A recent re-examination of museum coelacanth fossils has shown that there was more than one taxon in the Late Triassic and that, where we believed there were just four specimens, there are actually more than fifty. These fossils were hiding in plain sight, mis-identified for decades in collections across Britain. This significantly expands the known diversity of coelacanths at that time and neatly illustrates how science continually refines and improves its understanding as new evidence and careful re-analysis emerge.
Coelacanths have long been a favourite talking-point for creationists, who seized on the 1938 discovery of living Latimeria — a lineage once known only from the fossil record and thought extinct — as supposed proof that evolution had somehow stalled. Because the modern species still carries the name “coelacanth”, they leap to the assumption that the fish has remained unchanged for over 200 million years, and therefore evolution must be false. I have even seen creationists claim that if coelacanths have “not evolved” in all that time, the Earth must therefore be only a few thousand years old. It’s an extraordinary logical contortion — and one born of misunderstanding both biology and evidence.
In reality, the modern coelacanth is not the same species as the ancient Triassic forms, nor is evolutionary change required to be dramatic or constant for every lineage. Species can remain broadly similar when their ecological niche remains stable — a concept perfectly consistent with evolutionary theory. What this study demonstrates, once again, is the iterative, self-correcting nature of science: questions are never closed, evidence is always open to re-examination, and conclusions adapt as new data emerges.
Human evolution isn’t a tidy staircase; it’s a branching, tangled tree full of transitional forms. And now, cutting-edge protein analysis from two-million-year-old teeth has revealed that Paranthropus robustus — one of our distant cousins — carried mixed ancestry, adding powerful new evidence to the evolutionary story creationists work so hard to deny.
If there is anything guaranteed to send a creationist into a fit of denial — desperately trying to redefine basic terms such as “transitional”, “species”, and “evolution”, and, as a last resort, claiming palaeontologists must have faked the evidence — it is the discovery of a transitional species in human evolutionary history.
But the hominin fossil record, like the evolutionary record for most living species, is absolutely packed with transitional forms. In fact, there are so many in human palaeontology that it can be difficult to single out one that is clearly more ‘transitional’ than the rest, because they form a fairly smooth continuum from the australopiths through to the genus Homo, just as we would expect of a slow process unfolding over tens of thousands or millions of years.
However, one species, Paranthropus robustus, stands out for its mosaic of features consistent with a lineage intermediate between the common ancestor of chimpanzees and hominins and the australopiths that followed.
And this mosaic has now been expanded to include genetic-level evidence, thanks to advances in palaeoproteomics. Proteins can persist far longer than DNA, yet they retain a direct correspondence to DNA via RNA, which encodes their amino-acid sequences. Once ancient proteins have been recovered and analysed, researchers can work backwards to reconstruct the RNA, and therefore the DNA, that produced them.
Using proteins extracted from the tooth enamel of four P. robustus fossils, researchers led by the University of Copenhagen have shown that these individuals themselves had mixed ancestry — indicating interbreeding with contemporaneous relatives, just as we now know happened among later hominin species, and almost certainly among the australopiths too.
For nearly a century, scientists have been puzzling over fossils from a strange and robust-looking distant relative of early humans: Paranthropus robustus. It walked upright, and was built for heavy chewing with relatively massive jaws, and huge teeth with thick dental enamel. It’s thought to have lived between 2.25 million and 1.7 million years ago.
Fossils show how these early relatives evolved from as far back as A. africanus, 3.67 million years ago. They also document milestones in evolution, including the transition to walking on two legs, tool making and increased brain development. Ultimately, our species – Homo sapiens – appeared in South Africa 153,000 years ago.
Fossils of P. robustus were first discovered in South Africa in 1938. But crucial questions remained. How much variation was there within the species? Were the size differences related to sex, or did they reflect the presence of multiple species? How was P. robustus related to the other hominins and early Homo? And what, genetically, made it distinct?
Until now, answers to these questions have been elusive. As a team of African and European molecular science, chemistry and palaeoanthropology researchers, we wanted to find answers but we couldn’t use ancient DNA to help us. Ancient DNA has been a game-changer in studying later hominins like Neanderthals and Denisovans but it doesn’t survive well in Africa’s climate because of its simple structure.
We experienced a breakthrough when we decided to use palaeoproteomics – the analysis of ancient proteins. We extracted these from the enamel of the 2-million-year-old teeth of four P. robustus fossils from Swartkrans Cave in South Africa’s Cradle of Humankind.
Luckily, proteins that are millions of years old preserve well because they stick to teeth and bones and are not affected by the warm weather. One of these proteins tells us the biological sex of the fossils. This is how we found that two of the individuals were male and two were female.
These findings open a new window into human evolution – one that could reshape how we interpret diversity in our early ancestors by providing some of the oldest human genetic data from Africa. From there, we can understand more about the relationships between the individuals and potentially even whether the fossils come from different species.
More than one kind of Paranthropus?
The protein sequences also revealed other subtle but potentially significant genetic differences. One standout difference was found in a gene which makes enamelin, a critical enamel-forming protein. We found that two of the individuals shared an amino acid with modern and early humans, chimpanzees and gorillas. The other two had an amino acid that among African great apes is, so far, unique to Paranthropus.
