Refuting Creationism - Humans And Wolves Share A Long Evolutionary History

View from the Stora Förvar cave on Stora Karlsö. The cave was explored between 1888 and 1893. The limestone-rich bedrock has contributed to the skeletal material found there being very well preserved.

Photo: Jan Storå

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

A point I have made several times in these blog posts, and one that creationists typically prefer not to address, is that the Bible presents living things as part of a world made for human use and dominion. Yet the history of animal and plant domestication tells a very different story. The domesticated forms often bear little resemblance to their wild ancestors, not because they were created perfectly fitted for human needs, but because humans altered them by selective breeding over many generations.

For an honest creationist, the question should be obvious: why did an allegedly omniscient creator god fail to anticipate human needs and create animals and plants already ideally suited to them? Why did humans need to do the improving? But, as so often, creationists appear to prefer belief in an incompetent designer to the simpler conclusion that their creation myth is wrong.

No domestic animal illustrates this better than the dog. Domestic dogs are descended from wolves, yet the vast range of dog forms, behaviours and abilities shows what prolonged selection, human preference and cultural need can do. Herding dogs, guard dogs, hunting dogs, sled dogs, lapdogs and companion animals are not the result of a single act of perfect creation; they are the result of human-managed evolution.

Now, new research by scientists from the Francis Crick Institute, Stockholm University, the University of Aberdeen and the University of East Anglia, published online in November 2025 in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the USA (PNAS), shows that human relationships with wolves were more varied and complex than a simple tale of fear, hunting or eventual dog domestication. The researchers report wolf remains from the isolated Baltic island of Stora Karlsö, in a context strongly suggesting that prehistoric people were managing, feeding or otherwise controlling wolves thousands of years ago.

This research resonates with me because two of my books, The Girl and the Wolf and The Way of the Wolf: A Stone Age Epic, are fictional accounts of how wolf domestication might have begun. In those stories, the process is initiated by a single act of compassion: a woman raises an abandoned wolf cub alongside her own child. That act becomes a legend, and the legend later inspires another tribe to form a relationship with wolves, helping them to survive hardship and setting humanity on a path that would eventually produce the many varieties of domestic dog, each shaped for different human purposes.

The stories are also framed to illustrate the hardships of Ice Age life for our ancestors, and the same social forces that still shape human societies: conservatism versus progress, suspicion of novelty, and the struggle to be different in a culture that demands conformity. In both stories, teenage girls must negotiate those pressures and, in doing so, help change the future.

Bible Blunder - NASA Provides Red, White & Blue Stars For 4th July - And A Reminder That The Bible Was Made Up By Ignorant People

NASA's Hubble Spies Stellar Sparkler for July 4th - NASA Science

By releasing a spectacular red, white and blue image of a globular star cluster almost as old as the universe itself, NASA has inadvertently provided yet another striking demonstration that the Bible’s cosmology was invented by people who knew nothing of the real universe beyond the limits of unaided human imagination.

A point that seems to be lost on creationists is that claims made in the Bible can be checked against reality, just like any other claim. And, like any other claim, they can be rejected when they bear little or no resemblance to the evidence. To take a deliberately silly example, imagine someone claiming that the Bible has only 120 pages. Simply by opening a Bible and counting the pages, we can see quickly and easily that the claim is false. In scientific terms, the claim is a hypothesis, and it is falsified by the experiment of looking at the evidence.

Similarly, when the Bible presents a universe consisting of a small, flat world beneath a solid dome, with the sun, moon and stars functioning as lights set in or associated with that dome, we can test that claim by doing the same simple thing: looking at reality. Curiously, when creationists do this, they often apply a special standard of reasoning that would be absurd in any other context, and possibly a sign of mental incompetence if applied to everyday life. They conclude, not that the ancient claim is wrong, but that reality itself must somehow be mistaken because the claim has been placed inside a book declared, in advance and without evidence, to be inerrant “scripture”.

Imagine applying that standard when deciding whether it is safe to cross a busy road, while clinging to the belief that cars cannot exist because someone in the Bronze Age said all wheeled transport was drawn by horses!

So, let us carry out that simple scientific experiment. Let us compare the biblical claim with reality, starting with the hypothesis that the Bible is inerrant truth and therefore contains an accurate description of the universe.

Malevolent Design - How Melanomas Are Cleverly 'Designed' To Stay Alive

Telomeres shown as white caps on the ends of the chromosome arms.

Pitt scientists discovered a key genetic step in melanoma’s race to live forever | University of Pittsburgh

Examples from nature in which, if creationist arguments for the existence of an intelligent designer are applied consistently, that designer can only be regarded as a malevolent entity intent on increasing suffering in the world, continue to accumulate. And the more examples there are, the more creationists need to ignore their own arguments, abandon any pretence that creationism is a genuine alternative science, and retreat instead into the fundamentalist biblical myths of 'The Fall' and 'Original Sin'. The evidence remains the same; only the interpretation is twisted to preserve the preferred narrative.

