Rosa Rubicondior

Wednesday, 29 April 2026

Refuting Creationism - Why Neanderthals Went Extinct - 30,000 Years Before 'Creation Week'

The study shows that regions favourable to Homo sapiens were found to be more highly connected than those of Neanderthals.

Why did the Neanderthals disappear? - UdeMnouvelles

A recent paper in Quaternary Science Reviews by a team led by Professor Arianne Burke of the Department of Anthropology at Université de Montréal, and head of the Quebec-based Hominin Dispersals Research Group, offers fresh insight into why Neanderthals disappeared from Europe around 40,000 years ago.

The timeframe alone should be enough to send any self-respecting creationist reaching deep into the catalogue of prepared excuses for dismissing inconvenient facts. What we will not see, of course, is any acknowledgement that science has once again produced evidence that flatly contradicts their beliefs, or even the faintest shadow of doubt about the Bible’s usefulness as a textbook of history or science.

Archaic hominins have always been a major problem for creationists, whose responses range from outright denial, through misrepresentation of the science, to the extraordinary mental gymnastics needed to shoehorn the evidence into a childish Bible narrative of a single ancestral human couple living some 6,000–10,000 years ago.

A recent example is Ken Ham’s assertion, through Answers in Genesis, that Adam and Eve were the ancestors not only of modern humans but also of Neanderthals and Denisovans. That would make Adam and Eve something like Homo heidelbergensis, H. antecessor, or whichever Middle Pleistocene hominin eventually proves to have been the last common ancestor of these lineages. It also neatly ignores the African fossil record and raises the obvious question — even if we ignored the evidence for the age of these archaic humans for the sake of argument — of how their descendants could have spread so widely, diversified so markedly, and then partly disappeared, all within a few thousand years.

Of course, it is nonsense, and is clearly aimed at people who are either unaware of the evidence but vaguely aware of these archaic hominins, or are so eager to clutch at straws that any apologetic will do, however absurd it becomes when placed beside the facts.

“Primitive” people were actually just humans like you and me. pic.twitter.com/NXGQm0sYCW
— Answers in Genesis (@AiG) April 13, 2026

Yes, there are still unanswered questions about the common ancestry of modern humans, Neanderthals and Denisovans, but one thing we can be certain of is that their common ancestor did not live within the absurdly compressed timeframe allowed by the Bible narrative. That is just one of the many ways in which we know the Bible story is wrong — which is precisely why Ken Ham does not want his followers to think too carefully about it.

But if the question of origins is awkward for creationists, the question of extinction is no less so. Why did the Neanderthals disappear, and why did Homo sapiens survive and expand? There are several competing explanations, and, as so often in science, they are not mutually exclusive. Did Neanderthals succumb to climate instability? Were they weakened by inbreeding and low population density in small, scattered groups? Were they outcompeted by H. sapiens, with their wider social networks, more flexible technology and perhaps, eventually, dogs? Or were some Neanderthal populations simply absorbed into the larger and expanding population of H. sapiens through interbreeding?

Now, modelling by Professor Burke’s team suggests that the answer was not a single, simple cause. Climate change and interspecific interaction with H. sapiens were factors, but their importance varied across Europe. The study suggests that a significant difference may have been the resilience of social networks. In regions favourable to H. sapiens, populations appear to have been more strongly connected than Neanderthal populations, giving them a better safety net when climate, resources or local demography became unstable.

This does not mean Neanderthals were isolated, unintelligent or incapable of maintaining relationships between groups. Archaeological evidence shows that they had interregional connections too. But, according to the models, those networks appear to have been more fragile, especially in parts of Central and Eastern Europe. In a world of rapid climatic swings, that difference may have mattered. A better-connected population can share information, exchange partners, move temporarily into allied territories, and recover after local shocks. A more weakly connected population can be left isolated, vulnerable and demographically brittle.

Creationism In Crisis - Evolution In Progress As A Familiar Mediterranean Lizard Goes Green

The "Hulk" lizard.

Photo: Roberto García Roa.

“Hulk lizard” knocks out ancient colour palette | Lund University

This lovely example of evolution in progress will no doubt have creationists demanding that science abandon its definition of evolution and adopt their childish “change of kind” parody instead — a caricature which, if it meant one basic type of organism suddenly turning into another, would falsify evolution rather than confirm it.

The example concerns the common wall lizard, Podarcis muralis, a species widespread in the Mediterranean region. For millions of years, populations of this lizard have included three genetically determined throat-colour morphs: white, yellow and orange. These colour forms are not merely superficial differences. They are associated with different strategies for gaining territories, attracting mates and competing with rivals, and their long-term coexistence has been a textbook example of evolutionary balance maintained by natural and social selection.

Now that balance has been disrupted by the spread of a new phenotype: a larger, bright green, aggressive and sexually dominant form, known to science as the green-and-black, white-throated nigriventris phenotype, nicknamed the “Hulk” by the researchers appears to have arisen near Rome several thousand years ago (a mere tick in evolutionary time) and is now spreading through Italy.

As this form spreads through the landscape, the yellow- and orange-throated morphs are disappearing, leaving the white-throated form behind. The change has been so rapid that, had it involved a marked alteration in a structure likely to fossilise, such as teeth or bones, it would appear in the fossil record of the future as a sudden change after a long period of stasis — in other words, exactly the kind of pattern described by punctuated equilibrium. It is, of course, classic evolution: allele frequencies in populations shifting as a newly successful phenotype spreads.

This evolutionary change in progress is the subject of a paper in Science by an international team of researchers led by Professor Tobias Uller of Lund University, Sweden. The team analysed colour data from about 240 populations of P. muralis, comprising more than 10,000 individuals. The results show that the newcomer has significantly altered the long-standing balance within the species, eliminating the yellow and orange morphs as the larger, more aggressive form spreads through the region.

View of the village of Kuboes, on the border of South Africa and Namibia. DNA samples were collected from Nama individuals who have historically lived in the region.

Brenna Henn/UC Davis.

New UC Davis Research Using DNA Changes Origin of Human Species | College of Biological Sciences

Research first published in Nature in 2023 shows just how wide of the mark the Bronze Age authors of the Bible’s origin myths were when they guessed at human origins. Of course, in the absence of any knowledge or understanding of the true age of Earth, the history of life on it, or the existence of deep human ancestry, their guesses were no better than we would expect from people trying to explain the world with folklore rather than evidence.

