Showing posts with label Biology. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Biology. Show all posts

Thursday, 1 January 2026

Creationism Refuted - A Terrible End to a Bad Year for Creationism - a 37-Million-Year-Old Transitional Fossil Snake

The new fossil snake species, Paradoxophidion richardoweni, lived in a much warmer England over 37 million years ago.
© Jaime Chirinos

The most commonly found bones of fossil snakes are their vertebrae, which contain traits that scientists can use to identify the species.

© Georgalis and Jones
“Weird” new species of ancient fossil snake discovered in southern England | Natural History Museum

2026 is shaping up to be yet another dreadful year for the creationist cult, as palaeontology, archaeology, geochronology, and genetics continue to uncover facts that do not merely show creationism to be a divinely inspired allegory or metaphor, but demonstrate that it is simply and unequivocally wrong at every level.

At times it seems like an unfair contest between myths invented by Bronze Age pastoralists—without the slightest benefit of scientific understanding—and the cumulative output of modern science. It is rather like a chess match between a pigeon and a powerful computer, in which the pigeon’s concept of chess is to knock the pieces over, then strut about on the board declaring victory. This tactic is known in creationist circles as “debate”, and everywhere else as “pigeon chess”.

As usual, the closing months of the year have brought yet more palaeontological evidence that creationism cannot accommodate. This latest find dates to around 37 million years before creationists believe Earth was magicked into existence, bears the unmistakable fingerprints of one of those supposedly “non-existent” transitional forms, and displays the familiar mosaic of archaic and modern features that are commonplace in the fossil record. It also fits precisely into the established timeline of reptilian evolution and was discovered in southern England, in deposits that align exactly with the known geological and climatological history of the region.

The fossil was discovered in 1981 at Hordle Cliff, England, and donated to the Natural History Museum in London, where it has now been identified as a new species. The identification was made by Professor Georgios L. Georgalis of the Institute of Systematics and Evolution of Animals at the Polish Academy of Sciences in Kraków, currently a visiting researcher at the Natural History Museum. His paper, co-authored with Dr Marc E. H. Jones, curator of fossil reptiles and amphibians, has recently been published open access in Comptes Rendus Palevol.

Hordle Cliff, Geology. Hordle Cliff is one of the most important and intensively studied fossil-bearing coastal exposures in southern England. Its significance lies in the exceptional sequence of Eocene marine sediments exposed by continual coastal erosion along the western Solent.



Geological setting

Hordle Cliff lies on the coast of Hampshire, west of Milford-on-Sea, forming part of the Hampshire Basin, a large sedimentary basin that accumulated marine and marginal-marine deposits during the early Cenozoic. The strata exposed here date mainly to the Late Eocene, approximately 41–34 million years ago, a time when southern England lay beneath a warm, shallow sea.

Stratigraphy

The cliff exposes a classic succession of Eocene formations, including:
  • Barton Group (upper Eocene)
    • Dominated by clays, silts, and fine sands
    • Deposited in shallow marine conditions
    • Exceptionally fossil-rich
  • Barton Clay Formation
    • The most famous unit at Hordle Cliff
    • Known for abundant molluscs, sharks’ teeth, rays, fish remains, turtles, crocodilians, birds, and reptiles (including snakes)
    • Indicates warm, subtropical seas with nearby coastal and estuarine environments

These sediments accumulated gradually, layer upon layer, in calm marine settings—exactly the opposite of the chaotic, high-energy deposition required by flood-geology models.



Depositional environment

During the Late Eocene, this region experienced:
  • **Warm greenhouse climates
  • High sea levels
  • Low-energy marine sedimentation

Fine-grained clays settled slowly out of suspension, allowing delicate fossils to be preserved intact. Many beds show bioturbation, shell beds, and orderly fossil assemblages—clear evidence of stable ecosystems persisting over long periods.



Fossil significance

Hordle Cliff is internationally important because it preserves:
  • Highly diverse faunas spanning multiple ecological niches
  • Mosaic evolutionary forms, including transitional reptiles
  • Fossils preserved in situ, not reworked or mixed from different ages

This makes the site particularly valuable for reconstructing Eocene ecosystems and tracing evolutionary change through time.