What’s even more interesting is that one of the individuals had both the distinct amino acids. This is the first documented time we can show heterozygosity (a state of having two different versions of a gene) in proteins that are 2 million years old.
When studying proteins, specific mutations are thought to indicate different species. We were quite surprised to discover that what we initially thought was a mutation unique to Paranthropus robustus was actually variable within that group – some individuals had it while others did not. Again, this was the first time anyone had observed a protein mutation in ancient proteins (these mutations are usually observed in ancient DNA).
We realised that instead of seeing a single, variable species, we might be looking at a complex evolutionary puzzle of individuals with different ancestries. This shows that combining analyses of morphology (the study of the form and structure of organisms) and the study of ancient proteins, we can create a clearer evolutionary picture of the relationships among these early hominin individuals.
However, to confirm that P. robustus fossils have different ancestry, we will need to take samples of tooth enamel protein from more of their teeth. To do this, we plan to sustainably sample more P. robustus from other sites in South Africa where they’ve been found.
Preserving Africa’s fossil heritage
Our team was careful to balance scientific innovation with the need to protect irreplaceable heritage. Fossils were sampled minimally, and all work followed South African regulations. We also involved local laboratories in the analysis. Many of the authors were from the African continent. They were instrumental in guiding the research agenda and approach from the early stages of the project.
Doing this kind of high-end science on African fossils in Africa is an important step towards transformation and decolonisation of palaeontology. It builds local capacity and ensures that discoveries benefit the regions from which the fossils come.
By combining data on molecules and morphology, our study offers a blueprint for future research – one that could clarify whether early hominins were more or less diverse than we’ve known.
For now, the Paranthropus puzzle just got a little more complex – and a lot more exciting. As palaeoproteomic techniques improve and more fossils are analysed, we can expect more surprises from our ancient relatives.
(Jesper V. Olsen, Rebecca R. Ackermann and Enrico Cappellini were also the principal investigators on this project.)
Published by The Conversation. Open access. (CC BY 4.0)
Abstract
Paranthropus robustus is a morphologically well-documented Early Pleistocene hominin species from southern Africa with no genetic evidence reported so far. In this work, we describe the mass spectrometric sequencing of enamel peptides from four ~2 million–year-old dental specimens attributed morphologically to P. robustus from the site of Swartkrans in South Africa. The identification of AMELY-specific peptides enabled us to assign two specimens to male individuals, whereas semiquantitative mass spectrometric data analysis attributed the other two to females. A single amino acid polymorphism and the enamel-dentine junction shape variation indicated potential subgroups present within southern African Paranthropus. This study demonstrates how palaeoproteomics can help distinguish sexual dimorphism from other sources of variation in African Early Pleistocene hominins.
Once again, the evidence aligns from every direction: anatomy, geology, developmental biology, genetics, and now ancient proteins all tell the same story. Human evolution is a messy, branching, experimentally rich process — and *Paranthropus robustus* sits right where we would expect a transitional form to sit, complete with the genetic fingerprints of interbreeding and divergence.
Creationists often demand “transitional forms” as though evolution should be obliged to produce museum-ready half-and-half creatures on command. Yet when the fossil record delivers precisely what any honest inquirer would recognise as transitional, the response is denial, distortion, and conspiracy theories about forged fossils. It is not evidence they lack; it is the willingness to accept it.
Science advances not by clinging to comforting myths, but by following data wherever it leads. And as our tools improve — from classical morphology to whole-genome sequencing and now ancient protein reconstruction — the picture of human origins becomes richer, more detailed, and entirely consistent with evolution by natural processes. The real story of our species is far more fascinating than any manufactured pseudoscience: we are the product of deep time, branching ancestries, and countless experiments in survival — a lineage written in bone and now, quite literally, in protein.
In Ice Age Europe, when modern humans were spreading across the continent and the last Neanderthals were fading from our story, something remarkable happened deep beneath the limestone hills of southern France. In the Chauvet-Pont-d’Arc Cave, in the Ardèche valley, a young human child walked through a dark passage and left her footprints in the soft clay floor.
Beside her walked a wolf.
That much we know. Frozen in time for over 30,000 years, those parallel tracks hint at a moment of curiosity, courage, and perhaps companionship long before the first domesticated dogs trotted at our heels. They offer a tantalising glimpse into a forgotten world — the world that inspired my new novel.
The Girl and the Wolf is a story that imagines how such a bond might have begun. It follows Almora, an inquisitive, strong-willed child of the Drognai clan, raised alongside a rescued wolf cub named Sharma. As Almora grows into a capable young woman, her life takes an extraordinary turn when she meets Tanu — one of the last Neanderthals in Europe. Their unlikely love, and Tanu’s struggle to be accepted by Almora’s people, explores themes of kinship, belonging, and the courage to overcome fear of the Other.
The Real Chauvet Child and Wolf Tracks.
In 1994, archaeologists exploring the Chauvet-Pont-d’Arc Cave in the Ardèche region of France made an astonishing discovery: some of the oldest known human art on Earth — and something even more unexpected was to come.
