Creationism Refuted - Filling The Gaps That Ignorant Creationists Never Knew Existed

Artistic reconstruction of Bolg amondol, depicted raiding an oviraptorosaur dinosaur nest amidst the lush Kaiparowits Formation habitat.

Art by Cullen Townsend.

A Monster “Goblin” at the Feet of Dinosaurs | Natural History Museum

View of the Kaiparowits Formation from Death Ridge in Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument.

Figure 4. Reconstruction of UMNH VP 16266 (holotype, Bolg amondol gen. et sp. nov.). Gold: preserved skeletal elements. Grey: morphological hypotheses of reconstructed elements based on the morphology of preserved skeletal elements. Black: missing skeletal elements, based on publicly available rendered CT scans on morphosource.org of specimen UF:Herp:153328, Heloderma horridum.

Woolley C. Henrik, et al. (2025)

There was a gaping hole in our knowledge of evolution which, had creationists been aware of it, we would never have heard the end of. They would have claimed that their gap-shaped god fitted it perfectly, like a puddle in its hollow. Of course, it was no secret. Biologists—especially those studying the evolution of lizards—knew about it well enough. No one was hiding it from creationists. Their blissful ignorance was simply the result of their fear of engaging with real biology.

We knew that today’s large-bodied lizards must share common ancestors, but the gap lay in the fossil evidence to support that view—what creationists dismissively call “conjecture” or claims made without evidence. Yet the Theory of Evolution always predicted that such ancestral and transitional forms must have existed.

Creationists, however, have missed that particular boat because the gap has now been filled. The prediction of evolutionary theory has, once again, been vindicated.

The gap-filling discovery was made by Dr Hank Woolley of the Dinosaur Institute while examining a jar of bones at the Natural History Museum of Utah, simply labelled “lizard bones.” Dr Woolley identified them as belonging to the Monstersauria—a group of lizards with a 100-million-year history, but until now an incomplete fossil record. A modern member of this group is the Gila Monster, one of only two venomous lizards alive today. The fossil, belonging to a large-bodied lizard which Dr Woolley has named Bolg amondol after a character in J.R.R. Tolkien’s The Lord of the Rings, was found in the Kaiparowits Formation of the Grand Staircase–Escalante National Monument, Utah—a palaeontological treasure trove and one of North America’s richest dinosaur-dominated records. Alongside dozens of new species, the site offers a vital window into the deep past. The age of this fossil places it squarely in the age of the dinosaurs, a crucial factor in lizard evolution.

Incidentally, the picture above shows the Kaiparowits Formation. Perhaps a creationist would like to explain how those vast sedimentary strata could have been deposited in a single global flood.

Refuting Creationism - Why Creationists Can't Look Blind Cavefish in the Eye

Typhlichthys subterraneus (Southern Cavefish)

Photo by Alan Cressler (US Geological Survey),
licensed CC BY-NC-ND 2.0

Typhlichthys subterraneus

Matthew Niemiller

Dark ages: Genomic analysis shows how cavefish lost their eyes | Yale News

Some days there are so many papers in which the authors casually — and with no intention of doing so — comprehensively refute basic creationist claims, that there just aren’t enough hours in the day to keep up with them. For creationists, of course, the task is simple: never read a scientific publication. The last thing any dedicated creationist wants is those pesky, “Satanic” scientists trying to make them lose ‘faith’, or worse, consider the possibility of being wrong when confronted with nasty, toxic facts.

In the bizarre world of faith, things must be true if you believe them by faith. After all, faith is the sure and certain way to “just know” the truth without all that bothersome learning. It’s also the sure and certain way to know that yours is the only true faith and that all other faiths are wrong.

So this new research about the convergent evolution of blind cavefish will need to be kept firmly behind the impregnable shield of faith, because faith must be protected from cold, harsh reality at all times — even at the cost of personal integrity. A creationist would much rather be thought of as intellectually dishonest than wrong.

The news comes from researchers at Yale, who have discovered how blind cavefish lost their eyes through something creationists insist can’t happen because it is invariably fatal: loss of genetic information. And not just once, but in several species of blind cavefish — all of which lost their eyes by essentially the same mechanism.

The researchers showed, using a new “mutational clock,” that the oldest blind cavefish, the Ozark cavefish (Troglichthys rosae), began degenerating up to 11 million years ago. This technique also establishes a minimum age for the caves these fish inhabit, since the caves must have existed before the fish colonised them.

