If evolution runs forward in parallel with chronological eventiture (the positive time axis), why do we struggle to describe the next step in the evolution of man? The possibilities should be endless, but probably we fear the worst, that other types will surely take dominion over the earth in similar fashion to the way we have.
Look at the first man. Call him Adam to piss everyone off. He did what the apes around him could not, which was question his own existence, and the reason for doing things, instead of just doing them. He was the first philosopher, and the first sage. If other apes did similar things on other parts of the earth, the galaxy, or the universe, he was the first to do it and succeed. There, I birth unto you a nation, and you are descendants of apes. Descend, descent. The nomenclature is reversed, and we’re supposed to not notice.
Humanity will go extinct because it is too self-aware, or else, like most times through history when civilization hits breaking point, the morons will call the geniuses witchdoctors, slaughter them, and repeat the mistakes these geniuses warned against, “guilt free.” From this point, would we really want primates to evolve again? Clearly they only produce clever, hairless primates, with nothing awesome to show for themselves except civilizations that tend toward the brink of collapse.
Snakes should be a good candidate. If they find a way to display fitness with extravagance, they’re already halfway there. Assuming size and number are constant, reality seems to favor the slippery type that can slither its way into a position of dominance. They should probably learn herbivoral tendencies however, because being simply a predator has no social selection value. They also only have reptilian cranial capacity, but that’s nothing 100 million years can’t shore up, and from there developing the ability to reason like us should be a breeze. Right?
If it runs backward (i.e. organizational complexity decreases with time), the entire materialist worldview of civilized history is in trouble, because it only spells decay. “Evolution must run forward. It just must.” That’s not the scientific method, which is grounded in observation. The crux is that you’re not supposed to ask what’s next.
“Okay, look. It was more of a heuristic than that. A group separated and thrived in a new location, then later spread out of Africa. There was no one alpha male, but groups of them.” How regimented and organized. Like a troupe! How convenient, because nature avoids incest. Are you sure? The groups are still descendents of a single group.
The reality is, the permutations that allow for an ordered line of descent mean you cannot avoid him, only compartmentalize him, forget about him, and build theories over larger abstractions. At some point, there was one man who stopped being a moron, married an Eve, and the rest is history (his story). His contemporaries copied his methods but their descendants died out or devolved, because they followed imitations, not the real thing.
The upshot is to propose that evolution is not even science, but philosophy of science. This is part truth, part political tactic. It redefines science, where it’s only necessary to note that science is full of holes and contradictions because its oath is that we know nothing except what we can test, and evolution takes millions of years to produce results.
For intelligent people who can read compound sentences, the details of evolution are clear as the light of day. The implication of these details is what they are unable to handle. Some of them don’t want to be related to apes, but it’s not the relation per se that bothers them. Descent. We share an ancestor with chimpanzees. We are descendents of primates. Are you sure this is the only possibility? Take your descendents. Are you in awe of them, or will they be in awe of you? If there is no awe, it has been replaced with nihilism.
If you want to build a platform for academics to become professionals, you must fail to make a decision on philosophy. That is for heroes with zeal who took another route where the herd went into the safety of obscurity. At the very least, evolution must mirror the process of life, or else there is no point to it. The embryo grows to adolescence, then the bones stop growing and hardening of the arteries, already in process since birth, accelerates. So now if we are being kind, we can say for any one species, evolution runs forward first, up to its height (Golden Age), then it becomes inefficient, clueless, and eventually self-defeating, and devolves.
Devolution would be part of the science of the future if it was brave, but instead fairytales will take over because most of them didn’t read Darwin all the way to the end. Fairly recently, the literature of evolutionary taxonomy was modified to include dinosaurs as the ancestors of modern birds: birds are considered to be dinosaurs. The “flying dinosaurs” survived the extinction. Really? That’s all that’s left of those giant, awe inspiring creatures? Little birds. You can seriously question if this was only an excuse to finally make cousinry between a living species and poor lonely dinosaurs. But it’s not quite that. They put in a “discovery” that the clueless are still now putting the pieces together for. Descent.