Page 218 - Flipping book The Adam Paradox Hypothesis - Second Edition.pdf

The Ādam Paradox Hypothesis 195
Falsifier 3 — Parallel Ignitions in Other Hominins
Test: If Neanderthals or Denisovans show sustained symbolic culture
independent of Homo sapiens, APH collapses.
Clarification: Occasional pigment use is acceptable. A continuous symbolic
package (art, trade, ritual law) is not.
Probability: <15% under APH,
~60% under gradualism.
The Math
If Neanderthals or Denisovans developed their own continuous symbolic
culture (art, trade, ritual, law) — not just scattered pigments or ornaments —
then APH fails.
Why:
APH says the ignition was unique to Homo sapiens. Occasional symbolic sparks
in other hominins are fine, but a sustained symbolic package outside our lineage
would disprove it.
Explaining the Probabilities
Under APH (<15%)
Since APH sees ignition as a one-time event tied to Homo sapiens’
genome, the chance of Neanderthals or Denisovans independently
reaching the same threshold is very low.
Think of it like lightning striking the same tree twice — unlikely, but
not impossible.
Under Gradualism (~60%)
Gradual models expect that any hominin with a big brain should
eventually accumulate symbols, myths, and rituals.
If cognition evolves step by step, then it’s more probable than not
(~60%) that Neanderthals or Denisovans would have built sustained
symbolic traditions too.
Takeaway:
If strong, continuous symbolic culture is ever proven in
Neanderthals/Denisovans, APH collapses. The math is simple: APH = very
unlikely (<15%), Gradualism = more likely (~60%).