Page 115 - Flipping book The Adam Paradox Hypothesis - Second Edition.pdf

The Ādam Paradox Hypothesis 92
Response to Evolutionary Convergence Models Critics
The Adam Paradox Hypothesis (APH) enters a field long dominated by
evolutionary convergence accounts. To ensure fairness, this appendix examines
the strongest counter-arguments offered by evolutionary biologists and provides
structured replies grounded in mathematics, archaeology, and logic.
1. The Assumption Objection: “Your synchrony model depends on arbitrary
parameters.
”
Claim. Critics argue that modeling probabilities for multi-locus synchrony
relies on simplifying assumptions: population size, mutation rate, synchrony
window, target size, and selection coefficient.
Response. The chosen parameters are not arbitrary but generous: a
population of 10,000, mutation rate 10−810−8 per base, a large target size
of 100 bases, and a relatively strong selection coefficient of 2%. These
assumptions deliberately bias toward evolutionary success. Even then, the
synchrony probability for three loci within 100 generations falls below
0.006%, and for ten loci collapses to effectively zero. Tightening
assumptions only worsens the probability.
Prediction. Sensitivity analyses across parameter ranges (population size,
target width, selection strength) consistently confirm that synchrony is
mathematically implausible.
2. The Background-Waiting Objection: “Switches could arise earlier and lie
dormant until others appeared.
”
Claim. Some argue that beneficial mutations may fix long before ~70kya
and remain latent, awaiting complementary changes.
Response. This shifts the problem to timescales. Under generous
assumptions, waiting and fixation for one locus averages ~110,000 years.
For 10–15 loci, the expected time rises to 0.6–1.7 million years. If cognition
had emerged this way, the archaeological record would show a gradient of
artifacts—steadily improving tools, ornaments, and symbolic traces across a
million-year span.
Archaeology contradicts this. Instead, we observe a long silence (315–
100kya) interrupted only by sparks that vanish, followed by a sharp, global
ignition post-70kya. The absence of a continuous trail falsifies the waiting
model.