Page 141 - Flipping book The Adam Paradox Hypothesis - Second Edition.pdf

The Ādam Paradox Hypothesis 118
3. Gradualism (d’Errico)
Claim: Symbolic behavior accumulated slowly from ~150 ka onward.
✅ Strengths: Matches African evidence of early symbolic sparks.
❌ Logical fallacies: Category error, retrospective determinism.
🌍 World opinion:
European research groups (CNRS, Bordeaux, etc.) strongly support
gradualism.
Smithsonian: presents gradualist evidence (ochre, beads, early burials)
prominently.
NAS: accepts gradualism as plausible, though many argue it cannot
explain the sharp threshold effect.
🔎 Scientific verdict: Respected in Europe, mainstream in museums, but
increasingly seen as insufficient to explain the abrupt ignition ~70 ka.
4. APH — Adam Paradox Hypothesis
Claim: Anatomical modernity arose early (~200–300 ka), but symbolic
cognition ignited later (~70 ka) due to specific genomic regulatory switches
(FOXP2, HAR1, SRGAP2C, ARHGAP11B).
✅ Strengths:
Explains the fossil–symbolism gap.
Identifies testable genomic mechanisms.
Predicts the archaeological pattern precisely.
Falsifiable: makes direct genetic–archaeological predictions.
🔄 Apparent Weakness → Strength: Requires paleogenomic confirmation
— but this makes it predictive and testable, unlike other models.
🌍 World opinion:
Harvard geneticists / Broad Institute: emphasize FOXP2, HAR1, and
regulatory genes, though without framing them as a unifying APH.
Smithsonian / Human Origins Program: acknowledge the paradox
between early anatomy and delayed symbolism, but stop short of
endorsing a threshold hypothesis.
NAS & cutting-edge genetics: recognize regulatory loci (e.g.,
SRGAP2C) as pivotal, though no consensus model yet integrates them
fully.