In 2022, on the soft clay floor of a deep passageway, they discovered the footprints of a child, estimated to be around eight years old. Alongside them were the impressions of a large canid, likely a wolf. The tracks run side by side for several metres before disappearing into darkness, untouched for more than 30,000 years.
There is no evidence the animal was tamed, and it may simply have been following the child’s scent or path. But the fossil record occasionally offers us moments like this — fleeting hints of ancient encounters between humans and wolves before the process of domestication began.
The footprints raise intriguing possibilities:
Were early humans already forming tentative bonds with wild wolves?
Did shared hunting grounds foster familiarity and cautious tolerance?
Could small acts of curiosity and courage have eventually led to true companionship?
We cannot know with certainty what happened that day in Chauvet Cave. But those footprints remind us that the story of humans and wolves began long before the first village dogs lay beside our hearths — deep in the Ice Age, when the world was young and full of wonder.
This chart shows the location of the RCW 94 and RCW 95 nebulae between the Circinus and Norma constellations. This map shows most of the stars visible to the unaided eye under good conditions. The location of the nebulae is marked with a red circle.
For Bible literalists who insist on clinging to the absurd and demonstrably false belief that the Bible is an inerrant science textbook, the latest image from the European Southern Observatory’s Very Large Telescope Survey Telescope (VST) in Chile may induce a bout of cognitive dissonance — and fittingly so, given that it's Halloween. The image shows an immense ‘bat’ shape appearing to hover ominously in space.
But fear not — this ‘bat’ is simply a striking example of pareidolia. In reality, it’s a vast cloud of interstellar gas. And even if it *were* a cosmic creature flapping its wings across the heavens, it’s about 100,000 light-years away, meaning we’re seeing it as it appeared when our early African ancestors were honing the physical and social capabilities that would one day enable them to successfully migrate into colder Eurasian environments. Or, if you prefer the creationist timeline, roughly 90,000 years before ‘Creation Week’.
The so-called ‘bat’, properly known as the RCW 94/95 nebulae, is a stellar nursery. The young stars forming within it emit intense, ionising radiation that excites the hydrogen atoms in the surrounding gas, causing them to glow a vivid red.
If they could see it, which they couldn't, of course, because they lacked the technology, imagine the terror the Bronze Age authors of the Genesis tales would have felt seeing an image like that hovering over the Middle Eastern night sky. They cowered in a demon-haunted world in which natural phenomena were attributed to supernatural gods, so something like that might well have started a new religion.
Researchers at the Stowers Institute for Medical Research have uncovered new details explaining how the planarian flatworm, Schmidtea mediterranea, can regenerate not just a missing body part, but an entire organism from a tiny tissue fragment. Their findings have just been published in Cell Reports and represent a major advance in our understanding of regeneration at the cellular and genetic level.
This little worm continues to surprise scientists. Remove its head? It grows a new one. Slice it into pieces? Each piece becomes a complete worm. Such astonishing powers naturally prompt two very different kinds of questions – one scientific, one theological.
If one temporarily accepts creationist premises for the sake of argument, we are forced into a series of uncomfortable and contradictory conclusions.
Why would a supposedly omniscient, omnipotent, and omnibenevolent designer grant a humble flatworm the ability to regenerate an entire body, yet deny this life-saving ability to humans and virtually all other organisms? If this designer could abolish suffering, disease, and limb loss – and knowingly chose not to – what does that imply about its nature?
Creationists are left defending a worldview in which their designer appears either: unwilling to prevent suffering; unable to create beneficial traits consistently; or deliberately designing suffering into its creation. None of these options are theologically tidy – and they certainly do not align with the claim of a universally benevolent designer. The creationist framework produces contradictions, apologetics acrobatics, and moral dilemmas rather than answers.
By contrast, when we ask the evolutionary question – “How did this ability evolve?” – the picture becomes coherent.
Planarians have followed a unique evolutionary trajectory in which extreme regeneration conferred a significant survival advantage. Natural selection acted on stem-cell behaviour, gene regulation, and patterning networks over deep time, refining a mechanism that happens to be far beyond the needs of most other species.
Other organisms have regenerative abilities too – salamanders, zebrafish, sea stars, even humans to a limited extent – but the selective pressures and biological constraints differed. Regeneration is complex, energetically costly, and evolution works from what already exists. Most lineages simply did not follow that path. To borrow Michael Behe’s favourite term, planarian regeneration may appear “irreducibly complex” – and yet, as usual, complexity proves to be a testament to gradual evolutionary refinement, not evidence for supernatural assembly.
A newly published paper in Proceedings of the Royal Society B by researchers from University College London (UCL) shows that the human skull evolved relatively rapidly compared to that of other apes. The evolutionary changes involve modifications in the size and shape of the facial and cranial bones.
This serves as a reminder of just how artificial and functionally useless the creationist concept of a “kind” is. It should also show creationists the fallacy of the frequent claim that biologists are abandoning the Theory of Evolution, since this paper discusses the results of evolution, not some infantile notion of magical intervention by an unevidenced supernatural entity.
Creationists are quite content to regard all cats—from domestic tabbies to tigers—as belonging to the same “kind”, even though the main difference between them lies in the size of their skeletons. Yet they balk at the idea that humans and the great apes could belong to the same “kind”, despite the fact that the key distinctions between us and them are also differences in size and proportion—most notably in the bones of the skull.
