February 5, 2016 | David F. Coppedge

Human Evolution Timeline Contradicts Human Nature

Even stupid people don’t sit around in caves for tens of thousands of years.

Two evolutionists publishing in PLoS One need to take a refresher course in human nature. In their paper on “cultural evolution” and “technological evolution,” they posit two antithetical propositions: (1) that 100,000 years ago, human ancestors were smart enough to travel the world and share technology with other people groups, (2) nothing significant happened civilization-wise till a few thousand years ago. Science Daily describes ground zero for their story:

Since its discovery in the early 1990s, Blombos Cave, about 300 kilometres east of Cape Town, South Africa, has yielded important new information on the behavioural evolution of the human species. The cave site was first excavated in 1991 and field work has been conducted there on a regular basis since 1997 — and is on-going. Blombos contains Middle Stone Age deposits currently dated at between 100,000 and 70,000 years, and a Later Stone Age sequence dated at between 2,000 and 300 years.

The researchers from UiB and Witswatersrand have now been looking closer at technology used by different groups in this and other regions in South Africa, such as spear points made of stone, as well as decorated ostrich eggshells, to determine whether there was an overlap and contact across groups of Middle Stone Age humans. How did they make contact with each other? How would contact across groups affect one group? How did the exchange of symbolic material culture affect the group or groups?

According to the evolutionists, these early humans in South Africa shared technology, exchanged symbolic material culture, and traveled throughout distant lands, like Africa, Arabia and Europe. What about that is not familiar to all humans?

Contact across groups, and population dynamics, makes it possible to adopt and adapt new technologies and culture and is what describes Homo sapiens. What we are seeing is the same pattern that shaped the people in Europe who created cave art many years later,” [Christopher] Henshilwood [University of the Witwatersrand] says.

With his colleague Emmanual Discamps of the University of Bergen, Henshilwood believes humans went through tens of thousands of years of “adapting and evolving” before any of them had thoughts of permanent dwellings outside of caves or took up ranching and farming to make life easier and more predictable.

The “cave art many years later” mentioned above dates from 40,000 years before the present, even as far east as Indonesia (see 10/14/14). When discovered at Chauvet Cave in France, the cave art shocked the artistic world, showing that the earliest art was the best (5/09/12). Evidence of music was found even earlier (5/25/12), showing that human creativity was alive and well. Did it really take 30,000 more years for any man to figure out how to ride a horse?

How long will it take for enough people to say this is stupid? This evolutionary timeline is ridiculous. We know what people are like. We know what they are capable of. The evidence shows that the people who left traces at Blombos Cave, Chauvet Cave and other locations were just as strong, smart, and creative as we are. Evolutionists admit they made tools, used fire, cooked food, and traveled clear across Asia. It is absurd to believe that they would live in caves and stick to a primitive hunting and gathering lifestyle for tens of thousands of years. It only took 10,000 years or less for mankind to go from Gobekli Tepe (3/10/09) to the moon! Evolutionists want us to believe that humans stayed primitive for 10 times that long. Man went from horse-drawn carriages to self-driving cars in less than two centuries. It doesn’t take long for intelligent human beings to come up with creative ways to do things.

We really need that little boy at the right time to cry out that the emperor is naked. The “new clothes” of Emperor Charlie are very elaborate, his enablers tell us. They are crafted of finely-twined jargon and colorful labels, stitched together with threads of empirical misinterpretations on the loom of Darwin/Lyell long ages. But that stuff is not “out there” in the world, it’s only inside the crania of the Darwin Party hacks. Some day, this tale that we are told will release the crowd’s inhibitions, and they will all break out in hearty laughter as the evolutionists’ faces turn blood red with anger and embarrassment. Bring it on. It will be fun to watch.



(Visited 143 times, 1 visits today)


  • John C says:

    “Behavioral evolution…”

    This is a really sad use of the word, evolution, in a situation resulting in exciting discoveries all their own. Behavior does not fundamentally change a species. You can argue that it increased intellectual and communication skills, but those were all inherent in the existing species. I hope they got the funding they were looking for. One more way that the word “evolution” stretches until it means nothing.

    Yes, it tells us that intelligently designed technology and cultures were exchanged among intellectual equals, with skills and abilities difficult to differentiate from ours, minus our technology. This is hardly classic evolution. No species changed, no new systems or DNA information resulted. It’s simply an exercise in semantics.

Leave a Reply