Structural and erosional features

The cliffs themselves are relatively soft and unstable:
  • Frequent slumping and landslips continually expose fresh material
  • Ongoing erosion has made Hordle Cliff productive for over two centuries
  • The geology is simple and undisturbed, with gently dipping strata—no folding, overturning, or tectonic chaos



Why this matters for creationist claims

The geology of Hordle Cliff presents multiple, independent problems for young-Earth creationism:
  • The sediments record millions of years of gradual deposition
  • Fossils are ordered, local, and ecological, not globally mixed
  • Climatic signals match global Eocene warming trends
  • The strata fit seamlessly into the wider regional and global geological record

There is no evidence whatsoever of rapid, catastrophic deposition, let alone a single global flood. Instead, Hordle Cliff is a textbook example of slow geological processes operating exactly as modern geology predicts.
The discovery and its broader significance were explained in a recent Natural History Museum news item by James Ashworth.
“Weird” new species of ancient fossil snake discovered in southern England
An extinct snake has slithered its way out of obscurity over four decades after its discovery.

The newly described species of reptile, Paradoxophidion richardoweni, is offering new clues in the search for the origin of ‘advanced’ snakes.

In 1981, the backbones of an ancient snake were uncovered at Hordle Cliff on England’s south coast. They’ve now been revealed as the remnants of a previously unknown species.

Research published in the journal Comptes Rendus Palevol has identified that the vertebrae belong to a new species named Paradoxophidion richardoweni. This animal would have lived around 37 million years ago, when England was home to a much wider range of snakes than it is now.

While little is known about this animal’s life, it could shed light on the early evolution of biggest group of modern snakes. This is because Paradoxophidion represents an early-branching member of the caenophidians, the group containing the vast majority of living snakes.

The new species is so early in the evolution of the caenophidians that it has a peculiar mix of characteristics now found in different snakes throughout this group. This mosaic of features is summed up in its genus name, with Paradoxophidion meaning ‘paradox snake’ in Greek.

Its species name, meanwhile, honours Sir Richard Owen. Not only did he name the first fossil snakes found at Hordle Cliff, but this scientist was also instrumental in establishing what’s now the Natural History Museum where the fossils are cared for, giving the name multiple layers of meaning.

Lead author Dr Georgios Georgalis, from the Institute of Systematics and Evolution of Animals of the Polish Academy of Sciences in Krakow, says that being able to describe a new species from our collections was ‘a dream come true’.

It was my childhood dream to be able to visit the Natural History Museum, let alone do research there, so, when I saw these very weird vertebrae in the collection and knew that they were something new, it was a fantastic feeling. It’s especially exciting to have described an early diverging caenophidian snake, as there’s not that much evidence about how they emerged. Paradoxophidion brings us closer to understanding how this happened.

Dr Georgios Georgalis, lead author
Institute of Systematics and Evolution of Animals
Polish Academy of Sciences
Krakow, Poland.

The most commonly found bones of fossil snakes are their vertebrae, which contain traits that scientists can use to identify the species.

© Georgalis and Jones.

What’s been discovered at Hordle Cliff?

Hordle Cliff, near Christchurch on England’s south coast, provides a window into a period of Earth’s history known as the Eocene that lasted from around 56 to 34 million years ago.

Dr Marc Jones, our curator of fossil reptiles and amphibians who co-authored the research, says that this epoch saw dramatic climatic changes around the world.

Around 37 million years ago, England was much warmer than it is now, though the Sun was very slightly dimmer, levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide were much higher. England was also slightly closer to the equator, meaning that it received more heat from the Sun year round.

Dr Marc E.H. Jones, co-author
Curator of fossil reptiles and amphibians.
Natural History Museum
London, UK.

Fossils were first uncovered at Hordle Cliff around 200 years ago. In the early 1800s Barbara Rawdon-Hastings, the fossil-hunting Marchioness of Hastings, collected the skulls of crocodile relatives from the site, one of which Richard Owen would later name after her.

Since then, a variety of fossil turtles, lizards and mammals have also been uncovered at Hordle Cliff. There are also abundant snake fossils, including some particularly important species.

The fossil snakes found at Hordle Cliff were some of the first to be recognised when Richard Owen studied them in the mid-nineteenth century. They include Paleryx, the first named constrictor snake in the fossil record. Smaller snakes from this site, however, haven’t been as well investigated. Paradoxophidion’s vertebrae are just a few millimetres long, so historically they’ve not had a lot of attention.

Dr Georgios Georgalis.