In fact, as the evidence in the 2023 paper by a team co-led by Professor Brenna Henn of the University of California, Davis, and Simon Gravel of McGill University, Montreal, Quebec, Canada, shows, modern humans did not emerge from a single founding couple, or even from one simple, isolated ancestral population. Instead, our origins lie in a complex, dynamic network of human groups that diversified within Africa, evolved in partial isolation, and later exchanged genes as populations moved and merged.

In that respect, human evolution resembles other cases in nature where populations diverge, remain partly distinct, and yet continue to exchange genes — such as the carrion crow/hooded crow Corvus complex, the Eurasian complex of the great tit (Parus major) and its related forms, and the circumpolar herring gull/lesser black-backed gull Larus complex. These examples show evolution not as a neat ladder or a set of separately created “kinds”, but as a branching, reticulating process in which boundaries can be blurred by gene flow.

This process of diversification and later remixing continued in Eurasia, where Homo sapiens interbred with Neanderthals, Denisovans and, possibly, other human populations. Neanderthals eventually disappeared as a distinct population, or were partly absorbed into expanding Homo sapiens populations, around 40,000 years ago.

Far from the single ancestral couple that may have seemed intuitive to parochial Bronze Age pastoralists, modern humanity emerged from a population history that looks less like a single line of descent and more like a tangled bush with cross-linking branches.

The researchers reached this conclusion by analysing DNA sequenced from saliva samples from 44 modern Nama individuals from southern Africa, an Indigenous population known to carry exceptionally high levels of genetic diversity compared with many other modern groups. From that genetic data, the team developed a model suggesting that the earliest detectable split among ancestral human populations occurred between 120,000 and 135,000 years ago, after two or more weakly differentiated Homo populations had already been interbreeding for hundreds of thousands of years.

Even after that split, migration continued between the populations, producing what the researchers describe as a “weakly structured stem” for modern human origins in Africa. Rather than a single stem from which humanity simply sprouted, human evolution is better understood as a reticulated process: branching, merging, and branching again.

Creationism Refuted - A Newly-Discovered Mammal That LIve Alongside Dinosaurs - 75 Million Years Before 'Creation Week'

An illustration of Cimolodon desosai on the tree with a fruit in its mouth. It was about the size of a golden hamster. It likely scampered on the ground and in the trees and ate fruits and insects.

Photo: Andrey Atuchin.

Researchers discover the fossil of a new hamster-sized mammal that lived alongside dinosaurs on the Pacific Coast – UW News

Although the catastrophe at the end of the Cretaceous exterminated about 75% of life on Earth, including all the non-avian dinosaurs, some small mammals survived. Among them were rodent-like multituberculates: not rodents, but an extinct and highly successful group of mammals that had already lived alongside dinosaurs for more than 100 million years. One newly identified member of that group was a small mammal, about the size of a golden hamster, described in a recent paper published in the Journal of Vertebrate Paleontology.

The people who made up the creation myths in the Bible could have known nothing of this, of course. As their stories show, theirs was a narrow, parochial view of the world, centred on a small part of the Middle East and on the folk history of one people. Their modern legacy is a movement of equally incurious believers who treat those ancient stories as real history and their creation fantasy as real science. Consequently, the evidence revealed by palaeontologists is almost invariably too awkward for them to acknowledge honestly.

Sadly, creationists continue trying to boost their dwindling numbers, and soothe their fragile egos, by demanding the right to indoctrinate children at public expense. Behind that demand lies the curious belief that falsehoods become less false if enough people can be persuaded to believe them. The facts themselves are of little consequence. What matters is recruitment: encouraging ignorance, anti-science conspiracism and belief in magic, while leaving children ill-equipped to evaluate evidence, understand complex data, or perhaps become the scientists society will need in the future.

Nevertheless, the facts remain what they are, regardless of who accepts them. In this case, a research team led by the University of Washington has identified a new 75-million-year-old species of Cimolodon from a fossil discovered at a research site in Baja California, Mexico. The species, named Cimolodon desosai, was about the size of a golden hamster and probably scampered both on the ground and in trees, feeding on fruit and insects.

Creationism Refuted - Amazingly Detailed Fossils From Australia - 11-16 Million Years Before 'Creation Week'

Large trapdoor spider fossil preserved on a red rock

A large trapdoor spider preserved in McGraths Flat.

Michael Frese

Unusual red rocks in Australia are rewriting the rules on exceptional fossil sites

A research paper published online last year in Gondwana Research should have been giving creationists nightmares. It reports work by an Australian and American team of palaeontologists and geologists, led by Tara Djokic of the Australian Museum and UNSW Sydney, showing how iron-rich minerals can preserve fossils in such exquisite detail that individual pigment cells in fish eyes, internal organs of insects and fish, and even delicate spider hairs and nerve cells can be seen in deposits dated to between 11 million and 16 million years old.

The fossils come from McGraths Flat, a Miocene rainforest lake deposit in New South Wales, where organisms were entombed not in the usual shale, sandstone or limestone, but in iron-rich ferricrete composed largely of the iron-oxyhydroxide mineral goethite. Instead of destroying delicate biological structures, as might have been expected, the iron-rich sediment preserved them in astonishing microscopic detail.

This is not the first time iron has been shown to play an important role in preserving soft tissues rather than just the hard bones and teeth that normally fossilise. It was also implicated in Mary Schweitzer’s famous discovery of preserved collagen and soft-tissue-like structures in dinosaur fossils — a discovery that creationists frequently misrepresent today as “proof” that dinosaurs were alive only a few thousand years ago. Despite repeated corrections of these claims, creationist accounts of Schweitzer’s work have grown ever more fanciful with the passage of time, and now routinely include assertions that she found fresh blood and that the tissue was carbon-dated to just a few thousand years old.

In reality, the “fresh blood” claim is a distortion. Schweitzer described microscopic red structures that resembled blood cells, but their appearance was the starting point for a scientific investigation, not a claim that liquid blood had survived for millions of years. Nor was there any question of carbon dating, which is not used to date dinosaur fossils of this age. Schweitzer herself, writing in Scientific American, explained that the scientifically interesting question was not whether the fossil was young, but what chemical processes could allow traces of original biological material to persist for tens of millions of years.