But then, “kind” is precisely the sort of term creationists favour because it has no fixed definition and can be expanded or contracted to suit whatever argument they are trying to make. The only consistent rule seems to be that whatever constitutes a “kind”, it must always exclude humans. This sometimes leads to the absurdity of defining an “animal kind” and a separate “human kind”.
The UCL team suggest that the rapid evolution of the human skull can be explained by the considerable advantage conferred by a larger brain and advanced cognitive abilities.
Our complex cognition allows us to communicate abstract ideas through both words and gestures—what we call “body language”—much of which depends on facial expression. A flat, forward-facing face enhances our ability to convey and interpret these subtle cues. As social animals, we identify acquaintances and strangers by their faces; we watch the faces of those who speak to us; and we instinctively read emotions such as pleasure, anger, confusion, or distress in their expressions.
In short, it is our large brain and expressive face that make us human — not the addition of new organs or limbs, as creationists often insist marks a change above the genus level, but rather differences in the size and shape of the bones of the skull. Given the close similarity of our genomes to those of other apes, these differences arise not from the amount of genetic information, but from the way that information is regulated during embryonic development.
Researchers at Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution have shown, in a paper just published in PLOS ONE, that the rise of Sumerian civilization in Mesopotamia was strongly influenced by the dynamic interplay of tides, rivers, and sedimentation at the head of the Arabian Gulf. In doing so, they remind us just how parochial and derivative the culture that produced the origin myths in Genesis really was.
According to Genesis — which places the Middle East, and the Hebrews in particular, at the centre of everything — humans were created fully formed, without ancestry, in a ready-made Bronze Age civilisation.
Within just five generations of a supposed genocidal global flood that allegedly reset life on Earth, eight survivors are said to have produced a population large and skilled enough to embark on a massive civil engineering project: building a tower up to Heaven. In this worldview, Heaven lay just above the clouds over the Middle East, on a flat Earth watched over by a creator god who could apparently be taken by surprise.
Meanwhile, several other ancient civilisations were continuing uninterrupted, apparently unknown to the author of Genesis — despite the fact that some of the stories in Genesis are clearly derived from older Mesopotamian and Egyptian myths. Both the genocidal flood myth and the Tower of Babel narrative draw directly on Mesopotamian sources: the flood from the Epic of Gilgamesh, and the tower itself from the Great Ziggurat at Ur.
What the Genesis myths fail to acknowledge is the fundamental role of geological and environmental change in shaping human civilisation. The authors of these myths believed they lived in an unchanging world, created especially for them by a perfect god. There is no hint of plate tectonics shifting continents, no awareness that volcanic gases can alter climates, or that major rivers can change course or silt up. Yet such processes could and did disrupt the regular flooding on which early agriculture depended. Silting and delta formation could leave once-coastal communities stranded inland, while blocking the twice-daily tidal ebb and flow that once reached deep upriver.
According to new findings reported in a paper in Nature Communications, a mere 43 million years before creationists believe their god created a small flat planet with a dome over it in the Middle East and fine-tuned it for (human) life, an event occurred which, had it happened today, would have been an almost unimaginable global catastrophe.
A 160-metre-wide asteroid or comet struck what is now the southern North Sea, about 80 miles off the coast of Yorkshire, creating Silverpit crater — a 3 km-wide impact crater surrounded by a 20 km zone of concentric faults. The resulting tsunami, exceeding 100 metres in height, would have swamped the coastal regions bordering the North Sea: the Low Countries (the Netherlands and Belgium), northern France, Denmark, Norway, and much of eastern England and Scotland.
If such an impact were to occur today, it would devastate major population centres and send massive tidal waves surging up major European rivers such as the Rhine and Thames. The death toll would be in the tens of millions, and the resulting economic and infrastructural collapse would almost certainly tip Europe and the UK into terminal decline.
Just 23 million years earlier, another impact event at Chicxulub crater, on the Yucatán Peninsula in Mexico, had exterminated 75 % of all species, including all but the avian dinosaurs. This catastrophe plunged the world into a prolonged global winter, radically reshaping the trajectory of life on Earth and enabling mammals and birds to supplant reptiles as the dominant vertebrate groups.
And all this, on a planet in a universe which creationists insist — in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary — was created perfect for human life by a benevolent god who wanted the best possible world for his “special creation”. That comforting narrative seems curiously blind to the frequent natural disasters inherent to a tectonically active planet orbiting in a cosmic shooting gallery of drifting rocks and icy bodies.
The origins of the Silverpit Crater have been debated since its discovery in 2002. Early hypotheses suggested that movement of subsurface salt or volcanic collapse of the seabed might explain its structure. Now, a research team led by Dr Uisdean Nicholson, a sedimentologist at Heriot-Watt University, together with Dr Tom Dunkley Jones of University of Birmingham, believe they have finally settled the debate: the crater was formed by the impact of an extraterrestrial body.