The latest such example concerns the genetics behind one of malignant melanoma's most dangerous properties: its ability to evade the normal cellular limit on repeated division. This had long been a missing piece in understanding how melanoma cells avoid the ordinary route to cellular senescence and continue to proliferate. Like Michael J. Behe's and William A. Dembski's supposed 'evidence' for intelligent design, it depends on a set of interacting components being in place and on genetic changes producing just the right molecular effect — precisely the kind of arrangement the Discovery Institute insists cannot arise by natural processes because, in its caricature of biology, evolution is merely 'random chance'. That claim, of course, ignores the elementary biological fact that natural selection makes evolution very much a non-random process.

The discovery, published in Science in November 2022 by Pattra Chun-on, Jonathan K. Alder and colleagues, concerns telomeres — the protective caps at the ends of chromosomes. In most normal somatic cells, telomeres gradually shorten with repeated cell division until the cell can no longer divide. This is one of the body's safeguards against uncontrolled proliferation. Cancer cells, however, often find ways to bypass this limit, and melanoma has long been known for having unusually long telomeres, even compared with many other cancers. What had not been fully understood was how melanoma achieved this.

The answer involves telomerase, the enzyme complex that lengthens telomeres. In most normal adult cells, telomerase activity is switched off or kept very low. Many melanomas carry mutations in the promoter region of TERT, the gene that encodes the catalytic component of telomerase, and these mutations increase telomerase activity. But that turned out to be only part of the story. When researchers introduced TERT promoter mutations into melanocytes, they did not reproduce the exceptionally long telomeres seen in melanoma tumours.

The missing component was TPP1, a member of the shelterin complex that helps regulate telomeres. The researchers found that mutations in the promoter region of ACD, the gene that encodes TPP1, can increase TPP1 production. When these TPP1-promoter mutations occur together with TERT promoter mutations, the two changes cooperate to produce the long telomeres characteristic of melanoma. In other words, melanoma's ability to evade normal cellular mortality depends on a coordinated interaction between altered telomerase activity and altered telomere regulation.

So, in intelligent-design creationist terms, we have a system requiring interacting molecular components, each specified by genetic changes in ordinary cellular genes, and each contributing to a result that benefits the cancer cell at the expense of the patient. If the same kind of molecular cooperation in a harmless or useful organism is to be paraded as evidence of design, then consistency demands the same conclusion here. Melanoma, on that argument, would be another product of the same intelligent designer — one whose ingenuity is directed towards helping cancer cells escape the body's normal restraints.

Of course, the scientifically honest conclusion is not that melanoma was designed, malevolently or otherwise. It is that cancer exploits the same evolved molecular machinery that normal cells use, and that mutations filtered by selection within the tumour can favour cells that divide faster, survive longer and outcompete their neighbours. The creationist problem is that the very mechanisms they claim as evidence for their designer are just as plainly at work in disease, parasitism and suffering.

Creationism Refuted - Common Origin Of Human And Other Ape Laughter.

Apes & humans have been sharing a laugh for 15 million years

A stunning example of how science incidentally refutes creationism has just been published in Communications Biology by researchers at the University of Warwick, UK. This is not merely another example of biologists continuing, despite creationist predictions, not to abandon “Darwinism” in favour of creationist magical thinking — the event that creationists have been confidently expecting any day now for more than half a century. It is also a discovery for which evolution provides the obvious and coherent explanation.

Nor is this one easily dismissed by creationists as the result of “The Fall”, Satanic interference, or any of the other routine excuses used when nature refuses to look intelligently designed. Resorting to “common design” merely makes their putative designer god look as though it deliberately created evidence, which is exactly what the Theory of Evolution predicts, apparently in order to mislead us. As Francis Collins pointed out in The Language of God, this image of God as a cosmic trickster is the ultimate admission of defeat for creationists, and shows Young Earth Creationism to be both theologically and scientifically bankrupt.

The shocking thing is how few Christians ever take their co-religionists to task on social media for being prepared to portray their god in this way, rather than having the moral and intellectual integrity to admit that they are wrong. Even their own god is sacrificed on the altar of their implacable vanity.

So, what is this finding by the University of Warwick group?

Quite simply, it is evidence that humans, chimpanzees, bonobos, gorillas and orangutans share a similar rhythmic pattern in laughter, suggesting that this feature was already present in the last common ancestor of all living great apes, including humans, about 15 million years ago. The finding also offers clues to the evolution of human speech.

The researchers analysed laughter recordings from four orangutans, two gorillas, three bonobos, four chimpanzees and four human children. Across 140 laughter bouts, they found the same basic pattern: all species produced laughter with evenly spaced rhythmic intervals between successive sounds. In other words, great ape laughter is not random noise, but has a conserved rhythmic structure.

However, while this basic rhythm has remained remarkably conserved, human laughter has become faster, more variable and more sensitive to social context. Humans are the only great apes in the study shown to vary the timing of laughter according to context — for example, the difference between involuntary laughter when tickled, polite laughter in a social setting, nervous laughter after a mistake, or infectious laughter in a group. This suggests that the increasing ability to control the timing and rhythm of vocalisations may have contributed to the evolution of speech.

A useful way to frame this is that no single feature “proves” common ancestry on its own. The strength of the evidence lies in the way many independent features — anatomy, genetics, development, physiology and behaviour — all point to the same branching pattern of descent.

