Rosa Rubicondior: Creationism Refuted - Termite Evolution By Loss Of Genetic Information and Complexity

The giant northern termite Mastotermes darwiniensis showing the close relationship between termites and other cockroaches.

Public Domain, Link

Scientists solve the mystery of why termite kings and queens are monogamous - The University of Sydney

Researchers from the University of Sydney have just published a paper on termite evolution in Science which will make depressing reading for any creationists brave enough to attempt it. The study comprehensively refutes several articles of creationist faith.

A common creationist assertion is that loss of genetic information is invariably fatal, so mutations cannot be selected for during evolution. They also insist that evolution, as defined by science, is necessarily a process of increasing complexity, which they then claim would violate the laws of thermodynamics by reducing entropy.

The absurdity of this counter-factual claim is easy to see. Variation between individuals is due to genetic differences, and that variation is only possible if mutations generate novelty. Creationists also conveniently ignore the fact that entropy can decrease locally in open systems. Earth is very much an open system, with a continuous influx of energy from the Sun, so nothing in thermodynamics precludes local increases in order or complexity.

Moreover, the claim is demonstrably false. Many endoparasites, such as parasitic worms, have lost substantial amounts of genetic information as they evolved to rely on their hosts for key functions. Several intestinal worms, for example, have no digestive tract at all, because they absorb nutrients directly from their host’s gut. Evolution does not require an increase or a decrease in complexity as such; it requires only a change in the frequency of alleles in a population over time.

The University of Sydney researchers have now identified another striking example of evolution by gene loss — this time in termites. Their results show a massive loss of genes as termites evolved extreme monogamy and sociality. Paradoxically, a reduction in genetic complexity at the individual level was accompanied by an increase in social complexity at the colony level.

Some of the lost genes are those responsible for producing sperm tails, meaning that termite sperm can no longer swim. This is likely a consequence of strict monogamy within the colony, which removes sperm competition altogether. In species where females mate with multiple males, there is strong selection pressure for highly motile sperm, because the fastest are more likely to fertilise the eggs. In termites, that pressure simply does not exist.

To reach these conclusions, the team — led by Professor Nathan Lo — compared the genomes of ‘domestic’ cockroaches (which share a common ancestor with termites), closely related wood roaches that live in small family groups, and multiple termite species exhibiting different levels of social complexity.

Termites Are Social Cockroaches. Despite their superficial resemblance to ants, termites are not closely related to bees or ants at all. They are highly specialised social cockroaches.

Modern genetic, anatomical, and fossil evidence all show that termites evolved from within the cockroach lineage, sharing a common ancestor with wood-feeding cockroaches rather than with ants or wasps. The closest living relatives of termites are wood roaches (genus Cryptocercus), which live in small family groups inside rotting logs.

These wood roaches already display many traits that foreshadow termite society:

wood-based diets
gut symbionts that digest cellulose
extended parental care
overlapping generations within family groups

Termites took these traits further. Over evolutionary time, small family groups transitioned into permanent, highly organised colonies with reproductive division of labour, sterile castes, and complex cooperative behaviours. Crucially, this transition did not involve the acquisition of vast numbers of new genes. Instead, it was accompanied by extensive gene loss and functional simplification at the individual level, while coordination and specialisation increased at the colony level.

In other words, termite eusociality did not arise through increasing genetic complexity, but through the repurposing, loss, and reorganisation of existing biological systems inherited from cockroach ancestors. This makes termites one of the clearest examples of how major evolutionary innovations can arise through modification and reduction, rather than wholesale genetic expansion.

Termites are not “ants with wings” or specially created super-insects, but highly social cockroaches whose most remarkable evolutionary innovations arose through modification and loss of existing systems, not the addition of new genetic information.

Gender determinism in termites.

In termites, sex is genetically determined, but the system is simpler and more ancestral than many people expect — and it is independent of caste (worker, soldier, queen, king).

Genetic sex determination in termites

Termites use a chromosomal sex-determination system, broadly analogous to the XX/XY system in mammals:

Females are XX
Males are XO (they possess only one X chromosome and no second sex chromosome)

This XO system is inherited directly from their cockroach ancestors and is widespread among basal insects.

