The term ‘eonic’ was probably a poor choice of terms: it merely reflects a discrete sequence in a continuous stream, e.g. a clock, a discrete number of hours in continuous time.
Another term is ‘punctuated equilibrium’: the eonic sequence resembles a series of punctuations (the default state is not really in equilibrium) in a frequency pattern. The term is intuitive, but we use it to start, and then change terminology: it is someone else’s term and has been grafted onto Darwinism, spoiling its use.
We will speak of transitions and a frequency hypothesis: the transitions come about about every 2400 years, visible most unexpectedly since the invention of writing ca. five thousand years ago. The transitions show massive social innovations and cultural transformation in a limited period, with results diffusing into their environment. The transitions also can occur in parallel, e.g. the Axial Age. The modern transition from 1500 to 1800 shows a massive cascade of innovations, and concludes around 1800. The modern era is thus shot out of canon and diffuses rapidly to create for the first time a global civilization. Continue reading “The eonic effect/model as a bare glimpse of evolution, of civilization, and possibly of evolution deep time”
One can only recommend the eonic model of the eonic effect to get a right perspective on evolution. The text of Decoding WH is free. Read it and exit from the endless futility of the Darwin debate. This is not ‘still another theory’ but is does venture to claim a glimpse of evolution based on the almost infinitesimal fragment in world history called the eonic effect: a clear smoking gun for something ‘non-random’ in world history, an indirect sign of some kind of dynamic.
But that much takes reading a thousand books on world history and its locales.
The question of evolution in deep time suddenly comes into intelligible view as being so utterly vast in scale that no form of science so far known can produce a theory. As a guess, we suspect that cosmology and fine-tuning arguments have some relevance, but then who knows.
What are we talking about? ‘Evolution’ in deep time is a ‘machine’ operating over billions of years, on the surface of a planet, able to either synthesize or stage the generation of, species formats themselves collating species/organismic formats, track the course of these outcomes and, remembering its previous, action, reenter the given field to remorph as relative transformation its prior output. Evolution’s scale is that of a kind of factory or laboratory floating in air in a kind of ‘field’ of some kind, and whose action is mysterious: it seems not at all a kind of ‘creationist’ process that produces a preplanned result but an experimental interaction with earth environments according to higher teleologies perhaps vague as their exact outcomes, viz. ‘Life’ versus ‘Life forms’.
All the heretical notions come back in for consideration, as the stupendous operation seems to be teleological and to envision future outcomes, e.g. the creature with mind, for example.
(we considered the idea of hyparxis, a sort of new-age spooky physics version of entanglement where the analog to wring a novel and its hyparchic drafts might reflect the two-level operation, teleology and the specifics of environmental interaction),
What we have pointed to here is very far indeed from any theory. So why not abjure theories for the time being and consider the empirical immensity of the ‘archaeology’ of deep time. We have always being doing that all along, distracted by the fantasy of theories.
Update: Decoding World History ED 1_6dcdx The ID group complains of censorship. But they are hoist on their own petard. After twenty years they still haven’t discussed the issue of design in …
Source: The ID Deception and the ‘atheist’ advantage in design arguments//Decoding World History and the correct approach to design in history – 1848+: The End(s) of History
In many ways the question answers itself and the real question is how the world of evolutionary biologists could have been stuck for so long in a fallacious darwinian mindset that has simply discredited the whole profession. Evem amateurs have done better and in fact taken over the front line of the whole question while brain dead PHD’s mumble the old nonsense.
The left can help here with a simplified public take on evolution: although the fact/theory debate has suffered chronic disinfo confusion (on both sides) the basic point, restated remains clear: we look into deep time and see factually that evolution is real. But at the same time a scientific framework to really explain that is not so simple. That’s all that is needed here. Defending ‘natural selection’ there at this point simply exposes some kind of agenda. The very simple formulation above is all that is needed to bypass darwinian fundamentalism, leftist social darwinian, and creationist attempts to inject religion.
Source: Why is the left stuck is darwinian ideology? – 1848+: The End(s) of History