Refuting Creationism - Humans Were Living In A West African Rain Forest 140,000 Years Before 'Creation Week'

Life in a West African rain forest 150,000 years ago

AI-generated image (ChatGPT 5.5 Thinking)

Scientists find earliest evidence that our ancestors lived in rainforests 150,000 years ago | News | The University of Sheffield

Stone Tool

Credit: Jimbob Blinkorn, Max Planck Institute of Geoanthropology

According to the findings of an international team led by the Max Planck Institute of Geoanthropology, with contributions from the University of Sheffield, published in February 2025 in Nature, humans were living in the wet tropical forests of what is now Côte d’Ivoire about 150,000 years ago — more than 140,000 years before creationists imagine their mythical “Creation Week”, when they believe the single ancestral couple of all modern humans was created by magic somewhere in the Middle East.

The date itself is no surprise to anyone who understands the real evolutionary history of our species. Anatomically modern Homo sapiens had emerged in Africa by about 300,000 years ago, and the evidence increasingly points not to a single cradle, but to a pan-African process involving populations adapted to different regions and environments. What is striking about this discovery is not that humans were present in Africa 150,000 years ago, but that they were living in a tropical rainforest — an environment long assumed to have played only a minor, late role in human evolution.

That older assumption fitted neatly with the simplified “savannah hypothesis”, in which the ancestors of humans were thought to have diverged from the lineage leading to chimpanzees and bonobos as climatic change fragmented African forests and created more open grassland and woodland habitats. In that view, rainforest was more of a barrier than a formative environment. But the emerging picture is far more interesting: early H. sapiens were not simply creatures of open savannahs, coasts or grasslands, but members of a flexible, adaptable species able to exploit a wide range of African habitats long before the later dispersals into Eurasia.

Part of the reason rainforest environments have been under-represented in accounts of human evolution is that they are poor places for preserving bones, artefacts and organic remains. Acidic soils, heavy rainfall, dense vegetation and rapid biological decay all work against the survival of the archaeological record. That makes the Bété I site in southern Côte d’Ivoire especially important. Using optically stimulated luminescence and electron spin resonance dating methods, the researchers constrained the onset of human occupation there to around 150 ka. Plant-wax biomarkers, stable isotope data, phytoliths and pollen from the associated sediments then showed that the environment at the time was wet tropical forest.

This pushes the earliest known secure evidence of human occupation of a rainforest environment back by about 80,000 years. It also suggests that tropical forests were not late, marginal or forbidding habitats into which modern humans only ventured after acquiring some special new cultural trick, but part of the ecological range within which H. sapiens was already living during the Middle Pleistocene.

The finding was made possible because modern dating and environmental reconstruction techniques could be applied to sediments associated with stone tools first found at the site in the 1980s. In other words, once again, patient science has extracted a coherent, evidence-based history from the ground — a history that would not exist at all if there had been a recent global genocidal flood churning the world’s sediments into the chaotic mess required by creationist mythology.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Creationism Refuted - Why Science Works While Religions Ignore Failures

Credit: Tobias Baur / Pexels

Credit: Tobias Baur / Pexels

Dark diversity helped solve Darwin’s 160-year-old puzzle | University of Tartu

A paper recently published in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the USA (PNAS) by an international team that included researchers from the University of Tartu, Estonia, offers a solution to a conundrum in evolutionary ecology first identified by Charles Darwin more than 160 years ago: Darwin’s naturalisation conundrum.

The problem concerns why some introduced species successfully establish themselves in a new environment while others fail. Darwin recognised two apparently contradictory possibilities, both of which make sense in evolutionary terms. On the one hand, a newcomer closely related to local species might succeed because its relatives show that the environment is suitable for that general way of life. In other words, similarity to the local community could be a sign of pre-adaptation. On the other hand, a newcomer might be more successful if it is unlike the resident species, because it avoids direct competition and exploits resources the local community is not already using.

So which is it? Should a successful immigrant species resemble the local species, or should it be different from them? That is Darwin’s naturalisation conundrum.

These are the sorts of paradoxes science thrives on because they expose a gap in understanding and invite investigation. They are not waved aside as mysteries, nor protected from scrutiny by declaring them ineffable. They are problems to be solved by evidence.

That is in stark contrast to religion, where glaring contradictions are often preserved rather than resolved. Christianity, for example, asks its followers to believe simultaneously in an omniscient god and in human free will. Yet the contradiction can be exposed with a simple question: if God has always known that you will eat fish for dinner tomorrow, can you choose steak instead? If yes, then God did not know after all; if no, then you were never free to choose. Either answer undermines a central plank of Christian theology, because without free will there can be no meaningful original sin, no need for salvation, and no coherent reason for the Jesus story.

Another awkward question is why an omniscient god supposedly waited until about 2,000 years ago to arrange the sacrifice of Jesus as the mechanism for saving humanity. If this god had always known that a blood sacrifice would be needed, why wait through countless generations of human suffering before arranging it? Why not solve the alleged problem at the beginning? Did God simply stand by while millions died without that supposed salvation, or did it merely take until the first or second century CE for priests to invent a theological explanation for the Jesus story?