One of the oldest and most persistent tactics in creationist and intelligent design (ID) rhetoric is to invoke vast “improbabilities” to suggest that life could not have arisen naturally. The argument usually goes something like this: the odds of complex life emerging by chance are astronomically low, therefore it must have been designed. This is a textbook example of a false dichotomy — and it often rests on simplistic, outdated models of how abiogenesis is understood. A recent preprint by Robert G. Endres, reported by Universe Today, has already begun to circulate in ID circles as supposed “evidence” of just such improbability. But when read carefully, the paper does something very different: it provides a mathematical framework for understanding how life could arise, where the real constraints lie, and why the old “pure chance” caricature of abiogenesis is scientifically untenable.
In the abstract to his paper in arXiv, Enders says:
Abstract
The origin of life on Earth via the spontaneous emergence of a protocell prior to Darwinian evolution remains a fundamental open question in physics and chemistry. Here, we develop a conceptual framework based on information theory and algorithmic complexity. Using estimates grounded in modern computational models, we evaluate the difficulty of assembling structured biological information under plausible prebiotic conditions. Our results highlight the formidable entropic and informational barriers to forming a viable protocell within the available window of Earth’s early history. While the idea of Earth being terraformed by advanced extraterrestrials might violate Occam’s razor from within mainstream science, directed panspermia—originally proposed by Francis Crick and Leslie Orgel—remains a speculative but logically open alternative. Ultimately, uncovering physical principles for life’s spontaneous emergence remains a grand challenge for biological physics.
Because we can guarantee that this article will be misrepresented by creationists who will make claims not supported by the paper, I asked ChatGPT for an objective evaluation of the article in Universe Today and Endres arXiv paper:
Here is an objective evaluation of the article “What Were the Chances of Abiogenesis?” (by Mark Thompson, published on Universe Today) and the underlying pre-print paper by Robert G. Endres (arXiv:2507.18545). I’ll identify what the article does well, where it is weaker, and how one might interpret it in light of your interest (refuting creationism / intelligent-design arguments).
Fig. 3: Behavior-specific and situation-specific global everyday norms.
A A color-coded matrix illustrating the global appropriateness ratings (averaged over 71 societies) of fifteen behaviors in each of ten situations. B Scatter plot illustrating appropriateness ratings of fifteen specific behaviors aggregated across various situations (centered on the mean across behaviors) and their strong negative association with the sum of behavior-specific concerns about vulgarity and inconsiderateness. The index ‘b’ indicates that measures refer to behaviors. C Scatter plot illustrating appropriateness ratings of 15 behaviors in ten specific situations (n = 150 situated behaviors, centered on the mean across situations for each behavior) and their strong negative association with the sum of situation-specific concerns about inconsiderateness and lacking sense. The index ‘xb’ indicates that measures refer to situated behaviors. Gray shading indicates 95% confidence intervals.
An important new study, led by researchers from Mälardalen University (MDU, Sweden) and the Institute for Futures Studies (IFFS), in collaboration with over 100 researchers worldwide, sheds light on how social norms vary across cultures yet share fundamental commonalities.
As someone who has travelled extensively in Western and Eastern Europe, North Africa, Kuwait, Oman, India, and the USA, I can personally attest to cultural differences that extend far beyond language. Everyday activities such as driving, for instance, reveal how deeply embedded these norms are. It can take several days to adapt to local expectations, and even then, you may still be greeted with an indignant horn or an icy stare for something entirely unremarkable in your own country.
Creationists often claim that morality is a divine gift — that without their god, we would have no concept of right and wrong. As an atheist, I grow weary of being told that I “hate God” because I supposedly “want to sin”, or that I lack a moral compass. Such accusations typically reveal more about the accuser than the accused. Many fundamentalists who level these charges online seem less concerned with moral reasoning than with projecting their own supposed moral superiority. The stench of hypocrisy is rarely far away when piety becomes a performance.
Ever since Richard Dawkins introduced the concept of the “meme” — a unit of cultural inheritance analogous to a gene — in The Selfish Gene, we have had a clear framework for understanding how cultural traits evolve. Memes form complex structures known as “memplexes”, and some of these can behave parasitically, using their hosts to ensure their own propagation.
Just as evolving organisms form clades with shared major features but differing details, human cultures share foundational moral principles — prohibitions against needless killing, reciprocal respect (“treat others as you would want to be treated”), and the protection of children, among others. What varies are the details, both across time and geography.
Small primitive mammals live alongside a Triceratops, pre-extinction. A softshell turtle climbs up a log, unaware that its freshwater surroundings will shelter it from the asteroid.
This, the second paper, published in 2022 that utterly refutes creationism on several different levels, reports evidence that particularly undermines their claim that an omnibenevolent god created a world fine-tuned for life.
This belief arises from a deeply ignorant, rose-tinted view of the world — one that conveniently ignores history and habitually attributes anything bad to something else: sin, free will, or other theological constructs that, by their own narrative, could only have applied after some supposed “fall”.
In reality, even a superficial understanding of Earth’s history — 99.9975 % of which took place before creationism’s legendary “Creation Week” — reveals that the planet is anything but fine-tuned for life. Life on Earth has repeatedly been subjected to mass extinctions triggered by geological and cosmological catastrophes that wreaked havoc on the environment, often at a pace too rapid for most species to adapt.
