Rosa Rubicondior: Refuting Creationism - More On Denisovans Exposes Moronic Creationism

Chinese Scientists Solve Puzzle of Identifying Extinct Group of Hominins----Chinese Academy of Sciences

One of the strengths of science is its willingness to leave a question open until there is enough evidence to answer it. An incomplete picture is an invitation to investigate, and an explanation that changes when new evidence emerges is a demonstration that the method is working. The developing story of the Denisovans provides an excellent example: an extinct group of humans is acquiring a clearer identity through the patient accumulation and comparison of evidence.

As a Xinhua report reproduced by the Chinese Academy of Sciences explains, Denisovans were first identified in 2010 through DNA recovered from a tiny finger bone found in Siberia. Scientists could recognise a distinct evolutionary lineage before they had much idea of what its members looked like. That imbalance between molecular knowledge and anatomical knowledge presented a problem that further discoveries and improved analytical methods could address.

Denisovans^ where do they fit in the human family tree? Denisovans were an extinct group of humans closely related to Neanderthals. They belonged to our own genus, Homo, and were evolutionary cousins of Homo sapiens. Their story illustrates how human evolution involved branching populations, migrations and interbreeding, rather than a single procession of species marching towards modern humans.

How were they discovered?

Denisovans were first recognised in 2010 through ancient DNA extracted from a finger-bone fragment found in Denisova Cave in Siberia. Their genetic identity became apparent before scientists could describe their overall appearance. Subsequent discoveries have connected this genetic lineage with additional fossils, using both ancient DNA and preserved proteins.

Where do they fit?

Nuclear DNA shows that Denisovans and Neanderthals were sister lineages: they shared a common ancestral population more recently with each other than either did with modern humans. One influential genome study estimated that:

The ancestral modern-human population separated from the ancestors of Neanderthals and Denisovans approximately 550,000–765,000 years ago.

The Neanderthal and Denisovan populations subsequently separated approximately 380,000–470,000 years ago.

These are estimates of population divergence, dependent on genetic models and assumptions about mutation rates. They do not identify a precise moment when one species became another, and later interbreeding means that the branches did not remain completely isolated.

Where did they live?

The molecularly identified fossil record now extends far beyond Siberia. It includes remains from the Tibetan Plateau, the Harbin skull in north-eastern China, the Penghu jaw recovered from the Taiwan Strait, and fossils from Bianfu Cave in south-western China. The latest Xujiayao study adds a northern Chinese assemblage dating to approximately 199,000–138,000 years ago.

These discoveries indicate a geographically widespread lineage. However, a map of confirmed fossils remains incomplete: genetic traces in living people provide additional evidence of Denisovan populations whose remains have yet to be identified.

What did they look like?

The emerging picture includes substantial jaws and teeth, a long, low braincase, thick cranial bones and prominent brow ridges. The Xujiayao study identifies a combination of ancestral and derived anatomical features and proposes that several other disputed East Asian fossils also belong to the Denisovan lineage.

Those proposed assignments are based on anatomical comparisons; they are not all independently confirmed by ancient molecules. Nor should we expect every Denisovan population, spread across different environments and many thousands of years, to have looked identical.

Did they interbreed with other humans?

Yes. Particularly direct evidence comes from Denisova 11, an individual whose DNA showed that she had a Neanderthal mother and a Denisovan father. Her father also carried evidence of earlier Neanderthal ancestry.

Denisovans also interbred with ancestors of living humans. Surviving Denisovan DNA is especially substantial in some populations in Oceania and occurs in smaller amounts in various Asian populations. Genetic studies indicate multiple encounters involving distinct Denisovan populations, rather than a single episode of interbreeding with one uniform group.

Some inherited variants proved advantageous. A well-studied example is a Denisovan-related version of the region containing EPAS1, which contributes to the adaptation of Tibetans to low oxygen availability at high altitude.

What remains uncertain?

Their full geographical range, regional diversity, detailed population history and final disappearance remain unresolved. How best to reconcile the genetically identified Denisovan lineage with fossil species names is also debated. “Denisovan” is therefore a useful lineage designation without requiring every question about species classification to have been settled.

The evolutionary lesson: human ancestry is a branching history with connections between branches. Denisovans disappeared as distinct populations, but some of their genetic inheritance survives in people today. Each new fossil, protein sequence and genome helps refine that history.

Brief glossary

Hominin:

A member of the evolutionary group comprising humans and our extinct relatives after the separation of our lineage from that leading to chimpanzees and bonobos.

