Opinions have varied wildly as to whether the roots of language run extremely deep in the human lineage, or, alternatively, whether this unprecedented capacity is a recent acquisition. The question has been exacerbated by the fact that language itself does not preserve, so that its possession by earlier hominids has had to be inferred from indirect material proxies. Here I argue that while most technological putative proxies from the Paleolithic are certainly evidence of highly complex cognitive states among our precursors, (...) virtually none of them can reliably be taken as witness to the specific symbolic cognitive style that human beings share today—and with which language is intricately intertwined. Symbolic reasoning can only be confidently inferred from explicitly symbolic objects. These latter only became integral to hominid societies within the tenure of anatomically modern Homo sapiens, and their appearance marked an extreme inflection in the tempo of change as seen in the archaeological record. I thus suggest that the neural capacity for symbolic reasoning and language was acquired during the major developmental reorganization that gave rise to the highly anatomically distinctive H. sapiens some 200 thousand years ago, but that that the new potential was not exploited until about 100 thousand years later, when it was released by what was necessarily a cultural stimulus. Most probably, this stimulus was the spontaneous invention of externalized structured language. This brings the origin of language into the realm of exaptation and emergence—both of them familiar evolutionary phenomena requiring no special explanation—and excludes the long-term fine-tuning of language and human reasoning by natural selection. (shrink)

There can be no reasonable doubt that our living species Homo sapiens is fully integrated into the great Tree of Life that unites all living organisms on this planet. But it is also obvious that we are not just another run-of-the mill primate. But what distinguishes us most strongly from those relatives – and all other organisms – is something more abstract: the unusual and unprecedented way in which we process information in our minds. That is not so in our (...) case, and a useful shorthand descriptor of the difference between us and them is that we think symbolically. In other words, we mentally deconstruct our exterior and interior worlds into a vocabulary of discrete symbols and then rearrange them, according to rules, to describe those worlds not only as they are, but as they might be. (shrink)

The pseudoscience of evolutionary psychology purports to explain human behaviors by reference to an ancestral environment (essentially, a hunting‐gathering way of life) in which we evolved. Contemporary human behaviors are allegedly governed directly by genes that reflect adaptation to this environment by natural selection. However, the evolutionary process is much more complex than this reductionist approach implies, and adaptation cannot involve the fine‐tuning of structures or behaviors within individuals or species: natural selection can only affect entire organisms, not their components. (...) Similarly, genetic processes are too complex to admit this simplistic view. Instead, our flexible, complex human behaviors probably represent an emergent acquisition. (shrink)

Science is a very special form of storytelling, one in which the stories told have to be testable against empirical observation. But the world is a complicated place; and, to provide a coherent account of it, scientists often find themselves obliged to join up their observable dots using untestable or as-yet-untested lines. This is a necessary part of constructing many valuable and predictive scientific scenarios; and it is perfectly good procedure as long as the assumptions involved are fully compatible with (...) what is known and testable. But it also means that, in formulating their ideas about how the world works, scientists must remain keenly aware not only of what is and is not assumption in those complex ideas, but of how untested elements may color their beliefs. The contributions to this volume cover many interesting examples of how assumptions have affected ideas in diverse areas of the paleosciences, both practical and theoretical, and they serve together as a salutary reminder that vigilance and a willingness to rethink are always in order. (shrink)

Science is a very special form of storytelling, one in which the stories told have to be testable against empirical observation. But the world is a complicated place; and, to provide a coherent account of it, scientists often find themselves obliged to join up their observable dots using untestable or as-yet-untested lines. This is a necessary part of constructing many valuable and predictive scientific scenarios; and it is perfectly good procedure as long as the assumptions involved are fully compatible with (...) what is known and testable. But it also means that, in formulating their ideas about how the world works, scientists must remain keenly aware not only of what is and is not assumption in those complex ideas, but of how untested elements may color their beliefs. The contributions to this volume cover many interesting examples of how assumptions have affected ideas in diverse areas of the paleosciences, both practical and theoretical, and they serve together as a salutary reminder that vigilance and a willingness to rethink are always in order. (shrink)