[throwaway3999]

Several things:

-No genetic explanation at any point during the paper. It's all and well theorizing about evolution this genetics that, but if you don't have a mechanism, or even a putative explanation with actual genes involved and the evolutionary pressure behind them, don't expect to be taken seriously bt evolutionary biologists.

-The paper makes the assumption that a gap exists between the apparition of language and that of elaborate constructions, as opposed to us just not knowing more about it. It is entirely possible that humans from 300000 years ago were able to make figurines but we couldn't find any.

-What the hell is this doing on biorxiv?

-What the hell is RIO? I've never heard of this journal, and I don't think many people have (IF=0.8).

Overall this reads much more like a blog post than an actual article.