Sister lineages:

Two evolutionary branches sharing a more recent common ancestor with each other than with another branch under comparison.

Palaeoproteomics:

The study of ancient proteins, including their use in identifying fossils and investigating evolutionary relationships.

Introgression:

The incorporation of genetic material from one population into another through interbreeding and subsequent reproduction.

Now, a paper published in Nature reports ancient protein evidence identifying human remains from Xujiayao in northern China as Denisovan. The assemblage dates to approximately 199,000–138,000 years ago. Researchers recovered 18 ancient proteins across two specimens and identified a characteristic Denisovan variant in a collagen protein. This provides a molecular anchor for interpreting a fossil collection whose evolutionary relationships had long been disputed.

Comparisons with other fossils then allowed the researchers to describe a clearer pattern of Denisovan anatomy. They also propose that remains from sites including Dali, Jinniushan and Hualongdong belong to the same lineage. These wider assignments depend on anatomical similarities, rather than direct molecular confirmation of every specimen: a distinction that leaves room for further testing and revision.

This is precisely how a scientific account of the past develops. Evidence establishes some points more firmly than others, suggests new connections and provides opportunities to test earlier interpretations. A disputed classification is not an embarrassment to be concealed, nor does revising it require abandoning evolution. It means that scientists are refining their understanding of which populations occupied particular branches of our evolutionary family tree.

Compare that with the method of biblical literalist creationism, in which the conclusion is settled before the investigation begins. An inherited creation narrative is granted authority, and evidence must then be accommodated within it. Additional explanations offered to rescue that narrative have scientific value only if they generate testable predictions and survive comparison with the evidence. Their ability to preserve a cherished belief is no substitute for either requirement.

There is also the inconvenient chronology. These people lived long before the entire history of humanity permitted by a young-Earth reading of Genesis. Their remains present questions that can be investigated: how old are they, which population did they belong to, and how were they related to other humans? Science advances by allowing the answers to emerge from the evidence. Creationism begins by insisting that the answers must fit the story.

And, of course, it utterly refutes the notion that all modern humans are descended from an initial founder couple magically created without ancestry, then later passing through a narrow genetic bottleneck of just eight related survivors of a global genocide. Not only do modern non-African humans not have a single ancestral couple, they don't even have a single ancestral species!

Chinese Scientists Solve Puzzle of Identifying Extinct Group of Hominins
Chinese researchers have revealed the shared morphological features of Denisovans, a new branch of ancient hominins, according to a research article recently published in the journal Nature.
The researchers from the Institute of Vertebrate Paleontology and Paleoanthropology (IVPP) of the Chinese Academy of Sciences obtained ancient protein evidence from Xujiayao hominin fossils, confirming that they belonged to Denisovans.

Denisovans are an extinct group of hominins who were first identified through DNA extracted from a tiny finger bone found in a Siberian cave in 2010.

This branch of ancient hominins interbred with modern humans and has gradually become a hot topic in paleoanthropology. However, due to the scarcity of fossil records, the academic community had been unable to reveal the shared morphological features of Denisovans.

To solve this problem, an ideal site was needed -- one where human fossils could be confirmed through molecular evidence as belonging to Denisovans, and which also has abundant hominin fossils, a clear stratigraphic context and reliable dating.

The Xujiayao site, discovered in Yangyuan County of north China's Hebei Province, dating back 199,000 to 138,000 years, thus became an important lead.

The research team drilled small amounts of bone powder from damaged surfaces of Xujiayao hominin fossils and extracted endogenous proteins. Via paleoproteomic analyses, they confirmed that these Xujiayao hominins belonged to Denisovans.

On this basis, the researchers systematically summarized typical morphological features of Denisovans in terms of the cranium, mandible and teeth.

Denisovans retained some primitive features similar to those of Homo erectus, such as a low braincase and thick cranial bones, while also showing some advanced features similar to those of later Homo members, like simplified premolar occlusal surfaces.

The research team, additionally, compared the Xujiayao hominins with previously confirmed Denisovans, as well as with ancient hominins in East Asia, whose taxonomic status remains unclear.

The results suggest that other ancient hominins in East Asia during the Middle Pleistocene likely also belonged to Denisovans, extending the distribution range of Denisovans to nearly the entire East Asian continent.

