History, Evolution, and The Darwin Debate

Darwiniana header image 2

The Times will review Wolfe, but not WHEE, which has been free in public for sixteen years with the key to the evolution debate in plain sight…

September 1st, 2016 · No Comments


This is an abridged version of the text of World History and the Eonic Effect (full version at history-and-evolution.com, and a fifth edition at Amazon).

This book is about history, not evolution, but wait, the two overlap…But the ‘eonic effect’ shows how ‘evolution’ braids with ‘history’ and most of all how an unseen process or ‘macro’ factor operates in a global field over tens of millennia returning on its focal area or areas in a fashion that matches a ‘discrete/continuous’ type of finite transition model. The emergence of man was localized while the effect we see in history is about civilization and has a far larger field. We catch the process in the act in the Axial Age, in a confusing lateral spectrum version masking the larger directional process, but the overall point is clear: macroevolution is so fast, so complex, so enigmatic that it operates as hidden abstraction and force acting almost invisibly. Small wonder noone can get it right.
Again the evolution of a new strain of man, or anything at any level of organismic evolution, would focalize on a particular species subset and its repeated return process over tens of millennia is actually very short relative to overall evolutionary time. We have no proof this is the answer, but it is far more plausible, used with care, that anything in the darwinian nonsense realm.

The macro or ‘eonic’ effect is so complex it is serious candidate in some variant for language evolution. Study the material in WHEE and look at the way the later linguistic action in the realm of art, literature, and song/dance/drama, etc… This process is so advanced it influences the outcome down to the level of poetic meters. But we must be careful here: at this late stage see only ‘relative transformations’; the return process deals with what is already there and remorphs as it goes along, then stops, and the process undergoes autonomous self-development.
We must be careful here: in the civilizational case it is an dual mystery: man makes himself, in the famous phrase, but something gives him a boost.
I think that this kind of design argument outstrips any chance for a ‘god hypothesis’ for an ironic reason: this macro effect is so stunningly complex it makes our ‘god’ ideas seems puerile. We must keep them far away from the explanation (which still eludes us). The historical record of the Axial Age actually records the remarkable experience of the Israelites who detected this ‘macro’ factor in some primitive fashion and thought it the action of a ‘god’, an interpretation so primitive that it spoiled what they had detected.

Again, history suggests the need for a balance of direction, and diversity, and we see the balance in the way a directional system suddenly becomes a global field of lateral effects. The emergence of a new species of man, assuming as a good guess some variant of the macro process in organismic/species evolution, would probably focus on one directional strain, bring it to a new advanced stage, and then stop, as the outcome begins to globalize. Clearly the laboratory (as far as we know) was in Africa, and the two diasporas of erectus and sapiens are part of the record. But we can’t really sort out the details yet. But a macro driver using relative transforms on a focal zones of various levels of ape/hominid makes sense, if one can deal with the mystery this generates: what the blazes is doing this? We don’t know, but clearly we are missing something major in the evolution of life: some unknown teleological process is advancing the stages of life.

Tags: General

0 responses so far ↓

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

Leave a Comment