The new paper extends that understanding by showing another way in which soft tissues can be preserved in remarkable detail over deep time. In favourable conditions, microscopic particles of iron-oxyhydroxide, each only about 0.005 millimetres across, can enter tissues and cells before decay destroys them, replicating delicate structures at cellular and even subcellular scales.

How this was discovered, and why it matters for palaeontology, is explained in an article in The Conversation by Tara Djokic. Her article is reproduced here under a Creative Commons licence and reformatted for stylistic consistency:

Creationism Refuted - Why Snakes, Like Creationists, Don't Have A Leg To Stand On - Evolution

Najash rionegrina

AI-generated image (ChatGPT 5.4 Thinking)

An ancient snake's cheekbone sheds light on evolution of modern snake skulls | Faculty of Science

Creationism is the art of ignoring evidence while pretending to be interested in it. Creationists continually demand that science provide supporting evidence for their childish parodies of evolution, abiogenesis, the Big Bang, and other scientific explanations; then, when the evidence is provided, they either ignore it, misrepresent it, or move the goalposts.

This is neatly illustrated by a paper published in Science Advances in 2019 by an international team of palaeontologists, including researchers from Argentina, the University of Alberta and McGill University. The paper provides creationists with something they are forever pretending to ask for — a transitional fossil — while also undermining another of their favourite assertions: that evolutionary change must always involve adding something new, and that loss or reduction cannot contribute to evolution.

The fossil in question belongs to Najash rionegrina, a rear-limbed fossil snake from Argentina. The presence of hind limbs is striking enough, but it is not the most important point of the paper. The fossil also shows that, during snake evolution, legs were not the only structures to be reduced or lost. The skull of Najash still retained a cheekbone — the jugal bone — which has almost entirely disappeared in living snakes.

That matters because it helps refine our understanding of how the modern snake skull evolved. Rather than appearing suddenly, fully formed and magically snake-like, the snake body plan was assembled over time through a series of anatomical changes, including elongation of the body, reduction of limbs, modification of the skull, and the loss or reduction of bones that were present in earlier ancestors. In other words, this is exactly the kind of transitional evidence creationists claim not to have seen, and exactly the kind of evolutionary reduction they claim cannot happen.

Landscape with Captorhinus life reconstruction.

Artwork by Michael deBraga.

The Oldest Breath: A 300-Million-Year-Old Mummy Reveals the Origins of How Amniotes Breathe | Department of Organismic and Evolutionary Biology

Today’s casual refutation of creationism comes from a team of palaeontologists who have examined an extraordinary, mummified fossil and uncovered yet another piece of evidence that creationist dogma says should not exist. Their findings have now been published in Nature.

The fossil, an early amniote reptile, Captorhinus aguti, is awkward for creationists on several counts. To begin with, it is about 289–286 million years old — vastly older than their mythology permits, and far beyond anything that can be hand-waved away as a dating “margin of error”. But it is even more troublesome than that, because it preserves evidence of a crucial evolutionary innovation: an early rib-assisted breathing apparatus for ventilating the lungs, helping to free vertebrates from the more limited breathing methods of their amphibian relatives and allowing them to thrive fully on land.

That innovation was a major step in the evolution of terrestrial tetrapods. Costal breathing — using the ribcage and associated muscles to expand and compress the chest — provided a far more efficient way of moving air in and out of the lungs. It helped set amniotes on the path to a more active life on land, in drier environments, and ultimately to the huge evolutionary success of reptiles, birds and mammals.

The remains are remarkable for the level of preservation. The fossil retains not only the skeleton, but also three-dimensional skin, preserved cartilages and even ancient protein remnants. Most importantly, it preserves elements of the thoracic apparatus involved in costal breathing, including structures linking the ribcage, sternum and shoulder girdle. These fossils come from the Richards Spur cave deposits in Oklahoma, already famous for yielding one of the most diverse known vertebrate assemblages from the Early Permian.

To study the fossils without damaging them, the team used high-resolution neutron computed tomography, allowing them to look beneath the surface of three specimens non-destructively. What they found sheds new light on how the amniote breathing apparatus evolved and helps document one of the key anatomical changes that made vertebrate life on land so successful.

How Science Works - 'Miniature Dinosaur' Fossils Identified As Baby Ankylosaurs

Numerous fossils of Liaoningosaurus paradoxus have so far been discovered.

First armoured dinosaur hatchling discovered in China | Natural History Museum.

Unlike fundamentalist belief systems such as creationism, in which facts are either forced to fit sacred dogma or dismissed with ad hoc excuses, science readily incorporates new information and adjusts its understanding accordingly. That process was neatly illustrated by the paper published in September 2025 in the Journal of Vertebrate Paleontology, which reported a reassessment of fossils from China first described in 2001.

These fossils were initially classified as belonging to a miniature armoured ankylosaur named Liaoningosaurus paradoxus. Since then, more specimens have been found, but none exceeds 40 cm in length, which is strikingly odd for ankylosaurs, a group whose members were typically around 3 metres or more long.

Where creationism would brush aside anomalies like this with a shrug and a retreat into theology, muttering about ‘mysterious ways’ or ‘tests’, science treats them as clues that something is not yet fully understood. The existence of these fossils pointed to something that had yet to be properly integrated into our knowledge of ankylosaurs, requiring scientists to refine either their understanding of the animals themselves or of the fossils attributed to them.

Now, a re-examination by a team of four palaeontologists, including Professor Paul Barrett of the Natural History Museum, London, has shown that these specimens were not miniature adults at all, but baby ankylosaurs. That makes them the youngest ankylosaurs yet discovered. There is still much to learn, because no adult Liaoningosaurus paradoxus has yet been found. Even so, these hatchling fossils add significantly to our understanding of how ankylosaurs developed.

Evolution In Progress - How Honey Bees Are Evolving - Another Move In The Arms Race

Varroa destructor on a honeybee

Jon Gascoyne/Flickr

SoCal honeybees can fend off deadly mites | UCR News | UC Riverside

A new paper in Scientific Reports by Genesis Chong-Echavez and Boris Baer of the University of California, Riverside, casually refutes creationism by showing evolution in progress. It describes how honeybees, Apis mellifera, are evolving to survive in the presence of a serious parasite, the Varroa mite, Varroa destructor. And, no doubt to the consternation of any creationists who understand the implications, it also illustrates how evolutionary arms races are a major driver of adaptation. Both parasites and arms races are deeply embarrassing for creationism because they make little sense as the products of an intelligent designer. Indeed, parasites conform to the Discovery Institute’s supposed “proof” of intelligent design only if that designer is malevolent; yet if parasites are dismissed as evidence of design, creationists are simply abandoning one of their own favourite arguments.

