The study of the macro effect is an exercise in finding directionality where least expected: the method is so simple it is almost silly: use a kind of putative systems analysis by looking for cyclical intervals of any wave length. The result converges on the facts of the case in the process confirming our rough intuitions, e.g. why do we speak of the ‘middle ages’, of ‘modernity’, etc…
The trial and error answer is that world history shows directionality based on a frequency pattern of 2400 hundred years, starting ca. 3000 BCE, with a differential of about three hundred years expressing an aspect of the cyclicity, e.g. 1500 to 1800. The data shows a bare three term series, so the overall status of the discovery is not completely solid. However interior evidence related to what we do have starts to converge rapidly as multiple independent factors suggest strongly the rightness of the interpretation. For example we can tell a ‘story’ is a story even if we don’t have the start or finish. The idea of a ‘story’ can be highly misleading, but the essential point is clear.
Further it is easy to see, but not quite confirmable, that our series goes back at least as far the Neolithic, 8000 BCE or before. The realization dawns on us that we must have data at the level of centuries to see what is going on: we only have that since the invention of writing. So the Neolithic is a bit murky.
There are further complications: a frontier effect, relative transformations, a new and more abstract ‘unit of analysis’, the interaction of dynamism and free agency next to a concept of the ‘evolution’ of freedom, the need for a ‘global perspective’ and the parallel effect next to the sequential effect. http://history-and-evolution.com/whee4th/chap3_5.htm: A New Model of History…
The sense of an interior system becomes overwhelming and it answers to the counterintuitive question, how could a directional (teleological) system operate on a dispersed proliferation of civilizations?
What is the connection to ‘evolution’? The answer is trivial actually: any developmental system is ‘evolution’, despite the fact that darwinians deny this and claim evolution is random. But is there a connection to earlier evolution? Almost certainly there is but the point is still open: what our new model shows is a directional system that operates in a discrete/continuous fashion. Surely that is what we are seeing in deep time: a continuous microevolution of forms with a higher macroevolution that is intermittent and drives ‘evolution’ through a series of stages. The idea that natural selection does all this is simply speculation, and highly dubious. Surely the Cambrian shows a directional system in action.
This result is hard for people because it is hard to scope an entity as complex as world history and because ideas of structured history go against the grain. But the evidence is against the mainstream view. Basically we are dealing with teleology and ‘science’ current can’t handle that.