Key points:

There is no Y chromosome
Sex is fixed at fertilisation
Sex is not influenced by environment, nutrition, or pheromones

Once an egg is fertilised, its sex is genetically locked in.

Sex ≠ caste in termites

This is where termites differ sharply from ants and bees.

Both males and females can become workers, soldiers, or reproductives
Caste differentiation is developmental, not genetic
Nutrition, hormones (especially juvenile hormone), and colony signals determine caste

So a termite worker is not a “failed female” (as in hymenopterans), but a developmentally flexible individual of either sex.

Contrast with ants and bees (important context)

Ants, bees, and wasps use haplodiploidy:

Females = diploid (fertilised eggs)
Males = haploid (unfertilised eggs)

Termites do not use this system. Their colonies always contain:

Diploid males
Diploid females
Both sexes contributing to labour and defence

This is one reason termite societies evolved independently of hymenopteran societies and along very different genetic and evolutionary pathways.

Evolutionary significance

Because termite societies are not constrained by haplodiploidy:

Eusociality in termites cannot be explained by simple kin-selection shortcuts
It evolved instead through monogamy, prolonged parental care, and ecological specialisation
The recent findings explained in this blog post — gene loss, reduced sperm competition, monogamy — fit perfectly into this framework

In short, termites demonstrate that complex social systems do not require exotic genetic tricks — just ordinary genetics, shaped by ecology and selection over time.

A recent news item from the University of Sydney provides a clear, accessible overview of the research for a general readership.

Scientists solve the mystery of why termite kings and queens are monogamous
Termites are among the most successful animals on Earth, forming vast societies that can number in the millions. But how did such complex social systems evolve from solitary ancestors that looked much like today’s cockroaches?
New research from the University of Sydney has uncovered a surprising answer: termites didn’t become more socially complex by gaining new genes, but by losing them – including genes linked to sperm competition. The findings shed new light on the long-standing question of whether monogamy is essential for the evolution of complex insect societies.

The international study, published in Science, traces termite evolution back to ordinary cockroaches – including the ancestors of modern ’domestic’ cockroaches – that began feeding on dead wood. This dietary shift triggered a cascade of genetic and social changes that eventually produced termites and their highly organised colonies.

The study was an international collaboration with researchers from China, Denmark, and Colombia.

Termites evolved from cockroach ancestors that started living inside and eating wood. Our study shows how their DNA changed first as they specialised on this poor-quality diet and then changed again as they became social insects.

Professor Nathan Lo, co-senior author.
School of Life and Environmental Sciences
University of Sydney
Sydney, NSW, Australia.

To uncover these changes, the researchers sequenced and compared high-quality genomes from cockroaches, woodroaches – a close relative that lives in small family groups – and multiple termite species with different levels of social complexity.

Genetic complexity and monogamy

One of the most striking discoveries was that termite and woodroach genomes are smaller and simpler than those of cockroaches. Many genes linked to metabolism, digestion and reproduction have been lost as termites became increasingly dependent on cooperation and food sharing within the colony.

The surprising result is that termites increased their social complexity by losing genetic complexity. That goes against a common assumption that more complex animal societies require more complex genomes.

Professor Nathan Lo.

The most telling losses were genes involved in building the tail, or flagellum, of sperm. Unlike cockroaches and most animals, termite sperm lack tails and are immotile.

This loss doesn’t cause monogamy, instead, it’s a strong indicator that monogamy had already evolved.

Professor Nathan Lo.

In most animals, including cockroaches, females mate with multiple males. This creates intense sperm competition, favouring fast-swimming sperm with tails. But once termite ancestors became monogamous, sperm competition disappeared – and sperm tails were no longer necessary.
Our results indicate that the ancestors of termites were strictly monogamous. Once monogamy was locked in, there was no longer any evolutionary pressure to maintain genes involved in sperm motility.

Professor Nathan Lo.

This finding feeds directly into a long-running scientific debate about whether close genetic relatedness is required for complex social systems to evolve. Some researchers have argued that high relatedness is not essential. This study suggests that, at least in termites, monogamy and high relatedness were crucial.

Food-sharing loops support the colony

The research also explains how termite societies are organised from within. Experiments showed that whether a young termite becomes a worker or a future king or queen depends heavily on nutrition during early development.