And so the list goes on. Can an omnipotent god create an object too heavy for it to lift? Can God lie? If God claims to be omniscient, how can it know that there is nothing it does not know? And if it is aware of not knowing something, then it is not omniscient. Such questions are usually met not with answers but with evasion, because religions have no neutral referee. They have only opinion, assertion and authority.

Science is different because evidence can arbitrate between competing explanations. This is why science tends to converge on a single answer while religions fragment into sects, denominations and, sometimes, mutually hostile factions.

In the case of Darwin’s naturalisation conundrum, the team, including Wen-gang Zhang and Professor of Botany Meelis Pärtel of the University of Tartu, examined the evidence in the form of a remarkable 340-year dataset from Swedish lakes, recording both successful and unsuccessful fish introductions. This allowed the researchers to test, with unusual precision, what determines whether an introduced species establishes itself.

How We Know The Bible Was Made Up By Ignorant People - Just Look At The Facts

Potm2605a (NGC 4501)

ESA/Hubble & NASA, D. Thilker and the MAUVE-HST Team

And God said, Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters. And God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament: and it was so. And God called the firmament Heaven. And the evening and the morning were the second day. And God said, Let the waters under the heaven be gathered together unto one place, and let the dry land appear: and it was so. And God called the dry land Earth; and the gathering together of the waters called he Seas: and God saw that it was good.(Gen 1: 6-10)

And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also. And God set them in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth. (Gen 1: 16-17)

Journey to the centre of a galaxy cluster | ESA/Hubble

This analogy needs careful handling because creationists are adept at ignoring the point of an argument and attacking a caricature of it instead. So, to be clear from the outset, this is not a claim about what the Bible says. It is a simple thought experiment about how we test claims against reality.

Suppose someone wrote a book in which he claimed to give an accurate description of the Bible. In it, he said the Bible consisted of only four books, two in the Old Testament and two in the New Testament; that it had only 120 pages; and that the entire story was about Adam and Eve and their sons, Noah and Moses.

How would we test those claims?

The answer is hardly complicated. We would get a Bible and compare the claims with the book itself. In other words, we would test the description against the reality it claimed to describe. And once we had done so, only two serious conclusions would be available: either the author was deliberately lying in order to deceive his readers, or he was so ignorant of the facts that he simply invented them. What we could not sensibly conclude is that the Bible was wrong for failing to match his description of it.

That, in its simplest form, is how science works. A claim is tested against reality. We begin with the assumption — the null hypothesis — that there is no meaningful difference between the claim and the facts. We then look. If the evidence shows a real difference between the claim and the observable facts, the claim has failed the test. It is not reality that must be adjusted to rescue the claim; it is the claim that must be rejected or revised.

This may sound like a “Janet and John” explanation of basic science, but it is remarkable how consistently creationists get even this wrong. They have a book which, when read literally, makes claims about the age, origin and structure of the universe. With modern science, it is a straightforward matter to compare those claims with the real universe. When we do that, we find that the description and the reality are not merely different, but radically, irreconcilably different.

Yet instead of concluding that the ancient description is wrong, creationists conclude that the evidence must be wrong. The facts are not judged against reality; reality is judged against the prior demand that the Bible must be right. This is not science. It is wishful thinking dressed up as certainty.

In effect, creationists believe their beliefs trump the evidence.

So what claims does the Bible make about the age and structure of the universe, and how do those claims compare with observable reality?

To be fair, the Bible gives no explicit numerical age for the universe. The familiar young-Earth figure of about 6,000 years comes from calculations based on biblical genealogies, most famously by the 17th-century Archbishop James Ussher, who placed creation in 4004 BCE. Modern young-Earth creationists often stretch this to somewhere between 6,000 and 10,000 years, not because evidence requires it, but because the older figure is now too obviously absurd to defend with a straight face.

The Bible is more explicit, however, about the structure of the universe as understood by its ancient authors. It describes a world in which the Earth lies beneath a firmament, or dome, which separates the waters below from the waters above. The sun, moon and stars are described as lights set in this firmament to illuminate the Earth. Elsewhere, the stars are treated not as distant suns and galaxies, but as objects that can fall from heaven and be trampled underfoot. This is the cosmology of a small, human-centred world, not the universe revealed by astronomy. (Genesis 1:6-10; Genesis 1:16-17; Daniel 8:10)

So how does that ancient description compare with what we find when we actually look? Take, for example, this tiny fragment of the sky visible to the Hubble Space Telescope:

How we Know The Bible Is Wrong - Evidence That wouldn't Be there if The Bible Myths Were True

Examples of different treatments and states of preservation of human remains at Vráble-Veľké Lehemby.

Furholt M, et al (2026).

Drone footage of the excavation site.

© Nils Müller-Scheeßel

Headless skeletons offer new insights into farming societies 7,000 years ago

A problem for biblical literalist creationists is that they are wedded to the absurd and demonstrably false notion that the Bible is a literal account of real history, including a catastrophic, genocidal flood just a few thousand years ago. Such a flood would have left a tell-tale, globally recognisable layer of flood sediment containing the jumbled remains of the animals and plants it had killed. It would also have destroyed, displaced or buried earlier human settlements beneath one unmistakable flood horizon.