In other words, a parasite-host arms race is a paradox that creationism cannot resolve, whereas evolutionary theory not only explains it, but is strengthened by it. The paper concerns a Southern Californian hybrid population of honeybees with ancestry from Western European, Eastern European, Middle Eastern, and African lineages. These bees are showing resistance to the Varroa mite, a parasite that has played a major role in the catastrophic losses of managed honeybee colonies in the United States, where beekeepers reported losses of up to 62% in 2025.

The researchers monitored 236 colonies over four years and found that the Californian hybrid colonies consistently had lower mite infestation rates than colonies headed by commercial queens. In the UCR summary of the work, the hybrid colonies are described as having about 68% fewer mites on average and as being more than five times less likely to cross the treatment threshold at which chemical control becomes necessary. Laboratory experiments also showed that the mites were less attracted to larvae from these hybrid bees, especially at the stage when mites would normally be most likely to invade brood cells.

The usual creationist response to examples like this is to retreat into a parody definition of evolution involving a change in “kind”, with “kind” carefully left undefined, or to fall back on Bible-literalist theology and explain parasites as the result of “sin”, by some unexplained mechanism against which their creator appears curiously powerless. But the problem of arms races remains. On that view, creationism’s single designer seems to be competing with itself, continually redesigning solutions to problems of its own making, ad infinitum. Evolutionary biology, by contrast, has no such difficulty. It predicts exactly this kind of reciprocal adaptation between parasite and host.

Southern 'Doggerland' 16,000 years ago.

AI-generated image (ChatGPT 5.4 Thinking).

Warwick Study: Ancient Forests Under North Sea Lost World

More than 16,000 years ago, long before, according to their favourite Bronze Age mythology, creationists' little god created a small flat Earth under a dome centred on the Middle East, people and animals were able to walk from continental Europe into what are now the British Isles. They did so not by walking on water, but across dry land now submerged beneath the North Sea, of which Dogger Bank is one surviving remnant. From this lost landscape, Ice Age fossils such as mammoth teeth and tusks are still regularly dredged up in trawlers' nets.

Whatever hominins left the famous footprints at Happisburgh, Norfolk, almost certainly reached Britain on foot from western Europe, as did, much later, the hominins represented at Swanscombe in Kent and Pontnewydd Cave in Denbighshire, Wales.

Now, evidence presented in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS) by a team led by Professor Robin G. Allaby of Warwick University's School of Life Sciences shows that southern Doggerland was not a bleak, barren wasteland but supported temperate woodland more than 16,000 years ago. The team reached this conclusion from a detailed analysis of 252 sediment samples from 41 marine cores taken along the prehistoric Southern River in southern Doggerland, where exceptionally well-preserved deposits preserve an environmental record from the Late Pleistocene into the Holocene.

For creationists, the problem is not merely the age of this drowned landscape, awkward though that is for biblical chronology. It is the existence of the evidence itself: well-preserved, datable layers laid down over vast spans of time, preserving a coherent ecological history that can be tested, checked and verified. If biblical mythology were true, those layers should not exist in anything like this form. But they do, and they tell a story utterly at odds with Genesis.

In science, evidence that contradicts a hypothesis counts against it. A theory that repeatedly fails is supposed to be revised or abandoned. Creationism works the other way round. Evidence against it is treated not as a reason to change one's mind, but as a test of faith. By that twisted logic, the more decisively reality refutes it, the more convinced its followers become that they must be right. That is not intellectual strength. It is simply a refusal to let evidence matter.

An interesting aspect to this work, and one that may upset creationists, is the fact that the team used two different, unrelated methods for dating - carbon dating and optically stimulated luminescence (OSL) dating which converged on the same dates.

Creationism Refuted - More Evidence For Creationists To Prove Their Faith is Strong With - By Ignoring It.

Artistic rendition of Ptychotherates bucculentus.

Illustration by Megan Sodano for Virginia Tech.

Student identifies new meat-eating dinosaur three times older than T. rex | Virginia Tech News | Virginia Tech Another fossil; another piece of awkward evidence for creationists to ignore. This time, it is reported in the journal Papers in Palaeontology.

The fossil is of an ancestral dinosaur from the Late Triassic, about three times older than Tyrannosaurus rex, dating from an era when dinosaurs had not yet risen to dominance and were still competing with the ancestors of crocodiles and mammals. It was the mass extinction at the end of the Triassic that cleared the way for the dinosaurs, just as their own extinction at the end of the Cretaceous later cleared the way for mammals and birds.

For creationists, the fact that all this unfolded over a vast span of time long before the supposed creation of the small, flat world of Biblical mythology is simply one more test of how much evidence they are prepared to ignore. Unlike science, which stands or falls by the evidence, creationism seems to draw strength from defying it. The greater the weight of evidence against it, the more loudly its followers proclaim their faith to be unshaken. So while creationists on social media endlessly demand that science prove its case to an impossible standard, and try to pass misinformation or ignorance off as “proof” of creationism, they routinely dismiss real evidence and treat stubborn refusal to change their minds as a kind of victory. In creationist circles, winning a debate too often seems to mean not changing one’s mind, even when the facts leave no honest alternative.

This latest inconvenience for creationism comes from Virginia Tech, where student Simba Srivastava succeeded in reconstructing fragments of a dinosaur skull embedded in rock from New Mexico’s Ghost Ranch. The fossil had originally been unearthed in 1982, but was later rediscovered in a drawer at the Carnegie Museum of Natural History by palaeontologist Sterling Nesbitt. Back at Virginia Tech, Srivastava used computed tomography scan data to create a 3D print of the skull, revealing that it belonged to a previously unknown species of early dinosaur.

Refuting Creationism - Another Gap Shrinks And It's More Bad News For Creationists

Helicolocellus cantori in an Ediacaran sea

AI-generated image (ChatGPT Latest)

Virginia Tech researcher's team discovers 'missing' sea sponges | Virginia Tech News | Virginia Tech

Scientists have narrowed another gap in the fossil record and, as usual, no gods were found. The gap concerned the long interval between the time molecular-clock analyses suggest sponges first evolved in the Neoproterozoic, perhaps around 700 million years ago, and the earliest widely accepted sponge fossils from the early Cambrian. That gap has now been pushed back into the Late Ediacaran by Virginia Tech geobiologist a paper in Nature.