To get a better look at these fossils, Marc and Georgios took CT scans of the bones. In total, they identified 31 vertebrae from different parts of the spine of Paradoxophidion.

We used these CT scans to make three dimensional models of the fossils. These provide a digital record of the specimen which we’ve shared online so that they can be studied by anyone, not just people who can come to the museum and use our microscopes.

Dr Marc E.H. Jones.

The scans show that the fossils are all slightly different shapes and sizes, as the snake’s spine bones gradually taper from head to tail. However, they share some features that show they all belong to one species.

Georgios estimates that Paradoxophidion would have been less than a metre long, but other details about this animal’s life are hard to say. The lack of a skull makes it difficult to know what it ate, while the vertebrae don’t have any sign of being adapted for a specialised lifestyle, such as burrowing.

The backbones of Paradoxophidion are surprisingly similar to those of Acrochordus snakes.

A living link to the past?

Though the vertebrae don’t give much away about Paradoxophidion’s lifestyle, they are strikingly similar to a group of snakes known as the Acrochordids. These reptiles are known as elephant trunk snakes due to their unusually baggy skin.

Today, only a few species of these snakes can be found living in southeast Asia and northern Australia. But they’re among the earliest branches of the caenophidian family tree, with a fossil record extending back over 20 million years.

As Paradoxophidion is really similar to the acrochordids, it’s possible that this snake could be the oldest known member of this family. If it was, then it could mean that it was an aquatic species, as all Acrochordids are aquatic. On the other hand, it might belong to a completely different group of caenophidians. There’s just not enough evidence at the moment to prove how this snake might have lived, or which family it belongs to.

Dr Georgios Georgalis.

Finding out more about Paradoxophidion and the early evolution of the caenophidians means that more fossils will need to be studied. Georgios hopes to continue his work in our fossil reptile collections in the near future, where he believes more new species might be waiting.

I’m planning to study a variety of snake fossils in the collection, including those originally studied by Richard Owen. These include the remains of the giant aquatic snake Palaeophis, which were first found in England in the nineteenth century. There are also several bones with differing morphology that haven’t been investigated before that I’m interested in looking at. These might represent new taxa and offer additional clues about snake evolution.

Dr Georgios Georgalis.

Publication:


Taken together, the geology of Hordle Cliff leaves no room for creationist evasions. The sediments accumulated slowly in warm, shallow Eocene seas, preserving stable marine ecosystems over millions of years. The fossils are local, ordered, and ecologically coherent, embedded within undisturbed strata that fit seamlessly into the wider geological history of southern England and the global Eocene record. None of this resembles the chaotic aftermath of a recent global catastrophe; all of it is exactly what conventional geology predicts.

The newly identified fossil from this site simply adds to the embarrassment. It is neither out of place nor out of time, but sits precisely where evolutionary theory says it should—both stratigraphically and anatomically—displaying the familiar mosaic of ancestral and derived features that creationists insist do not exist. Hordle Cliff has been yielding such transitional forms for over two centuries, and every one of them tells the same story.

For creationism, this presents a recurring and insoluble problem. Each new discovery must be dismissed, distorted, or ignored, not because it is anomalous, but because it fits too well. Hordle Cliff is not an exception to the rule; it is the rule itself—one more quietly devastating reminder that the natural world records its own history with remarkable consistency, and that history bears no resemblance whatsoever to a Bronze Age flood myth.




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!






Wednesday, 31 December 2025

As Anticipated In My Novels - Wolves Lived With Humans 3,000-5,000 Years Ago

View from the Stora Förvar cave on Stora Karlsö where 3,000-5,000 year-old wolf remains were found.
Photo: Jan Storå

Ancient wolves on remote Baltic Sea island reveal link to prehistoric humans - Stockholms universitet

This article struck a chord with me — not primarily because it refutes creationism, although it certainly does that by presenting evidence that simply should not exist if the biblical flood genocide story contained even a kernel of truth. Such evidence ought either to have been swept away entirely or buried beneath a thick layer of flood-deposited silt containing a chaotic jumble of animal and plant fossils from unrelated landmasses. It was neither.

