Since we have brought in the idea of evolution applied to history, we should consider the implications of what we have found for the question of human evolution and the descent of man. We have already indicated that something doesn't add up. We have the evidence for 'evolution of some kind' operating in history and we have already mentioned the question of the so-called Great Explosion, the evidence of a sudden crossing of a threshold in the emergence of modern man. Darwinism has offered no reliable account of this phenomenon, except as an additional instance, by prior assumption, of the action of natural selection. We are suspicious that something more complex is involved, something unfortunately without sufficient evidence to arrive at a definite conclusion. 

The claims for the Great Explosion show a considerable uncertainty, with a date often centering around 50000 years ago. Behaviorally modern man appears from Africa armed with language begins to spread across the globe. This can be distinguished from the distinct claims for the emergence of anatomically modern man, which most probably occurred much earlier, ca. 200000 years ago, three more blocks of fifty thousand years.

50K blocks? Man has remained essentially man since the Great Explosion, issues of genetic drift alone being relevant to the differentiation we see in this 50K block since that point. And yet, by Darwinian thinking, we are to consider that three such 50K blocks prior to this were sufficient for natural selection to produce the defining character of homo sapiens. This includes the immensely complex phenomena of art and language, which seem to have appeared virtually on the spot.