I am still thinking about your reply. You have underlined the independence of Marx's philosophical influences from Darwinian influences. Which was the basis of Veblen's criticism of Marx: he built his system on Hegelian dialectics instead of Darwinian evolutionism (plus a bit of DeVries mutationism and Mendelian genetics--the Darwinism Veblen used was in a very confused state at that point).
Also to continue this debate, I will have to see where the Ernst Mayr-John Greene debate stands today over the philosophical implications implicit in Darwin's revolution of which he himself was of course often quite unaware.
There are many interpretations of Marx's relation to Hegel: Althusser/Colletti (Marx as critic of Hegelian hypostatization), John Rosenthal (who treats as a coincidence the applicability of Hegelian categories to the analysis of money), Patrick Murray (Marx's indebtedness to Hegel's logic for appreciation of the appearance-essence and form-content relation and the burdens of critique), Georg Lukcas, Guy Debord (see recent bio with intro by TJ Clark on Debord's use of the categories of Lukacs' Hegelian Marxism), Moishe Postone (critic of the totality implicit in that Marxism), Raya Dunayevskaya (don't understand her work on absolute), Tony Smith (Marx's use of Hegelian logic for the dialectical derivation of categories), Chris Arthur (the applicability of Hegelian logic to the perverse properties of capital), Michael Williams (similar to Arthur and Smith), John Rees (haven't read).
By the way, I meant to say effective dissolution of philosophy as the metaphysic of statis. I inverted my prepositions. Sorry.