What resonated more personally, however, is that I have just published a novel in which a clan of Neolithic hunter-gatherers forms a close association with wolves, with the animals playing a central role in both their hunting strategies and their folklore. In the novel, The Way of the Wolf: A Stone Age Epic — the second volume in the Ice Age Tales series — Almora is raised alongside a wolf cub that becomes her inseparable guide and protector. This relationship gives rise to several versions of a mythologised hunt in which the wolf, Sharma, saves the day and defends the hunters. Together with her Neanderthal partner, Tanu, Almora later leads a group of exiles who encounter a clan already familiar with these legends, and who have begun adopting abandoned wolf cubs and raising them as part of the community.

It is fiction, of course — but a deliberately realistic depiction of how wolves could have been domesticated through mutual benefit, cooperation, and prolonged social contact with humans.

The article itself concerns the discovery by researchers at the Francis Crick Institute, Stockholm University, the University of Aberdeen, and the University of East Anglia of wolf remains on a remote Baltic island that could only have been transported there by boat. Isotopic analysis shows that these wolves consumed the same food as the humans, and skeletal pathology in one individual indicates long-term care. The findings are reported in a research paper published in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS).

Sunday, 21 December 2025

Creationism Refuted - Highly Accurate Dating of Dinosaur Eggs


The Gobi Desert, where many dinosaur eggs have been found.
Dinosaur eggshells unlock a new way to tell time in the fossil record | Stellenbosch University

This paper will have creationists searching for reasons to dismiss evidence that would, if they were prepared to accept it honestly, force them to concede that their beliefs are wrong. It reports a discovery by researchers at Stellenbosch University showing that dinosaur eggshells can be dated with a high degree of precision using an already well-established technique: uranium–lead (U–Pb) radiometric dating.

Until now, U–Pb dating has been most famously applied to zircon crystals in volcanic ash, where the age can be determined by measuring the ratio of radioactive uranium isotopes to the stable lead isotopes produced by their decay. In this study, however, the same underlying principles are applied to calcite crystals preserved in dinosaur eggshells.

The scientists have published their method, open access, in the journal Communications Earth & Environment.

Unintelligent Design - The Irreducibly Complex Cause Of Alzheimers - Malevolent Design or Evolution?


Clues to Alzheimer’s disease may be hiding in our ‘junk’ DNA

Researchers from the University of New South Wales (UNSW), Sydney, Australia, have identified DNA switches that help control how astrocytes work. These are brain cells that support neurons and are known to play a role in Alzheimer’s disease. They have just published their findings in Nature Neuroscience.

Coming soon after researchers at Aarhus University in Denmark discovered a design defect in astrocytes that contributes to the development of Alzheimer’s, this represents a double embarrassment for those creationists who understand its implications.

Firstly, there is the embarrassment that the cause of Alzheimer’s is indistinguishable from Michael J. Behe’s favourite ‘proof’ of intelligent design — irreducible complexity — in that all the elements must be present for Alzheimer’s to occur.

Secondly, there is the discovery by the Australian team of which triggers ‘switch on’ which genes that affect the astrocytes implicated in Alzheimer’s. These switches are embedded in the 98% of the human genome that is non-coding, or so-called ‘junk’ DNA. Since they can be separated from the genes they regulate by thousands of base pairs, it has been notoriously difficult to identify which switches control which genes. Now, using CRISPR, the team have identified around 150 of these regulatory elements.

The existence of this non-coding DNA has long been an embarrassment for creationists, who have been unable to explain why an intelligent designer would produce so much DNA that does not contain the roughly 20,000 genes that actually code for proteins. Why such prolific waste, adding massively to the risk of errors that can result in cancer?

The creationist response has been to conflate the terms ‘non-coding’ and ‘non-functional’, and then proclaim this ‘functional DNA’ as intelligently designed — reducing, but by no means eliminating, the amount of ‘junk’ they still have to explain away. Of course, ‘non-coding’ does not mean ‘not transcribed’, only that the RNA does not code for a functional protein. However, this non-coding but functional DNA does play a role in gene expression, in that the resulting RNA can act as controls or ‘switches’ that turn genes on and off.

So, creationists — having triumphantly waved ‘functional, non-coding DNA’ as evidence for intelligent design after all — are now presented with the fact that it is part of the ‘irreducible’ cause of Alzheimer’s, and probably the cause of many other diseases with a genetic basis.

