Page 187 - Flipping book The Adam Paradox Hypothesis - Second Edition.pdf

The Ādam Paradox Hypothesis 164
14.4 World Opinion and Its Limits
Proposal: Mainstream Models Fail the Threshold Test
Across academia, three dominant narratives attempt to explain the Cognitive
Revolution. Each claims to provide a naturalistic solution:
Harvard (Demography): innovation emerged as populations grew and ideas
accumulated (Mellars, 2006).
Smithsonian (Public Narrative): symbolism evolved gradually, accumulating
across scattered sparks.
National Academy of Sciences (Genetics): adaptive gene sweeps (e.g.,
FOXP2) explain symbolic cognition.
But under careful scrutiny — archaeological, logical, and mathematical — each
fails. Their gaps are not minor. They are fatal. The Cognitive Revolution
remains inexplicable without a threshold model. APH alone explains the silence
and the symphony.
1. Harvard (Demography Model)
Claim: Larger populations generate more innovations; density allows cultural
accumulation.
Logical Gap: This model is reverse causality. It assumes innovation as a
consequence of population size. But how could populations scale without
symbols to bind strangers together? Dunbar’s limit (~150 individuals)
demonstrates that kinship alone cannot sustain large groups.
Mathematical Improbability: Population growth without symbolic systems is
unstable. Pre-70 ka bands should have collapsed under coordination failures
once they exceeded ~150 individuals. Yet after 70 ka, we see explosive dispersal
into Sahul, Europe, and Asia. This synchrony cannot be explained by
demography alone.
APH Verdict: Cognition enabled growth, not the reverse. Symbolic ignition
allowed societies to scale, producing the demographic boom.