Malevolent Design - A Brilliantly 'Designed' Process For Spreading Influenza - Malevolence or Evolution?

Dead cells after the self-destruction and fragmentation process. The large green areas are the “eat me” signals which alert immune cells to kick-start clean-up and recycling process, while the small green circles are the “Footprint of Death” F-ApoEVs left behind by the dying cell.

’Footprint of Death’ gives new clues to cell life, News, La Trobe University

My previous post was about the discovery, reported in Cell Host & Microbe in May 2026, that a single amino-acid change in a coronavirus protein can alter how a bat-related coronavirus interacts with the immune systems of bats and humans. In the case of SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes COVID-19, such changes help to explain how a virus that may be relatively benign in its natural host can become a serious pathogen when it crosses the species barrier into humans. By creationists' own criteria, this should qualify as intelligent design.

This post concerns another example which, if creationists applied their criteria for intelligent design consistently, would be further evidence of malevolent design. It is the finding, reported in Nature Communications, that influenza A virus can exploit part of the normal process of programmed cell death to help infect neighbouring cells.

Applied consistently, these discoveries would portray creationists' putative designer god as a malevolent entity that designs ways to increase suffering. But, since creationists need to portray this alleged designer as the omnibenevolent god of the Bible, this supposed 'evidence of intelligent design' somehow ceases to be evidence of design at all and becomes evidence of 'Sin' and 'The Fall', as creationists abandon any pretence of science and retreat into Biblical mythology to explain away inconvenient facts.

The discovery, by a team led by PhD candidate Stephanie Rutter in Professor Ivan Poon’s lab at the La Trobe Institute for Molecular Science (LIMS), shows how each step in the process of cell death and renewal is important in helping a dying cell break down and be cleared away by the body’s immune system. The team found that, as cells self-destruct, they change shape, lift away from their surroundings, and leave behind a residue which the researchers dubbed the 'footprint of death'. This contains a previously undescribed type of extracellular vesicle (EV). EVs are small packages used by cells to transport proteins, lipids, DNA and RNA to other cells, acting as an important means of communication between cells.

These new vesicles, known as FOOD-derived apoptotic extracellular vesicles, or F-ApoEVs, normally mark the site of a dead cell and help the immune system identify and clear away the remaining fragments, preventing inflammation and other harmful consequences. But this useful clean-up process can also be turned into a weakness. The researchers found that, when dying cells are infected with influenza A virus, viral proteins and even virus particles can be carried in these F-ApoEVs, providing another route by which infection can spread to neighbouring cells.

Had this process been beneficial to humans, rather than to influenza viruses, creationists would doubtless hail it as a marvel of intelligent design by their god. Yet, because the benefit is to a virus and the result can be disease, suffering and death, the same kind of complexity somehow ceases to count as evidence of design and is quietly reclassified as a mysterious consequence of 'The Fall'.

Creationists get into this bind because they are trying to force the evidence into their preferred mythology. Science has no such problem. The immune system, cell-death pathways and the pathogens that exploit them are all products of evolutionary history, not foresight. They are parts of a continuing arms race in which every useful biological process presents opportunities for parasites, viruses and other pathogens to exploit. An influenza virus that stumbles upon a weakness in a host system does not need to understand it, plan it, or design it; it merely needs to leave more copies of itself than viruses that did not.

Malevolent Design - How SARS-CoV-2 Was Cleverly Designed to Jump From Bats To Humans - Evolution Or Malevolence

A Single Molecular Change May Help Viruses Jump from Bat to Human | UC San Francisco

Two recent papers should delight admirers of creationism's putative intelligent designer, because both show the sort of biochemical ingenuity they normally rush to claim as evidence of design. One, published in Cell Host & Microbe in May 2026 and reported by UCSF in June, shows how a single molecular change can alter the way a coronavirus interacts with bat and human immune systems, helping to explain how viruses related to SARS-CoV-2, the virus that caused the COVID-19 pandemic, can cross the species barrier. The other, published in October 2025 in Nature Communications, which will be the subject of my next blog post, shows how influenza A virus can exploit the remnants of dying cells to help spread infection to neighbouring healthy cells.

However, that excitement is likely to be tempered somewhat when it dawns on them that, if these systems are the products of intelligent design, their designer can only be regarded as malevolent, since the result is an increase in the sum total of suffering in the world. But this does not seem to trouble ID proponents who cite Michael J. Behe's favourite examples — the Escherichia coli flagellum and anti-malarial drug resistance in Plasmodium falciparum — as evidence of irreducible complexity and hence of intelligent design, while ignoring the awkward fact that these supposed examples of design help microorganisms survive, move, infect, or evade human attempts to control them.

This puts creationists in a familiar bind. On the one hand, they like to claim any useful biological complexity as evidence of their Biblical god. On the other, when the same logic points to a designer of pathogens, parasites, immune evasion, drug resistance and viral spread, they retreat into vague claims about 'Sin', 'The Fall', or some mysterious corruption of nature, thereby absolving their god of responsibility for the very mechanisms they were praising as designed only moments earlier.

The first paper, in Cell Host & Microbe, was by a large team of researchers from the University of California San Francisco (UCSF) Quantitative Biosciences Institute, the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, the Institut Pasteur and the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Center. It showed that a single amino-acid change in a viral protein can alter how coronaviruses interact with bat and human immune systems, changing the host's response to infection.

Bats are important viral reservoirs because their immune systems and physiology can allow them to tolerate viruses that might cause serious disease in other mammals. They can therefore harbour viruses for long periods, providing opportunities for viral lineages to persist, diversify and acquire mutations that may matter greatly when those viruses encounter a new host species. The UCSF-led study helps to explain how relatively small genetic differences can make the difference between a virus that remains associated with a bat reservoir and one that is better able to evade human immune defences.

This is precisely the sort of thing creationists should, by their own logic, have to call 'complex specified information'. The change is functional; it affects a specific biological outcome; and it is beneficial from the point of view of the viral lineage. The problem, of course, is that creationists usually smuggle in the assumption that 'beneficial' must mean beneficial to humans. If it benefits a virus, a bacterium, a parasite or a cancer cell, they suddenly decide it does not count.

Comparing SARS-CoV-2 with a related bat coronavirus, RaTG13, the researchers found that a viral protein called ORF9b was a key factor. The SARS-CoV-2 and RaTG13 versions of ORF9b are very similar, but behave very differently. In human cells, the SARS-CoV-2 version helped disable an innate immune alarm system, allowing the virus to multiply more effectively. In bat cells, the RaTG13 version interacted with a restriction factor that helped suppress infection.

The team found that changing just one of ORF9b's roughly 100 amino acids reversed its ability to evade the immune response. In creationist thinking, if the phrase is to mean anything at all, this would be new functional genetic information. Yet the actual explanation requires no magic, no designer and no supernatural intervention: a mutation changed an amino acid; that change altered protein interactions; and the result affected viral fitness in different host-cell environments. In other words, ordinary chemistry and physics, operating through mutation, selection and host-virus interaction, produced exactly the kind of functional change creationists insist cannot happen naturally.

