The confusion over darwinism has turned into a torpedo ready to sink trust in science altogether. It is high time the left took up the critique of darwinism, in the process repairing its credibility, and exposing the social darwinist muddle of the whole paradigm.
The original version of Toward a New Communist Manifesto had the material at the link above and will appear in a companion volume.
This model is highly effective as a way to sort out the confusion over darwinism, if you can trust the skeptical expose of the natural selection in an environment plagued with Dawkins groupies.
The issue of evolution has been rendered murky by the immense amount of professional idiocy here making the job of outside critics impossible. How can it be that a few outsiders can expose darwinism while all the best scientists are confused? Whatever the case, an insider like Fred Hoyle clearly exposed the problem with random evolution. His verdict should have been final.
The ‘macro’ model is highly effective as a tool to get oriented with the real meaning of the term ‘evolution’. A discrete-continuous situation is a fortunate circumstance and in history we can see an example. Why would this have anything to do with earlier evolution? All we can say is that development (evolution) is likely to match this kind of situation. The evidence clearly suggests it, without any conclusive proof. The point is that if natural selection fails then the simplest model that should be consider is of the type we are referring to. It clearly matches the basic insight of someone like Lamarck who got it right at first: evolution shows direction toward increasing complexity and has two levels. Our model clearly matches this intuition.
We can easily spot the probable ‘discrete’ intervals: the onset of life, single to multi-cell, the cambrian, etc… Surely the Cambrian shows us a fuzzy image of some kind of transitional phase. We don’t have to jump to conclusions, but we can safely rule out darwinian natural selection.
This approach suggests very generally that ‘evolution’ has active phases as it climbs Mt. Improbable, and then relaxes as the results undergo adaptive interaction in the environment they are in. That is a no-brainer, if still short of a full theory.
Biologists confuse themselves when they talk about science: that drives people to reductionist thinking in imitation of physics/chemistry. But evolution is a different category: it shows direction, and this doesn’t fit the framework of standard science so far.
Note that ‘punctuated equilibrium’ is a typical example of a ‘discete/continuous’ model, but its use was confused by the way SJ Gould mixed it with natural selection, rendering a confused situation even worse.