Wednesday, 17 December 2025

Refuting Creationism - How Consciousness Evolved - No God-Magic Required


Why Do We Have a Consciousness? | Newsportal - Ruhr-Universität Bochum

Having recently watched a grey squirrel carefully plot a route through a line of trees, I was struck by the sophistication of its behaviour. It was not simply moving at random. It clearly knew where it wanted to go and was able to take into account such factors as how much slender branches would bend under its weight, how wide a gap it could safely jump, and—perhaps most importantly—exactly where it was within its own mental map of the environment. It is difficult to see how such behaviour could be possible in a creature that was not conscious and, to some degree, self-aware.

In animal psychology, there is now little doubt that many vertebrates possess some level of self-awareness and therefore consciousness. The remaining debate has centred not on whether consciousness exists in non-human animals, but on how it arose. The fact that consciousness is found across a wide range of vertebrates, and even in molluscs such as cephalopods, suggests either that it originated in a remote common ancestor or that it evolved independently multiple times through convergence. Either way, this strongly points to an evolutionary origin.

According to two papers published in a special edition of the journal Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B, by working groups led by Professors Albert Newen and Onur Güntürkün at Ruhr University Bochum in Germany, consciousness can indeed be explained as the outcome of an evolutionary process, with each step conferring a selective advantage. Moreover, consciousness only makes sense as an evolved biological function. The two open-access papers can be found here and here.

This work is bound to provoke another bout of denialism among creationists, for whom consciousness remains one of the standard “impossible to explain without supernatural intelligence” fallback arguments. As with abiogenesis and the Big Bang, the reasoning typically amounts to: “Science hasn’t explained it and I don’t understand how it could, therefore God did it.” This false dichotomy conveniently removes any obligation to provide evidence in support of the supernatural claim. Creationists also like to flatter themselves that consciousness is a uniquely human trait and thus evidence of special creation. In scientific terms, however, this does not even rise to the level of a hypothesis: it proposes no mechanism, makes no testable predictions, and is unfalsifiable by design. It is, in essence, wishful thinking rooted in the belief that the Universe is obliged to conform to personal expectations.

By contrast, the Ruhr University team have identified three distinct levels of consciousness and demonstrated the evolutionary advantage of each, drawing on detailed studies of birds that show parallel forms of consciousness to those seen in humans. These levels are:
  1. Basic arousal — such as the perception of pain, which signals that harm is occurring and that corrective action is required.
  2. General alertness — awareness of the broader environment, allowing threats and opportunities to be recognised and responded to appropriately.
  3. Reflexive (self-)consciousness — the ability to place oneself within an environment, learn from past experience, anticipate future outcomes, and formulate an action plan; in other words, to construct a narrative with oneself as a participant.

Tuesday, 16 December 2025

Refuting Creationism - Balanophora And Why Creationists Pretend Not To Notice Them

Balanophora laxiflora

A selection of the sampled Balanophora plants. (a) B. japonica (left and center: Kyushu, Japan; right: Taiwan), (b) B. mutinoides (Taiwan), (c) B. tobiracola (from left: Okinawa, Japan; Taiwan), (d) B. subcupularis (Kyushu, Japan), (e) B. fungosa ssp. fungosa (from left: Okinawa, Japan; Taiwan), (f) B. yakushimensis (from left: Kyushu, Japan; Taiwan), (g) B. nipponica (Honshu, Japan).
Among flowering plants, few groups look as alien as Balanophora. These strange, tuberous parasites lack leaves, lack roots in any conventional sense, and contain no chlorophyll. They spend almost their entire lives embedded within the roots of other plants, emerging only briefly to flower. To a casual observer, they barely resemble plants at all — and that superficial oddity has sometimes been exploited by creationists as evidence that they represent a fundamentally distinct “kind”.

In reality, Balanophora are not evolutionary outliers. They are a textbook example of what happens when natural selection acts over long periods on a parasitic lineage.

Where Balanophora fit in the plant kingdom

Molecular phylogenetics places Balanophora firmly within the angiosperms, in the order Santalales. This is the same order that includes mistletoes, sandalwood, and a range of hemi- and holoparasitic plants. Their closest relatives are photosynthetic or partially parasitic species, providing a clear evolutionary gradient from free-living autotrophs to obligate parasites.

This placement is not controversial. It is supported by nuclear, mitochondrial, and plastid gene sequences, as well as by reproductive and developmental traits. Balanophora are deeply nested within the flowering plant family tree, not perched mysteriously at its base.
Angiosperms

├── Basal angiosperms (Amborella, water lilies, etc.)