The paper in Cell Host & Microbe was accompanied by a news item from UCSF by Levi Gadye:

Refuting Creationism - Observed Evolution In A South African Leopard Population

The elusive Cape leopard.

Jana Ohrner/iNaturalist, CC BY-NC

Leopards adapted to South Africa’s Cape so successfully that they’re genetically unique – study

This paper will have creationists hurriedly trying to redefine evolution so that it no longer means what biologists mean by it — change in allele frequencies in a population over time — but instead becomes some childish parody of the idea, carefully constructed to exclude the scientific definition and so safely miss the point. The paper, published last January (2026) in Heredity, shows that a small, isolated population of leopards (Panthera pardus) in South Africa’s Cape Floristic Region is a striking example of incipient allopatric divergence, and possibly early speciation, in progress. The population, estimated at fewer than 1,000 individuals, has developed a distinctive genome and includes small leopards, some with only about half the body mass of leopards elsewhere in Africa.

In what will also disappoint those creationists who are still eagerly awaiting the abandonment of “Darwinism” by mainstream biologists and its replacement by magic-based creationism, the authors — an international group of leopard conservationists and evolutionary biologists — interpret their findings wholly within the framework of evolutionary theory. By comparing whole-genome data from 43 leopards, including 10 from the Western Cape province (WCP), the team found that the WCP leopards diverged from those of northern South Africa about 20,000–24,000 years ago — in other words, many thousands of years before creationists’ mythical “Creation Week”. They found no obvious evidence that genetic drift alone was responsible for this divergence, and concluded instead that it is more likely to reflect the population’s demographic history, long-term isolation and adaptation to the Cape’s distinctive environmental conditions, including low prey availability.

Their conclusion is that the leopards of the Western Cape can be regarded as an evolutionarily significant unit (ESU): a genetically distinctive population representing a unique component of the species’ evolutionary history and therefore one that should be managed and conserved as such.

One of the team, and first author of the paper, Assistant Professor Laura Tensen of the University of Greifswald, has written an article in The Conversation describing the research and its findings. Her article is reproduced here under a Creative Commons licence, reformatted for stylistic consistency:

Refuting Creationism - Ancient Hominins Were Using Fire In A South African Cave - About 1.5 Million Years Before 'Creation Week'

Stages of Burning on Bones – white (#5 on right) is the most burnt while yellow-beige (on left #1) is unburnt

Credit: Wonderwerk Cave Project.

Ancient Fire Record Rewritten: Researchers Push Earliest Evidence of Human Fire Use Back to over a Million Years | EUROPEAN FRIENDS OF THE HEBREW UNIVERSITY

A recent paper in PLOS ONE, by an international team including Dr Liora Kolska Horwitz of the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, reminded me of a quote by Francis Collins, former director of the Human Genome Project and founder and president of The BioLogos Foundation, which aims to reconcile Christian theology with science. It also reminded me how Young Earth Creationists traditionally cope with information that refutes their beliefs. The paper reports evidence for the use of fire in a South African cave by early hominins between 1.07 million and 1.79 million years ago — a fact entirely inconsistent with Young Earth Creationism (YEC).

This image of God as a cosmic trickster seems to be the ultimate admission of defeat for the Creationist perspective. Would God as the great deceiver be an entity one would want to worship? Is this consistent with everything else we know about God from the Bible, from the Moral Law, and from every other source—namely, that He is loving, logical, and consistent?

Thus, by any reasonable standard, Young Earth Creationism has reached a point of intellectual bankruptcy, both in its science and in its theology. Its persistence is thus one of the great puzzles and great tragedies of our time.

Francis Collins - The Language of God

In this quote from The Language of God, Francis Collins is referring to those Young Earth Creationists who dismiss the palaeontological, archaeological and cosmological evidence for life evolving on an old Earth in an even older Universe, as evidence deliberately created by God to test the faith of believers. Creationists also routinely dismiss this sort of evidence either by accusing scientists of faking it, or by attributing it to the work of Satan.

All of these are, of course, variations on conspiracy thinking — more understandable in a teleologically thinking toddler than in an adult. When it persists into adulthood, it is consistent with the findings of a psychology research paper which found that creationism and conspiracism share a common teleological bias: the tendency to explain events and natural phenomena as though they exist for a purpose, or are directed towards some hidden end. It is therefore no surprise that creationism so often depends on conspiracism. The surprise is that there are still so many people, especially in parts of the USA, who try to understand the world around them using a cognitive habit most children eventually learn to leave behind.

Teleological thinking. Explaining something in terms of its supposed purpose, goal, or intended end-point, rather than in terms of the processes that caused it.

In biology, for example, it is teleological to say, “birds evolved wings in order to fly.” A more accurate evolutionary phrasing would be: “wings evolved because variations that improved gliding or flight gave some individuals a reproductive advantage.”

In short, teleological thinking treats outcomes as though they were planned — which can lead to the false assumption that there must be a sentient agent with a plan.

Creationism Refuted - Our Ancestors Lived In North America - 56 Million Years Ago

Life reconstruction of Teilhardina

Ai-generated image (ChatGPT 5.5 Thinking)

Our primate ancestors evolved in the cold – not the tropics

At times, it seems almost cruel to keep reminding creationists that another day, another week and another month have passed, and still there is no hint that biomedical scientists are about to abandon evidence-based evolutionary biology and adopt magic-based creationism as a better explanation of the facts. And yet here we are again: another paper, another article, and another example of evolution providing the rational framework for interpreting the evidence.

And, to rub salt into creationist wounds, the evidence deals with events around 56 million years before creationists’ mythical “Creation Week”. As though to refute yet another creationist myth — that scientists are only allowed to publish papers that confirm mainstream scientific orthodoxy — the findings, published by Jorge Avaria-Llautureo of the University of Reading and colleagues in the mainstream journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the USA (PNAS), challenge the long-standing assumption that the primate lineage originated in warm tropical forests.

The study maps the likely geographic origins of our primate ancestors and reconstructs the historical climate at those locations. Its conclusion is surprising: early primates appear to have lived, dispersed and diversified through cold, arid and temperate regions, not primarily in the tropics. Their later colonisation of tropical regions took several million years and seems to have been driven more by local changes between dry and wet climates than by global warming itself.

One useful example is the tiny early primate Teilhardina, a small, tree-dwelling mammal known from fossils around 56 million years old — roughly 10 million years after the extinction of the non-avian dinosaurs. Fossil evidence suggests that Teilhardina had nails rather than claws, helping it grasp branches and handle food, a characteristic associated with primates. Species of this early primate group appear in the fossil record of North America and then dispersed rapidly across what are now Europe and China.

An article explaining the finding and its significance for understanding our evolutionary origins was published in The Conversation by Jason Gilchrist, a lecturer in the School of Applied Sciences at Edinburgh Napier University. His article is reprinted here under a Creative Commons licence, reformatted for stylistic consistency:

Unintelligent Design - The DNA In A Developing Brain Gets Broken And Has To Be Repaired - Incompetent Design Or Evolution?

