It's not the evolutionary progress its the well balanced sum of the whole
It's a 2012 F100 with an updated AF module, a very nice digital sensor and a pretty nice (although fixed) LCD.
Don't really see anything game-changing about that.
It doesn't do anything to:
1) Address the new possibilities raised by digital. It's an SLR with an imaging chip.
2) Let you compose using the LCD with useful autofocus for any subject moving faster than a drunk slug.
3) Shoot video with the EVF or real autofocus in video or liveview mode
4) Eliminate the problem of shutter shake or mirror slap
5) Stabilize the camera against shake (you have to buy special built, sometimes compromised glass for this).
It's a really nice refinement of the SLR design, for sure. But it doesn't do anything particularly INNOVATIVE at all. I suppose if I felt the SLR design were the pinnacle of photographic evolution I might be more impressed. But I don't, and I'm not.
I guess the removal of the anti-moire filter in the "E" model is a bit of an innovation -albeit one that I personally believe is a mistake (just perform a bit more capture sharpening and you're there). I am not one who feels the idea of false colors along sharp edges is an innovation worth having (although admittedly this is a CHOICE -- you can't really fault Nikon for offering that, can you!)
I blame the customer for all this. Buyers of $3000 cameras and $20,000 worth of lenses are, in the main, men in their 40s, 50s and 60s who have been using SLRs for 10, 20, 30 or more years. They don't want "breakthrough" and "innovative". So Nikon and Canon continue offering up familiar, improved rehashes of the products they have been shipping for 30+ years with occasional improvements "dropped in".
Meanwhile, Sony, Olympus and Panasonic continue to innovate and remain stuck in a distant third, fourth or fifth place. It's depressing. But not a surprise given who buys expensive system cameras. You can't blame Canon and Nikon for building what their customers want.