Refuting Creationism - How Consciousness Emerges From An Unconscious Brain - No Magic Required

AI-generated image (ChatGPT 5.5 Thinking)

Researchers discover advanced language processing in the unconscious human brain | BCM

One of the more persistent claims made by creationists, especially those who have learned that “irreducible complexity” and “no transitional fossils” are not arguments so much as slogans, is that science can never explain consciousness. Consciousness, we are assured, is something special, something non-material, something breathed into us by a creator god; the magical ingredient that separates humans from the rest of the animal kingdom and places us conveniently at the centre of creation.

It is, of course, another argument from ignorance: science has not yet explained every detail of consciousness, therefore God. The same argument was once used for lightning, disease, embryology, instinct, inheritance, morality and the origin of species. In each case, the alleged supernatural mystery retreated as evidence accumulated and natural mechanisms were discovered. Consciousness is now going the same way — not because science has solved every philosophical puzzle about subjective experience, but because neuroscience is steadily showing that the mental processes creationists like to wrap in mystery are ordinary biological processes carried out by ordinary neural tissue.

A striking example of that comes from a paper published in Nature by researchers at Baylor College of Medicine and collaborating institutions. The researchers recorded activity from neurons in the human hippocampus while patients were under general anaesthesia during surgery for drug-resistant epilepsy. This gave them a rare opportunity to observe what the brain was doing when the patients were, in the ordinary sense, unconscious.

What they found is deeply inconvenient for anyone who wants consciousness to remain a supernatural mystery. Even under anaesthesia, hippocampal neurons responded to unexpected sounds, showed evidence of short-term plasticity, and, most remarkably, processed spoken language. When patients were played short stories, neural activity in the hippocampus carried information about word frequency, semantic category and grammatical class, and even contained signals predictive of upcoming words.

In other words, processes we might once have assumed belonged to conscious awareness — distinguishing parts of speech, extracting meaning and anticipating what comes next in a sentence — were taking place without the patient being aware of them. The brain was not merely ticking over like an idling machine; it was analysing, categorising and predicting. Consciousness, then, is not where all the clever work is done. Much of the clever work appears to be done before consciousness ever gets involved.

That does not mean this paper has “solved” consciousness, nor do the authors claim that it has. What it does show is that the boundary between conscious and unconscious processing is not where many people intuitively imagine it to be. Consciousness is looking less like a magic light switched on by a soul, and more like a higher-level state arising from coordinated activity across brain systems — a state in which some of the brain’s processing becomes integrated, reportable and available to the organism as experience.

For creationists, that is the problem. Their argument depends on consciousness remaining mysterious enough to hide a god in it. But neuroscience keeps doing what science always does: replacing mystery with mechanism, awe with understanding, and supernatural assertion with testable evidence. Once again, the choice is not between “science knows everything” and “therefore God”; it is between a research programme that discovers how things work and a religious apologetic that depends on hoping we never find out.

What Do We Mean by Consciousness? One reason this research matters is that it helps to separate several ideas that are often treated as though they were the same thing. In everyday speech, terms such as brain activity, thought, awareness and consciousness are often blurred together, but neuroscience shows that they are not identical.

Unconscious Processing

Much of what the brain does happens without our being aware of it. This is called unconscious processing. It includes the automatic handling of sensory input, pattern recognition, emotional responses, memory formation, language parsing and prediction. In other words, the brain can do a great deal of work before any part of it enters conscious awareness.

Cognition

Cognition refers to the mental processes by which the brain handles information. These include recognising patterns, categorising objects, recalling memories, understanding speech, making predictions and planning responses. Importantly, cognition does not always require consciousness. A person can process information cognitively without being aware of doing so.

Awareness

Awareness is the point at which some part of that processing becomes available to the person as experience. We become aware of a sound, a thought, a memory or a feeling only after the brain has already done much of the underlying work.

Consciousness

Consciousness is usually understood as the overall state in which we have subjective experience and can report what we are sensing, thinking or feeling. Rather than being a separate “thing” added to the brain from outside, consciousness increasingly looks like a high-level state that emerges when information processed by different brain systems becomes integrated and available to the organism as experience.

