Darwiniana

History, Evolution, and The Darwin Debate

Darwiniana header image 2

PDF of Descent of Man Revisited, also available at amazon

April 24th, 2018 · No Comments

https://www.dropbox.com/home/Public/XML_DARW_GC_Axial?
preview=9780984702909_Descent_of_Man_Revisited.pdf

Chapter four of WHEE is also called ‘Descent of Man Revisited’: http://history-and-evolution.com/whee4th/chap3_1.htm
One section here is The Great Expolosion

The question of a ‘great explosion’ is not popular with darwinists, but we are stuck with a problem even more difficult than what miller deals with: granting that we don’t know when language started, it is nonetheless true that only something sudden and integrated can explain the massive advance into species homo sapiens sapiens: it can’t really happen piecemeal: the species transition involves complex language, ‘mind’, a new form of self-consciousness, appearance of artistic potential, some factor of ‘will’ and ethics, and, yes, we must say, a ‘soul’ ….

The Great Explosion Evolutionary theorists have longed puzzled over the sudden advance complete by ca. 50000 (?) years ago at the point man seems to have crossed a threshold to become the recognizably human cultural being that he is in terms of language and culture. This is often pegged as high-level cultural evolution, with or without a mutation claim, visible in language, art, and technical achievement. At one and the same time this data is matched with claims for an earlier breakthrough for the ‘anatomically modern man’, e.g. ca. –150000 (?). The speculative misuse of such data understandably creates caution in (otherwise incautious) Darwinists, and clarifying the relation of slow to sudden evolution requires far more data that we have at present. But these two factors together suggest a quite tantalizing case of something like our relative transformations, which reconcile the chronic debate over slow versus sudden change. None of these claims has any data at the level of centuries, while we can see now that that is likely to be crucial. Our eonic pattern is probably double the size of its visible five thousand year range. This is a huge segment of history, but virtually nothing in the scale of deep time.

Tags: General

0 responses so far ↓

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

Leave a Comment