Creationists normally delight in gaps in the fossil record because they think Darwin somehow “admitted” that missing links were fatal to his theory. In reality, Darwin was doing what honest scientists do: openly acknowledging the limitations of the evidence available in 1859. The key point is that he was writing about the state of knowledge then, not in 2026. Since Darwin’s day, the Theory of Evolution has not only provided a framework for understanding the history of life; it has also told scientists what sort of evidence to look for and where to look for it. As a result, palaeontologists now have access to vastly more fossils than Darwin could ever have imagined, together with genetic evidence and radiometric dating methods that did not exist in his lifetime. More fossils are being found almost daily and invariably confirm the Theory of Evolution.

And those gaps continue to shrink, almost always to the discomfort of creationists, because they so often concern events hundreds of millions, even billions, of years before the narrow timescale allowed by biblical literalism. This fossil is especially awkward for them because it further undermines the familiar creationist misrepresentation of the Cambrian “Explosion” as a sudden, magical appearance of multiple body plans with no ancestry. Instead, this Late Ediacaran sponge adds to the growing evidence that the Cambrian diversification was preceded by a long evolutionary prelude, in which animals were already emerging and diversifying before the Cambrian began. Far from an abrupt act of creation, the picture is one of gradual evolutionary change over immense spans of time, as the largely sessile Ediacaran world gave way to the more active and ecologically complex Cambrian one.

AI-generated image (ChatGPT Latest)

Scientists develop first-of-its-kind antibody to block Epstein-Barr virus - Fred Hutch

A recent paper in the Cell Press journal Cell Reports Medicine by researchers at the Fred Hutch Cancer Center in Seattle reports the development of monoclonal antibodies against Epstein-Barr virus (EBV), a pathogen carried by an estimated 95% of the global human population. The mere existence of such a virus, together with the fact that human scientists have now produced what looks like a promising way of blocking it, should be acutely embarrassing to any creationist prepared to follow the evidence where it leads.

For devotees of creationism’s putative intelligent designer, EBV is an awkward example of its supposed handiwork. It is superbly adapted for what it does: infecting human cells, evading immune defences, and contributing to a range of diseases, including several cancers. If one were looking for something that appears exquisitely “designed” to do harm, EBV would be a strong candidate.

It is especially effective at finding and entering its target cells. The viral glycoprotein gp350 helps it bind to receptors on human cells, while gp42 helps it fuse with and enter them. In other words, it possesses precisely the sort of functional complexity that Intelligent Design advocates such as William Dembski and Michael Behe habitually point to as evidence of design. By their own argument, a system so finely tuned to perform a specific task should count as “specified complexity” or even “irreducible complexity”. The problem, of course, is that the task in question is the infection of human beings by a cancer-associated virus.

Creationists who lean on these arguments are therefore trapped by them. If complexity and functional integration are proof of a designer, then they must also account for the obvious implication: a designer responsible for EBV would have to be, at best, indifferent to human suffering and, at worst, positively malevolent. To escape that conclusion, they usually have to abandon Intelligent Design’s own logic and retreat instead to the theological fallback of “The Fall” and “sin” from the Abrahamic creation myths. In doing so, they quietly concede that their alleged scientific proof of design proves far more than they want it to.

This paper adds a further layer of discomfort. Human scientists have begun to do what any competent and benevolent designer should have done in the first place: devise antibodies capable of blocking the virus from infecting human cells. The study reports monoclonal antibodies against gp350 and gp42, with one anti-gp42 antibody preventing infection in mice with human immune systems. So the obvious question for intellectually honest creationists is this: if human science can engineer a way to interfere with such a pathogen, why was an all-powerful designer unable, or unwilling, to equip us with protection from the outset?

Predictably, most will not confront that question. They will retreat into the familiar refuge of mystery: “we cannot know the mind of God”. But that is precisely where religion and science part company. Science does not declare a problem solved by calling it unknowable. It treats mysteries as challenges to be investigated, understood and, where possible, overcome. That is exactly what these researchers have done with EBV.

Refuting Creationism - How Complex Organs Evolve

Using the placenta to understand how complex organs evolve

Recently, a new creationist member of a Facebook group resorted to the familiar tactic of presenting the placenta as a complex organ that could not possibly have evolved. As so often with creationist arguments, this was little more than an argument from personal incredulity dressed up as a challenge. In place of scientific evidence, he relied on a god-of-the-gaps argument and a false dichotomy, implying that if he could not imagine a natural explanation, the only alternative must be magic performed by his preferred deity.

The new member appears to have left the group soon after replies began to appear in the comments, complete with links to articles and papers explaining exactly how the problem can be approached scientifically.

This paper in Nature by Oliver W. Griffith and Günter P. Wagner of Yale University provides precisely the sort of answer that exposes the weakness of this common creationist tactic on social media. Their argument amounts to little more than: “I do not know how this could have evolved, therefore God did it.” That is not an explanation; it is simply ignorance masquerading as evidence, and tells us more of the parochial ignorance of the creationist than they probably intended. The paper uses the evolution of the placenta to explain some basic principles of how complex organs evolved. Needless to say, no magic is involved anywhere in the process.

One of the authors, Oliver W. Griffith, has also written an article in The Conversation explaining their research and what it tells us about the evolution of complex organs in vertebrates. His article is reproduced here under a Creative Commons licence, reformatted for stylistic consistency.

First, a short explanation of the role of the placental in placental mammals:

Creationism Refuted - The Transition From Cold-Blooded to Warm-Blooded Mammal Ancestors

AI-generated image (ChatGPT Latest)

Mystery solved: when mammals’ ancestors became warm-blooded

If the transition from cold-bloodedness to warm-bloodedness is not a change in “kind” in the creationist sense, it is hard to imagine what would qualify. Creationists often try to dismiss major evolutionary transitions as mere “variation within a 'Kind'”, but the shift from ectothermy to endothermy was not some trivial adjustment. It was a profound physiological transformation that allowed animals to maintain a high, stable internal temperature, remain active across a wider range of conditions, and exploit ecological niches closed to their cold-blooded ancestors. Yet, according to creationist mythology, no such transition ever occurred, and there was never a point in time when it began.