This, of course, flies in the face of abundant evidence to the contrary. The predicted global layer of flood silt is not there, and the archaeological record continues, uninterrupted, through the very period in which creationists need their flood to have occurred. Practically every archaeological find older than the various creationist dates for Noah's Flood — from the pyramids at Giza to the less spectacular but more numerous Neolithic and Bronze Age burial grounds, field systems, settlements, tools and artefacts that litter the African and Eurasian landscape — should not be where it is, least of all in the Middle East, the supposed epicentre of the alleged catastrophe.

And yet archaeologists are regularly digging up evidence of human activity that long predates the creationist timescale. A recent example is the grim, 7,000-year-old evidence of headless human bodies at Vráble-Veľké Lehemby in Slovakia, reported in Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society. The refutation of creationist mythology is, of course, entirely incidental. The archaeological question is what this extraordinary find tells us about an Early Neolithic farming society. The indications so far are that the heads were not removed by violent decapitation as a form of execution — which might have suggested a society in crisis or conflict — but were skilfully removed around the time of death. That points instead to some form of social, ritual or funerary practice, although the precise meaning of that practice remains uncertain.

The site at Vráble-Veľké Lehemby comprises more than 300 house outlines arranged in three neighbourhoods, with up to 80 buildings inhabited at the same time. The settlement existed for several centuries, approximately between 5250 and 4950 BCE. One neighbourhood was enclosed by a ditch, probably marking a boundary, and it was in or around this ditch, especially near the entrance to the settlement, that archaeologists found the remains of at least 78 individuals. Of these, 77 lacked heads, the single exception being a child whose skull was still present.

Creationism Refuted - British Fallow Deer Have LOST Genetic Diversity - Over The Last 120,000 Years

Fallow deer, Dama dama

Photo credit: Jiří Nedorost.,
CC BY-SA 3.0, via Wikimedia Commons

Fallow deer

Photo credit: Memurubu, CC BY 4.0, via Wikimedia Commons

UP News - University of Potsdam

A paper just published in iScience should, if they were aware of it, at least cause an honest creationist to question some basic assumptions. It reports that modern European fallow deer, Dama dama, retain only a fraction of the genetic diversity present in their Ice Age ancestors. This finding is based on ancient DNA recovered from the fossilised remains of ten, approximately 120,000-year-old fallow deer from Neumark-Nord in Germany, analysed by researchers from the University of Potsdam, the MONREPOS Research Center and Museum in Neuwied, and Leiden University in the Netherlands.

Creationism continues to take a battering in the world of real science, where yet another paper quite incidentally refutes several of its basic dogmas. Creationists, who are notoriously reluctant to read serious science and would probably struggle to understand it if they did, will no doubt remain blissfully unaware of this constant refutation of their core superstitions.

To ensure that ignorance is maintained, creationist disinformation sites expend considerable effort in spreading distrust of serious science amongst their followers. What cult leader would want his followers reading anything that exposes his claims as bogus?

However, ignoring the facts does not make them go away, and the facts this paper reveals go to the heart of creationist mythology. Firstly, this evidence should not exist at all if the Bible creation myth were real history: a magical creation just 6,000-10,000 years ago, followed by a catastrophic global genocide, would leave no room for a 120,000-year-old population of fallow deer preserved in an Eemian lake environment. Secondly, it undermines the creationist parody of evolution that they so often attack: the false claim that evolution must always mean increasing complexity, and that any loss of genetic information is invariably fatal.

The reduced genetic diversity of modern fallow deer is a clear example of evolution involving a loss of genetic variation within a population. So far as individual deer are concerned, there need be no immediate reduction in fitness; the problem comes when a population has less capacity to respond to environmental change, disease, or other selective pressures, and may then be more vulnerable to extinction. Evolution, of course, has no plan. Unlike intelligent design, or even guided evolution, it cannot foresee future conditions and prepare a species for them. A species can be driven towards extinction by the simple operation of mindless natural processes.

Refuting Creation - With Goethe's 40-Million-Year-Old Ant

Amber piece 1552.b showing bioinclusions. Arrow in a (top): inclusion of †Ctenobethylus goepperti; arrow in b (bottom): inclusion of the Sciaridae. Scale bar 5 mm.

Boudinot, B.E., Bock, B.L., Tröger, D. et al. (2026)

Exceptionally Well-Preserved Ant in Goethe’s Amber | Uni Jena

Some years ago, while staying for a few days in Berlin in a hotel just off Goethestraße, I made the mistake of telling a taxi driver that our hotel was just off “Go-eth Straße”. It took several minutes and a map to sort out the confusion.

“Nein! Goethe-Straße!” he laughed. Only then did I realise that “Go-eth” and “Goethe” were not two different German philosophers.

“Ach ja! Danke! Goethe! Ich bin ein Engländer!” I explained, in my best German.

“Ja! Is better we speak English,” he replied.

