History, Evolution, and The Darwin Debate

Darwiniana header image 2

To understand evolution you must first see an example (as ‘macroevolution’), but that is not possible yet in deep time

April 22nd, 2016 · No Comments

In the previous post I linked to the many posts here on this paradigm shift kicked around for years with two books on this by Suzan Mazur. I have often tried to show how WHEE at history and evoluton.com can clarity the question.

Biologists need to find some evolutionary meta-process that is higher than the genetic. Genetics is confusing them. They need two level evolution, macro, micro. They should see how Lamarck got the basic idea while Darwin lost it.
You can’t understand evolution or produce a theory until you really get an example of how it works. You cannot get that from observing deep time. That’s why WHEE is so helpful: you can FOR FIRST TIME OBSERVE EVOLUTION in action over the right interval (for this subject matter, slightly different from organismic evolution) of a few centuries. Just barely. But what is beyond observation in deep time suddenly becomes obvious.
The Cambrian seems an exception. I doubt it, but obviously observation there is getting better and no wonder the debate heats up because it doesn’t look like natural selection at all.

Consider the evolution of man: we need something really dramatic that can (suddenly it seems) produce language, art, mind, higher consciousness, etc…But we don’t have that evidence. Period.

Tags: General

0 responses so far ↓

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

Leave a Comment