Page 188 - Flipping book The Adam Paradox Hypothesis - Second Edition.pdf

The Ādam Paradox Hypothesis 165
2. Smithsonian (Gradualism Model)
Claim: Symbolic behaviors accumulated slowly over hundreds of thousands of
years.
Logical Gap: The archaeological record disproves continuity. For 250,000
years, we find only sporadic sparks — a bead at Qafzeh, ochre scratches at
Pinnacle Point. None stabilize into traditions. Then suddenly, after ~70 ka,
stable symbolism erupts globally: beads, burials, art, figurines, music.
Scientific Contradiction: If gradualism were true, we would expect a slope of
increase — more beads, more engravings, more caves — between 300–100 ka.
Instead, we see a flat plateau of silence followed by a steep cliff of culture.
Mathematical Refutation: Cultural accumulation requires continuity. But the
probability that thousands of groups across continents failed to stabilize any
symbolic system for 250,000 years, only to ignite simultaneously, is effectively
zero.
APH Verdict: Sparks existed, but without ignition they always extinguished.
The Adamic threshold marks the decisive difference between failed sparks and
permanent fire.
3. NAS (Genetic Sweep Model)
Claim: Adaptive gene sweeps (e.g., FOXP2) explain the emergence of symbolic
cognition.
Logical Gap: FOXP2 was fixed ~200 ka. HAR1 ~300 ka. SRGAP2C ~2–3
Ma. Yet symbolic culture did not appear until ~70 ka. Genes were present, but
behavior was absent. This is latency without logic under a purely evolutionary
model.
Mathematical Refutation: The probability of 15 loci aligning randomly and
igniting together is ~10⁻⁴⁵ to 10⁻⁹⁰
. Evolutionary biology treats probabilities
below 10⁻⁵⁰
as effectively impossible.
Scientific Contradiction: Genes explain readiness, not ignition. A genome
prepared long before ignition is proof of threshold, not convergence.
APH Verdict: Genes are hardware. The Adamic threshold was the software
activation — an infusion, not a mutation.