Neurons migrating through dense tissue in the developing brain (green) frequently undergo DNA damage (magenta).

DNA in neurons is damaged and repaired during brain cortex formation | News | Kyoto University iCeMS

Like my last post, this post illustrates how the human body, far from being the perfect design of the omnipotent, omniscient designer creationists would have us believe in, is the result of a utilitarian evolutionary process. Layers of complexity arise, not from divine brilliance, but from evolved solutions to problems created by suboptimal earlier solutions to other problems — which were themselves the result of imperfect evolution.

In the previous post we saw how DNA replication is sufficiently imperfect that it requires mechanisms to repair the resulting DNA damage. However, these repair processes are themselves potentially dangerous and need control systems to maintain a careful balance between too little and too much repair. When this control process fails, it can lead to cancers that mimic those caused by the BRCA1 and BRCA2 genes, which are associated with increased risk of breast and ovarian cancer.

In this post we see how newborn neurons in the developing brain need to squeeze through tight spaces in dense tissue, past other cells and between fibres, in order to reach their final positions and form neural circuits in the cerebral and cerebellar cortices. This process is such a physical struggle that the DNA in these neurons can suffer double-strand breaks and must be repaired quickly to ensure normal brain development. This is the finding of a research team from Kyoto University, the University of Tokyo, Osaka University, the National University of Singapore and the Tokyo Metropolitan Institute of Medical Science, led by Professor Mineko Kengaku who have just published their findings in Nature.

Mostly, this repair is quick and successful. However, the research team also found striking similarities between the development of mice in which the repair process failed and human genome-instability syndromes that affect the cerebellum.

Another important point is that this repair process appears to be much more successful in damaged neuronal DNA than in similar damage that can occur when some cancer cells migrate through narrow channels. The difference seems to lie in where the DNA breaks occur. In neurons, they tend to occur in regions of the genome that are not actively being transcribed, whereas in cancer cells the damage can involve essential genes. That suggests there is some biological bias in where these breaks occur in neurons, rather than the process being simply random mechanical shattering.

This raises the obvious question for creationists: why create a process that breaks DNA in developing brain cells, only to require another process to repair it, with the inherent risk that the repair process might be incomplete or imperfect? It also raises the possibility that the resulting small differences in the genomes of individual neurons could contribute to neuronal individuality and perhaps to some neurodevelopmental or neurodegenerative diseases.

The emerging picture, from this and from the rogue repair-control process that can mimic cancers caused by the BRCA genes, is not of a human body designed by an omniscient engineer. It is more like a William Heath Robinson contraption: improvised, overcomplicated, dependent on compensatory mechanisms, and always vulnerable to the failure of the very systems needed to keep it working.

Unintelligent Design - What Happens when A Badly 'Designed' Process Goes Rogue - Cancer - Malevolent Design Or Evolution?

Dr. Alexandra Nusawardhana, the lead author of the study and who earned her doctorate in biomedical sciences this year from Penn State College of Medicine, conducts research to understand genomic instability and cancer treatment response.

Credit: Jason Plotkin / Penn State. Creative Commons

DNA repair protein gene gone rogue may unlock new cancer treatments | Penn State University

A characteristic of evolved biological systems, and one that distinguishes them from systems designed from first principles, is that they are often unnecessarily complex, vulnerable to failure and dependent on layers of patchwork compensation. This is what we should expect from systems produced by utilitarian, suboptimal compromises built from whatever was available at the time.

With no plan, no foresight and no predetermined objective, natural selection can only favour whatever leaves more descendants in a particular environment. The result is not an ideal solution, but merely a workable one — one that is better than what preceded it, even if it remains a very long way from perfection. An intelligent designer, such as the one proposed by advocates of intelligent design, would be under no such historical constraints and could, in principle, rebuild a system from scratch to arrive at the optimal solution.

To illustrate this, this post and the next will look at two recent papers that incidentally demonstrate how many human health problems arise from these over-complex, error-prone systems — systems that would not exist if the human body were the pinnacle of created perfection that creationists imagine it to be. Unless, of course, the designer intended us to suffer when its systems failed.

The first concerns a paper published in February 2026 in Nature Communications by researchers at Penn State College of Medicine. It shows how one component of the DNA repair machinery — a system needed because DNA replication and maintenance are themselves vulnerable to error and damage — can itself go wrong and produce a pattern of genomic instability resembling that seen when the BRCA1 and BRCA2 tumour-suppressor pathway is defective.

The culprit is EXO1, a gene that encodes an exonuclease involved in DNA processing and repair. In normal cells, EXO1 helps trim and process damaged or mismatched DNA so that repair can proceed. But when EXO1 is overexpressed, as the researchers found in a significant proportion of several cancers, including about 20–30% of breast and ovarian cancers as well as melanoma, testicular, cervical and hepatobiliary cancers, too much of this normally useful protein becomes destructive. Instead of helping to preserve genome integrity, excessive EXO1 activity can degrade newly synthesised DNA during replication stress, expanding single-stranded DNA gaps and degrading reversed replication forks.

The result is a BRCA-like pattern of genomic instability even in cells whose BRCA pathway is still functional. In other words, the cell behaves in some important respects like a BRCA-mutant tumour cell, not because BRCA1 or BRCA2 is mutated, but because too much EXO1 has overwhelmed the normal protective system. This matters clinically because such tumours may respond to some of the same treatments used against BRCA-mutant cancers, including drugs that target DNA repair vulnerabilities.

So, we have a DNA replication and maintenance system that needs elaborate repair machinery because the genome is constantly vulnerable to damage; then we have the catastrophic consequences when that repair machinery itself goes rogue. Compare that with the simpler, more robust system we might expect from an intelligent designer endowed with foresight and unconstrained by evolutionary history. Complexity is not the hallmark of intelligent design that creationists claim it to be. In biology, it is very often the accumulated consequence of failure-prone, suboptimal compromises produced by evolutionary tinkering without a predetermined objective.

Refuting Creationism - Evolution of Cultivated Cotton - No Magic Required

Wild cotton, on left, has short, brown, and coarse fibers, while modern domesticated cotton has white, fine and abundant fibers. A new study led by Iowa State University scientists identified the northwestern Yucatan Peninsula in Mexico as the original source of domesticated cotton.

Photo: Corrinne Grover/Iowa State University.

Cotton’s roots trace to Yucatan Peninsula, where wild gene pool runs deepest - News Service

My last blog post looked at the evolution of the strawberry and how the evidence of multiple whole-genome duplications and speciation by hybridisation refutes several basic creationist, counter-evidential myths and articles of faith.

This post deals with the evolution and cultivation of the cotton plant, which again refutes the childish notion of divine creation, perfectly suited for use by the creator god's favourite creation, humankind, as well as the creationist article of faith that no new genetic information can arise without the direct intervention of a designer god, because this would supposedly violate the laws of thermodynamics.

