>>212310872
>so just to be clear you now admit that at least one of our ancestors could not abstractly think yet its child could?
I don't think it's simple to draw a clear line like that.

Here's another example: eyes. Can we draw a clear line between parents and their child and say "this child has eyes, but its parents did not have eyes"? In reality eyes would have developed slowly over time. Eye-like structures would have initially emerged. Gradually those structures would change until they resembled human eyes as we know them today.

Pic related - evolution of the eye. I think abstract thinking would have developed in a similar gradual way.