One of the most famous of these events was the meteor impact in what is now the Yucatán Peninsula, 66 million years ago. This strike plunged the planet into a “nuclear winter” as atmospheric dust blotted out the Sun. Within weeks, almost all large species were exterminated, leaving only the avian dinosaurs — likely shielded by insulating feathers — and early mammals, protected by their insulating fur.
But as this recent paper shows, the dinosaurs were thriving in a healthy, biodiverse environment in which they were the dominant species right up until the moment the meteor struck. Had they shared the creationists’ mindset, they might well have concluded that Earth was “fine-tuned” for them too.
The evidence for this comes from an international team of palaeontologists and ecologists, including researchers from University of Oulu (Finland), Universidade de Vigo (Spain), University of Washington (Seattle, USA), University College London (UK), New Mexico Museum of Natural History and Science (USA), and University of Edinburgh (UK).
Two new papers announced today will have creationists scratching their heads as they try to decide which technique for dismissing them will meet with the most approval from their fellow cultists.
The first, in Nature, concerns yet another of those supposedly non-existent transitional fossils which, because Charles Darwin predicted they would be found, must be dismissed at all costs. It comes in the form of an 86-million-year-old dinosaur fossil from Mongolia that is intermediate between the small, fleet-footed predatory dinosaurs and the larger apex predators — the tyrannosaurs.
The usual creationist response is to declare that these intermediate fossils are “not transitional; they are fully formed, created species.” Of course, that doesn’t explain why species that are intermediate between ancestral and descendant species show a mosaic of features from both. Presumably, given their parody of evolution — in which evolution is imagined as a single event where one species suddenly turns into another — they expect an intermediate to be half one and half the other: the equivalent of the “crocoduck” or a chimpanzee with a human head. In reality, this discovery shows exactly what we would expect from the fossil record of tyrannosaur evolution 86 million years ago.
It's also important to creationism that the so-called 'missing link' stays missing. It is only ever referred to in the singular and refers to some supposed link between apes and humans, and it is definitely not one of the many archaic African hominins. But of course, every fossil is the 'link' or transitional form between its parents and its offspring because evolution is a process, not the parody event of creationism, evolving species form a continuum, and this discovery from Mongolia is no exception.
Details of the surface of two sheet-like colonies of the ‘Berenicea’ type: (A) In Hyporosopora dilatata, the colony surface is relatively flat, save for the slightly convex zooids and faint growth lines (Upper Callovian or Lower Oxfordian, Oxford Clay; Stanton Harcourt, Oxfordshire); and (B) Well-defined transverse ridges cross the colony surface in Rugosopora enstonensis (Bathonian, Hampen Marly Beds; Enstone, Oxfordshire). Scale bars are 500µm.
The discovery that a group of organisms has, contrary to “Cope’s Rule,” undergone a steady reduction in body size over the past 200 million years is a useful reminder of how science works — and why religion so often falters.
A cornerstone of the scientific method is its willingness to acknowledge error. Real intellectual strength lies not in clinging to discredited beliefs as though doing so were a test of character, but in facing up to mistakes, learning from them, and changing one’s mind. That is how knowledge advances.
Religion, by contrast, remains shackled to the dogmas of its ancient founders. To alter those fundamental beliefs is, in effect, to abandon the religion itself. This is why, while science has sent probes into deep space and placed human beings on the Moon, faith — despite lofty claims of being able to “move mountains” — has yet to lift so much as a feather a millimetre off the ground.
The new finding was just reported in the journal Palaeontology by Associate Professor MA Junye of the Nanjing Institute of Geology and Paleontology at the Chinese Academy of Sciences (NIGPAS) and collaborators. They found that Berenicea, a genus of cyclostome bryozoans, has experienced a continuous reduction in zooid size over the past 200 million years. This runs counter to “Cope’s Rule,” which describes a tendency for body size to increase during the evolution of many lineages.
Cope’s Rule was formulated by the American palaeontologist Edward Drinker Cope (1840–1897). There are, of course, well-known exceptions — such as the “island effect,” where animals isolated on small islands often evolve into miniature versions of their mainland relatives — but these are localised adaptations to particular environments. Cope’s Rule, by contrast, applies to long-term, broad-scale evolutionary trends.
A male satin bowerbird by his highly decorated avenue bower.
Photo by Daniel J. Field
Tiny fossil bone helps unlock history of the bowerbird | University of Otago
Apart from the fact that this fossil is a million years old, there is nothing in this discovery that creationists will struggle to dismiss with one of their well-worn stock phrases — “It was just a bird ‘kind’,” “It wasn’t transitional,” and so on. This is despite the fact that their Bible is remarkably vague about how many bird ‘kinds’ there were, includes bats as birds, and says absolutely nothing about anything outside a few square miles of the Middle East.
And of course, the date — like the entire fossil record — will be casually brushed aside as forged, fabricated, or “wrongly dated using proven false carbon dating” [sic].
But to anyone who actually values evidence and truth, and is not intent on proving their strength by clinging to demonstrably false beliefs in defiance of all contrary evidence, this find is genuinely fascinating. It provides strong evidence that the bowerbirds, today confined to Australia and New Guinea, were once far more widespread. This conclusion is based on the fact that the fossil was discovered in New Zealand. It is also suggested that climate change may have brought about its extinction in New Zealand and driven the bowerbirds' range back to its present distribution.