As a recent paper in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the USA (PNAS), by a team of researchers including Professor Jonathan Wendel of Iowa State University, has shown, modern upland cotton, Gossypium hirsutum, is the result of thousands of years of human selection acting on naturally occurring genetic variation. The team traced its domestication to the Yucatán Peninsula in Mexico, probably to the north-western Yucatán, where wild populations still retain the deepest gene pool. Cotton was first domesticated there about 5,000 years ago, which, if creationist chronology were taken seriously, places it before the supposed genocidal global flood, which it appears to have survived along with the people who cultivated it.

The researchers found that domestication transformed a wild, perennial shrub with small bolls and short, coarse, brown fibres into the modern crop with abundant, long, fine, white fibres. This was not the result of a single act of magical design, nor of a sudden, miraculous improvement, but of long-term selection acting on many mutations of relatively small effect, accumulated and filtered over many generations.

The team also showed that, while human selection produced fibres more useful to people, it did so at a cost. Useful traits present in wild populations, such as disease resistance and salt tolerance, were left behind as farmers selected repeatedly from a restricted subset of the original wild gene pool. Each generation of selection narrowed the genetic base still further, pushing cultivated cotton through a genetic bottleneck.

The researchers reached these conclusions by comparing the genomes of cultivated cotton with those of specimens collected from wild populations across the plant's native range. Their analyses showed that domesticated cotton is most closely related to wild cotton from north-western Yucatán, where two random wild plants still show, on average, about twice as much genetic difference as two random modern cultivars.

After cultivated upland cotton spread out of the Yucatán, it eventually became the dominant cotton crop worldwide, displacing or overshadowing other cotton species that had been independently domesticated in South America, Africa and India. Today, Gossypium hirsutum, or upland cotton, accounts for about 90% of the world's cotton crop.

Refuting Creationism - How The Strawberry Evolved - No Magic Needed

Wild starwberry, Fragaria vesca

By Jörg Hempel, CC BY-SA 3.0 de, Link

A genomic time machine traces how the modern strawberry came to be | EurekAlert!

Doubtless God could have made a better berry, but doubtless God never did

Dr. William Butler, Physician - (1535–29 January 1618)
Talking of the strawberry.

This and my next blog post deal with essentially the same refutations of creationist mythology and pseudo-science. The mythology is the Bible’s unambiguous claim that a creator god made everything for its favourite creation, humankind; the pseudo-science is the creationist claim that no new genetic information can arise without the direct intervention of that creator god, because, so they tell us, new genetic information can only be produced by magic, otherwise it would violate the laws of thermodynamics [sic]. Both claims are demonstrable nonsense, of course.

The first example concerns a fruit now ripening in UK gardens and fields — the strawberry. If strawberries had been specially created for humans, we might expect them to have arrived fully formed, already perfect for our tastes and purposes. Instead, like other cultivated crops, they bear the marks of a long evolutionary history followed by recent human selection, breeding and improvement.

A May 2025 paper published in the journal Horticulture Research by researchers from the U.S. Department of Agriculture and collaborating institutions, describes a new way to reconstruct the deep evolutionary history of the cultivated strawberry, Fragaria × ananassa. Their work helps explain how the modern strawberry acquired its complex octoploid genome — not by magic, but by ordinary, natural processes of genome duplication, hybridisation and subsequent evolutionary divergence.

Cultivated strawberries, like many crop plants, are polyploids. Humans are normally diploid, with two sets of chromosomes; cultivated strawberries are octoploid, with eight sets. In the notation used by geneticists, humans are 2n, while the cultivated strawberry is 2n = 8x = 56. This genomic complexity is the outcome of a series of ancient whole-genome duplication and hybridisation events in which entire chromosome sets from different ancestral lineages were brought together in one organism.

Whole-genome duplication does not require supernatural intervention. It is a well-known natural process, especially common in plant evolution. Initially, it duplicates existing genetic material, but those extra gene copies then provide raw material for mutation, altered regulation, divergence, subfunctionalisation and neofunctionalisation. In other words, duplicated genes can be retained, modified, silenced, repurposed or combined in new ways. Hybridisation adds another layer of novelty by bringing together different genomes, producing new combinations of genes and regulatory networks in a single evolutionary lineage.

The research team disentangled the strawberry’s complex polyploid genome by exploiting the evolutionary signatures left by long terminal repeat retrotransposons, or LTR-RTs. These mobile genetic elements accumulate in genomes over time and can act rather like molecular time stamps. By comparing patterns of similarity between these elements across chromosomes, the researchers were able to reconstruct the strawberry’s subgenome architecture and infer the timing of major genome-merging events.

Using this serial similarity matrix method, the researchers found evidence for three successive allopolyploidisation events in the evolutionary history of the cultivated strawberry genome: first between about 3.1 and 4.2 million years ago, then between about 1.9 and 3.1 million years ago, and finally between about 0.8 and 1.9 million years ago. The result is a genome composed of multiple subgenomes with different ancestry, interacting and evolving together over time.

What is perfectly clear from this research is that new genetic variation and genomic complexity can arise through entirely natural mechanisms. Polyploidy, hybridisation, mutation, transposable elements and selection are not gaps in biology into which a magic creator needs to be inserted; they are part of the normal machinery of evolution. The cultivated strawberry is not evidence of special creation, but of a long, traceable evolutionary history later shaped by human cultivation.

Creationism Refuted - Why Science Works While Religions Ignore Failures

Credit: Tobias Baur / Pexels

Credit: Tobias Baur / Pexels

Dark diversity helped solve Darwin’s 160-year-old puzzle | University of Tartu

A paper recently published in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the USA (PNAS) by an international team that included researchers from the University of Tartu, Estonia, offers a solution to a conundrum in evolutionary ecology first identified by Charles Darwin more than 160 years ago: Darwin’s naturalisation conundrum.

The problem concerns why some introduced species successfully establish themselves in a new environment while others fail. Darwin recognised two apparently contradictory possibilities, both of which make sense in evolutionary terms. On the one hand, a newcomer closely related to local species might succeed because its relatives show that the environment is suitable for that general way of life. In other words, similarity to the local community could be a sign of pre-adaptation. On the other hand, a newcomer might be more successful if it is unlike the resident species, because it avoids direct competition and exploits resources the local community is not already using.

So which is it? Should a successful immigrant species resemble the local species, or should it be different from them? That is Darwin’s naturalisation conundrum.

These are the sorts of paradoxes science thrives on because they expose a gap in understanding and invite investigation. They are not waved aside as mysteries, nor protected from scrutiny by declaring them ineffable. They are problems to be solved by evidence.

That is in stark contrast to religion, where glaring contradictions are often preserved rather than resolved. Christianity, for example, asks its followers to believe simultaneously in an omniscient god and in human free will. Yet the contradiction can be exposed with a simple question: if God has always known that you will eat fish for dinner tomorrow, can you choose steak instead? If yes, then God did not know after all; if no, then you were never free to choose. Either answer undermines a central plank of Christian theology, because without free will there can be no meaningful original sin, no need for salvation, and no coherent reason for the Jesus story.

