It is taught people were mostly apelike in thinking, until about 10 000 years ago, when civilizations suddenly emerged. Thois seems implausible for two reasons:
1. There is no reasonable reason why we would keep on hunting and gathering if we had the brains for something better, then suddenly decided to do, for no apparent reason, and two disconnected land masses.
2. The evolution of brain must be driven by need. There would be no selection for better brains if there was no need for them. You don't need a human sized brain for hunting prey, an early erectus one would have to do perfectly well; it's hard to explain how a brain capable of complex engineering would be advantageous for a hunter - people must have lived relatively civilized lives for all the time the brains were growing in size, there would be no selection for a bigger brain otherwise.
1. There is no reasonable reason why we would keep on hunting and gathering if we had the brains for something better, then suddenly decided to do, for no apparent reason, and two disconnected land masses.
2. The evolution of brain must be driven by need. There would be no selection for better brains if there was no need for them. You don't need a human sized brain for hunting prey, an early erectus one would have to do perfectly well; it's hard to explain how a brain capable of complex engineering would be advantageous for a hunter - people must have lived relatively civilized lives for all the time the brains were growing in size, there would be no selection for a bigger brain otherwise.
