing that the relationship of history and evolution must show an interconnection. Further this braiding together is likely to show a series of transitions between the two. With this clue we can rapidly find the evidence for just this, which we call the ‘eonic effect’.