Darwiniana

History, Evolution, and The Darwin Debate

Darwiniana header image 2

Wade’s muddle of micro/macro

May 17th, 2014 · No Comments

http://darwiniana.com/2014/05/17/wades-book-and-the-issues-of-iq-and-microevolution/
The confusions in Wade’s book are getting some rough treatment, even from mainstream darwinists, so the questionable methodology in that book is not getting much traction. We commented on the book using the ‘macro’ approach of WHEE (World History and the Eonic Effect: http://history-and-evolution.com).

The confusion of ‘macroevolution’ and ‘microevolution’ in standard discussions reflects the total confusion of the whole subject. To be clear, nothing in my model of world history forbids genetic changes from emerging in separate population groups. But to apply these to large-scale historical explanations (such as the Industrial Revolution, no less) is hackwork at its darwinian worst.
However we indulged in something like this ourselves in our discussion of Jewish IQ. In fact, I think I was careful to distinguish macro and micro here. First, we don’t have the data on IQ from the crucial periods in question. So we can hardly proceed with the confidence Wade shows.
The macro model of WHEE is a useful tool here. It is the same as the ‘stream and sequence’ approach in that book. This model is useful for large blocks of history, but is less useful with something so specific as IQ questions. But our model deals with large scale directional history, and defines ‘evolution’ in those terms. We can’t resolve all the issues, but the bird’s eye view of world history suggests that the relations of Semitic and Indo-European peoples during the Axial Age set in motion a macro feedback process to redress an imbalance. But the larger view is obvious from sight inspection: semitic peoples were IQ deficient. At the next cycle out pop some smart semites. In a finite transition model the bird’s eye view suggests obvious correlations. But we should be careful because ’cause and effect’ are different on different levels, and, in any case, our model is so vast all we can do is consider those bird’s eye views.
That is, we can’t really be sure of anything. The point is that we can’t quite tell if this Jewish transformation is micro or macro.

That is speculative, but the facts show the ancient Canaanites in relation to the Indo-Europeans as in a differential. In the next cycle in the macro series, out pop the modern Jews, now in a completely different region, the target region in the macrosequences’ next step, with the tables reversed. Our experience with the macro model shows us this is not coincidence.
In any case the distinction of ‘stream’ and ‘sequence’ is always there, and the result we see in the modern transition is that of the Jews in a take off, but after the French Revolution, i.e. in the stream phase. No chance there: our model shows that the macro process is not likely to strike twice on the same culture complex, but in the stream phase we see the problem solved from the previous cycle injected into the mix of modernity. Does that make sense? No. I am not being especially clear here: I will assume you have studied WHEE. But the basic point is that over the course of the macrosequence we see a clear process in transformation over a cycle period. Amazing.

Beyond that I challenged the idea that ‘evolution’/natural selection, as claimed by Wade, could have led to this. Natural selection in such short time periods is highly dubious. If it happened that way with Jews, why not in a dozen other similar cases? It is surely nonsesne. I suggested a much more obvious reason, pointing to the studies of Koestler, however flawed, and then to the obvious fact that Jews in proximity to Germans exposes the obvious fact that there was a hybrid process at work.

Enough on that, for the moment. The greater issues raised by Wade are equally dubious. The genetic basis of the rise of the West and the Industrial Revolution is almost certainly complete poppycock.

Again if you study the macro effect in WHEE, you see the clear reason for the rise of the West, and also the way that the Industrial Revolution appears in relation to the macrosequence with very exact timing. The analysis of Farewell to Alms, one source for Wade, is almost grotesquely muddled by darwinism. The original model of the macro effect distinguished the microstream of ‘economies’ and the intersection of the that in the modern transition: the economic sequence suddenly goes into explosive overdrive, as the ‘sort of’ micro process of capitalism threatens to dominate all other processes. A revolt is underay immediately: what democratic social system can deal with this economic gigantism, etc… In any case, ascribing the Industrial Reevolution to genetics seems not to work at all.

The above is a bit hurried, but I well know it is completely futile, at present, to try to penetrate the darwinian dumbhood at work here. It just goes on and on. I exposed Farewell To Alms several years ago, now we have Wade.

I am not confident that the current regime of darwinians is capable of a science of evolution. We see stuck in this rut, with no way out.

In any case, it is important to be wary of the issue of human evolution. Failure to distinguish macro and micro has befuddled everything. But it is also true that the macro interpretation is not yet fully secure. We can see that is almost obvious in one way: the period around 220K BCE shows the watershed transition period, rougly, and the exodus from African in that context is a no-brainer. But we don’t really have the full account. We don’t even know how to define homo sapiens, or what it is that evolved.

In any case, the point is the Wade’s use of the term ‘evolution’ is off the mark all the way through. This secondary microevolution of homo sapiens is entirely possible, but it can’t be confused with the larger process of macroevolution. In fact the macro effect shows how the real macro evolution is indeed still at work, but only over the intervals relevant to the ‘macrosequence’. But even the ‘micro’ claims are mostly nonsense.

There is something pitiful in this pretentious display of scientific stupidity vaunted as brilliant science. What do you do in this darwinian mess?

My account of WHEE is very rushed this time, deliberately. Get started on the study of block history in a finite transition model. The results are illuminating.

We must be vigilant: sooner or later these darwinian nutjobs are going to start killing people for the sake of ‘evolution’, and we need to be ready to stop them. The first line of defense is to point out their theoretical error. But they are stuck there. So we must also be ready to stop the masyhem from ever starting.
In any case, this kind of analysis is an excuse for exploitation as class warfare: if the Jews, etc… then, so for the poor apes at the bottom of the ape scale, exploitation is evolution…

Tags: General

0 responses so far ↓

  • There are no comments yet...Kick things off by filling out the form below.

Leave a Comment