The discovery is reported in the journal Historical Biology by researchers from University of Cambridge, University of Otago, and Museum of New Zealand Te Papa Tongarewa. A [news release from the University of Otago]() explains the significance of the find and four of the authors have also written an article about the find in The Conversation. Their article is reprinted here under a Creative Commons licence, reformatted for stylistic consistency.
A venting black smoker emits jets of particle-laden fluids. The particles are predominantly very fine-grained sulfide minerals formed when the hot hydrothermal fluids mix with near-freezing seawater. These minerals solidify as they cool, forming chimney-like structures. “Black smokers” are chimneys formed from deposits of iron sulfide, which is black. “White smokers” are chimneys formed from deposits of barium, calcium, and silicon, which are white.
A favourite disingenuous creationist tactic is to keep challenging science to achieve something that seems impossible—such as replicating the conditions of a deep ocean thermal vent to demonstrate that this could have been where life began. The trap is then to either gloat over science’s failure or to shift the goalposts and proclaim that any success merely proves that intelligence is required to create life.
So, we can almost guarantee that the news that a team of scientists at Fundação de Amparo à Pesquisa do Estado de São Paulo (FAPESP) in São Paulo, Brazil, have replicated not the thermal vents themselves but the chemical reactions believed to have occurred within them—and shown that these reactions do indeed produce the precursors of living systems—will be presented by creationists as supposed proof of the role of intelligence in the process.
The fallacy, of course, is that a laboratory experiment merely establishes the conditions under which natural forces can operate. By contrast, intelligent design advocates insist that an intelligent entity, working to a plan, must actively direct those natural forces to make chemistry and physics do something they supposedly couldn’t do on their own. Such is the intellectual dishonesty of many creationists that this distinction is either too subtle for them to grasp—or they deliberately ignore it.
Astronomers, using data from the European Space Agency's (ESA's) Gaia space telescope, have discovered a vast wave passing through the Milky Way Galaxy, spreading out from the centre like ripples in a pond but with a wave length of about 13,000 light-years. The origins of this wave are still a matter for speculation and will require further data before they can be determined.
With evidence such as this, only a creationist eager to prove that they’re too tough to be persuaded by mere facts could believe that the description of the universe in Genesis is a complete and accurate account of reality, far surpassing in accuracy and reliability anything that science can produce. And only someone desperate to believe it could imagine that the description in Genesis is some sort of metaphor or allegory with a deeper meaning, rather than a hopelessly bad guess made by ignorant Bronze Age storytellers.
How our knowledge of the Milky Way has improved over time is a measure of the extraordinary progress cosmology has made in just over a century. When Albert Einstein was writing his papers on relativity, it was widely assumed that the Milky Way *was* the universe. Then, about a hundred years ago, astronomers discovered that the galaxy rotates around a centre, and in the 1950s it was found to be warped. Meanwhile, Edwin Hubble demonstrated that the Milky Way is just one of billions of galaxies and that the universe is vastly larger than previously imagined — and still expanding. Now, we can detect the motions of stars within the galaxy that reveal this ripple spreading outwards.
Meanwhile, Bible literalists are stuck with an understanding that has not advanced since the Bronze Age, based on a book which says Earth is fixed and immobile at the centre of everything, and that the stars are tiny lights attached to a dome over the world. Until around 600 years ago, the Church vigorously persecuted anyone who argued otherwise, desperate to preserve its power based on the claim that its holy book was the inerrant word of God. It was not until 1992 that the Catholic Church finally admitted that Galileo Galilei was right — 41 years after it had accepted the evidence for the Big Bang. Such is the muddle that religious dogma based on ancient, evidence-free superstitions creates.
One of the most telling weaknesses of creationism is how heavily it depends on piling assumption upon assumption to sustain its narrative. As Stephen Hawking observed in The Grand Design, the more assumptions a theory requires, the less likely it is to be true. This is simply the reverse of Occam's razor, the principle that the simplest explanation consistent with the evidence is usually the most plausible.
Creationists take the simplistic story of human origins from the Bible and build layers of speculation upon it — not derived from scripture or evidence, but from the circular reasoning of “this must have been true, or my beliefs are wrong.”
A classic example is their claim that there could have been no death before Eve’s supposed sin, because death is ‘evil’ and evil only entered the world after the Fall. From this, they conclude that Adam and Eve — and indeed all animals — must have been vegetarian. To prop up this contrivance, they add yet another assumption: that plants aren’t really ‘alive’ in the same way as animals, so eating them doesn’t count as causing death.
This is a textbook case of a weak theory being shored up by multiplying entities and assumptions — the very opposite of sound scientific reasoning. It also collapses under biological scrutiny. There is no evidence in the Bible to support it, and human anatomy and physiology clearly reveal that we are omnivores with a long evolutionary history of meat consumption.
And now, a team of evolutionary anthropologists led by Ana Mateos of Centro Nacional de Investigación sobre la Evolución Humana (CENIEH) has published a research paper in the Journal of Human Evolution, in which they argue that before early hominins developed the technology to hunt large game for themselves, they were probably dependent on scavenging carrion—often from the kills of apex predators.