In a nice confirmation of the Theory of Evolution — which predicts that environmental change will drive evolutionary change and that species will evolve towards greater fitness in that environment — several species of cavefish exhibit broadly similar adaptations such as a flattened skull, a long, thin body, and the loss or reduction of pelvic fins.

Refuting Creationism - Another Fossil; Another Thorny Problem for Creationists

Artist's impression of Spicomellus afer

Credit: Matt Dempsey

Fossils of S. afer

© The Trustees of the Natural History Museum, London

“Bizarre” armoured dinosaur, Spicomellus afer, had spikes sticking out from its neck, fossils show - University of Birmingham

A newly-identified bizarre dinosaur fossil from Morocco has presented creationists with yet another thorny problem to ignore.

It is that of an ankylosaur from early in the evolutionary history of that group. Not only is its great age a problem for those who believe Earth was magicked into existence by a god with all living things fully formed and an environment perfectly tuned for life (i.e. human life — supposedly the god’s favourite), but at 165 million years old it comes from the vast span of Earth’s pre-“Creation Week” history — that 99.9975% of the planet’s history which creationists pretend never happened. This is, in fact, the oldest ankylosaur yet discovered.

Unlike later ankylosaurs, however, this one had long spikes firmly attached to its bones. These appear to have been lost as the group evolved, showing relatively rapid change. That in itself runs counter to the creationist dogma that evolution cannot proceed by loss of genetic information and must always involve increasing complexity for it to be “real” evolution. This claim, like so many creationist assertions, ignores abundant evidence — such as the reduction in genome size and anatomical complexity in many endoparasites.

Now they have yet another example to ignore while busily constructing their infantile strawman versions of evolution to attack.

The discovery by palaeontologists co-led by Professor Susannah Maidment of Natural History Museum, London, and the University of Birmingham, has just been reported in Nature and is explained in a news item from the University of Birmingham and an accompanying YouTube video:

Abiogenesis News - UCL Scientists Show How LUCA Arose - No God(s) Required

Liquid brine veins, where RNA molecules can replicate, surround solid ice crystals in water ice, as seen with an electron microscope.

Credit: Philipp Holliger, MRC LMB

Graphic abstract

Attwater, J., Augustin, T.L., Curran, J.F. et al.(2025)

Chemists recreate how RNA might have reproduced for first time | UCL News - UCL – University College London

The day creationists dread — the final closure of their favourite god-shaped abiogenesis gap — moved a little closer last May, when scientists at University College London (UCL) announced that they had shown how the first RNA could have reproduced. In a selective environment with competition for resources, this would have led inevitably to ever-increasing efficiency in replication, kick-starting the whole evolutionary process and the emergence of self-organising systems (or “life”) from prebiotic precursors (or “non-life”). This is, of course, the very process that creationists insist is “impossible”, clinging to the idea that “life” is some magical essence that must be granted by a supernatural deity.

When this God-shaped gap is finally and conclusively closed — as all the others have been — creationists will need to scramble once again to reframe their beliefs and cling to whatever shrinking space remains for their god. Just as their old claim that evolution was “impossible” collapsed, to be replaced with notions of a short burst of warp-speed evolution “within kinds” after “The Flood” (and supposedly still happening today, but conveniently “guided” by God), so too will abiogenesis inevitably be rebranded as yet another process directed by divine intention — naturally, with the eventual production of (American) humans as the goal.

Malevolent Design - How a Spider Uses Captive Fireflies To Lure More To Their Death - Malevolence or Evolution?

Sheetweb spiders have outsourced prey attraction to their prey's own signals.

Firefly caught in a sheetweb spider's web

Spider uses trapped fireflies as glowing bait - BES

This news will thrill devotees of a creationist god of divine malevolence; but for those who prefer their deity to resemble the all-loving god of the New Testament, it will be a cause for concern. Even more worrying for the latter, the current campaign by creationist organisations such as the Discovery Institute—trying to promote the pseudoscience of Intelligent Design as a scientific alternative to evolutionary biology—unwittingly strengthens the case for a malevolent designer. After all, Michael J. Behe’s notion of irreducible complexity and William A. Dembski’s concept of complex specified genetic information apply just as well to parasites and stealth predators as they do to supposed “beneficial” features such as human intelligence or the biological systems that keep us alive.

