Human evolution Intelligent Design

Coppedge: Arabian artifacts undermine current human evolution model

Spread the love

The Out of Africa one. It might not have been quite that simple because Arabia was not always a desert.

Commenting on evidence that early humans were active in once-lush Arabia (8000 years ago), which science writer Michael Marshall offers, at New Scientist, “The other cradle of humanity: How Arabia shaped human evolution,” at Creation-Evolution Headlines, Dave Coppedge summarizes:

So how wrong was the old story? Let us count the ways:

Humans did not bypass the interior of Arabia; they went right through the middle of it.

People groups stayed in Arabia for substantial periods of time, building monuments.

The monuments they built showed evidence of complex social structures, just like all people groups exhibit.

The monuments, Darwin dated at 7,000 years, are older than Stonehenge and the Pyramids.

Arabia was not a place without human history. Recently-found artwork and petroglyphs prove it.

The interior of Arabia is nearly uninhabitable today, but was a good place to live a few thousands of years ago.

Hippo bones have been found in former lake beds under the sand. Hippos need permanent water meters deep.

Evidence of fertile grasslands, abundant wild game, elephants and water birds has also been found.

Stone tools are found in Arabia resembling those in deep Africa.

All the “hominins” were people. “My guess is we’re going to be looking at a whole variety of potentially different hominin species, almost all of whom could probably interbreed,” says another Darwin bigot. If they could interbreed, they were all part of the human species.

David F. Coppedge, “Arabian Artifacts Undermine Human Evolution Narrative” at Creation–Evolution Headlines (August 19, 2021)

Yes, that human “species interbreeding” stuff nags at some of the rest of us too. But maybe a Darwinist needs to think that way.

Anyway, Arabian sands may preserve many of our ancestors’ artifacts. We always say, keep digging.


You may also wish to read: Human evolution at your fingertips

11 Replies to “Coppedge: Arabian artifacts undermine current human evolution model

  1. 1
    polistra says:

    Another classic stupid assumption is that “complex social structures” had to evolve gradually. Ants have complex social structures. Slime molds have complex social structures.

    Complexity comes first. Simplicity results from degradation.

  2. 2
    BobRyan says:

    We have no idea what Arabia looked like even a thousand years ago. There are assumption made based on what is rather than what was. Temperature changes over time for any given area. Places that are now filled with sand were once quite different. The pyramids would not have been built in a desert, since the locations were of importance to the Pharaohs. The hanging gardens cannot be replicated today due to the changes that have occurred.

    Go back 10,000 years and much of North America is covered in ice.

  3. 3
    Dick says:

    The definition of “species” I learned in college was “a reproductively isolated population of organisms that could produce fertile offspring.” The isolation could be temporal or spatial. I always thought that definition odd since it would mean that me and my great grandparents were different species.

    I’ve come to realize since that there really is no good definition of species.

  4. 4
    Bob O'H says:

    It’s articles like this that make creationists look like idiots. The remains from Arabia are holocene, i.e. from after the last ice age ended. So this is nothing to do with speciation: they’re modern humans. And yes, they are younger than the pyramids and Stonehenge, but there are older archaeological remains than these, e.g. in Turkey.

    So yes, keep digging.

  5. 5
    ET says:

    Earth to Bob O’H- Your entire evidence-free position proves that you and yours are the idiots.

    And it was a Darwin bigot that mentioned species.

  6. 6
    Bob O'H says:

    ET – I wasn’t aware that David Coppedge was a “Darwin bigot”. Or do you mean Denyse?

  7. 7
    ET says:

    Wow. A Darwin bigot is someone who accepts Darwinism and its bastard offspring. Someone like you, Bob.

  8. 8
    Moros says:

    Virtually all the world’s scientists and university science departments accept evolution. That makes them all bigots?

  9. 9
    jerry says:

    That makes them all bigots?

    They have no basis for their beliefs. However, bigot is not the right word because they are all wrong. If they should make disparaging comments about those who hold different views, then bigot might be appropriate.

    So what would the best word for this be?

  10. 10
    ET says:

    Everyone accepts evolution, as in the change in allele frequency over time. The bigotry comes in when someone tries to say that blind and mindless processes produced the diversity of life on earth starting from some unknown populations of prokaryotes.

  11. 11
    ET says:

    jerry, the rats from the swamp want you to know that is the biology experts, and they ain’t bigots cuz they know. Except those experts don’t even know what determines biological form. They have no idea how eukaryotes evolved from the given populations of prokaryotes. They definitely don’t have any idea how prokaryotes came to be.

    But if you want to know how things work, sure. They would be the experts to listen to. However that isn’t the issue here.

Leave a Reply