Unfortunately for creationists, the evidence says otherwise. An international team of palaeontologists led by Ricardo Araújo of the Universidade de Lisboa, Lisbon, Portugal, Romain David of the Natural History Museum, London, UK, and Kenneth D. Angielczyk of the Field Museum of Natural History, Chicago, USA, believe they have identified when endothermy arose in the mammalian lineage. Their findings were published in Nature in July 2022. The team concluded that mammalian ancestors became warm-blooded about 233 million years ago, roughly 33 million years before the first true mammals appeared, and at about the same time that other recognisably mammalian traits such as fur and whiskers were evolving. The timing is consistent with evolutionary expectations that major innovations can arise in response to changing environmental pressures. [1.1]

They also concluded that this transition was rapid in geological terms, taking less than a million years rather than unfolding gradually over tens of millions of years, as had often been assumed. [2.1]

The researchers reached these conclusions by examining 3D models of the inner ears of dozens of mammalian ancestors, many from South Africa’s fossil-rich Karoo region. Karoo fossils are especially valuable because they preserve an exceptionally detailed record of synapsid evolution across almost 100 million years, documenting the transition from reptile-like therapsids to mammals. What the team focused on was the shape of the semicircular canals of the inner ear, which form part of the balance system. These canals are filled with endolymph, a fluid whose viscosity changes with temperature. As body temperature rose during the evolution of endothermy, the geometry of the canals had to change to keep the balance organ functioning properly. That gave the researchers a way to infer when warm-bloodedness first evolved in the mammalian line. [2.1]

Four of the authors of the paper in Nature also published an article in The Conversation explaining their results and their significance for understanding mammalian evolution. Their article is reproduced here under a Creative Commons licence, reformatted for stylistic consistency.

First, information about the Karoo fossils:

Refuting Creationism - Ancestral Mammals Laid Eggs - Over 200 Million Years Before 'Creation Week'

Lystrosaurus embryo within its partially preserved shell, reconstruction of the animal

Pictures - Professor Julien Benoit Drawing - Sophie Vrard.

Embryo fossil found in South Africa is world’s oldest proof that mammal ancestors laid eggs

It is well established in evolutionary biology that mammals arose from within the synapsid lineage, the ancient group that includes the therapsids - stem-mammals that long predate true mammals. What had remained uncertain, however, was whether those early synapsids still reproduced by laying eggs, as modern monotremes such as the platypus and echidnas do, or whether live birth had evolved much earlier in the mammalian line.

That gap in our knowledge has now been narrowed dramatically and, no doubt to the acute discomfort of creationists, the evidence shows that about 250 million years ago - roughly 244 million years before young-Earth creationists believe the Earth was created - a therapsid was still reproducing by laying eggs. The evidence comes from a fossil embryo discovered in South Africa in 2008 by palaeontologist John Nyaphuli. Even more awkward for creationists, their mythology requires animals to have been created as separate, unrelated ‘kinds’, yet here we have direct evidence from the stem-mammal lineage showing a reproductive stage inherited from deep evolutionary ancestry rather than sudden, magical creation without predecessors.

Now Julien Benoit and Jennifer Botha of the University of the Witwatersrand, South Africa, together with Vincent Fernandez of the European Synchrotron Radiation Facility in Grenoble, France, have used high-resolution CT and synchrotron imaging to examine the curled-up embryo inside the rock and identify it as a young Lystrosaurus, a dicynodont therapsid from the Early Triassic. Crucially, the specimen preserves features consistent with an unhatched embryo, including a tightly curled in ovo posture and an unfused lower jaw symphysis. No calcified eggshell was preserved, so the egg was probably soft and leathery, as expected for a very early synapsid. Their findings are reported in an open access paper in PLOS One.

The authors have also co-authored an article in The Conversation explaining the discovery and its significance. Their article is reprinted here under a Creative Commons licence, reformatted for stylistic consistency.

Creationism Refuted - Neanderthal Cannibals From 35,000 Years Before 'Creation Week'

Neanderthal at the Goyet Cave.

AI-Generated image (ChatGPT Latest)

Neandertal women and children were the victims of selective cannibalism at Goyet | CNRS

he evidence presented in my last blog post suggested that, at least in the earlier phases of contact between anatomically modern humans moving out of Africa and the indigenous Neanderthals, interactions could be relatively peaceful, involving exchanges not only of DNA but also of technology and culture.

That may not always have been the case, however, as new evidence from the Troisième caverne of Goyet in Belgium suggests. Research just published in Scientific Reports by an international team including researchers from CNRS, the University of Bordeaux, and Aix-Marseille University indicates that, between 41,000 and 45,000 years ago, when Neanderthals were close to disappearing from Western Europe, a group consisting largely of non-local females and juveniles was taken to the Goyet site, butchered, and consumed. The broader background to this violence may have included growing territorial pressures, dwindling populations, or the increasing presence of Homo sapiens in nearby regions, but the precise cause remains unknown.

So, while we cannot know exactly what triggered this episode, and while the coincidence with the arrival of Homo sapiens may or may not be significant, isotope analysis does show that those who were cannibalised were outsiders rather than members of the local population.

“Primitive” people were actually just humans like you and me. pic.twitter.com/NXGQm0sYCW
— Answers in Genesis (@AiG) April 13, 2026

For creationists, Neanderthals have always been a problem. It used to be common for them to claim that Neanderthals were known from just a single specimen later shown to be a pathological modern human suffering from arthritis. That falsehood has become harder and harder to sustain now that we have numerous specimens from across Eurasia, as well as sequenced Neanderthal genomes. The fallback position now seems to be to insist that Neanderthals fit neatly into Genesis because they were simply part of “human kind”.

Ken Ham, the creationist head of Answers in Genesis, with his characteristically casual regard for the truth and his obvious personal stake in presenting Bible-literalist mythology as history and science, has recently claimed that Neanderthals and Denisovans were descendants of Adam and Eve. What he does not explain, of course, is how he compresses the archaeological timescale of their existence, and their divergence into distinct lineages with markedly different genomes, into the 6,000 to 10,000 years allowed by creationist dogma. Like so many of Ham’s claims, it is aimed at an audience eager to have its prejudices confirmed and unlikely to fact-check anything for fear of discovering that it has been misled.

Like so much else in the history of life on Earth, and especially in the evolutionary history of our own species, all of this took place in that immense span of time before creationists imagine their small tribal god conjured up a small flat planet under a solid dome, conveniently centred on the Middle East.

