Page 104 - Flipping book The Adam Paradox Hypothesis - Second Edition.pdf

The Ādam Paradox Hypothesis
Where the Evolutionary Account Struggles
81
The convergence model is elegant in outline, but it falters
under closer scrutiny. What appears at first to be a coherent
synthesis collapses into a patchwork of assumptions,
contradictions, and unfalsifiable claims. For all its
sophistication, it fails to resolve the central paradox: why
anatomically modern humans remained silent for over
200,000 years, only to erupt suddenly in a blaze of symbolism.
Table 9.2 — Logical & Scientific Struggles in Evolutionary Threshold
Models
1. The Chronological Contradiction: Genes Mistimed
A central weakness lies in the timing of genetic candidates.
The derived FOXP2 variant was already present in
Neanderthals and Denisovans more than 400,000 years ago
(Krause et al., 2007). SRGAP2C duplication occurred ~2.4
Mya (Dennis et al., 2012). HAR1 and other human accelerated
regions began diverging rapidly after the human–chimpanzee
split more than five million years ago (Pollard et al., 2006). If
these were decisive, why did symbolism not ignite until
~70kya?
This timing mismatch exposes a post hoc fallacy:
attributing a late effect (~70kya symbolism) to ancient causes
without explaining the long delay. As Ian Tattersall observed,
“Modern human symbolic thought is without precedent, without
precursors, and without parallel.
”