| |
We can restate this as a photo finish argument, falsifying
Darwinism. The problem is that
‘history’ and ‘evolution’ overlap, so our account is moving towards a
photo finish contradiction. We are beginning to see something totally different
from what Darwinists propose. Nor is it likely that earlier human emergence
could be something completely different from this. The eonic effect
shows us direct examples of the
evolution of social units, religions, cultural entities, at a high level, in a
non-genetic macroevolution. The core nature of man and his culture springs from
the very period Darwinists assume for their account. Are we to suppose without
proof this was purely genetic? The brief photo finish
of human evolution since the
beginning of civilization is thus beginning to suggest a surprising set of
facts.
Darwinism fails a reality check, given the eonic effect,
and thus flunks a photo finish test. If someone says the racehorse is one color,
and the photo finish shows another, the original claim comes under suspicion. If
the claim is made that cultural and biological evolution are distinct, we can
construct (below) an evolution of freedom argument demanding an overlap of some
unified homogenous evolution. Over and over people have suspected something is
missing in Darwin’s theory. We sense immediately that we have found it, and in our own history.
The search for a ‘something’ that might ‘cause evolution’ against the
random suddenly becomes visible in our own history, seen in the very pattern of
human activity taken over the long term. We see conclusive evidence of a global
aspect to evolution.
Call for a ‘Time out’ on
Darwinism Therefore the selectionist claims for Darwin on the descent of man
should be withdrawn, effective immediately, and put on hold until we can branch
via falsifications. Checkmate for claims of proof. Stalemate for claims of
theory. No selectionist account of adaptation has properly accounted for the
rapid emergence of early man. We have insufficient data to resolve this issue,
but the facts of world history must make us suspicious of how this transition
happened, and a bit skeptical of the claims for some important or uniquely
significant mutation. Such claims, in any case, have never been properly
verified, even as the theory is promoted as already achieved.[i]
|
|
