Hominids

�It�s an interesting point of view,� said Louise.

�And you can argue that the other side is fighting for a biblical interpretation, too: the parallels between Multi-regionalism and the Ten Lost Tribes of Israel are pretty blatant. Beyond that, there�s the whole �mitochondrial Eve� hypothesis�that all modern humans trace their origin to one woman who lived hundreds of thousands of years ago. Even the theory�s name�Eve!�screams that it�s being pushed more because of biblical resonances than because it�s good science.� Mary paused. �Anyway, sorry, you were talking about the Neanderthal version of quantum physics ��

�Right, right,� said Louise. �Well, my thought was, suppose they are correct about how parallel universes are spun off, but wrong about this universe having existed forever. If the universe did have a beginning, then when did that first split occur?�

Mary frowned. �Well, umm, I don�t know. I guess the first time somebody made a decision.�

�Exactly! I think that�s exactly right! And when was the first decision made?� Louise paused. �You know, it is interesting what Ponter says about how our scientific worldview is always, down deep, trying to say the same things our creation myths say�the big bang and your model of hominid evolution both being modern retellings of Genesis. Well, maybe I�m being guilty of the same kind of thinking here. After all, in the Bible, the first decision made by anyone other than God is when Eve decided to take the apple�the original sin�and, well, one could think of that as having split the universe. In one timeline, the one we�re supposedly in, humanity was cast out of paradise. In another, we weren�t. In fact, it�s even a bit like Ponter�s own case, with a being crossing over from one version of reality to the other.�

Mary was completely lost. �How do you mean?�

�I�m talking about Mary�not you, Professor Vaughan; Mary, the mother of Jesus. You�re a Catholic, aren�t you?�

Mary nodded.

�I noticed your crucifix.� Mary looked down, self-conscious. �I�m Catholic, too,� continued Louise. �Anyway, as a Catholic, you probably don�t make the same mistake lots of other people do. The doctrine of the immaculate conception�a lot of people think that�s a fancy term for Christ�s virgin birth, but it isn�t, is it?�

�No,� said Mary. �No, it refers to the conception of Mary herself. The reason she was able to give birth to the son of God was that she herself was conceived devoid of original sin�it was her conception that was immaculate.�

�Exactly. Well, how do you get a person without original sin in a world in which everyone is descended from Adam and Eve?�

�I have no idea,� said Mary, truthfully.

�Don�t you see?� said Louise. �It�s as if Mary was shifted into this universe from the other timeline, from the one in which Eve never took the apple, the one in which Man never fell, the one in which people live without the taint of original sin.�

Mary nodded dubiously. �One could argue that.�

Louise smiled. �Well, you�ll see the parallel between Ponter and the Virgin Mary in a second. Let me get back to my earlier question: I said if he�s right, and the universe does split every time a decision is made, when did the universe first split? And you said the first time someone made a decision. But when was that? Not in the Bible, but, well, in reality �?�

Mary fished out another potato chip. �Gee, I don�t know. The first time a trilobite decided to go left instead of right?�

Louise put her cardboard coffee cup down on a little table. �No, I don�t think so. Trilobites have no volition; they, and all other primitive forms of life, are just chemical machines. Stephen Jay Gould keeps talking about rewinding the tape of life in his books and getting a different outcome, and when he says that, he thinks he�s making an allusion to chaos theory. But he�s wrong. No matter how many times you placed a trilobite at the same fork in the road, it will go the same way. A trilobite doesn�t think; it doesn�t have consciousness. It just processes the inputs of its senses and does what they dictate. No choice is made. Gould is right�sort of�that if the initial conditions were changed, the outcome could be radically different, but rewinding the tape of life and playing it again no more gives a different outcome than rewinding a tape of Gone with the Wind and playing it again results in an ending in which Rhett and Scarlett stay together. I don�t think real decisions�real choices, real consciousness�emerged until much, much later. I think we�Homo sapiens�were the first conscious beings on this planet.�

�There was lots of sophisticated behavior by earlier forms of humans,� said Mary. �Homo ergaster, Homo erectus, Homo habilis, even the Australopithecines and Kenyanthropus.�

�Well, I realize this is your field, Professor Vaughan�� Had she really in all the time they�d spent quarantined together never volunteered that Louise could call her Mary?��but I�ve been reading up on this on the Web. As far as I can tell, those earlier kinds of man didn�t really have behavior any more sophisticated than a beaver building a dam.�

�They made tools,� said Mary.

�Oui,� said Louise. �But weren�t they repetitive, virtually identical tools, turned out over the centuries by the thousands? All made to the same mental template, the same design?�

Mary nodded. �That�s true.�

�Surely there has to be some natural variation among stone tools,� said Louise, �just based on chance accidents and random differences that occur when implements are chipped from stone. If there was consciousness at work, even without coming up with a better idea on their own, early humans should have seen that some tools happened to be better than others. It�s like you don�t have to think of the round wheel right off the bat; you might start with a five-sided one, then accidentally make a six-sided one�and note that it rolled slightly better. Eventually, you�d come up with the perfectly round one.�

Mary nodded.

�But if there�s no consciousness at work,� said Louise, �you simply toss aside the better version as not fitting your mental template of what was supposed to be produced. Right? And that�s what happens with the tools in the archeological record: instead of gradual refinement over time, they just stay the same. And the only explanation I can think of for that is that there was no conscious selection of better variants: the toolmaker simply wasn�t aware, he couldn�t see that this particular way of hitting nodules produced something better than that way. The design was frozen.�

�Interesting take,� said Mary, genuinely impressed.

�And when we see complex repetitive behavior in other animals�such as building a dam�we call it instinct, and that�s what that kind of toolmaking was. No, until Homo sapiens, there was no consciousness, and�here�s the kicker�in fact, for the first sixty thousand years that Homo sapiens existed, there was no consciousness.�

�What are you talking about?� said Mary.

�When did anatomically modern humans first appear?� asked Louise, picking up her coffee cup again.

�About one hundred thousand years ago.�

�That�s the same figure I saw on the web. Now, do I understand that right? A hundred-K years in the past, creatures that looked exactly like us, that walked exactly like us, first appeared, right? Creatures with brains that were the same size and shape as our brains, judging by their cranial cavities?�

�That�s right,� said Mary. She�d finished her chips, and got some Kleenex out of her purse so she could wipe her greasy fingers.