The factual evidence, of course, tells a very different story: one based on testable, verifiable data, not on the campfire tales of Bronze Age herders who knew no better.

And in this case, that evidence shows that something, whether the increasing presence of modern Homo sapiens, the breakdown of Neanderthal society as their numbers declined, or some other factor entirely, led one Neanderthal group in what is now Belgium to capture outsiders, mainly women and children, bring them back to the Goyet site, and consume them.

Archaeological examination of the Tinshemet Cave floor.

Close Encounters of the Third Kind: Neanderthal and Homo sapiens Interactions in the Mid-Middle Palaeolithic (130,000–80,000 years ago) | EUROPEAN FRIENDS OF THE HEBREW UNIVERSITY

Neanderthals are a persistent thorn in the side of creationism because they show that human origins are far older, messier and more interesting than the simplistic creation myths in the Bible. Genetic evidence shows that people outside Africa still carry a small but significant inheritance from Neanderthals, demonstrating that human ancestry was shaped not by descent from a single primordial couple, but by repeated episodes of migration, divergence and interbreeding between distinct human populations. There is even evidence that early Homo sapiens were interbreeding with Neanderthals as long as 100,000 years ago.

Now, new research by archaeologists and palaeoanthropologists from the Hebrew University of Jerusalem and Tel Aviv University, excavating at Tinshemet Cave in central Israel, suggests that the relationship between Neanderthals and early modern humans in the Levant, between about 130,000 and 80,000 years ago, involved far more than occasional contact. Their evidence indicates sustained interaction, shared technologies, similar hunting strategies and parallel ritual behaviour, including formal burial practices. The team have just published their findings in the journal Nature Human Behaviour. What emerges is a picture of different human groups living in close contact, exchanging ideas and behaviours to such an extent that their cultural differences became increasingly blurred.

The researchers reached this conclusion by integrating evidence from four main areas: stone-tool production, hunting strategies, symbolic behaviour and social complexity. Particularly striking is the clustering of burials at Tinshemet Cave, which suggests that the cave may have served as a repeated burial site, perhaps even an early cemetery. The placement of objects such as stone tools, animal bones and pieces of ochre in graves points to shared ritual practices and symbolic behaviour, hinting at a level of social and cultural complexity that creationist caricatures of early humans simply cannot accommodate.

Cover picture for The Way of the Wolf: A Stone Age Epic

Canine companions: revealing the genetic history of our first friends | Crick

This is the second of my posts on the domestication of dogs and on why the facts are so awkward for creationists. It concerns research by a team led by Anders Bergström and Pontus Skoglund of the Francis Crick Institute, London, working with colleagues from the Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology and a large international network of collaborators.

The team have shown that the domestication of dogs had already begun well before the invention of farming, when humans in Europe still lived in nomadic bands of hunter-gatherers. At that stage, dogs would have been hunting companions, sentinel guards for encampments, and perhaps even family pets, long before they were adapted for the many tasks later associated with farming, such as herding livestock and guarding flocks. Their findings are published in Nature.

This establishes dogs as the first domestic animals and suggests that the human-dog relationship may have helped lay the groundwork for later animal husbandry and selective breeding.

The story of the domestication of dogs from wolves is something in which I have long taken a special interest, and it was that interest which led me to write two books with fictionalised accounts of how it may have happened - The Girl and the Wolf and its sequel, The Way of the Wolf: A Stone Age Epic.

Biologically, of course, this evolved symbiotic relationship between two species is exactly the sort of outcome the Theory of Evolution leads us to expect. But, embarrassingly for creationists, it also tells a story rooted in deep time, for which creationism has no credible explanation. Worse still for biblical literalists, it makes a mockery of the claim that God created all animals for the benefit of humankind, because that claim presupposes that animals created by an omniscient, omnipotent designer would already be fit for purpose and would not need extensive modification by human selective breeding.

The researchers reached their conclusions by analysing DNA from 216 canid skeletal remains, including 181 pre-Neolithic samples - that is, from before approximately 10,000 years ago. These remains came from sites across Europe and nearby regions, including Switzerland, Germany, Belgium, the Netherlands, Turkey, Sweden, Denmark and Scotland.

Creationists previously had a little wriggle room when the earliest indisputable domestic dog was thought to date to about 10,900 years ago. They could at least pretend that dogs appeared during their imaginary ‘Creation Week’ or shortly afterwards. That pretence is now no longer sustainable. This study shows that the ancestry of later dogs was already established before 14,200 years ago, and probably earlier still.

Creationism Refuted - Earliest Domestic Dogs - 6,000 Years Before 'Creation Week'

Oldest genetic evidence for domestic dogs identified in Europe and Türkiye | University of Oxford

Artistic reconstruction of Pınarbaşı c. 15,800 years ago based on evidence from archaeological excavations by University of Liverpool.

This is the first of two blog posts on a pair of recent papers published in Nature on the earliest known domestic dogs and what they tell us about when grey wolves first entered into a domestic relationship with humans. Together, these studies push the earliest firm genetic evidence for dogs back[1] about 10,900 years ago, showing that dog populations were already present in western Eurasia during the Late Upper Palaeolithic. For creationists committed to a young Earth and to the simplistic Bronze Age origin myths of the Bible, that is yet another awkward fact: dogs were already on their way to becoming humanity’s first domestic animal long before their preferred chronology even allows for the Earth to exist. [1.1]

Since then, of course, dogs have been systematically modified by selective breeding to suit the many roles humans have found for them. That alone sits uneasily with the claim that a perfect creator made all animals ready-made for human benefit. But what makes these papers especially interesting to me is not only that they create yet another problem for creationist superstition, but that they touch directly on the background to two novels I have recently published, in which the domestication of wolves forms part of the story.

The first of these books, The Girl and the Wolf, tells the story of Almora, a child of the Drognai clan, who is raised alongside a wolf cub, Sharma, who becomes her inseparable companion. When Almora meets one of the last Neanderthals, Tanu, and they fall in love, Sharma plays a crucial part in bringing them together. The kindness of Almora’s mother, Shana, in rescuing and raising the starving cub becomes the small act from which a much larger change in human history begins.