The latest example comes from scientists at Tunghai University, Taiwan, who have shown that a sheet-web spider has evolved a particularly nasty trick for luring fireflies to their deaths. The method is brutally simple: once the spider captures a firefly, it keeps it alive, so its flashing courtship signal continues to glow. Instead of attracting a mate, the unfortunate insect draws more fireflies into the spider’s web—and to certain death.

To an evolutionary biologist, this is a fascinating demonstration of how a mindless natural process can hone behaviour in whatever direction produces more offspring, regardless of whether humans judge the outcome “good” or “evil.”

Refuting Creationism - Oceanic Oxygenation Spured Rappid Evolution - 390 Million Years Before 'Creation Week'

An artist’s rendering of a prehistoric jawed fish from the Late Devonian called Dunkleosteus. These sorts of large, active vertebrates evolved shortly after the deep ocean became well-oxygenated.

© 2008 Nobu Tamura/CC-BY-SA.

How oxygen made the deep ocean home to animals, spurring rapid evolution | UW News

Another wave of reality breaks over the impervious rocks of creationist dogma, in the form of news that an international team of researchers led by the University of Washington has shown a correlation between the rapid radiation of marine vertebrates and the evolution of plants on land. As trees and other vascular plants spread, more atmospheric carbon became locked into their woody stems, reducing carbon dioxide levels. At the same time, increased photosynthesis raised atmospheric oxygen levels, which in turn oxygenated the oceans, making oxygen available in depths that had previously been anoxic.

Creationists will, of course, need to ignore the fact that this finding flatly contradicts their claims that evolution only occurs within “kinds” and that all diversification happened in a brief burst of warp-speed evolution following a genocidal global flood some 4,000 years ago. The timeline alone is utterly inconsistent with their favourite creationist fairy tale.

Scientists once believed this major oxygenation event had occurred about 500 million years ago, but the new research shows that episode was short-lived. A more significant oxygenation occurred around 390 million years ago. Initially, oxygenation would have taken place in shallow coastal regions where vertebrates first evolved. As oxygen penetrated deeper into the oceans, vertebrates followed into the newly opened niches, leading to a rapid proliferation of jawed vertebrate species — the ancestors from which terrestrial tetrapods later evolved.

The team reached their conclusions after measuring selenium isotopes in 97 sedimentary rock samples from five continents, dated between 252 and 541 million years ago. These rocks had been deposited near the edges of continental shelves, where shallow seas transition into the deep ocean. Selenium occurs naturally in several isotopic forms, and the ratios in which they were deposited depend on the level of oxygen dissolved in seawater. These isotopic signatures thus provide an indirect measure of oxygenation levels at the time the rocks were laid down.

Refuting Creationism Again - Now A 500-Million-Year-Old Fossil Worm From Greenland

Reconstruction of Nektognathus, swimming in the Cambrian Sea

Image credit: Bob Nicholls

The holotype specimen of Nektognathus from Sirius Passet

Image credit: Tae Yoon Park

2025: Ancient squid-like creatures are not squid after all, study finds | School of Biological Sciences | University of Bristol

The bad day for those creationists who haven't yet closed their minds to contrary information continues. Close on the news of a 220-million-year-old fossil ichthyosaur from Japan comes the discovery of a 500-million-year-old fossil worm from Greenland.

The identification of this Cambrian fossil, Nectocaris, as an ancestor of arrow worms rather than an early squid, as once thought, is a fine example of something creationists pretend to find incomprehensible: scientists changing their minds when new evidence demands it. Wedded to simple certainties, right or wrong, creationists insist that science must be either wholly right or wholly wrong. If a conclusion is shown to be mistaken, they assume the entire scientific enterprise collapses into a cloud of vacuous uncertainty. In their black-and-white world of false dichotomies, that somehow means their evidence-free superstition wins by default.

About 15 years ago, a study of fossils from the Burgess Shale concluded that Nectocaris was a cephalopod mollusc. But that classification posed problems since what could be discerned of its anatomy did not match that of cephalopods. That difficulty has now been resolved by a detailed examination of the ventral ganglion – part of the nervous system – which is revealed to consist of paired structures consistent with being ancestral to arrow worms.

This breakthrough was made possible by the exceptional preservation of fossils at Sirius Passet in northern Greenland, a remarkable Cambrian fossil site.

Refuting Creationism - Where Our Earliest Common Primate Ancestor Lived

Early primates survived in cold, not tropical climates

Japanese snow macaque - unusual for a modern primate but our common ancestor may have lived in a similar climate.