Goethestraße — Goethe Street — is, of course, named after Johann Wolfgang von Goethe (28 August 1749 – 22 March 1832), the German writer, poet, novelist and playwright. He was also an administrator, scientist, geologist, botanist and philosopher. As a naturalist and collector, he left behind an extensive geological and mineralogical collection, including 40 pieces of Baltic amber, which have now been closely examined by biologists at Friedrich Schiller University Jena — appropriately enough, since Goethe and the playwright Friedrich Schiller were friends.

What they found was the subject of a paper in Scientific Reports, published in January 2026. It is not good news for creationists, since it concerns an approximately 40-million-year-old ant, preserved in exquisite detail and now visible using modern imaging techniques such as synchrotron micro-computed tomography. In addition to the ant, the scientists also found a fungus gnat and a blackfly in Goethe’s amber.

It is unlikely that Goethe knew these creatures were preserved in his amber, since the pieces are unpolished and the contents are barely visible to the untrained eye. He certainly could not have known that the amber was tens of millions of years old. Had he known, we can only speculate how that knowledge might have affected his view of nature, time and human origins. His famous work, Faust, draws deeply on Christian motifs, including the story of a man who makes a pact with the Devil; but Goethe was also a serious observer of nature, living at a time when geology, palaeontology and evolutionary thinking were still in their infancy.

In the early nineteenth century, Europeans had not yet accumulated the overwhelming evidence that Earth is billions of years old and that life has changed profoundly over vast periods of time. Many educated people still interpreted history, nature and morality through a biblical framework, even when their own thinking was more subtle than simple literalism. Goethe, despite his scientific curiosity, lived before Darwin, before modern stratigraphy was fully established, and long before modern imaging could reveal the hidden contents of an opaque piece of amber.

Now, of course, we know better, because of the tremendous scientific progress made over the last two centuries.

Refuting Creationism - Wild Cattle Roamed The Grasslands Of Europe - 4 million Years Before Creation Week

Half-ton early Bovines roamed 4-million-year-old grasslands in Europe | EurekAlert!

Palaeoartistic reconstruction of the environment in the surrounding of Camp dels Ninots maar lake during the early Pliocene.

Artwork by Mauricio Antón.

Nowhere in the Bible will you find any mention of wild cattle roaming the land, nor any indication that domestic animals are highly modified descendants of wild species, reshaped by human selection because their wild ancestors were not conveniently suited to human use. Instead, we find the childish claim that all animals were created for the exclusive benefit of humankind — which raises the obvious question: did the creator not know what humans would later need, or did it simply get things wrong, leaving humans to correct the design by selective breeding?

This is easily explained once we recognise that the authors of Genesis had a narrow, parochial view of the world. They knew little or nothing of Earth’s history or of the origins of life on it, so they made up stories that conformed to their own cultural assumptions and superstitions, often borrowing from neighbouring cultures.

They were completely unaware of the rest of Eurasia beyond their limited view from the Canaanite hills, and equally unaware of the great age of the Earth or the cycles of glacial and interglacial periods that had characterised it for the previous several million years. Indeed, the concept of such deep time seems to have been far beyond their comprehension. They could therefore have had no concept of the early forms of cattle-like bovines that once roamed Europe, already fitted by evolution for life in the changing environments of the Pliocene.

One such animal was a large bovine species, weighing up to about half a ton, which lived in what is now north-eastern Iberia about 4.41 million years ago. The discovery and re-analysis of this animal has just been published in PLOS One by Leonardo Sorbelli of the Leibniz Institute for Evolution and Biodiversity Science, Germany, and colleagues.

The fossils, from the Camp dels Ninots site in Catalonia, include remains from at least 14 individuals, among them eight nearly complete and partly articulated skeletons. The species, Parabos tigneresi, helps fill a gap in the evolutionary history of Eurasian bovines, including the wider lineage that eventually gave rise to modern cattle, bison and buffalo. Although smaller than many living domestic cattle, these animals were larger than comparable bovids of their time, suggesting an early stage in the increase in body size that later became characteristic of the bovine lineage.

The researchers suggest that this increase in size may have been associated with the climatic and environmental changes that characterised Pliocene Europe. The anatomy of Parabos tigneresi also indicates an animal adapted mainly to humid, vegetation-rich environments, consistent with the reconstructed setting of Camp dels Ninots as a water-rich maar lake ecosystem.

This incidental confirmation of an earlier reconstruction of the lake ecosystem at Camp dels Ninots is a good example of how independent strands of evidence converge on the same conclusion. It also illustrates the strength of Darwinian evolutionary theory: organisms are expected to show adaptations to the environments in which they lived, rather than appearing as arbitrary, ready-made forms. In this case, the anatomy of these bovids is consistent with animals adapted to a humid, vegetation-rich lakeside habitat, exactly as the geological and palaeoecological evidence had already indicated.

Refuting Creationism - The Evidence Shows How Wrong The Bronze Age Myths In The Bible Were

A crouched burial of a 40 year old man in Oostwoud, the earliest known Bell Beaker grave identified by the researchers.

Source: Provincial Depot for Archaeology Noord-Holland.

DNA study uncovers continental origins of Britain’s bronze age population

Leaving a side the long history of archaic hominins such as the Neanderthals and their ancestors inhabiting Western Eurasia for about 250,000 years before the arrival of large numbers of anatomically modern humans, which itself is deeply problematic for creationists, there is also the archaeological record of the complext history of modern humans going back at least 40,000 years which simply would not be there if the Bible narrative of a recent spontaneous magical origin and a later global genocidal flood were true.