The Brain’s Hidden Work

Everyday life contains many examples of this hidden mental activity:

• We recognise the sound of speech before we consciously grasp its meaning.
• We often predict the end of a familiar sentence before it is spoken.
• We spot a face in a crowd almost instantly, without knowing how we did it.
• We walk, balance and coordinate movement without consciously calculating each muscle action.
• We may have an emotional reaction to a situation before we can explain why.
• We sometimes correct grammar or notice that a sentence “sounds wrong” automatically.

Why This Matters

Research such as this shows that complex language-related processing can continue even when a person is unconscious under anaesthesia. That means sophisticated mental activity does not depend on a mysterious immaterial “mind” directing the brain from outside. Instead, it supports the scientific view that what we call consciousness is rooted in neurophysiology and emerges from the coordinated activity of the brain itself.

The paper in Nature was accompanied by a Baylor College of Medicine news release:

Researchers discover advanced language processing in the unconscious human brain

---

Baylor College of Medicine researchers have found that the human brain is capable of sophisticated language processing while in an unconscious state from general anesthesia. The findings, published in the latest edition of Nature, challenge what we know about the role of consciousness and cognition, and could open new ways of understanding memory, language and brain-computer interfaces.

---

Our findings show that the brain is far more active and capable during unconsciousness than previously thought. Even when patients are fully anesthetized, their brains continue to analyze the world around them.

Professor Dr. Sameer A. Sheth, corresponding author.
Department of Neurosurgery
Baylor College of Medicine
Houston, TX, USA.

Sheth, who is also a neurosurgeon at Baylor St. Luke’s Medical Center, and his collaborators first recorded neural activity from hundreds of individual neurons in the hippocampus, a part of the brain associated with memory, while patients were under general anesthesia during epilepsy surgery. Patients undergoing this type of surgery were sought after because it allowed researchers access to this particular part of the brain.

Using Neuropixels probes, a technology which had not been used in this part of the brain before, the team collected data on how the brain processed sound and language without conscious awareness.

The study began with patients exposed to repetitive tones interrupted by an occasional different sound. Researchers found that hippocampal neurons could distinguish these unusual tones and that this ability improved over time, suggesting a form of learning or neural plasticity during anesthesia.

Researchers then moved on to conduct a more complex experiment where they played short stories to patients while recording neural responses. Surprisingly, the hippocampus demonstrated real-time processing of language. Neural activity showed the brain’s ability to differentiate parts of speech, such as nouns, verbs and adjectives, based on patterns of neuron firing.

Even more surprising, researchers found that neural signals could predict upcoming words in a sentence.

The brain appears to anticipate what comes next in a story, even without conscious awareness.

Professor Dr. Sameer A. Sheth.

[Professor Seth] is also Director of The Gordon and Mary Cain Pediatric Neurology Research Foundation Laboratories within the Duncan Neurological Research Institute at Texas Children’s Hospital.

This kind of predictive coding is something we associate with being awake and attentive, yet it’s happening here in an unconscious state.

Professor Dr. Benjamin Y. Hayden, co-senior author.
Department of Neurosurgery
Baylor College of Medicine
Houston, TX, USA.

These discoveries suggest that cognitive functions such as language comprehension and prediction do not require consciousness. Instead, consciousness may depend on broader coordination across brain regions rather than activity within a single structure like the hippocampus.

This activity also mirrors the predictive behavior seen in artificial intelligence (AI). The brain’s ability to predict upcoming words is similar to how large language models generate text. These findings help researchers understand how biological and artificial systems process information. This could be a step towards the development and refinement of new technologies for communication, such as speech prosthetics for individuals who are unable to speak.

Can we use these signals to deploy and run a speech prosthetic for some of the parts of the brain that are damaged by stroke or injury? These are questions that we can now consider in relation to this part of the brain.

Dr. Kalman A. (Vigi) Katlowitz, first author.
Department of Neurosurgery
Baylor College of Medicine
Houston, TX, USA.

However, more research is needed. The findings are specific to one type of anesthesia and may not apply to other unconscious states such as sleep or coma. This study only looked at one brain region as well, and it is unknown how widespread these processes are across different regions of the brain.

This work pushes us to rethink what it means to be conscious. The brain is doing much more behind the scenes than we fully understand.

Professor Dr. Sameer A. Sheth.

