By your logic, human existence is the point in which things exist. And by that logic, fossils wouldn’t exist. Nor dinosaurs, the earth, or even the beginning of the universe (however you believe it came to be).

I would argue that poetry is more than the mere written word arranged in a rhyming schema. It extends to being anything that sparks creativity of the mind. e.g., The colors of the sunset reflecting off the surface of a pond that ripples from an animal jumping on the water. Surely that existed before humans?

Now I would certainly agree that it took humans to best articulate it by being able to write (or otherwise convey) these moments into more than a fleeting moment in their memory.

That argument seems to boil down to whether or not a thing can be a member of a category before that category is described and named by humans, or presumably any sentient entity. You seem to ne arguing that it can't, I would say it can.

Considered anything that existed before humans. Let's take dinosaurs. They existed, but before humans came up with the name 'dinosaur' were they dinosaurs? I would say that the category existed even though there were no humans to describe it. Likewise with aesthetic categories, the entity exists and either fits within the category, or it does not, even if the category has not been described by humans. Thus, if you consider fossils to be poetry, they are, indeed, poetry older than words.

If we're nit picking the meme I would instead take issue with the concept of fossils being a memory of bones. We have fossils of plants, boneless creatures and even soft tissue from creatures with bones. Despite that, I think the meme is reasonable enough, and a fair way to look at things.

To the haters: I dont question your experience of (this) poetry. That I would be sorry for.

I questions the hypostasis, that is declaring your experience of the thing as a property of the thing.