This is a very interesting article and an interesting challenge to the eonic model. I would consider its conclusions very seriously, but…A key ‘but’. It is a challenge might induce not glib answers but a pause to review an old question in a new context. But the eonic model is not a totalizing theory of either history or evolution, and there are a lot of things it doesn’t answer. The same is true of science in general.
The key issue here is that Darwinism is a pseudoscience: the theory of natural selection is a form of lunacy, statistical and otherwise. The point was made by Fred Hoyle and others long ago. But to no avail. The result is the confusion of Darwinism which has sowed tares in all kinds of other fields. Let’s state the point again: it is not true, False, that natural selection explains general evolution. That theory can never be right: it is fallacious as to the laws of probability. This has ended up almost comically as a tool for amateurs to intervene in the delusive, institutionally enforced paradigm of hard Darwinism. Scientists have made fools of themselves and of science here. Over and over and over again oustsiders have tried to challenged this mass delusion. Some progress has been made by the few academics that have dared to stand up to this farce. But the inertia and entrenched character of the theory persists.
This article seems to be struggling to escape here and is a very cogent discussion.
Now as to the eonic model the point is to sit down and study what it is saying and the evidence that it discusses and the new perspective on evolution, organismic and cultural, that it discusses. It will dawn on you just how lunatic Darwinism is. It is wrong and worse than wrong.
To the extent we observe the eonic effect we see that, as evolution (and the case that this is evolution is made in the books on this) it is totally different from anything like natural selection. It is the seed generator for immense innovation in historical evolution. It showers species man with gifts
All these articles and sciences proceed as if the theory is established science, which is false. But the whole delusion has grown and become so dominant that whole fields are cockeyed by false assumptions. The question of violence and war has thus always been skewed by the Darwinian mindset, and sociobiologists have been notorious in this regard. Critics of sociobiology (often on theleft) have tried to critique the abuse of Darwinism as social darwinism without rejecting natural selection but it won’t work. Their efforts are still based on confusion.
Chimpanzees,“War,”and History. Source: War is Not Innate to Humanity: A More Peaceful Future is Possible – CounterPunch.org