Those would be the references to your personal take on evolution.Nothing more.
So you said:"However I observe that there is more to see in the references that are being used. "
And I said I wasnt' sure what you meant and you say the above.
Ok, I have to ask what more is there to see?
I'm sorry, I'm just not following you. I'm seeing that terms are being tossed around that really don't apply and I can't seem to get anyone to differentiate biological evolution and the "Industrial Revolution" evolution- two completely different concepts.
Some folks wants to try and apply the evolution of Aikido to the concept of biological evolution, which is a change in the DNA, over maybe thousands or millions of years, to improve a species to adapt to survive and that just doesn't apply.
The other evolution, the kind I'm talking about is the concept of simply changing (improving) a technique because it gets you hurt in competition (or combat) or just doesn't work. The folks that do get this are saying that Aikido is perfect and doesn't need changing. To that I say anything manmade is NOT perfect and always has room for improvement. The some say it's the person that evolves, not the art. To that I say, yes we do evolve as people practitioners (hopefully), but that's not what I'm talking about. I'm talking specifically about the evolution of Aikido (because that's what this thread is about).