New research, led by Dr Jorge Avaria-Llautureo of the University of Reading, UK, suggests that our early ancestors evolved in a cold climate rather than the tropical environment traditionally assumed.

Ever-hopeful creationists will no doubt seize on this as evidence that science keeps “getting everything wrong” and is now supposedly admitting that humans did not evolve in Africa but… somewhere else. (Not in Mesopotamia either, and certainly not just 10,000 years ago, but we can worry about that later — the important thing is that science got it wrong again, right?).

But of course, this is a distortion. The new findings don’t overturn evolution, nor do they suggest humans suddenly popped up in the “wrong” place. The study doesn’t even concern early human ancestors directly. Instead, it examines the very earliest primates — the common ancestor of the entire primate clade, which includes monkeys, apes, and humans, but also tree shrews, tarsiers, bush babies, and lemurs.

So the debate here isn’t about whether primates share a common ancestor — that fact is firmly established — but about where that ancestor first evolved. The conventional view has long been that primates arose in warm, tropical forests, because that’s where the majority of them live today. But by examining genetic data, ecological modelling, and the fossil record, Avaria-Llautureo and colleagues argue that the earliest primates actually adapted to cooler conditions. In other words, the roots of the primate family tree may lie in temperate regions, not the tropics.

Far from being a “crisis for evolution”, this is science doing what it always does: refining our understanding in light of new evidence. No biologist doubts that primates, including humans, share common ancestry going back tens of millions of years — far beyond the Bible’s compressed and mythical 6,000–10,000-year timeline. What changes is our picture of the environment in which those ancestors thrived.

As Dr Jason Gilchrist of Edinburgh Napier University — who was not involved in the study — points out in his article in The Conversation, this research challenges old assumptions but also enriches our understanding of primate resilience. If our lineage began in colder settings, it helps explain how primates could later spread and diversify into such a wide range of habitats, from the tropics to the highlands, deserts, and even urban environments where some species now live.

So the take-home message is not “science was wrong again” but rather “science is working as it should”. Each new finding gives us a sharper, more accurate picture of our evolutionary story — a story that remains completely at odds with creationist myth-making, but endlessly fascinating in its complexity.

Refuting Creationism - A Denisovan Gene Helped Humans Populate The Americas

An artist's rendering shows the first-ever portrait of a Denisovan woman, recreated from an ancient DNA sample.

Maayan Harel.

The proposed evolutionary history of MUC19.
The Denisovan-like haplotype (in orange) was first introgressed from Denisovans into Neanderthals and then introgressed into modern humans. The introgressed haplotype later experienced positive selection in populations from the Americas. The introgressed MUC19 haplotype is composed of a 742-kb region that contains Neanderthal-specific variants (blue). Embedded within this Neanderthal-like region is a 72-kb region containing a high density of Denisovan-specific variants (orange), and an exonic variable number tandem repeat (VNTR) region (gray). The box below the 742-kb region depicts zooming into the MUC19 VNTR region, in which admixed American individuals carry an elevated number of tandem repeat copies.

Fernando A. Villanea et al. (2025)

Extinct human relatives left a genetic gift that helped people thrive in the Americas | Brown University

Another day; another scientific paper showing the Bible to be wrong — not just slightly wrong, but fundamentally, demonstrably, and irretrievably wrong.

This latest blow comes from researchers at Brown University, who have traced a variant of the gene MUC19, originally identified in the extinct archaic hominins known as Denisovans, and found it alive and well today in modern Latin Americans with Indigenous ancestry. They also detected it in ancient DNA recovered from archaeological sites across both North and South America.

The variant is far too common in modern populations to be a trivial accident. Its persistence screams survival advantage. Natural selection has kept it in play because it helps its carriers thrive in the environments the earliest migrants into the Americas encountered.

What does MUC19 do? It helps build mucus — not glamorous, but life-saving. From the saliva that begins digestion to the mucosal barriers in the gut and respiratory tract that fend off infection, this gene equips its owners with a stronger shield against disease.

And where did it come from? The Denisovans. But it likely reached us by way of Neanderthals, with whom Homo sapiens also interbred. In other words, modern humans are not some isolated “special creation” freshly minted out of clay a few thousand years ago; we are a patchwork of lineages, woven together by repeated episodes of interbreeding over tens of thousands of years.