Others who contributed to the study include: Eric R. Cole, Elizabeth A. Mickiewicz, Shraddha Shah, Melissa Franch, Joshua A. Adkinson, James L. Belanger, Raissa K. Mathura, Domokos Meszéna, Matthew McGinley, William Muñoz, Garrett P. Banks, Sydney S. Cash, Chih-Wei Hsu, Angelique C. Paulk, Nicole R. Provenza, Andrew J. Watrous, Ziv Williams, Alica M. Goldman, Vaishnav Krishnan, Atul Maheshwari, Sarah R. Heilbronner, Robert Kim and Nuttida Rungratsameetaweemana. See a list of affiliations in the publication.

Publication:

Katlowitz, K.A., Cole, E.R., Mickiewicz, E.A. et al.
Plasticity and language in the anaesthetized human hippocampus.
Nature 654, 714–723 (2026). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-026-10448-0

Abstract
Consciousness is a fundamental component of cognition¹, but the degree to which higher-order pattern recognition relies on it remains disputed^2,3. Here we demonstrate the persistence of oddball discrimination, semantic processing and online prediction in individuals under general-anaesthesia-induced loss of consciousness^4,5. Using high-density Neuropixels microelectrodes⁶ to record both single-unit and local-field-potential neural activity in the human hippocampus while playing a series of tones to anaesthetized patients, we found that hippocampal neurons and local oscillations retained some detection of oddball tones. This effect size grew over the course of the experiment (around 10 min), demonstrating representational plasticity. A biologically plausible recurrent neural network model showed that learning and oddball representation are an emergent property of flexible tone discrimination. Moreover, when we played language stimuli, single units and local field potentials carried information about the semantic and grammatical features of natural speech, even predicting semantic information about upcoming words. Together these results indicate that in the hippocampus, which is anatomically and functionally distant from primary sensory cortices⁷, complex processing of sensory stimuli occurs even in the unconscious state.

Katlowitz, K.A., Cole, E.R., Mickiewicz, E.A. et al.
Plasticity and language in the anaesthetized human hippocampus.
Nature 654, 714–723 (2026). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-026-10448-0

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)

Once again, the creationist argument depends not on evidence, but on a shrinking area of ignorance. Consciousness is not being explained by invoking magic, souls or divine breath, but by studying what brains actually do. And what brains actually do, even when the person is unconscious, is far more sophisticated than our intuitions might suggest.

This research does not claim to have solved every philosophical question about subjective experience, nor does it need to. Its importance lies in showing that complex mental operations — including language processing, categorisation and prediction — can occur without conscious awareness. That leaves less and less room for the claim that consciousness is some supernatural faculty placed into the body from outside.

The creationist mistake, as always, is to confuse “not yet fully explained” with “therefore God”. But science does not require complete knowledge before it can make progress. It advances by breaking large mysteries into smaller, testable questions, then answering them with evidence. This paper is another example of that process: not a declaration that neuroscience knows everything, but a demonstration that consciousness belongs firmly within the domain of biology.

And that is what makes this so damaging to creationist apologetics. The more we learn about the brain, the less plausible it becomes to treat consciousness as an inexplicable miracle. What we call the conscious mind appears not to be a ghostly passenger in the machinery, but an emergent state of the machinery itself — a natural product of neural systems processing, integrating and making available the information that enables an organism to experience and respond to the world.

The corollary is that humans are almost certainly not the only species in which consciousness has evolved.

---

Advertisement

Amazon

Amazon

Amazon

Amazon

Amazon

Amazon

Amazon

Amazon

Amazon

Amazon

Amazon

Amazon

All titles available in paperback, hardcover, ebook for Kindle and audio format.

Prices correct at time of publication. for current prices.

Advertisement

Thank you for sharing!

Tweet Link

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Refuting Creationism - Observed Evolution In A South African Leopard Population

The elusive Cape leopard.

Jana Ohrner/iNaturalist, CC BY-NC

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Credit: Wonderwerk Cave Project.

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

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

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

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

Francis Collins - The Language of God

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

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

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

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

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

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

Life reconstruction of Teilhardina

Ai-generated image (ChatGPT 5.5 Thinking)

Our primate ancestors evolved in the cold – not the tropics

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Credit: Jason Plotkin / Penn State. Creative Commons

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Refuting Creationism - Evolution of Cultivated Cotton - No Magic Required

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

Photo: Corrinne Grover/Iowa State University.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Refuting Creationism - How The Strawberry Evolved - No Magic Needed

Wild starwberry, Fragaria vesca

By Jörg Hempel, CC BY-SA 3.0 de, Link

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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