The pieces are beginning to fall into place. We are confusing two things, something we should call microevolution from something else, not easy to detect, that we should call macroevolution. The process of random microevolution, following the scheme of natural selection, is the visible surface of life, but beyond this is something else, perhaps intermittent in its action, that actually does the work of 'evolution'.

Remarkably, it is in history itself that we are able to find the best example of the difference, as we will see in subsequent sections. We have the smoking gun, the evidence right in our backyard, of the Axial period, a spectacular 'discontinuity' in world history, that corresponds to a 'macro' something at work driving the emergence of civilization. This evidence is unmistakable, if incomplete, and quite spectacular, and a reminder that we are completely missing the point if we confuse evolution with the micro aspect of natural selection.