For creationists, this paper is a nightmare. First, the scientists are explicit: the explanation rests entirely on Evolution and the blind, natural processes that drive it. Second, the mere fact that extinct species like Denisovans and Neanderthals could successfully mate with our ancestors drives a stake through the heart of biblical literalism. Instead of Adam and Eve, what we see is gradual emergence — modern humans arising by incomplete speciation across a broad geographical spread, with genes flowing back and forth whenever populations met again. This pattern repeats itself throughout hominin history, and it unfolds on a timeline that makes the biblical six-thousand-year fantasy look laughably naïve.

Creationism Refuted - Rappid Diversification Linked To Rapid Environmental Changes

Most known species evolved during 'explosions' of diversity, shows first analysis across 'tree of life'

The Tree of Life

Gustav Klimt, 1909

A new study in Frontiers in Ecology & Evolution delivers a striking confirmation of evolutionary theory while dealing another blow to creationist claims. Researchers John J. Wiens (University of Arizona) and Daniel S. Moen (University of California, Riverside) show that the vast majority of Earth’s species richness stems from a handful of lineages that underwent explosive bursts of diversification — precisely what evolutionary theory predicts.

Analysing enormous datasets covering more than 2 million described species across multiple taxonomic levels, the team found that "over 80% of all known biodiversity is packed into the clades with the fastest diversification rates". This pattern holds true for animals, plants, insects, vertebrates, and even across kingdoms, showing that biodiversity is not spread evenly but arises overwhelmingly from rapid radiations and occurs at all taxonomic levels. The message is clear: most of life’s diversity comes from bursts of speciation linked to ecological opportunity and innovation, not from slow, uniform accumulation over time. The results reveal a universal pattern across the tree of life, confirming that natural selection acting on changing environments and new niches drives the extraordinary richness we see today. For creationists, this is more bad news. Their model of static “kinds” appearing fully formed cannot explain why biodiversity clusters so strongly in rapidly radiating groups, or why it forms the nested hierarchies that evolution predicts. The evidence instead shows life as a continuous, dynamic process of descent with modification from common ancestors—exactly as Darwin envisaged, and the exact opposite of “special creation.”

Creationism Refuted - Neanderthals And Modern Humans Interbreeding in Israel - 130,000 Years Before Creation Week

AI reconstruction of mixed Neanderthal-
Homo sapiens family.

ChatGPT 5

AI reconstruction of mixed Neanderthal-Homo sapiens family (enhanced).

Earliest Evidence of Neanderthal–Homo sapiens Interbreeding Found in Israel | Tel Aviv University | Tel Aviv University

Another day, another paper refuting creationism and the Bible narrative.

Creationism suffered yet another body blow a few days ago with the announcement that a Tel Aviv University (TAU)-led international team has concluded that 140,000-year-old fossilised remains of a child, found 90 years ago in the Skhūl Cave on Mount Carmel, show unmistakable evidence of being a hybrid between a modern Homo sapiens and a Neanderthal.

Whether this news will penetrate the impervious defences of creationists — who resemble a brain-dead boxer long since counted out, the crowd gone home, yet still convinced he is winning — remains to be seen.

Not only does this timeline, which places anatomically modern humans outside Africa living alongside another hominin species, utterly contradict the Bible’s creation myth, but so does the very fact that there were multiple hominin species at all. The problem for Bible literalists is not just the incompatibility of dates, but the clear evidence of human evolution and divergence — evidence that rules out the notion of a single ancestral couple committing an “original sin” that supposedly condemns all their descendants to seek “salvation” from the wrath of an eternally unforgiving creator god.

To make matters worse for creationism, this fossil was found in the very region that later became central to the Bronze Age mythology of the Bible.

From a scientific perspective, this discovery — confirming what has long been suspected — shows that there were several earlier, ultimately unsuccessful migrations of H. sapiens out of Africa. During these early dispersals, modern humans met and interbred with Neanderthals, introducing *H. sapiens

DNA into Neanderthal populations long before the successful migration around 60,000–40,000 years ago, when further interbreeding occurred.

Refuting Creationism - The Transexual Bearded Dragons Of Australia

Central bearded dragon, Pogona vitticeps

Central bearded dragon, Pogona vitticeps

By Photograph: Frank C. Müller, Baden-Baden - Own work,
CC BY-SA 2.5, Link

Being largely ignorant of any wildlife beyond what could be reached within a day or two’s walk of their pastures — and entirely ignorant of anything invisible to the naked eye — the Bible’s authors consistently imply that all living animals exist only as male or female, and that sexual reproduction is the sole reproductive strategy:

And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth. So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.

