Re: Evolution Discussion - Addendum to my Recent Points

I find this a fascinating reaction. However, keep in mind the idea of _relative_ beginnings in the eonic model. 
The problem with Darwin's theory is the reductionist need, quite understandable, to produce an account of absolute origins. Thus Darwinism, as science, must start with the beginning of life, proceed via the Cambrian to the present, etc... Please note that Darwinism can't explain the origin of life, and has no account that works of absolute beginnings!!!!!  Except a bit of fiction, and diverting attention from this in text books. 

The point of my eonic model (the reason for the term e-sequence of the eonic shard) is to drop the requirement of absolute beginnings, and focus on the 'evolution that we see' since the invention of writing. If it can't be reduced to some prior evolution, tough luck.
The evidence of history overrides Darwinian obsessions to produce that Total Account. That account assumes uniform process throughout. But this unlikely. It doesn't even work up to the beginnings of life. 
There may be endless different processes at work. Certainly history suggests it. 

Also note the antinomy of finite beginning and no beginning in another of Kant's antinomies. I find it remarkable that the eonic model simply shows structure
with no absolute beginning
and no ending!!!

It makes scientific minds nervous to think about. 

Such properties are clear indicated by the abruptness of transitions. There is no absolute beginning to these transitions, although there is a prior transition. 
And so on. 

So you are stumbling into one of the model's strong points! 

In general, unless we have evidence, the question of what happened earlier is hopeless. We cannot easily say. And whatever we say we must prove it with evidence. 
I don't think, therefore, that a true and comprehensive theory of evolution is possible. At least as to the descent of man. There is NO way around it. 
And all the VIP mythmakers need to rig the Myth at just that point. Such is the world we live in. 
After two thousand years of religious myths, the same bunch of politicos in a new disguise invent the Darwin myth. 
Good for business. 
All those monkeys that got bigger brains via natural selection and competition. 
Great for business. Great. 



In a message dated 5/12/2003 8:47:24 PM Eastern Daylight Time, larondin@yahoo.com writes:

> Addendum  - To Recent “Evolution” discussion … One other point I wanted to mention.  I have my concerns about the transition from “evolution” to “history” idea.  It begs the question, what was the state of true (non-Darwinian) evolution before the coming of human culture, civilization, and social life in history (either at 200,000 yrs ago, 10,000 BCE, or 4000-3000 BCE)? … How are we going to answer that question?  What really do we have to work with here? …
>
>  It also begs a question regarding “history.”  We have the pattern of the Eonic Effect to work from.  Fair enough.  However, the problem I see here is that - hypothesizing that we have a “transition” from ‘what we don’t know about’ (i.e., evolution) to ‘what we have an idea about’ (i.e., history) – we’re left in a lurch.  We have a “B” term {“History”} and an “A” term {“Evolution”} and a transitional operation in between {--->}(so that we have as our formula “E” -> “H”).  Now all we seem to have to go on for how our “A” term works is our “B” term.  But if they aren’t of the same systematic or operative ‘substance’, then we can’t infer “A” as well from “B.”  Postulating, a ‘substantial change’ as distinguished from “accidental/incidental change” from “evolution” to “history” ((which seems to be what your recent comments require)) removes any possibility of using “Eonic” History to draw a line of inference back to what evolution “may have been like.”



John Landon
Website for
World History and the Eonic Effect
http://eonix.8m.com
Blogzone
http://www.xanga.com/nemonemini