├── Monocots

└── Eudicots
    │
    ├── Rosids
    │
    ├── Asterids
    │
    └── Santalales
        │
        ├── Photosynthetic lineages (e.g. Santalum – sandalwood)
        ├── Hemiparasites (e.g. Viscum – mistletoe)
        └── Holoparasites
            ├── Balanophoraceae (Balanophora)
            └── Other parasitic families


Why this placement matters
  1. Balanophora are deeply nested, not basal.

    They are not an early-diverging angiosperm lineage. They sit well within the eudicots, inside an order dominated by parasitism. This is exactly what evolution predicts for a lineage that became parasitic rather than being created as such.

    Creationism would expect either:
    • A distinct, isolated “kind”, or
    • No consistent phylogenetic signal at all

    Instead, Balanophora fall precisely where descent with modification says they should.
  2. Transitional relatives exist

    Within Santalales you can trace a graded series:
    • Fully photosynthetic plants
    • Root parasites that still photosynthesise
    • Plants with reduced photosynthesis
    • Fully holoparasitic forms like Balanophora

    This gradient is phylogenetic, not just ecological. It maps cleanly onto the tree.
  3. Plastid phylogeny seals the case

    Even though Balanophora plastids are massively reduced, the genes that remain:
    • Cluster with chloroplast genes of Santalales
    • Show derived mutations consistent with long-term loss of photosynthesis
    • Cannot be explained as independently created organelles

    In other words, the plastids themselves remember their ancestry.

Creationism, which insists on fixed, separately created categories, has no principled way to explain why these plants fall exactly where evolution predicts they should.

Monday, 15 December 2025

Creationism Refuted - Evolution of Parasitic Plants by LOSS of Complexity

Balanophora
Photo credit: Ze Wei, Plant Photo Bank of China

Species of Balanophora are parasitic plants that live underground and emerge above ground only during the flowering season — and some species even reproduce exclusively asexually. This collage shows species studied to establish how the plants of that group relate to each other, how they modified their plastids and how their reproduction fits into their ecology.

© Kobe University (CC BY)
How parasitic, asexual plants evolve and live | Kobe University News site

A recently published paper in New Phytologist on the biology of the parasitic plants *Balanophora*, by three botanists from the Okinawa Institute of Science and Technology, Japan, together with Kenji Suetsugu of Kobe University, should cause consternation in creationist circles — if only they were not so practised at dismissing any evidence that contradicts their superstition.

Not only does the study highlight the well-known problem of parasitism, which creationists typically attempt to wave aside by invoking “The Fall” — thereby exposing any claim that creationism is a genuine science rather than a form of Christian fundamentalism as a lie — it also reveals that the evolution of this group of plants has involved a loss of complexity, coupled with the repurposing of redundant structures. The result is what creationists themselves would describe as irreducible complexity, accompanied by precisely the kind of “complex specified genetic information” that William A. Dembski insists should be regarded as evidence for intelligent design.

Then there is the problem of an overly complex solution, in that, instead of simply giving the plants the genes they need, some essential genes have been included in cell organelles These are clearly repurposed chloroplasts that no longer perform photosynthesis, produced by an evolutionary process that creationists deny - leaving them to explain why an intelligent designer opted for such an overly complex solution.

Finally, the findings rely entirely on the Theory of Evolution to explain and make sense of the observations, with no hint of any need to invoke the supernatural magic upon which creationism depends — despite repeated assurances from creationist cult leaders to their followers that such a moment is imminent, a promise they have been making for over half a century.

Sunday, 14 December 2025

Creationism Refuted - Dugongs and Manatees Blow Creationism Out of the Water.

Dugong
Manatee

Dugongs and manatees — the surviving members of the order Sirenia — are among the most revealing mammals when it comes to understanding evolution. Fully aquatic yet air-breathing, specialised yet constrained by their ancestry, they provide one of the clearest examples of how complex organisms arise through gradual modification rather than sudden creation.
Unlike whales, which are now well known as a textbook evolutionary transition, sirenians are less familiar to the public. That makes them especially valuable, because their fossil record is remarkably complete, their evolutionary trajectory is straightforward, and their genetic relationships were discovered independently of their anatomy. Taken together, they present a problem for creationism that cannot be explained away.

Terrestrial origins. The earliest known sirenians lived around 50 million years ago and were unmistakably terrestrial or semi-aquatic mammals.