Another awkward question is why an omniscient god supposedly waited until about 2,000 years ago to arrange the sacrifice of Jesus as the mechanism for saving humanity. If this god had always known that a blood sacrifice would be needed, why wait through countless generations of human suffering before arranging it? Why not solve the alleged problem at the beginning? Did God simply stand by while millions died without that supposed salvation, or did it merely take until the first or second century CE for priests to invent a theological explanation for the Jesus story?

And so the list goes on. Can an omnipotent god create an object too heavy for it to lift? Can God lie? If God claims to be omniscient, how can it know that there is nothing it does not know? And if it is aware of not knowing something, then it is not omniscient. Such questions are usually met not with answers but with evasion, because religions have no neutral referee. They have only opinion, assertion and authority.

Science is different because evidence can arbitrate between competing explanations. This is why science tends to converge on a single answer while religions fragment into sects, denominations and, sometimes, mutually hostile factions.

In the case of Darwin’s naturalisation conundrum, the team, including Wen-gang Zhang and Professor of Botany Meelis Pärtel of the University of Tartu, examined the evidence in the form of a remarkable 340-year dataset from Swedish lakes, recording both successful and unsuccessful fish introductions. This allowed the researchers to test, with unusual precision, what determines whether an introduced species establishes itself.

Malevolent Design - We Have The Ability To Regenerate An Amputated Limb - But It's Turned Off And Hidden

A conceptual graphic shows how growth factors BMP2 and FGF2 are applied to the injury site to stimulate tissue regeneration, highlighting new research into restoring damaged digits.

Credit: Melissa Bristow/Texas A&M University College of Veterinary Medicine and Biomedical Sciences

A–C Representative longitudinal sections and μCT images (insets) of control and FGF2 treated digits 21 days post treatment (DPT). A Control BSA treated digits do not display a regenerative response and are truncated. B The majority of FGF2 treated digits are truncated without displaying a regenerative response. C A minority of FGF2 treated digits produce an ectopic skeletal element distal to the amputation that articulates with the stump bone.

Yu, L., Yan, M., Scaturro, K.Z. et al. (2026).

What if humans could regrow tissue? Texas A&M study moves science closer – Texas A&M Stories.

Although the Discovery Institute and its Fellows who advocate for Intelligent Design are usually careful not to identify their putative “intelligent designer” explicitly with the God of the Christian Bible, the dog-whistle signals they use leave their target audience in little doubt. The designer is understood to be the Christian god, merely relabelled for legal and tactical convenience. That being so, and if that god were actively interfering in the design and evolution of living systems — with humans as the supposed pinnacle of creation and occupying a special place in it — we might reasonably expect humans to have been given the best design available.

Instead, nature looks exactly as an unplanned evolutionary process would lead us to expect: a patchwork of compromises, contingencies and inherited limitations. As I describe in my book, The Malevolent Designer: Why Nature's God is not Good, humans are remarkable in some respects, particularly in our relatively large brains and consequent cognitive abilities, but in most other respects we are not especially impressive. We are not the strongest animals, nor the fastest. Birds of prey have far better eyesight; barn owls and dogs have far better hearing in relevant ranges; dogs have a vastly superior sense of smell; elephants and some other long-lived animals have evolved impressive cancer-resistance mechanisms; and the immune systems of many bats are tuned in ways that make our own look distinctly ordinary.

But perhaps the most striking contrast is in the ability of some animals to regenerate lost or damaged body parts. Several species can regenerate structures that humans simply cannot replace. Salamanders can regrow limbs; fish can replace fins and repair tissues that would leave mammals permanently damaged; and some invertebrates can regenerate astonishing portions of the body. Yet, noticeably, all the prayers, incantations and appeals to divine mercy have never once been shown to regrow an amputated human limb, replace a lost eye, repair a severed spinal cord, or restore dead heart muscle after an infarction. Nor do we see cancerous sections of colon removed by surgery obligingly regrowing as healthy tissue in answer to prayer. These are not impossible biological feats in principle; they are just things our lineage cannot normally do.

Now researchers from Texas A&M College of Veterinary Medicine and Biomedical Sciences (VMBS) have found something that should be even more disturbing for Intelligent Design creationists. In a paper recently published in Nature Communications, they report that non-regenerating mouse digit wounds can be induced to move part-way towards regeneration. In other words, the relevant mammalian cells may not be entirely incapable of regeneration; their capacity appears to be suppressed or obscured by the normal wound-healing response. Creationists who reject the evolutionary explanation now need to explain why an intelligent, omnibenevolent designer would leave mammals, including humans, with a latent capacity for regeneration, while allowing that capacity to be overridden by scarring.

The researchers’ explanation makes perfect sense as the outcome of a utilitarian, unplanned evolutionary process. In mammals, rapid wound closure by scar-forming fibroblasts can be life-saving. A quick patch reduces blood loss, closes a route for infection and gives the injured animal a better chance of surviving long enough to reproduce. Regeneration, by contrast, is slower and more complex. Evolution has no foresight and no obligation to produce perfection; it merely preserves what works well enough under the circumstances. The injury is patched up with a near-enough-is-good-enough solution, and the animal lives to pass on its genes.

That, of course, should not have been beyond the wit of an intelligent designer to improve upon. A competent designer could have given us both abilities: rapid wound closure to prevent fatal bleeding and infection, followed by orderly regeneration of the missing structures. Instead, we have the familiar evolutionary compromise: survival first, elegance later — and often not at all.

The problem centres on fibroblast cells, which can follow different developmental routes. In ordinary mammalian wound-healing, they rapidly close the wound and form scar tissue. In strongly regenerative animals, similar cells can organise into a blastema — a temporary structure that seals the wound while also providing the cellular basis for rebuilding missing tissues. The Texas A&M team showed that, after the wound had first closed, applying fibroblast growth factor 2 (FGF2), followed later by bone morphogenetic protein 2 (BMP2), could redirect the response. The result was imperfect regeneration, but it included bone, tendon, ligament and joint-like structures.

The conclusion is not that humans are about to start regrowing limbs, nor that a mouse digit is the same as a human arm or leg. It is more interesting than that. The potential for regeneration in mammals may not have vanished completely. It may still be there, hidden beneath the faster, rougher, scar-forming response that natural selection has favoured. For creationists, that raises the awkward question of why their supposed designer would equip other animals with regenerative abilities, leave traces of the same capacity in mammals, and then arrange matters so that, when humans most need it, the system normally fails.

How We Know The Bible Was Made Up By Ignorant People - Just Look At The Facts

Potm2605a (NGC 4501)

ESA/Hubble & NASA, D. Thilker and the MAUVE-HST Team

And God said, Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters. And God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament: and it was so. And God called the firmament Heaven. And the evening and the morning were the second day. And God said, Let the waters under the heaven be gathered together unto one place, and let the dry land appear: and it was so. And God called the dry land Earth; and the gathering together of the waters called he Seas: and God saw that it was good.(Gen 1: 6-10)

And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also. And God set them in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth. (Gen 1: 16-17)

Journey to the centre of a galaxy cluster | ESA/Hubble

This analogy needs careful handling because creationists are adept at ignoring the point of an argument and attacking a caricature of it instead. So, to be clear from the outset, this is not a claim about what the Bible says. It is a simple thought experiment about how we test claims against reality.

