One of the most persistent confusions in all discussions of evolution is the issue of randomness. Part of the reason is that under severe challenge Darwinists have taken to denying that natural selection is random. Thus we have random mutation and non-random natural selection. 

But this stance is misleading. For non-random selection is not the same a non-random evolution. The former is a statement about survival of the fittest, and environmental contexts. The latter is usually about some factor influencing evolution on the large scale, macro-evolution, shall we say. This may or may not imply some form of 'evolutionary directionality'. The term 'directionality' has suffered the same fate. 'Directionality' should mean that we are talking about something far larger in scale than the 'random walks' of natural selection, or the emergence of environmental' fitness. 

One example of large scale 'directionality' is a simple feedback device in a room of people. The sequence of behaviors of the people in a room is one thing. But the sudden switching on of the thermostat shows 'directionality' as to temperature. Thus a kind of 'large scale' direction is different from the direction created by the actions in the room. This is one example. 

We are saying then that in history, at least, we see large scale 'directionality' that is independent of the temporal stream. This, therefore, generates a 'non-random' pattern visible as three turning points. 

World History and the Eonic Effect opens with the statement:

At a time when theories of evolution are undergoing renewed controversy in the din of scientific and religious dialectic, and of the appearance of any number of books critical of Darwinism, discussion is hampered by the remoteness of the phenomenon of evolution, and the use of indirect inference to speculate about something that has never been observed. In the face of much criticism from religious Creationists, adherents of Darwinism often defend textbook versions of the theory that have, in any case, often been held in question. The assumption that evolution occurs, and must occur, at random is the crux of the dispute, and one unreasonably confused with issues of religion and secularization. The rise of molecular biology shows a complexity of structure that cannot easily survive statistical challenges to claims of random emergence.

Many have a problem at the beginning here. But the term 'random' can be very confusing. The critique of Darwinism in the text is almost elemental. These kinds of statements are part and parcel of the Darwin debate. Yet they have never really been answered or refuted. That is, the question of statistics, of randomness, of the full efficacy of natural selection, all have 'standard rebuttals', but a close look shows the invariant persistence of one and the same objections. The real issue is the confusion created by Creationist agendas, and is often a quarrel over naturalism. In any case, our historical argument speaks for itself and needs to be seen on its own terms. 

There a different issue arises. We see the term 'random' would be used to describe the pieces of a puzzle, 'taken at random', but which, seen as meaningful as parts of a whole, suddenly become non-random pieces of a coherent 'solution to the puzzle'. Even an incomplete solution, a few pieces taken together, shows that there is a 'non-random' pattern involved. Thus we need not solve the whole puzzle to demonstrate a non-random pattern.

It is worth reading Hoyle and Wickramsinghe's Evolution From Space. This was a typical objection at the most basic level to the statistical problems with Darwin's theory. Survey the Internet, and you will find a host of irate 'refutations' of Hoyle here. Yet none of them really answer the question.

Not only that, a close look shows that the objection has in fact been verified in practice. We were to believe that natural selection fully explains all organismic transformations. Yet now we find conceded that developmental processes and factors like hox genes are to replace the original form of the account. So the critics actually won the debate, but only in part, and only as long as they didn't try Creationist explanations for the obvious statistical problems. The issue then abuts therefore most probably to the 'random evolution' or not of some kind of basic 'evolutionary toolkit' that can then randomly construct these genomes.

Whatever the case with that, the stance of the beginning point of the eonic model and its discussions has fairly well established what it needs for its starting point, the massive libraries of out of date textbooks to the contrary.

In general, the eonic model doesn't offer too much about the full scope of evolution. Our enquiry is historical data and the term 'non-random pattern' has its own sufficient definition. We must suspect that this impinges on the descent of man, although we do not speculate.

In general, we can see that the limits of natural selection suggest some kind of macroevolution or system dynamics, or directional and/or teleological explanation. That is not the same as saying this defies the canons of naturalistic explanation.

The Darwin debate is overly complicated by the immense confusion of 'attack and defend', lawyering argumentation that is misleading, and the distracting suggestion that we know what we in fact don't know.

Reply to a query stating that "evolution as seen by Darwinism is not simply 'random genetic evolution', but mutation and selection"

>>>>Reply
Over and over I met this objection about the term 'random'. I will post a webpage on the matter. It is partly from the work of Richard Dawkins that this distinction arises. Now it is considered as a result that while mutation is random, natural selection is non-random. ?! If that's the way you define it, fine. But what does this mean? It simply means that selection, I would take it, is seen as 'environmentally de-randomized'. The issue of 'random evolution' is left untouched by this revised terminology. You can't have you cake and eat it too, in this case. Otherwise we should claim, as I do claim, non-genetic directional processes for evolution, while Dawkins would emphatically not claim. The point is clarified perhaps in the introduction to S. Kauffman's At Home in the Universe, where 'chance and necessity' are distinguished. If there is some unknown factor of necessity in the large to evolution, in any regard, then this will de-randomize the overall pattern of evolution. That's not the same as the 'non-random' aspect of natural selection, which is not likely to leave a large-scale non-random pattern of this type.


I make this claim about non-random patterning in world history on the basis of historical data, then infer from the putative overlap of 'history and evolution' that something is missing in accounts of the descent of man. And if history is any guide it is a truly difficult aspect of evolution. For it requires both the large scale and the short, very short, range.

Thus the question of 'non-random natural selection' was not the substance of the original use of the term 'random' by Darwin critics, as in 'random evolution'. To say that natural selection is non-random does not mean that evolution overall is non-random. The latter means that something very large scale on the order of genuine 'macroevolution' is a factor. That is hard to detect, and very hard to analyze. But it is NOT very hard to detect the existence of such a thing in the short range of world history.
A strong claim. The model at http://eonix.8m.com/enx_theory1.htm  does in fact provide such evidence.
It is hard to deal with such a large data set, yet this is a mere five thousand year stretch, and, to be sure, at a very late stage of evolution. We don't normally consider this evolution at all.
But the case is very strong that it is. However this induces a basic 'reality' question. It is not so much that we see linguistic evolution, as that we see there is a complex component to the core questions of 'cultural evolution' that is macro.

In terms of history, to say that history shows a non-random pattern (as my own material on world history) is a statement beyond even the level of genetics. We see indirect evidence of long range processes.
It is hard to avoid this conclusion after adopting careful periodization analysis of the known civilizational sequence in its mainline. This shows clear 'de-randomization', i.e. things just take off on a centuries level cue or tempo.
That's devastating. Darwinism assumes such things could not exist and defaults to 'causal-sequential' reductionist genetics. Such evolution is real in any case, but its claim to exclusivity becomes highly questionable.

But, as to history, we can see large-scale, fast tempo, macro accelerants at the centuries. But abstract system dynamics, independent of place and period, returning in hopscotch sequences.
This is the worst case scenario for Darwinists. At least it has flavor of naturalistic processes.
The question of linguistics arises from the clear correlation of sudden literary phenomena in the basic macro tempo. You can say that's purely cultural and not organismic, but I doubt if that is the real issue.

The material of the eonic model needs amplification. I will post additional commentary to make this strange form of basically simple periodization-analysis clearer.
Thank you for your comments.
John Landon