As reported in a paper in Nature last February (2026), the history of Northwest Europe and the Bristic Isles is far mpre complex and interesting that the simple Bronze Age fairy tail in Genesis.

Of course, the arcahaeolgeneticists never set out to disprove the Bible. The facts they revealed did that as a matter of course, because unlike Genesis, the facts record real events.

The contrast could hardly be more stark. Genesis gives us a world populated from a single specially-created human pair, followed by a later repopulation of the world from Noah’s family after a global flood, and then the dispersal of peoples after Babel. That is a story of magical manufacture, catastrophic reset and sudden dispersal. The ancient DNA tells a completely different story: long-lived regional populations, gradual migration, intermarriage, cultural exchange, local ecological adaptation and no global genetic bottleneck compatible with a recent universal flood.

Creationism Refuted - The Theory of Evolution May Be Slightly Wrong - But It's No Comfort To Creationists

AI-Generated image (ChatGPT 5.4 Thinking)

Microscopic fungi, baker’s or brewer’s yeast, are used as probiotics to restore normal flora of intestine.

Image credit: Adobe Stock

A new theory of molecular evolution | University of Michigan News

A paper published in Nature Ecology & Evolution last november (2025) by four evolutionary biologists from the University of Michigan might have caused a stir of excitement in creationists cirles if any of them ever read a science paper because it appears on first sight to question the basis of the Theory of Evolution - what creationists call 'Dawinism'. However, that excitement would have been short-lived if they had read the details.

This is not the long-awaited collapse of the Theory of Evolution that creationists have been confidently predicting since at least the middle of the last century. It is nothing of the sort. It is a normal example of science doing what science does: testing a model against evidence, finding that the model is incomplete, and adjusting the explanation accordingly.

The theory being challenged here is not evolution itself, nor common descent, nor natural selection, nor mutation, nor population genetics. It is the neutral theory of molecular evolution, a theory developed in the 1960s to explain why many genetic changes appear to spread through populations without obvious adaptive advantage. The new paper argues that this appearance of neutrality may be misleading. What looks neutral in the long term may, in fact, be the result of short-term adaptation to changing environments.

The researchers found that beneficial mutations are more common than the classic neutral theory assumes. The problem, then, is why these apparently useful mutations do not become fixed at the rate one might expect. Their answer is beautifully evolutionary: environments change. A mutation that helps in one set of conditions may be useless, or even harmful, in another. So populations are not marching steadily towards some perfect design; they are continually tracking a moving target.

That is what the authors mean by adaptive tracking with antagonistic pleiotropy. “Pleiotropy” means that one mutation can have more than one effect. “Antagonistic” means that those effects can pull in opposite directions: helpful here, harmful there; useful now, costly later. This is not magic. It is not supernatural intervention. It is the ordinary interaction between genes, organisms and environments.

Creationists often pretend that science is an orthodoxy in which biologists merely defend Darwin at all costs. This paper shows the opposite. Scientists have examined one of their own long-standing theories, compared it with new evidence, and proposed a better explanation. No sacred text was protected. No dogma was shielded from scrutiny. No conclusion was declared immune from revision.

The result is not less evolution, but more evolutionary detail. Mutation still supplies variation. Selection still acts on differences in reproductive success. Genetic drift still matters. Environments still shape which variants succeed and which fail. What has changed is the understanding of how molecular change can appear neutral over deep time while still being shaped by episodes of adaptation in shifting environments.

So, far from helping creationism, this paper undercuts one of creationism’s favourite caricatures of science. It shows evolutionary biology as a living, self-correcting science, not a rigid ideology. It also shows why no supernatural designer is needed. The process described is entirely natural: mutations arise, their effects depend on circumstances, environments change, and populations respond as best they can, without foresight, plan or purpose.

Refuting Creationism - Another Bizarre Dinosaur - From 70 Million Years Before 'Creation Week'

A reconstruction of Kank australis

Gabriel Díaz Yantén

A reconstruction of Kank australis

Gabriel Díaz Yantén.

Heron-like, fish-eating dinosaur from 70 million years ago discovered in Argentina - Taylor & Francis Newsroom

In my previous post, I wrote about Labrujasuchus expectatus, a bizarre distant relative of the crocodile line which walked on two legs, had tiny arms, and possessed a toothless mouth tipped with a beak. Although not a dinosaur, it looked superficially dinosaur-like — a neat example of convergent evolution. Because earlier and later shuvosaurids were already known from the region, palaeontologists predicted that a form occupying the gap between them should exist, and Labrujasuchus duly turned up in the right place and in the right rock formation.

That is how science works: evidence fits into a testable, predictive framework. Creationism, by contrast, has nothing to offer except hand-waving, misrepresentation and denial when confronted with a bizarre extinct archosaur from some 212 million years ago, just as it has nothing to offer in explanation of this almost equally bizarre dinosaur from about 70 million years ago.