Larvae that receive abundant food from older siblings develop high energy metabolism and become workers, who don’t reproduce. Those that receive less food grow slowly at first and retain the potential to become reproductives later in life, that is kings or queens.

Reproductive caste of Mastotermees darwiniensis termites being groomed by worker (middle), with soldiers at left and right.
Photo: Yi-kai Tea

These food-sharing feedback loops allow colonies to fine-tune their workforce. They help explain how termites maintain stable, highly efficient societies over long periods.

Professor Nathan Lo.

When a termite king or queen dies, monogamy does not end. Instead, the role is usually filled by one of their own offspring, leading to widespread inbreeding within colonies.
From an evolutionary perspective, that reinforces relatedness even further.

Professor Nathan Lo.

Professor Lo, is part of a dynamic and growing insect research group in the School of Life and Environmental Sciences at the University of Sydney.

By combining genomics, physiology and behaviour, the study offers one of the most comprehensive explanations yet for how termites made the leap from solitary cockroach ancestors to some of the most socially complex organisms on the planet.
This work shows that understanding social evolution isn’t just about adding new traits,” Professor Lo said. “Sometimes, it’s about what evolution chooses to let go.

Professor Nathan Lo.

Publication:
Yingying Cui et al.
Nutritional specialization and social evolution in woodroaches and termites. Science 0, eadt2178 DOI:10.1126/science.adt2178

Abstract
Woodroach biparental-care and termite sibling-altruism evolved from solitary cockroach ancestors following nutritional specialization on nutrient-deficient dead-wood, but the accompanying genomic changes remained unclear. We sequenced eight new Blattodea species showing stepwise contracted genomes. Woodroach brood-rearing remained constrained by deactivated oxidative phosphorylation and peroxisome genes, consistent with slow immature growth. Termites lost key genes mediating sperm motility, corroborating that reproductive division of labor required monogamous colony-founding. They also co-opted many genes from fundamental nutrition-sensitive juvenile hormone, insulin, EGFR and Dpp signaling pathways. Thus, most larvae develop as workers via high energy metabolism early on, while reproductive nymphs highly express energy metabolism genes late in development. These pathways are consistent with obligate dependence on provisioning by specialized workers and feedback loops allowing large homeostatic colonies to evolve.

Yingying Cui et al.
Nutritional specialization and social evolution in woodroaches and termites. Science 0, eadt2178 DOI:10.1126/science.adt2178

© 2026 American Association for the Advancement of Science.
Reprinted under the terms of s60 of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988.

Once again, the evidence points in precisely the opposite direction to what creationist ideology demands. Far from showing that the loss of genetic information is fatal or evolutionarily impossible, termites demonstrate that extensive gene loss can accompany — and even facilitate — major evolutionary transitions. In this case, simplification at the level of individual biology coincided with the emergence of one of the most sophisticated social systems found anywhere in the animal kingdom.

This is exactly what evolutionary theory predicts. Natural selection does not “strive” for complexity, nor does it respect creationist intuitions about what organisms ought to look like. It favours whatever works in a given ecological and social context, whether that involves gaining genes, losing them, or repurposing existing systems in unexpected ways. The idea that evolution must always increase complexity is not a scientific claim, but a theological one.

Equally, there is nothing in these findings that troubles thermodynamics in the slightest. The Earth is an open system awash with incoming energy, and biological order arises locally at the expense of increased entropy elsewhere. Invoking the second law of thermodynamics as an objection to evolution merely signals a misunderstanding of both physics and biology.

As so often, creationist arguments fail not because of some missing detail or unresolved anomaly, but because they rest on premises that are simply wrong. Termites are not evidence of design, foresight, or “information injection”. They are evidence of descent with modification, historical contingency, and the power of natural selection to produce complex outcomes from ordinary processes over deep time.

In short, if creationists wish to argue that evolution cannot work without ever-increasing genetic complexity, termites — highly social cockroaches shaped by gene loss, monogamy, and selection — stand as yet another inconvenient counterexample they will be forced to ignore.

When evolution by gene loss produces societies more complex than anything creationism can explain, it is the dogma — not the evidence — that is being simplified away.

Advertisement

Amazon