The study has made the mysterious ancient human group known as Denisovans, previously identified mainly through molecular evidence, recognizable, comparable and classifiable in terms of morphology, said Fu Qiaomei, a researcher at the IVPP. (Xinhua)

Publication:
Xing, S., Wu, Z., Shao, Q. et al.
The proteome of Middle Pleistocene Xujiayao and common Denisovan morphology.
Nature (2026). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-026-11132-z

Download PDF
Abstract
The taxonomy and phylogeny of late Middle Pleistocene hominins in East Asia remain highly debated1. Xujiayao, a key representative assemblage with many fossils and a clear stratigraphy dating to around 199–138 thousand years ago, has been extensively studied, but its evolutionary position remains uncertain. Here, to clarify this, we analysed Xujiayao material through both palaeoproteomic analysis and morphological comparisons with other East Asian late Middle Pleistocene archaic Homo. Proteomic analysis of two specimens identified 18 endogenous proteins, and the Denisova-specific COL1A2-996 R>K mutation strongly supported their affiliation with the Denisovan lineage. Extended analysis identifies a set of shared morphological traits between Denisovan fossils (Xujiayao and Harbin) and other East Asian late Middle Pleistocene archaic Homo (such as Jinniushan, Dali and Hualongdong), indicating that they all belong to the Denisovan lineage. This analysis provides a comprehensive view of Denisovan features, showing both traits reminiscent of Homo erectus (such as a thick cranial vault) and those characteristic of modern humans (for example, a strongly arched temporal squama). They also share features with late Neanderthals, such as the structure of the temporal labyrinth and the presence of a suprainiac fossa. Notably, Denisovans are distinctive, with a low cranial profile with near-parallel lateral walls, a massive supraorbital torus, a flat zygomaxillary region and weak prognathism.

Fig. 1: Geographical locations, original fossils and virtual reconstructions.

Left, the geographical locations of Xujiayao and other East Asian late Middle Pleistocene Homo. Right, the original fossils/virtual reconstruction of Xujiayao 6 cranium (a–d) and Xujiayao 14 mandible (e,f). Ectocranial (a, i) and endocranial (a, ii) surfaces of the parietal bone; ectocranial (b, i) and endocranial (b, ii) surfaces of the occipital bone; ectocranial (c, i) and endocranial (c, ii) surfaces of the temporal bone; anterior (d, i), posterior (d, ii), right (d, iii), left (d, iv), top (d, v) and bottom (d, vi) views of the virtually reconstructed cranium; lateral (e, i), medial (e, ii) and top (e, iii) views of the mandible; lateral (f, i), medial (f, ii) and top (f, iii) views of the virtually reconstructed mandible are shown. The coloured parts of the crania represent a virtual reconstruction of the original fossils; the grey areas represent mirrored parts. The bars are 1 cm. The data used to generate the map were downloaded from Natural Earth (https://www.naturalearthdata.com/downloads/10m-cross-blend-hypso/10m-cross-blended-hypso-with-shaded-relief-and-water).

Xing, S., Wu, Z., Shao, Q. et al.
The proteome of Middle Pleistocene Xujiayao and common Denisovan morphology.
Nature (2026). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-026-11132-z

Copyright: © 2026 The authors.
Published by Springer Nature Ltd. Open access.
Reprinted under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International license (CC BY 4.0)

The Denisovan story is a particularly clear example of science building an account of the past from evidence that was once unavailable. Genetic discoveries, ancient proteins and anatomical comparisons have progressively connected an initially mysterious lineage with identifiable human remains. The picture is still incomplete, and some proposed relationships will doubtless undergo further revision. That is what we should expect from a method in which conclusions remain accountable to evidence.

Creationists often present such revisions as though changing an explanation were an admission that scientific knowledge is worthless. But the ability to distinguish between a well-supported finding and a provisional interpretation is a strength. The molecular identification of the Xujiayao remains and the proposed anatomical identification of other fossils do not carry precisely the same evidential weight. Recognising that difference allows further research to test the developing picture.

For young-Earth creationism, meanwhile, the difficulties extend beyond an inconvenient set of dates. Here are human populations with their own evolutionary histories, related through common ancestry and connected by episodes of interbreeding, living long before the supposed biblical creation. Calling them descendants of Adam or survivors of Noah’s flood does nothing to explain their antiquity or genetic relationships. Such labels merely impose the desired story on evidence that requires an entirely different chronology.

The fundamental difference concerns what is allowed to change. In science, new evidence can overturn an interpretation, however familiar or prestigious it has become. In biblical literalism, the inherited interpretation is protected, while additional assumptions are introduced to accommodate each awkward discovery. Those assumptions become scientific explanations only when they can withstand independent testing. Meanwhile, the Denisovans are acquiring a clearer place in human history because researchers continue to ask what the evidence permits us to conclude.

Advertisement

Amazon