Suppose someone wrote a book in which he claimed to give an accurate description of the Bible. In it, he said the Bible consisted of only four books, two in the Old Testament and two in the New Testament; that it had only 120 pages; and that the entire story was about Adam and Eve and their sons, Noah and Moses.

How would we test those claims?

The answer is hardly complicated. We would get a Bible and compare the claims with the book itself. In other words, we would test the description against the reality it claimed to describe. And once we had done so, only two serious conclusions would be available: either the author was deliberately lying in order to deceive his readers, or he was so ignorant of the facts that he simply invented them. What we could not sensibly conclude is that the Bible was wrong for failing to match his description of it.

That, in its simplest form, is how science works. A claim is tested against reality. We begin with the assumption — the null hypothesis — that there is no meaningful difference between the claim and the facts. We then look. If the evidence shows a real difference between the claim and the observable facts, the claim has failed the test. It is not reality that must be adjusted to rescue the claim; it is the claim that must be rejected or revised.

This may sound like a “Janet and John” explanation of basic science, but it is remarkable how consistently creationists get even this wrong. They have a book which, when read literally, makes claims about the age, origin and structure of the universe. With modern science, it is a straightforward matter to compare those claims with the real universe. When we do that, we find that the description and the reality are not merely different, but radically, irreconcilably different.

Yet instead of concluding that the ancient description is wrong, creationists conclude that the evidence must be wrong. The facts are not judged against reality; reality is judged against the prior demand that the Bible must be right. This is not science. It is wishful thinking dressed up as certainty.

In effect, creationists believe their beliefs trump the evidence.

So what claims does the Bible make about the age and structure of the universe, and how do those claims compare with observable reality?

To be fair, the Bible gives no explicit numerical age for the universe. The familiar young-Earth figure of about 6,000 years comes from calculations based on biblical genealogies, most famously by the 17th-century Archbishop James Ussher, who placed creation in 4004 BCE. Modern young-Earth creationists often stretch this to somewhere between 6,000 and 10,000 years, not because evidence requires it, but because the older figure is now too obviously absurd to defend with a straight face.

The Bible is more explicit, however, about the structure of the universe as understood by its ancient authors. It describes a world in which the Earth lies beneath a firmament, or dome, which separates the waters below from the waters above. The sun, moon and stars are described as lights set in this firmament to illuminate the Earth. Elsewhere, the stars are treated not as distant suns and galaxies, but as objects that can fall from heaven and be trampled underfoot. This is the cosmology of a small, human-centred world, not the universe revealed by astronomy. (Genesis 1:6-10; Genesis 1:16-17; Daniel 8:10)

So how does that ancient description compare with what we find when we actually look? Take, for example, this tiny fragment of the sky visible to the Hubble Space Telescope:

Creationism Refuted - Scientists Explain How To Make A Universe - No Magic Required

An expanding mini universe could counterbalance the collapsing matter of a star, thereby creating a stable gravastar.

Credit: Daniel Jampolski and Luciano Rezzolla,
Goethe University Frankfurt

Big Bang inside a star: How a gravastar forms | EurekAlert!

Creationists like to think they have dealt a death-blow to cosmology with the childish question, "How can a universe come from nothing?" Usually, this is not so much an argument as an admission that they have mistaken a failure of their own imagination for a law of physics. They begin with the assumption that "nothing" must mean a sort of empty box waiting for a god to put something in it, then demand that science should explain the box, the waiting, and the god.

But modern physics has a habit of being far more imaginative, and far less parochial, than Bronze Age mythology.

A paper recently published in Physical Review D, by theoretical physicists Daniel Jampolski and Professor Luciano Rezzolla of Goethe University Frankfurt, explores one of those ideas that sounds, at first hearing, almost like science fiction: a collapsing star might not inevitably form a conventional black hole. Under the right conditions, the collapse could instead generate what is called a gravastar — a gravitational vacuum star — containing an expanding region of dark-energy-like spacetime, rather like a tiny universe forming inside the dying star.

This does not mean, of course, that physicists have proved that our universe began inside a star, still less that they have solved every problem in cosmology. Nor does it mean that "nothing" in physics is the same as the philosopher's or theologian's absolute nothing. What it does show, however, is that serious scientists can construct mathematical models in which expanding spacetime can arise naturally from the equations of general relativity, without once needing to insert a magic being, a supernatural command, or a cosmic conjuring trick.

That is the part creationists habitually miss. Science is not claiming that universes pop into existence by magic. It is doing what science always does: examining what the known laws imply under extreme conditions, identifying where those laws may need refinement, and testing whether natural processes can account for phenomena that once seemed impossible. In this case, the model suggests that when matter collapses to almost the point of becoming a black hole, a rapidly expanding de Sitter region could form inside it and counterbalance the collapse.

So, far from helping creationism, this work illustrates precisely why the creationist argument from incredulity is so feeble. "I don't understand how it could happen naturally" is not evidence for a god. It is merely the opening sentence of a scientific investigation.

Glossary^ Some Terms Used In This Research. Big Bang: The name given to the early hot, dense, rapidly expanding phase of our universe. It was not an explosion into pre-existing empty space, but the expansion of space itself from an extremely compressed state.

Black hole: An extremely compact object whose gravity is so strong that, within a certain boundary, not even light can escape. Black holes are a natural prediction of Einstein’s general relativity, although their innermost structure remains one of the deepest problems in physics.

Event horizon: The boundary around a black hole beyond which anything that enters cannot return or send information back to the outside universe. It is not a physical surface, but a point of no return in spacetime.

Singularity: In the simplest black-hole models, the point where matter is crushed to infinite density and spacetime curvature becomes infinite. Physicists generally regard this as a sign that the theory has reached its limit, not as a comfortably understood physical object.

Spacetime: The four-dimensional fabric made of three dimensions of space and one of time. In general relativity, gravity is not treated as an invisible force pulling objects together, but as the curvature of spacetime caused by mass and energy.

General relativity: Einstein’s theory of gravity, in which matter and energy tell spacetime how to curve, and curved spacetime tells matter how to move. It successfully explains many phenomena, including gravitational lensing, black holes, and the expansion of the universe.

Einstein field equations: The mathematical core of general relativity. These equations relate the distribution of matter and energy to the shape and behaviour of spacetime. In this research, the authors explore a new solution to these equations under extreme conditions.

Gravitational collapse: The inward collapse of a massive object under its own gravity. In stars, this can happen when the outward pressure from nuclear fusion can no longer resist gravity.

Nuclear fusion: The process that powers normal stars. Light atomic nuclei fuse into heavier nuclei, releasing energy. That energy helps provide the outward pressure that prevents a star from collapsing while it has fuel available.

Radiation pressure: The outward pressure produced by light and other radiation inside a star. In a stable star, this pressure helps balance the inward pull of gravity.

