Most of paleoanthrpology makes sense, other than "behavioural modernity".
How come we at 50,000 years "all of a sudden" became truly sapient and could abstract, ponder and reason?
The theory has some flaws as I see it:
- What caused this supposed DNA mutation?
- In essence then, were homo sapiens prior to this mutation not of the same species, or more accurately were a subspecies? Clearly their brains were not the same morphologically or physiologically as our own.
- Who is to say homo heidelbergensis or homo erectus/ergaster did not make primitive art forms? There is no evidence they did, but the contrary is also true, is it not? Moreover, whilst we did not descend from Neanderthals, our understanding of their relative intelligence is moot. They did have on average larger brains, however they could have been as smart as we are. We just don't know for certain. Neanderthals could have readily made art, which is yet to be discovered.
How come we at 50,000 years "all of a sudden" became truly sapient and could abstract, ponder and reason?
The theory has some flaws as I see it:
- What caused this supposed DNA mutation?
- In essence then, were homo sapiens prior to this mutation not of the same species, or more accurately were a subspecies? Clearly their brains were not the same morphologically or physiologically as our own.
- Who is to say homo heidelbergensis or homo erectus/ergaster did not make primitive art forms? There is no evidence they did, but the contrary is also true, is it not? Moreover, whilst we did not descend from Neanderthals, our understanding of their relative intelligence is moot. They did have on average larger brains, however they could have been as smart as we are. We just don't know for certain. Neanderthals could have readily made art, which is yet to be discovered.