Saturday, 13 December 2025

Refuting Creationism - Holy Sea Cow! A 20-Million-Year-Old Fossil Dugong From Arabia!

An artistic reconstruction of a herd of ancient sea cows foraging on the seafloor
Alex Boersma

Fossils of Salwasiren qatarensis, a newly described 21-million-year-old ancient sea cow species found in Al Maszhabiya [AL mahz-HA-bee-yah], a fossil site in southwestern Qatar.
Photo by James Di Loreto, Smithsonian.
Ancient Manatee Relative Reveals That Sea Cows Have Engineered the Arabian Gulf’s Seagrass Ecosystems for Over 20 Million Years | Smithsonian Institution

Scientists from the Smithsonian’s National Museum of Natural History, together with collaborators at Qatar Museums, have just announced the discovery of 20-million-year-old fossils of a sea cow that was a miniature version of living dugongs, and which almost certainly lived in the same seagrass meadows as modern dugongs.

The scientists have published their findings in the journal PeerJ.

If there is one thing that has creationists scraping the bottom of their barrel for reasons to dismiss evidence, it is news of fossils that are tens of millions of years older than they believe the universe is — simply because Bronze Age authors of their favourite source book, the Bible, said so.

In their determination to show the world that nothing can make them change their belief in the demonstrably absurd, creationists will resort to false accusations of lying against scientists, claim they are incompetent, or insist that they used dating methods they claim (incorrectly) to have been proven false, all in an attempt to preserve their beliefs. It is as though they imagine the entire global scientific community, and all the research institutions within it, exist solely to disprove the Bible in order to make creationists change their minds.

For rational people without such an egocentric view of the world, however, discoveries such as these miniature dugongs help to paint a fascinating picture of how species — and the ecosystems of which they are a part — have evolved over time. The fossils were found about 10 miles from a bay of seagrass that is prime habitat for modern dugongs.

Thursday, 11 December 2025

Unintelligent Design - The Human Brain Responds To the Calls of Chimpanzees - Why?


Our brains recognise the voices of our primate cousins - Medias - UNIGE


Turn your volume control on and click to play

You might not realise it, but, if you just played that audio file, according to researchers at the Université de Genève, Switzerland, a region of your brain - the auditory cortex - just 'lit up'.

This region is responsible for voice recognition, and it responds not only to human voices but also to the calls of common chimpanzees (Pan troglodytes). Notably, the same response is not seen with the calls of bonobos (Pan paniscus) or rhesus macaques (Macaca mulatta). Their findings have been published open access in eLife.

This discovery presents creationists with yet another problem to be ignored, misrepresented or lied about.

Using William A. Dembski’s so-called “proof of intelligent design” — complex specified genetic information, widely cited by creationists as evidence for design and against evolution — we are entitled to ask an obvious question. Why would an intelligent designer create genetic information for a supposedly “too complex to have evolved by random chance” region of the human brain that responds selectively to chimpanzee calls?

What, precisely, was this ability designed for?

By contrast, the evolutionary explanation is straightforward. If humans and chimpanzees share a relatively recent common ancestor, we would expect some neural processing traits to be retained, particularly where there has been no strong selection pressure to eliminate them.

The finding does, however, raise an interesting secondary question: why do we not respond in the same way to bonobo calls?

The answer is likely to come from evolutionary biology. Chimpanzees and bonobos diverged fairly recently, and there may have been a selective advantage for bonobo calls not to be recognised by chimpanzees. Chimpanzees are known to kill and eat bonobos if given the opportunity, so selection may have favoured divergence in vocal signals — with the consequence that humans also lost sensitivity to bonobo calls.

Once again, we encounter a feature of nature that is difficult to reconcile with the notion of an intelligent designer, yet entirely consistent with evolutionary processes acting on shared ancestry, divergence, and selection pressures.

Scientifically, the work is also of considerable interest, as it may shed light on how human speech recognition and language development arise in children. For the creationist, however, it is merely one more inconvenient piece of evidence — to be filed under “not wanted — reject” or “evidence of a Satanic conspiracy — ignore”.

Wednesday, 10 December 2025

Unintelligent Design - Something Any Intelligent Designer Could Have Done, If It Was Real


The figure depicts the NFR5 kinase structure and juxtamembrane motif
Discovery of a Key Protein Motif Essential for Root Nodule Symbiosis

Scientists at Aarhus University, Denmark, have discovered that barley can be induced to form a symbiotic relationship with nitrogen-fixing bacteria through a simple substitution of two amino acids in a single protein. This tweak enables barley to initiate the same sort of symbiosis that legumes use to “self-fertilise”. They have published their findings in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the USA.

