The Unicist Ontology of Evolution

Evolution in Life Sciences
Debate with Peter Belohlavek

Debate on the unicist evolution laws applied to life sciences

“Discovery consists of seeing what everybody has seen and thinking what nobody had thought” — Dr. Albert Szent-Györgyi. 1937 Nobel in Physiology & Medicine

The Unicist Ontology of Evolution marks a new starting point. The theory explains and predicts the evolution of living beings, their produces and their actions in a unified field, ruled by concepts and their natural laws. The most relevant application fields are future research, strategy, institutional evolution and Man’s individual development and his learning process. This theory enables the analysis of and influence upon complex realities. Its reliability has been proven in its applica-tion during the last three decades. The development of this theory started in 1976 and ended in 2003 with the discovery of the origin of fallacies. Fallacies have been and remain a major obstacle to overcome for the understanding of institutions, countries and individuals. The discovery of the structure of concepts ruling the evolution of living beings set the grounds for The Unicist Ontology of Evolution. The theory fathoms into the most censored aspects of human behavior: his own evolution.

Invitation

VOIP Debates for basic and applied research institutions.
We have opened this space as an exchange of ideas regarding
The Unicist Ontology of Evolution.

Click here to request an invitation to a unicist debate

Access to Participating Members

We have opened this space as an exchange of ideas regarding
The Unicist Laws of Evolution.
Temos aberto un espaço de debate sobre as
Leis Unicistas de Evolução.
Hemos abierto un espacio de debate sobre
Las Leyes Unicistas de Evolución.

Debates in english - click here
Debates en portugués - clique aqui
Debates en español - haga clic aquí

“Objectivity cannot be equated with mental blankness; rather, objectivity resides in recognizing your preferences and then subjecting them to especially harsh scrutiny — and also in a willingness to revise or abandon your theories when the tests fail (as they usually do).” — Stephen Jay Gould