(May 12, 2013 at 11:13 pm)Rhythm Wrote: Behavioral modernity is an observation. What you;re referring to is not the observation, but one of the hypothesis associated with the observation.
One faction of a current divide contends that it was a sudden event but they have some nagging bits of evidence suggesting that it wasn't to contend with- and those are the bits that the other side of the camp rely on when they form their hypothesis.
The flaw in the idea of a sudden change to behavioral modernity is simple. We find examples of pieces of what we would call behavioral modernity that predate the proposed timeframe of any sudden change. It looks cumulative, though once the "total package" is there, it is - granted -impressive.
It's pointless to invoke what we "might one day discover" when attempting t explain something using this method. We explain the unknown by reference to the known. There's no need for you to imagine a neanderthal picasso to point out problems for the hypothesis you're skeptical about.
I get that it's an observation, however it seems fanciful that all of a sudden we acted as fully sapient beings 50,000 years ago.
