Page 202 - Flipping book The Adam Paradox Hypothesis - Second Edition.pdf

The Ādam Paradox Hypothesis 179
Mathematical Clarity:
Imagine 300,000 years as a time span. If symbolic artifacts arose gradually
with anatomy, then we should see symbols distributed evenly. By simple
proportion:
This means nearly 77% of symbolic artifacts should appear before 70,000
years ago. But in reality, almost 0% appear before that date, with >90%
appearing after. Statistically, this is like flipping a coin 100 times and getting
90 heads in a row — the chance under pure randomness is astronomically
small (p < 0.001).
Beacon Insight: Like Darwin’s finches and Einstein’s thought
experiments, the Qur
ʾānic clay metaphor directs us: the genome was
prepared, but it awaited activation.
Beacon 2 — Names (Q 2:31)
“And He taught Adam the names — all of them.
”
This is the Qur
ʾānic signal of symbolic abstraction—the ability to assign
arbitrary signs (names) to categories and concepts.
Logical Support: Non-human primates can use signals but not open-
ended symbol systems (Tomasello, 2014). Only humans sustain limitless
naming.
Scientific Proxy: Loci like FOXP2 introns regulate speech circuits (Enard
et al., 2002); HAR1 shapes cortical development (Pollard et al., 2006);
SRGAP2C stabilizes neocortical expansion (Dennis et al., 2012).
Mathematical Clarity:
Without symbolic naming, innovation decays in small groups. Cultural
transmission follows an exponential decay curve:
where I(t) is the amount of innovation retained. In small populations (say, 50
individuals), k is large, so ideas die quickly. With names, k>0 : meaning
innovation persists and accumulates instead of vanishing.