History, Evolution, and The Darwin Debate

Darwiniana header image 2

Evolution 2.0 and the eonic effect? …how do you do ‘evolution’ without genetics?

May 16th, 2017 · No Comments

This new perspective is very important but let me inject my ‘evolution x.o’ from my historical analysis. First, history and evolution in deep time are quite different, but in the end what we need is a ‘glimpse of evolution’ of any kind. The point is that random evolution doesn’t work and we can actually see this from an historical perspective. The question of ‘evolution’ is actually a reference to a generalized category, with twin aspects of macro and micro. The historical version is very different from the biological and yet they are ultimately connected because the biochemical evolution of early man to intersect with the macro/cultural evolution of man at the same time, and this is more than genetics as we see from history. Maybe the two are connected therefore! Whatever the case the ‘eonic effect’ shows a set of hints about a process of historical evolution and this leads to some drastic new ways of thinking. But the point is that there is a hidden aspect to evolution that is most probably directional/teleological and we can’t directly observe this nor explain anything without it. The historical case shows things even more complex than the kind of ‘software level’ genetics of ‘evolution 2.0’: it shows massive global focal action,geographical transition induction, induction of creative periods, constructivist aestheticism, massive social engineering aspects, all this in conjunction with human free agency. A truly stunning ‘glimpse’ of the evolutionary drivers behind the outer evolution processes we see…

enough for today, but I must challenge this challenge to darwinism with a consideration that we dealing with a mystery halfway between the macro and the micro….

Tags: General

0 responses so far ↓

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

Leave a Comment