Genesis 1:26–27

And of every living thing of all flesh, two of every sort shalt thou bring into the ark, to keep them alive with thee; they shall be male and female.

Genesis 6:19–20

Of every clean beast thou shalt take to thee by sevens, the male and his female: and of beasts that are not clean by two, the male and his female. Of fowls also of the air by sevens, the male and the female; to keep seed alive upon the face of all the earth.

Genesis 7:2–3

With their parochial worldview, the Bible’s authors had no knowledge of distant continents such as Australia—indeed, they show no awareness of Northern Europe or of Asia beyond their own region, let alone of a spherical Earth divided into two hemispheres. This limitation could not be levelled against an all-knowing creator god, of course—which is precisely how we know no such god was involved in its writing. Had one been, we might reasonably expect the text to reflect a broader knowledge of the world and its history, and a more accurate understanding of living things, their origins, and their reproductive strategies—including those invisible to the unaided eye. Instead, we encounter a world that conforms only to the narrow perceptions and superstitions of its authors.

Malevolent Designer - How Creationism's Divine Malevolence Is Actively Killing Children With Malaria - If You Belive ID Creationists

Novel Maneuver Helps Malaria Parasite Dodge the Immune System | Newsroom | Weill Cornell Medicine

Here’s one of those discoveries in biological science that should have ID creationists jumping up and down yelling, "Told you so!". It’s news that the parasite that causes malaria shows both what they call 'irreducible complexity' and 'complex specified genetic information'. According to Discovery Institute fellows Michael J. Behe and William A. Dembski, that would mean it is intelligently designed and, by implication, designed to do exactly what it does — by the Christian God.

But, for reasons which can only be guessed at — and probably not a million miles from the fact that this conclusion would mean the Christian god is actively designing ways to kill people, particularly children, and especially in Africa — creationists tend to ignore it. After all, that’s the very antithesis of the compassionate, benevolent, loving god of the Bible.

Instead, they quietly sidestep the inconvenient reality that examples of their supposed 'proof of intelligent design' are found just as often in parasites and pathogens as in their hosts. This is precisely what evolutionary biology predicts: a host–parasite relationship invariably leads to an evolutionary arms race, producing sophisticated and complex systems that equip the parasite to survive in the host and to infect new victims.

And, true to form, we now have another such example in the major cause of malaria, Plasmodium falciparum, which killed some 569,000 people in Africa in 2023:

Key Facts:

• Globally in 2023, there were an estimated 263 million malaria cases and 597,000 malaria deaths in 83 countries.
• The WHO African Region carries a disproportionately high share of the global malaria burden.
• In 2023, the WHO African Region was home to 94% of malaria cases (246 million) and 95% (569,000) of malaria deaths (432,400 children under 5).
• Children under 5 accounted for about 76% of all malaria deaths in the Region.

Abiogenesis News - Fully Synthetic 'Life' Evolving in a Laboratory

Illustration showing the formation of new vesicles from the reorganization through self-reproduction of amphiphiles expelled into the bulk

S.K. Katla,C. Lin, & J. Pérez-Mercader (2025).

A step toward solving central mystery of life on Earth — Harvard Gazette

(A) Illustration showing the different stages of polymer vesicle growth leading to the action of expulsion of amphiphiles. (B) Illustration showing the formation of new vesicles from the reorganization through self-reproduction of amphiphiles expelled into the bulk.

S.K. Katla,C. Lin, & J. Pérez-Mercader (2025).

The frequent creationist assertion that abiogenesis is impossible without invoking supernatural intervention has taken another significant blow with the recent open‑access publication in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS). The study, Self‑reproduction as an autonomous process of growth and reorganization in fully abiotic, artificial and synthetic cells, demonstrates, for the first time, the successful laboratory creation of simple, non‑biochemical self‑reproducing vesicle‑like systems exhibiting Darwinian evolution: each generation varies slightly in traits that influence their ability to replicate.

This breakthrough indicates that such self‑sustaining systems could plausibly arise through natural processes, and gradually—through Darwinian mechanisms—evolve into the first simple biological life forms, from which all life subsequently diversified. It also lends empirical support to the principle that when self‑replication with small variation occurs in a selective environment, evolution in the direction of increased fitness is inevitable.

How Science Works - The Mystery In Great White Shark DNA

Photo by Greg Skomal.