This is yet another case where we can legitimately ask: if scientists can do it, why didn’t creationism’s supposed intelligent designer do it, if its intent were truly to create a world optimised for human existence? The question remains unanswered, often provoking threats and hysteria on social media, as creationists scramble to cover their confusion with guesses rooted in Christian fundamentalism and Biblical tales of “The Fall”. It’s a core theological patch, while the forlorn Discovery Institute and its fellows remain as silent on this issue as they are on parasites and pathogens—still struggling to sustain the pretence that ID creationism is real science rather than Bible-literalist creationism dressed in a grubby lab coat.

The Aarhus researchers found that a highly conserved protein, present across plant species, plays a crucial role in plant–microbe interactions—presumably as part of the plant’s defence against pathogens. However, in legumes the same protein must be suppressed, because its normal activity prevents formation of the root nodules that act as low-oxygen refuges for the nitrogen-fixing bacteria on which legumes depend. A simple mutation in this protein allows nodule formation in barley, enabling the crop to produce its own nitrogen fertiliser, increasing yields without the expense of artificial fertilisers and without the ecological harm they cause when they leach into waterways.

Tuesday, 9 December 2025

Unintelligent design - If We Had Been Intelligently Designed, Modern Life Wouldn't Cause These Problems


A busy intersection in Zürich - where stress levels are high
Into the Woods | | UZH

If we take creationist claims about the human body at face value – that we are the special design of an omniscient, omnipotent creator god – we would have to conclude that this putative god equipped us for life in small, dispersed bands of hunter-gatherers, entirely free from the pressures of modern urban existence. That is the inescapable implication of new work by Daniel P. Longman of the School of Sport, Exercise and Health Sciences, Loughborough University, UK, and Colin N. Shaw of the Department of Evolutionary Anthropology, University of Zürich, Switzerland.

In their study, recently published in Biological Reviews, they argue that human evolutionary fitness has deteriorated markedly over the past 300 years, beginning with the Industrial Revolution. They attribute this to the escalating stresses of urban life, which are increasingly linked to counter-survival problems such as declining fertility rates and the rising prevalence of chronic inflammatory conditions, including autoimmune diseases. They also highlight impaired cognitive function in urban settings, with chronic stress playing a central role in many of these conditions.

As they note, our stress responses were shaped in environments where predators such as lions posed intermittent but existential threats. A sudden burst of adrenaline and cortisol – the classic fight-or-flight reaction – made the difference between survival and being eaten. Today, however, we summon exactly the same physiological response to traffic noise, difficult conversations with colleagues or family, and that irritatingly arrogant but ignorant creationist on the Internet. Where a lion encounter would once have been an occasional shock, we now experience the physiological equivalent of facing several lions a day.

For creationists, this poses an awkward problem. An omniscient designer should have foreseen humanity’s future circumstances and endowed us with a physiology robust enough to cope with them. Evolution, by contrast, cannot predict even the next generation, let alone the demands of life tens or hundreds of millennia later. It optimised our ancestors for survival on open African landscapes, not for navigating congested cities, chronic noise, 24-hour information streams, and the relentless stimuli of modern technology. This helps explain why our inherited design is increasingly mismatched to our environment, and why evolution cannot adjust us quickly enough to keep pace.

My own family history illustrates this accelerating mismatch. My grandparents grew up in rural Oxfordshire, before the arrival of the motor car, electricity, modern sanitation, or powered heating. Their lives were essentially unchanged from those of their parents and grandparents. My parents, by contrast, had electricity, piped water, proper sanitation, and radio; later a motor car, a television, and eventually a telephone. Now we have smartphones, laptops, air travel, satnavs, and city centres jammed with traffic. We spend hours each day staring at screens, communicating instantly across the world. My grandparents’ lives would have been recognisable to their great-grandparents, but mine would be unrecognisable to them – such has been the accelerating pace of technological change. No evolutionary process could possibly adapt a species to that speed of environmental transformation.

We are, in effect, experiencing stress levels akin to those of ancestors living among a pride of lions, not merely encountering one on rare occasions. And crucially, we have little or no time to recover before the next ‘lion’ appears.

Web Analytics