The point is simple: we see that we must be in search of the other level of evolution that we have concluded must be present, and this we suspect will be visible as 'non-random evolution'. The tenacity of the Darwinian claim to random evolution stands as the basis of the confusion Darwin's theory creates, because the micro aspect of the selectionist process is blind to the future and simply leaves 'evolution' to follow random outcomes. 

We suspect that a larger process is at work, probably in tandem, or complementary to this process, and that we must therefore see if we can discover it. 

The problem, of course is that if evolution is random it will be slow, continuous, and easy to observe. Its complement, we should guess, is likely therefore to be fast, discontinuous and hard to observe. If it is fast and discontinuous, then we may be misled by the surface spectacle of deep time where, due to the assumption of continuity, we allow ourselves a generalization about large intervals, indeed very large intervals, millions of years in length. The complementary intervals may be invisible because, if they are fast, they are very much shorter, and thus without any record at all that we can so far detect. 

In fact, it might be that evolution in our sense is just at the threshold of temporal manifestation, hence virtually invisible to the naked eye, save in the momentum generated by its short durations. 

The problem seems hopeless, but it is history itself that gives us the clue. 

Top