(May 12, 2013 at 10:43 pm)dazzn Wrote: 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.
If it is clear to you, then you are dilusional. There is no direct evidence that morphologically brains of earlier anatomically modern homo sapiens were different from ours in meaningful ways.
We might infer they differ in some way not readily detected in fossils, but that it is. It is certainly not obvious from available evidence.
Also, some modern humans are obviously more stupid than others. In fact, given the range of intelligence present amongst human populations, it would not be a bad inference to say some percentage of the brighter individuals from amongest the anatomically modern homo sapiens before 50,000 years ago would pack higher brain wattage than many of the fully modern humans packing christian revival meetings today.
Does this mean some of the howling dervishes of pentacostalism really belong to a different species or at least a sub species?