An important advantage of scavenging is that it provides a reliable source of high-protein food with relatively low energy expenditure. Carcasses can also sustain a population through periods of drought, when prey is scarce and some animals die from natural causes. Early hominins could have used sticks and stones to drive off predators, while their highly acidic stomachs minimised the risk of disease from decaying meat. Later, cooking provided additional protection against pathogens.
After what was likely a brief evolutionary phase as scavengers, humans developed the tools and cooperative strategies to become apex predators themselves. This reliance on carrion may even have been one of the critical factors that set our lineage on a different path from the other African apes, driving both physical and physiological changes.
Japanese plant geneticists, led by scientists from University of Tsukuba, have shown that the Japanese and Taiwanese Hinoki cypresses began to diverge around one million years ago, following the destruction of a land bridge that once connected Taiwan to the Japanese archipelago.
This is a textbook example of allopatric speciation, in which an isolated population diverges from its parent population through a combination of founder effects, genetic drift, and natural selection in response to different environmental pressures.
The now-vanished land bridge once linked Taiwan to the southern Japanese island of Kyushu. Its remnants form the Ryukyu Arc — a chain of small islands marking the south-eastern boundary of the South China Sea.
Faced with such clear evidence of speciation, creationists typically resort to a familiar tactic: redefining evolution into a straw man. They insist that “evolution” means one species turning in a single event into something utterly unrelated — for instance, that these cypresses should transform into daisies, cabbages, mammals, or birds. If such an absurd event ever occurred, it would in fact falsify evolutionary theory and throw the entire fields of biology and taxonomy into chaos. This is the standard creationist tactic on social media: misrepresent science, then demand that science defend the misrepresentation, and claim victory when it doesn’t.
The reality remains, however, that the divergence of these related species of cypress — and the fact that this divergence can be correlated precisely with geological change — stands as powerful evidence for Darwinian evolution. Charles Darwin knew nothing of genes, alleles, or genetic drift, yet his description of descent with modification through inherited traits is elegantly confirmed here by modern genetics and biogeography. The genus Chamaecyparis — commonly known as the false cypresses — is an evolutionarily interesting group of conifers in the cypress family Cupressaceae. Their distribution and divergence provide a good illustration of how geological change, climate oscillations, and geographic isolation have shaped the evolution of temperate conifers.
News that a single mutant gene could triple wheat yields raises some uncomfortable questions for Bible-literalist creationists, and indeed for anyone who believes their god created the Earth and all life on it exclusively for humans — its supposed favoured species, for whom “all of creation” was made.
This belief has profoundly shaped Western attitudes towards the planet and its resources. One consequence of this selfish worldview has been the destruction of vast areas of the Earth, its ecosystems, and the countless species that depend on them. In the relentless search for mineral wealth, cropland, and grazing land, humans have transformed immense regions into effective monocultures which, to anything not adapted to those particular crops, might as well be deserts. Moreover, the same belief — coupled with the idea that brown and black people were inferior to whites and therefore “created” to serve Europeans — helped justify imperialism and the transatlantic slave trade.
One question that creationists, in my experience, consistently shy away from is this: if an omniscient god truly created our domestic animals for our use, why have we almost always had to modify them through selective breeding to make them more useful? It’s as though this god didn’t actually know what we would need or how we would use these animals. Which leads to the obvious follow-up question: why didn’t this supposedly omniscient being create ideal domestic plants and crops in the first place?
Unlike religion, science does not claim to know exactly how the universe began. What we do know, however, is that at the moment when time (t) = 0, both time and space came into existence. This means that in the conventional sense of time, there was no ‘before’, because ‘before’ presupposes the existence of time. Questions about what existed before the Big Bang are therefore meaningless, even though our intuition insists that there must have been something.
Religion, by contrast, has claimed to know how the universe began ever since creation myths were first invented in the Bronze Age or earlier — and those claims have remained unchanged. The problem is that they substitute genuine explanations with “God did it!” — a statement that explains nothing, is untestable, unfalsifiable, and devoid of any predictive power. It provides comfort only to those who are content not to know the details and unconcerned with truth.
This highlights another crucial difference between science and religion as tools for understanding reality: science continuously updates its knowledge and understanding. It never settles on convenient certainties, no matter how emotionally satisfying they may be, nor does it declare the search for answers to be over.
For many years, the consensus in cosmology has been that the initial few microseconds of the Big Bang involved a period of hyperinflation — a rapid expansion driven by a massive increase in space. Now, however, a team of researchers from Spain and Italy has revived a model first proposed by Albert Einstein and the Dutch mathematician Willem de Sitter, known as De Sitter space. Using this framework, they argue that gravity alone can explain the first few microseconds of space-time. Their new theory has been published, open access, in Physical Review Research.
One key advantage of this explanation over the inflationary model is its relative simplicity. It also, unlike the 'inflation' model, doesn't need elements that have never been observed, but relies solely on gravity and quantum mechanics. Applying Occam's razor, the simpler explanation with fewer elements or 'entities', is more likely to be correct.