In the sequel, The Way of The Wolf: A Stone Age Epic, Almora and Sharma have become the stuff of legend, their story spreading far beyond the lands of the Drognai. When Almora’s daughter, Shana — herself of mixed Neanderthal and modern human ancestry — chooses to leave the clan because of the tensions her family’s presence has caused, Almora, Tanu and a small band of Drognai go with her to a distant land. There they discover a people who have taken the legend of Almora and Sharma to heart and formed a close relationship with a pack of tame wolves, a relationship that has helped carry them through hardship into a period of hunting success and prosperity.

These books are fiction, of course, because we cannot know exactly how wolves became domesticated. What we can say is that the current evidence points to a long and complex process rather than a single moment of “invention”. The broad consensus is that some wolves probably began by exploiting scraps around human camps, while humans gradually came to recognise their value as sentinels, scavengers and hunting partners. The rest, as they say, is history.

And according to the first of these two new papers, that history was already under way deep in the Late Ice Age. One study generated nuclear and mitochondrial genomes from canid remains from Pınarbaşı in Türkiye, dated to 15,800 years ago, and from Gough’s Cave in Somerset, dated to 14,300 years ago, and concluded that a genetically homogeneous dog population was already widely distributed across Europe and Anatolia by at least 14,300 years ago. The second study analysed 216 canid remains from Europe and found its oldest dog genome in a 14,200-year-old specimen from Kesslerloch in Switzerland, showing that European dogs were already genetically distinct by then. [1.1]

Refuting Creationism - How Humans Caused 'Warrior' Wheat to Evolve.

Early farming unintentionally bred highly competitive "warrior" wheat, study finds | Biosciences | The University of Sheffield

One of the more embarrassing questions you can ask a creationist is this: if an omniscient, perfect god created all living things for the benefit of humankind, as the biblical creation myth claims, why have humans had to modify almost all our domesticated animals and cultivated crops to make them fit for purpose? In many cases, we have altered them so extensively that they are barely recognisable as the same species as their wild ancestors.

The story of how humans domesticated wild species and gradually modified them is, in effect, a textbook example of evolution in progress. Sometimes this happened through conscious selective breeding, but often it was an unintended consequence of domestication itself. Wheat, for example, evolved grains that were more firmly attached to the stalk. This meant fewer grains were lost when harvested and carried back to camp for communal use, so the plants whose seeds stayed attached were more likely to have those seeds planted again, whether deliberately or accidentally, around early hunter-gatherer encampments.

Another example in wheat is the evolution of taller plants with more upright leaves. As humans began planting wheat more densely, they created an environment in which the more aggressive plants literally overshadowed their neighbours and captured a greater share of the sunlight. In this struggle for existence, the plants best suited to the human-made environment were the ones most likely to survive and become the parents of the next generation.

That is the conclusion of a research group led by Dr Yixiang Shan and Professor Colin Osborne of the University of Sheffield, working in collaboration with colleagues from the Autonomous University of Madrid, Rey Juan Carlos University in Spain, and Wageningen University in the Netherlands. Their findings are published in Current Biology.

Malevolent Design - How Epigenetics Helps Pancreatic Cancer To Spread

Representation of KLF5 expression patterns in lab-grown human pancreatic cancer cells (left) and their patterns of migration from the primary tumor (right). Credit: Andrew Feinberg laboratory, Johns Hopkins Medicine. Originally published in Molecular Cancer.

Growth of Spreading Pancreatic Cancer Fueled By “Under-Appreciated” Epigenetic Changes | Johns Hopkins Medicine

A new paper in Molecular Cancer from Johns Hopkins Medicine describes yet another discovery that should be deeply uncomfortable for Intelligent Design creationists. The researchers found that the spread of pancreatic cancer is driven not chiefly by fresh mutations in DNA sequence, but by epigenetic reprogramming — changes in chromatin organisation and gene activity. In particular, they identified KLF5 as a major driver of metastatic growth, with higher expression in most metastatic lesions than in the matched primary tumours. The paper in Molecular Cancer shows that KLF5 promotes metastatic proliferation through epigenetic modifier genes including NCAPD2 and MTHFD1, helping switch on programmes involved in migration, plasticity and invasion. [1]

What makes this especially important is that epigenetics is not some magical extra layer of “specified information” inserted into life by a supernatural designer. Its roots are ancient. In bacteria, DNA methylation is a major form of epigenetic regulation, involved in gene expression, chromosome replication and DNA repair. In archaea, histone-based chromatin already exists in a form strikingly similar to that of eukaryotes, and studies show that chromatin architecture and its role in regulating gene expression long predate complex multicellular life. In other words, the basic machinery was already there in simpler organisms, doing ordinary cellular housekeeping long before animals and plants ever appeared. [2]

Multicellular organisms did not receive a brand-new control system from an intelligent agent; they inherited this ancient molecular toolkit and elaborated it. As multicellularity evolved, epigenetic regulation expanded and became central to cell differentiation, allowing cells with the same DNA to adopt different stable identities by opening some regions of the genome and closing others. Work on the transition from unicellular to multicellular states in Dictyostelium, for example, shows that chromatin reorganisation and histone modifications are closely tied to the shift into multicellularity, while evolutionary reviews note that epigenetic diversity expanded rapidly with multicellular life and that epigenetic marks are crucial in development and long-lived cell lineages. [3]

And that is exactly why this Johns Hopkins work is such bad news for ID creationists. The same ancient, repurposed system that multicellular organisms rely on for cell specialisation can also be subverted to drive one of the deadliest features of cancer: metastasis. That is what evolved systems do. They are modified from older parts, good enough to work, but never perfect and never immune to catastrophic failure. What this study reveals is not elegant, flawless engineering, but the vulnerability of a historically evolved regulatory system — one that natural selection adapted for development and tissue specialisation, but which disease can hijack with lethal consequences. That is entirely consistent with evolution, and profoundly at odds with the notion of a competent, benevolent designer. [1]

Subscribe to: Posts ( Atom )

Wednesday, 29 April 2026

Monday, 27 April 2026

Sunday, 26 April 2026

Saturday, 25 April 2026

Friday, 24 April 2026

Thursday, 23 April 2026

Tuesday, 21 April 2026

Sunday, 19 April 2026

Saturday, 18 April 2026

Friday, 17 April 2026

Thursday, 16 April 2026

Wednesday, 15 April 2026

Tuesday, 14 April 2026

Monday, 13 April 2026

Sunday, 12 April 2026

Saturday, 11 April 2026