One of the ironies of the study of the eonic effect is the way it seizes high ground against specialist evolutionism, especially the darwinian brand. This even without a detailed knowledge of particulars. It is biologists themselves who have created this situation with a perspective even amateurs can debunk. Now the issue of epigenetics emerges, controversially. I have never on this blog taken a hard stance on the subject but everything about the eonic effect suggests that a meta-genetic process is involved in the interaction of form, adaptation, and development. It stands to reason therefore that something more than the usual genetic argument is involved. One can only chuckle then to see how the field itself has spawned a new perspective. Whether epigenetics is the answer to our suspicions about real evolution is unclear but the research is starting to get lukewarm.
As for Lamarck we have said repeatedly here that he got it basically right where Darwin got it wrong: Lamarck’s thinking, setting aside his ‘giraffe’s neck’ arguments, was that evolution operates on two levels, an overall drive toward complexity and a lower adaptational level, basically what darwinism is about. It is hard to grasp this point without seeing an example: presto, the eonic or macro effect, without the distracting issues of genetics. Lamarck’s intuition may have been beginner’s luck, but in fact he saw to the core, amateurishly perhaps, of the real requirements for a theory of evolution.