Ultra-compact star: An object packed into an extremely small volume, with intense gravity. Neutron stars are real examples; gravastars are proposed exotic examples.

Gravastar: Short for “gravitational vacuum star”. It is a proposed alternative to a black hole: an extremely compact object that could look much like a black hole from the outside, but without an event horizon or singularity. In the model discussed here, it contains a dark-energy-like interior.

Horizonless black-hole mimicker: A hypothetical object that would resemble a black hole in many observational ways, but would not have an event horizon. A gravastar is one such proposed object.

Dark energy: The name given to whatever is causing the expansion of our universe to accelerate. In simple terms, it behaves like a form of energy associated with empty space and can produce a repulsive, outward effect on cosmic scales.

Vacuum energy: Energy associated with space itself rather than with ordinary matter. In cosmology, vacuum-like energy can act rather like dark energy, driving expansion instead of collapse.

De Sitter spacetime: A mathematical model of spacetime dominated by vacuum energy or dark-energy-like behaviour. In the gravastar model, a tiny de Sitter region forms inside the collapsing matter and expands outward.

Nucleation: The beginning of a new region or phase from an initially tiny seed. Here it refers to the formation of a de Sitter region at the centre of the collapsing star.

Schwarzschild radius: The radius within which a given mass would become a black hole if compressed sufficiently. For a non-rotating black hole, this radius marks the event horizon.

Oppenheimer-Snyder collapse: A classic simplified model of a collapsing star, first studied in 1939. It treats the collapsing matter as a uniform sphere of pressureless “dust”, making the mathematics easier to handle.

Dust sphere: In this context, “dust” does not mean household dust. It means idealised matter with density but no pressure. Physicists use such simplified models to explore the consequences of gravity in a manageable way.

Compactness: A measure of how much mass is packed into a given radius. The more compact an object is, the stronger its gravitational field becomes. In this model, there is a limit beyond which collapse to a black hole becomes unavoidable.

Equilibrium: A balanced state. In the proposed gravastar model, the inward pull of the collapsing matter is balanced by the outward expansion of the dark-energy-like interior.

Computational simulation/model: A mathematical or computer-based exploration of what the equations predict under specified conditions. It is not the same as a direct observation, but it can show whether a proposed physical process is mathematically possible.

Fine-tuned conditions: Conditions that must fall within a narrow range for a particular outcome to occur. This does not mean supernatural “fine-tuning”; it means the model works only under specific physical assumptions.

New physics: A phrase physicists use when known theories may need extending or replacing under extreme conditions. It does not mean magic; it means there may be natural processes that current theories do not yet fully describe.

“Nothing” in physics: Not necessarily the absolute philosophical “nothing” beloved of creationist apologetics. In physics, even apparently empty space can have structure, fields, energy, and laws. Confusing these meanings is one of the common tricks in creationist arguments about the origin of the universe.

The Paper in Physical Review D was accompanied by a news release from Goethe University via EurekAlert!:

Refuting Creationism - How Modern Humans Benefitted from Meeting Denisovans

AI-generated Image (Chat GPT 5.5 Thinking)

Image provided by Tucci Lab

Genomes from Oceania offer new clues to human evolution | Yale News

A paper recently published by a Yale University-led team in the journal Science shows how Denisovan genes in the people of Near Oceania have contributed especially to their immune systems, and so have continued to influence human evolution for tens of thousands of years.

Who would be a creationist? It must be galling to wait so eagerly for that great day when biologists finally announce the collapse of evolutionary theory and admit that a better explanation of the observable evidence is one involving unevidenced magic entities doing conjuring tricks with chemistry and physics. That would make biology the first science to abandon natural explanations, ignore Occam’s Razor, and adopt magic as a basic principle. Sadly for creationists, that long-promised day shows no sign of arriving, despite having been predicted any day now for more than half a century.

But then, what would creationism be without a dogged refusal to change its mind when the evidence demands it, and the childish belief that the evidence itself must be part of some vast conspiracy to test the strength of faith? That is not science; it is apologetics dressed up in a lab coat.

The problem, as always, is that reality refuses to conform. The universe continues to produce evidence contradicting creationism and confirming the complex evolution of humans over deep time: migration, isolation, adaptation, bottlenecks, and repeated remixing with genes from other archaic human lineages, themselves the products of long evolutionary histories.

The real-world evidence written into our genomes is that most non-African human populations carry remnants of Neanderthal DNA, while Denisovan ancestry is especially marked in Near Oceanians and in some Asian populations. There is also evidence that Neanderthals and Denisovans themselves met and interbred in central Asia. Human evolution was not a simple ladder, still less a single act of special creation, but a branching, merging, reticulated history of populations moving, separating, adapting and sometimes meeting again.

Some of these archaic genes appear to have mattered because they were useful. In particular, they are often associated with immune responses to pathogenic bacteria and viruses. This makes evolutionary sense: Denisovan-like populations had already adapted to environments outside Africa, including their local burden of pathogens. When the ancestors of present-day Near Oceanians inherited some of that genetic variation through introgression, beneficial variants could be retained by natural selection, even while many other archaic variants were gradually lost.

The Yale-led team filled an important gap in our understanding of human evolution by sequencing the genomes of 177 individuals from 12 distinct populations in different parts of Near Oceania — the southwestern Pacific region that includes Papua New Guinea, the Bismarck Archipelago, and the Solomon Islands — and analysing them alongside 1,284 previously published genomes from individuals worldwide.

They found evidence that the ancestors of Near Oceanian populations interbred with at least three distinct Denisovan-like groups. They also identified thousands of archaic variants that affect how genes are switched on or off, with a notable concentration in immune and antiviral pathways. In other words, Denisovan DNA is not merely a fossil remnant in the genome; in some populations, it is still helping to shape biology today.

Refuting Creationism - A Vast Global Fungal Plant-Support System - Unintelligently 'Designed' Over 480 Million Years [Updated]

Mycorrhizal fungi under the microscope at AMOLF biophysics institute in Amsterdam. The circular structures are spores. Color is altered for legibility.

Credit: Tomás Munita

New global research maps underground fungal infrastructure for the first time - Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam

An international team of researchers, led by ecologist Justin Stewart of Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, has announced the creation of the first global map of the vast underground infrastructure formed by arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi. The team has published its findings in Science.

These are not fungi in the familiar sense of mushrooms, but microscopic, thread-like filaments, or hyphae, which form intimate partnerships with plant roots. The figures involved are astonishing. The researchers estimate that the upper layer of the world’s soils contains about 110 quadrillion kilometres of these fungal filaments — enough to stretch from Earth to the sun nearly three-quarters of a billion times, or there and back about 368 million times. The networks also transport roughly 4 billion tonnes of CO₂-equivalent into soils each year, about 11% of annual human-caused CO₂ emissions.

This is not a new evolutionary phenomenon. Arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi are part of an ancient plant-fungal symbiosis that appears to date back roughly 475–480 million years, close to the origin of the first land plants. That does not mean, of course, that the individual fungal filaments mapped today are hundreds of millions of years old, but that this type of mutualistic relationship has been evolving since the early colonisation of land by plants.