The new species, Kank australis, is described by palaeontologist Dr Matías J. Motta, of the Bernardino Rivadavia Natural Sciences Museum in Buenos Aires (Museo Argentino de Ciencias Naturales “Bernardino Rivadavia”), and his colleagues in a paper published on 28 May 2026 in the peer-reviewed Journal of Vertebrate Paleontology.

Kank australis was a paravian theropod — an unenlagiid, belonging to a group of small- to medium-sized raptor-like dinosaurs known from Late Cretaceous Gondwanan deposits. Its discoverers suggest that it may have lived rather like a large heron. Its long jaws, armed with teeth, suggest a fish-eating habit, while its cervical vertebrae show structures associated with muscle attachment and the protection of neck blood vessels, features comparable with those seen in modern birds that rely on rapid, precise neck movements. In other words, this was probably not the familiar pop-culture image of a raptor as a fast-running terrestrial predator, but a specialised animal exploiting the riverine and wetland ecosystems of southern Patagonia.

And, as so often with new fossil discoveries, Kank australis fills in yet another of those gaps so beloved of creationists looking for somewhere to hide their ever-shrinking little god. In this case, it helps bridge a distributional gap in the Late Cretaceous record of southern Patagonia, connecting better-known unenlagiid records from northern Patagonia with those from Antarctica, and adding more detail to the still-patchy evolutionary history of these South American paravian dinosaurs.

Malevolent Design - How Honey Bees And A Parasitic Fungus Have Teamed Up

“Invasional Mutualism” Between Honey Bees and Myrtle Rust Pathogen | Blog

Figure 1.
Foraging of urediniospores by bees on plants infected with myrtle rust. a. Honey bee forager collecting Austropuccinia psidii urediniospores from leaves of broadleaf paperbark [Melaleuca quinquenervia (Myrtales, Myrtaceae)], Bungawalbin, New South Wales, Australia; b. A. psidii urediniospores in the opening of a Geraldton wax [Chamelaucium uncinatum (Myrtales, Myrtaceae)] flower bud in Brisbane, Queensland, Australia.

Photographs by Geoff Pegg.

A paper published in March 2026 in NeoBiota is entirely unsurprising to an evolutionary biologist, but deeply awkward for anyone trying to present nature as the intelligent design of an omnibenevolent creator. It reports what appears to be a mutually beneficial relationship between the introduced Western honey bee, Apis mellifera, and the invasive fungal plant pathogen myrtle rust, Austropuccinia psidii. It is a neat example of how evolution has no foresight, no moral purpose and no long-term plan. Symbiotic alliances can arise naturally between different species when there is an immediate benefit to both, even when the longer-term consequences for one or both partners — and for the wider ecosystem — may be destructive.

Myrtle rust, Austropuccinia psidii, is an invasive rust fungus in Australia. It infects more than 500 species in the Myrtaceae family, which includes many of Australia’s culturally, ecologically and economically important native plants, including eucalypts, paperbarks and related species. In Australia, the pathogen is regarded as a serious threat to native ecosystems, with around 17% of endemic vegetation considered at risk. The other partner in this apparent mutualism is also an introduced species: the Western honey bee, Apis mellifera.

The basis of this relationship is an exquisite example of the sort of functional complexity creationists routinely try to claim as evidence for intelligent design. That, of course, raises the obvious question: why would an omnibenevolent designer design a fungal pathogen capable of damaging so much of Australia’s native vegetation, and then provide it with a convenient pollinator-assisted dispersal system?

The mechanism is ingenious, but only in the blind, short-term sense in which natural selection can be ingenious. The bright yellow urediniospores of myrtle rust are collected by honey bees much as pollen is collected. The bees pack the spores into their pollen baskets and carry them back to the hive. For the fungus, this provides a potential route for dispersal beyond simple wind movement. For the bees, the spores are not just inert particles accidentally mistaken for pollen; they have real nutritional value. The researchers found that myrtle rust spores contained more than 22% protein and all ten amino acids regarded as essential for honey bee nutrition, making them comparable with high-quality pollen.

Laboratory feeding trials also showed that honey bee larvae could develop normally on a diet based on myrtle rust spores, with survival, development time and body weight similar to larvae reared on a high-quality pollen diet. Even more concerning from a biosecurity point of view, the spores remained viable inside honey bee colonies for at least nine days, meaning that hives could potentially act as reservoirs and transport systems for the pathogen.

So, the fungus gains a mobile vector, while the bees gain an alternative protein source. But what benefits both in the short term could be damaging in the longer term. As myrtle rust damages Myrtaceae-rich habitats, it can reduce the availability of flowers and pollen. That, in turn, could encourage honey bees to rely more heavily on fungal spores or other alternative foods, while the fungus benefits from the continued movement of bees and managed hives. The result could be a damaging ecological feedback loop, with plant-pollinator networks and forest regeneration placed under increasing pressure.

This is precisely the kind of outcome that any omniscient, intelligent designer should have foreseen and avoided. It is also precisely the kind of outcome that a mindless evolutionary process can produce without difficulty. Natural selection rewards immediate reproductive or nutritional advantage; it does not plan for ecological stability, protect biodiversity, or ensure that mutually beneficial relationships remain harmless in the long term.