There’s something fishy going on with great white sharks that scientists can’t explain – Research News

Here is something that should bring both delight and disappointment to creationists. It concerns a mystery in the genetics of the great white shark, Carcharodon carcharias — a finding that runs counter to what the theory of evolution would predict. In fact, it is precisely a failed evolutionary prediction that is the subject of a paper recently published in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS).

The disappointment for creationists comes from the simple fact of its publication. It directly refutes the oft-repeated claim that the scientific community refuses to publish anything that does not fully align with the theory of evolution. As with so many creationist accusations, this is a projection of their own malpractice. Major creationist organisations — such as Ken Ham’s Answers in Genesis — require contributors to sign statements of faith that commit them never to publish anything inconsistent with their predetermined beliefs. In other words, only creationist organisations demand strict adherence to conclusions before research is even carried out.

The new findings show that the great white shark passed through an extreme population bottleneck in the Indo-Pacific at the end of the last Ice Age, around 10,000 years ago. From this single population, they began diversifying about 7,000 years ago. Today, there are roughly 20,000 individuals across three distinct populations: one in the southern hemisphere (around Australia and South Africa), one in the North Atlantic, and another in the North Pacific. Genetic analysis reveals this divergence in their mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA), which is inherited solely through the female line. Curiously, however, their nuclear DNA (nDNA) — inherited equally from both parents — shows almost no diversity at all. All populations are remarkably similar in nDNA, far more so than evolutionary theory would predict.

This raises the mystery: why does the mtDNA show clear evidence of diversification and population isolation, while the nDNA does not?

Refuting Creationism - How A Single Gene Makes A Big Difference

When FruM was activated in insulin-producing neurons in D. melanogaster, these cells grew new neural connections and successfully transferred gift-giving courtship behavior to this species.

Tanaka et al., 2025

NU Research Information - Nagoya University

Today, it’s the humble fruit fly that delivers yet another blow to creationist dogma.

Creationists insist that all species were created in their present form, complete with fixed behaviours, as though every instinct was hardwired in a single act of creation. But science has shown—yet again—that reality is very different. A tiny change in a single gene can profoundly alter behaviour, rewiring brains and shaping the way species interact and reproduce. And because mating behaviour is central to forming reproductive barriers, such genetic shifts drive the very process of speciation that creationists deny.

The culprit gene here is fruitless (fru), shared by both Drosophila melanogaster and D. subobscura. Yet, despite the shared gene, their courtship rituals couldn’t be more different: male D. melanogaster woo females with wing vibrations, while D. subobscura males present a drop of regurgitated food.

Scientists at Nagoya University have now shown what happens when you swap the fru gene from D. subobscura into D. melanogaster: the flies abandon their ancestral wing song and instead adopt the food-gifting ritual. The switch isn’t magic—it’s a straightforward change in neural wiring. By lengthening the dendrite of an insulin-secreting neurone so it connects with the courtship neurone, the behaviour is fundamentally altered.

What this experiment does is striking: it replays evolution in the lab. It shows exactly how a behavioural shift could have arisen when these species diverged from a common ancestor. It also demolishes the tired creationist mantra that “macro-evolution” is impossible. Here we have behaviour—controlled by genes, reshaped by neuronal architecture—evolving right before our eyes.

Refuting Creationism - Ancient Duck DNA Shows Us Why The Bible Is Literally Wrong

Auckland Island merganser. Artistic reconstruction by J. G. Keulemans.

from Bullers Birds of New Zealand (1888)

A wave of scientific knowledge engulfing creationist ignorance

With apologies to Katsushika Hokusai.

Ancient DNA from an extinct native duck reveals how far birds flew to make New Zealand home

Scientists never set out to prove that the Biblical account of science and history as related in Genesis is hopelessly wrong and based on the childish guesses of scientifically illiterate people—that is simply an incidental outcome of the facts they revealed. Nevertheless, it remains a fact. The Bible presents a timeline and an account of the origin of species that are wholly inconsistent with the known facts.

To be fair to the original authors, they probably never intended to mislead scientifically illiterate people thousands of years later. As they devised origin myths to fill the gaps in their knowledge of the world, they could hardly have imagined that someone would one day write their tales down, combine them with other implausible myths, genealogies, and morality stories designed to spread fear and enhance priestly power, and then declare the compilation to be the inerrant word of an omniscient creator god. That declaration, of course, reinforced the text’s usefulness as a source of excuses for actions such as land theft, genocide, and enslavement—atrocities conveniently blamed on a god to absolve perpetrators of personal responsibility.

