The earth is different from other planets, which only have the dissecting forces of the sun, as external force, whilst internal development on earth rests on changing elements constantly to effect development by a combination of relationships and anti¬relationships activity. Without reasoning all other planets would rely upon accident to create development, therefore any value would be accidental. This brings us to Darwinism, for Darwinism is a step by step process of reasoning in~ an effort to link diversity from the simple to the more complex, from the under-developed to the developed, to the obsolete, to the extinct. However, the reasoning. partly relies upon the stuff that dragons and unicorns are made of. It goes back in time, developing pictures of bygone reality, say from skeletal information, in order to create links, to associate difference in a way that unites; it has no bearing on under-developed past, yet has implications for even more development and a complex future. Realistics cuts away from the present unlike Darwinism which projects toward the past. It is not to rubbish Darwinism, but to complement it, with allied guidelines that take Darwin logic to support the study of realistics and can be used in conjunction with Darwinism for a greater view of the problem.
The whole question is just how did change and development keep pace with changes in the environment? So that by and large, given the odd extinction, beings suited modified environment just at the right time; given this, at what point did beings know how to effect changes from with the self? How quick to effect change in order to reach a given point when significant change had occurred? Significant enough to be relevant to a prospective future? These questions may be answered by an element of genetic change in the DNA, being built into the genetic make-up of being and developed through relationships with the real world at a given time, i.e. we genetically pass on changes and gradual development by the relationship of the being to earth.
It would appear that whilst Darwin explains the changes, just how much change is simply coincidental? Change carries consequences of being changed. Change is causal but at what point? Or is it simply going on all the time - with beings responding to environment/life's changes that keep pace with being or vice versa. Therefore as change is complicated to understand it must therefore be more realistic to study the developed with implications for the future, whilst it is of interest that there is, was, or is going to be change in being by evolvement.
Given that man lasts for but a handful of decades, review over millions/billions of years is out of proportion to the existing, and must inevitably be filled with much of it only intelligent supposition. There have been tremendous changes in man in the last two hundred years, let alone thousands and millions, which leads to the view that to fathom creation of developed existence over the scientifically suggested 15 billion years, is to defy reasoning rather than endorse it. What Darwin did can be more intelligently answered by stating that his learning by looking for threads that unite can be put more as an early form of realistic thinking than can be justified as science. Looking for common ground that unites is different from the scientific which aims at the uncommon, separatist/divisive learning.