One sure way to tell that biological systems are not intelligently designed is not simply that they are complex, but that they are historically contingent. They carry the marks of accumulated compromises, improvised workarounds and layered dependencies. Evolution can only modify what already exists; it cannot scrap an imperfect arrangement and begin again with a clean sheet. Its only test is whether a change works well enough, in a particular environment, to leave more descendants than the alternatives.

None of these constraints would apply to an intelligent designer, still less to the omnipotent, omniscient, perfect designer imagined — though rarely named explicitly — by creationists trying to disguise fundamentalist creationism as science. A designed global life-support system would not be expected to emerge through countless local bargains between plants and fungi, mediated by nutrient stress, carbon demand, soil chemistry, competition, disturbance and natural selection.

So we can be as sure as it is possible to be that this vast, intricate and globally important biological infrastructure was not intelligently designed. It evolved because both partners gained from the exchange: plants provided carbon fixed by photosynthesis; fungi extended the reach of plant roots, supplying water and mineral nutrients, especially phosphorus and nitrogen. Over deep time, those local mutual advantages became part of the living fabric of terrestrial ecosystems.

The paper in Science is accompanied by a news release from Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, which includes a link to an interactive map of this global fungal infrastructure.

Unintelligent Design - Evolution By Viral Infection

Pomacea canaliculata egg clusters above the water line.

Apple Snail, Pomacea canaliculata

By KENPEI, CC BY-SA 3.0, Link

Lingnan University joint research analyses genome of global agricultural pest ‘apple snail’: Ancient viral gene-driven evolution of ‘terrestrial oviposition’ ability - Press Release | Lingnan University

A paper recently published in the journal Advanced Science, by researchers including Assistant Professor Jack Chi-Ho Ip, from Lingnan University, Hong Kong, is deeply problematic for creationists, not only because it describes a process that took place over an immense period of time incompatible with the biblical narrative, but also because it deals with a mechanism for evolution that cannot be waved aside as mere "variation within a kind", or something creationists like to dismiss as "micro-evolution".

Creationists continue to insist that large-scale evolution does not happen, so everything must have been specially created more or less as it is, with only limited variation within the "kind" — a term always left conspicuously undefined, so the goalposts can be moved whenever the evidence becomes inconvenient. This is despite the well-attested mechanisms by which biodiversity arises, including classical Darwinian natural selection acting on inherited variation, and genetic drift, in which chance changes in allele frequencies can lead to a neutral mutation becoming fixed in, or eliminated from, a population gene pool.

There is also the founder effect, where a non-representative sample of a population becomes isolated from the parent population, usually by a physical or ecological barrier. The new population therefore begins with a different allele-frequency profile from the population from which it came. Then there is hybridisation, where hybrid offspring can, in some circumstances, become reproductively isolated from both parent species, forming a new genetically distinct population or species.

And lastly, we have horizontal gene transfer, where an organism acquires genetic material from another biological lineage in its environment. This is especially familiar in bacteria, but it also occurs in animals, often through viruses. Retroviruses are particularly important in this respect because they insert a DNA copy of their genome into that of their host. Over time, the viral sequence may be disabled by mutation, or the host may evolve a defence against it. Either way, the remnant of the virus can become part of the host genome, where it is free to mutate over time. Occasionally, such inherited viral DNA is exapted for a new function, creating useful new genetic information without the slightest need for supernatural assistance. One well-known example is syncytin, derived from ancient retroviral genes, now involved in the formation and function of the mammalian placenta.

Now researchers at Hong Kong's Lingnan University and their collaborators have shown that a viral-derived gene in apple snails is probably involved in their ability to lay eggs out of water — a key adaptation in the evolution of aerial egg-laying and one reason some apple snails have become such successful invasive pests. The gene, associated with the perivitelline fluid surrounding the developing embryo, was probably acquired by the ancestor of the Ampullariidae during the Jurassic. It would be interesting to see a creationist explain how acquiring a gene from an entirely unrelated viral lineage can be described as "variation within a kind". It would also be interesting to see them explain why an intelligent designer would need to borrow viral genetic material to equip a snail to lay eggs above the waterline.

Refuting Creationism - Evolving Millipedes Crawl All Over Creationism

Hirudicryptus canariensis

Photo by Rafael Garcia and Paul Marek, Virginia Tech

Hirudicryptus canariensis (left) Siphoniulus neotropicus (microscopic image at right) are the two rare millipedes whose DNA helped researchers complete the first evolutionary history of all living millipede orders.

Photos by Rafael Garcia and Paul Marek for Virginia Tech.

Ancient millipedes still had secrets to tell | EurekAlert!

A paper published today (12 June 2026) in Current Biology is almost guaranteed to upset any creationists with the courage to read it and the ability to understand it. Written by an international team led by Associate Professor Paul Marek and Dr Luisa F. Vasquez-Valverde of Virginia Tech, it reports the completion of the first evolutionary history of all living millipede orders, including two rare groups whose DNA had never previously been included in a phylogenetic analysis.

Millipedes were amongst the earliest animals to colonise the land, arriving long before vertebrates had made the transition from water to land. According to the researchers, they beat vertebrates onto land by more than 80 million years. As detritivores, they helped to establish early terrestrial ecosystems by breaking down decaying organic matter and recycling nutrients, gradually helping to create soils in which later plant communities could develop.

For more than a century, biologists have known that two rare groups of millipedes — Siphoniulida and Siphonocryptida — existed, but without fresh specimens it was impossible to analyse their DNA and confirm where they belonged in the millipede family tree. One of the groups includes species barely a centimetre long that spend their entire lives underground; the other is known from only a few locations.

Members of the team therefore travelled to Los Tuxtlas, Mexico, and the Spanish Canary Islands to collect Siphoniulus neotropicus and Hirudicryptus canariensis, the two millipedes whose DNA had not previously been included in an evolutionary analysis. By sequencing DNA from these groups, comparing hundreds of genes across 82 millipede species, and combining those results with evidence from 29 fossils, the researchers were able to determine where the groups fit into millipede history and when their lineages emerged.

The result was especially interesting because one of the supposed “orders”, Siphonocryptida, appears not to be a separate order after all, but part of an existing lineage. The other, Siphoniulida, could finally be placed among its closest relatives on the millipede evolutionary timeline. The analysis also pushed the likely origin of millipedes back to nearly 460 million years ago — roughly 35 million years earlier than the oldest known millipede fossils.

This is bad news for creationists for at least three reasons:

• It shows these arthropods had their origin hundreds of millions of years before their mythical “Creation Week”.
• It shows a long history of descent from a common origin, just as the Theory of Evolution predicts.
• It shows the researchers were entirely dependent on evolutionary theory to frame the question, predict relationships, interpret the DNA and fossil evidence, and explain the results — with no hint that they found evolution inadequate and no need to invoke magic, special creation, or the long-promised “collapse of Darwinism” that creationists have been assuring their followers is imminent, and has been for more than half a century.