Refuting Creationism - What An Extinct Duck Tells Us About Evolution

An artist’s depiction of the Rēkohu shelduck.

Credit: Sasha Votyakova/Te Papa, CC BY-ND

The Paradise shelduck, Tadorna variegata, the closest relative of the Rēkohu shelduck

The discovery of an extinct shelduck highlights the rich ancient biodiversity of the remote Rēkohu Chatham Islands

Remote islands are the sort of environment biologists might dream up if asked to design a natural laboratory for testing evolution. It’s no coincidence that Darwin was inspired to develop his theory while visiting the Galápagos Islands and noticing how the finches had adapted in different ways to the conditions on each island.

Another striking example comes from the Rēkohu Chatham Islands, about 785 kilometres east of mainland Aotearoa New Zealand. The islands rose in their present form around 3.5 million years ago, effectively resetting the clock for the ecosystems that would develop there. Species arriving from elsewhere had to make do with what traits they already carried, and only those suited to island life survived. Most new arrivals were birds, insects, or wind-blown plants carried there by chance. With few predators and limited competition, these colonists had the perfect opportunity to go their own evolutionary way.

Refuting Creationism - A Tiny Piece of DNA That's So Unkind To Creationists

A Genetic Twist that Sets Humans Apart

Humans and chimpanzees share about 98–99% of their DNA, so the vast differences between us must lie within that small fraction where we differ.

Humans have no organs or structures that chimpanzees don’t also have; the differences are mainly in relative size and proportion. In other words, they’re quantitative, not qualitative. But that doesn’t stop creationists solemnly declaring that we are a totally different “kind” — a human “kind” — while chimps are lumped with gorillas, bonobos, and orangutans into the “ape kind.” Two bins, job done.

Creationists insist that no “kind” could have evolved from another because that would require brand-new organs and “new genetic information,” something they claim is impossible. Instead, they set up a straw man, accusing scientists of believing new genes and structures simply pop into existence out of thin air, like some sort of Darwinian magic trick, while insisting no one can explain how it works. (Apparently, gene duplication, mutation, and selection don’t count when you’ve decided in advance that the answer must be wrong.)

But when it comes to humans and chimpanzees, their reasoning ties itself in knots. Humans can’t have evolved from a chimp-like ancestor, they say, because that would be “macro-evolution.” Except when it isn’t. Lions, tigers, leopards, cheetahs, and house cats are all just one happy “cat kind,” because in that case there was obviously no “macro-evolution” — only “variation.” So, if evolution produces cats, that’s “micro-evolution.” If it produces humans, it’s “macro-evolution,” and therefore impossible. Heads I win, tails you lose.

In reality, the major differences between humans and chimpanzees aren’t about inventing new bits and pieces, but in how the same components developed. The key lies in relative sizes of bones, muscles, and teeth — and above all in the brain: not new parts, but differences in growth, proportion, and how the brain is wired.

Now, researchers at the University of California San Diego School of Medicine have shown that part of that small genetic difference — specifically a stretch of DNA called HAR123 — acts as an enhancer controlling brain growth and development. In other words, the real evolutionary leap wasn’t the conjuring up of brand-new organs from nowhere, but changes in how existing genes fine-tuned brain development. The decisive shift came not from what parts the brain has, but from how large they grew and the ratio of cell types — glial cells and neurons — within them.

Refuting Creationism - The Grand Canyon Is a Treasure Trove Of Cambrian Fossils - From 500 Million Years Before 'Creation Week'

View of the Grand Canyon from the Colorado River.

Jason Muhlbauer

Grand Canyon was a ‘Goldilocks zone’ for the evolution of early animals

One of the things about American creationism that many people in the rest of the world find endearing—if not more than a little irritating—is the ignorant parochialism that underpins so much of it. For example, it is part of the creationist narrative that the Grand Canyon is “proof” of the biblical flood because, so they assert, the layers were laid down during the flood and the canyon was then gouged out by the floodwaters running away. This also plays neatly into the biblical flat Earth idea, because they assume the floodwaters went somewhere—presumably over the edge—having been magically piled up for the best part of a year until the magic was removed.

And of course, it all happened in America, where the important things always happen and where anything that happens is important—when Jesus returns, it will be to America; America is the place God is preparing for Jesus’s return, and so on.

So the recent open-access paper in Science Advances by an international team of palaeontologists led by scientists from Cambridge University, UK, reporting that the Grand Canyon is a rich source of fossils from the Cambrian biota, will no doubt come as a shock to American creationists.