Creationism Refuted - A 'Living Fossil' - from 275 Million Years Before 'Creation Week'

Tanyka amnicola grazing

AI-generated image (ChatGPT 5.4 Thinking)
(after an illustration by Vitor Silva

Fossils of jaw bones of Tanyka amnicola

Pardo, J.D; Marsicano, C.A; Smith, R.; et al (2026)

This ancient plant-eater had a twisted jaw and sideways-facing teeth - Field Museum

Creationists love so-called ‘living fossils’ because they imagine they show evolution has not happened and that Earth is only a few thousand years old. Of course, by the twisted logic of creationism, the vast number of species that have changed over time somehow do not prove the opposite: that evolution does happen and that Earth is vastly older than a few thousand years.

Their argument also ignores the scientific definition of evolution: change in allele frequencies in a population over time. Without DNA from earlier members of the same lineage, it is impossible to say whether evolution has or has not occurred within that lineage. Superficial resemblance is not genetic stasis. But then, the creationist ‘definition’ of evolution is not the scientific one. It is a childish straw man parody, designed to be easier to attack.

So this latest ‘living fossil’, reported in Proceedings of the Royal Society B by a team led by Dr Jason D. Pardo of the Field Museum, Chicago, is bound to set up cognitive dissonance in creationists. That will probably result in their usual coping strategy: ignoring it altogether, or blaming scientists for trying to make them change their minds.

The fossil belongs to a new species, Tanyka amnicola, an archaic stem tetrapod from the Early Permian of Brazil, about 275 million years ago. It belonged to a lineage that had been thought to have disappeared much earlier, making it a “living fossil” even in its own time. The fossils were found in a dry riverbed in north-eastern Brazil, in the Pedra de Fogo Formation, one of the few windows scientists have into Gondwanan animal life during this period.

What the team found was not a complete skeleton but a set of fossil lower jaws — nine in all — each showing the same extraordinary feature: the jaw was twisted, with some teeth pointing sideways, while the inside of the jaw was lined with numerous small denticles that appear to have formed a grinding surface. Since all the jaws show the same structure, this was not a deformity or fossilisation artefact, but part of the animal’s normal anatomy.

The researchers suggest that this strange arrangement may have allowed Tanyka to process food in a highly unusual way. The Field Museum describes it as probably eating aquatic plants, while the paper itself leaves open the possibility that the jaw was adapted either for processing plant material or for specialised feeding on small invertebrates. Either way, this was not a static remnant of a bygone age, but a member of an ancient lineage still exploring new ecological possibilities in Permian Gondwana.

Refuting Creationism - The Giant 50 Foot Snake Deity, Vasuki, of Hindu Mythology - The Fossil Evidence?

Vasuki indicus,
Nāgarāja (Serpent King) of Hindu mythology

AI-generated image (ChatGPT 5.4 Thinking)

A colossal prehistoric snake, Vasuki indicus, may have rivaled the largest snakes in history, stretching up to 50 feet long. Fossils from India suggest it was a slow-moving ambush predator and part of a widespread ancient snake lineage.

Credit: AI/ScienceDaily.com.

50-foot ancient snake discovered in India may be one of the largest ever | ScienceDaily

An open access paper published in Scientific Reports in 2024 describes an astonishing giant snake from India which, in life, may have reached up to about 50 feet in length. Ignoring, for the moment, the inconvenient age of the fossils, its existence bears an eerie superficial resemblance to the mythical Hindu serpent king, Vasuki.

Imagine the unbounded joy and celebration there would be if creationists were finally presented with fossil evidence that appeared to confirm one of their favourite myths, giving them something more tangible than the written-down stories of Bronze Age pastoralists.

Strangely, though, there have been no such celebrations over evidence which, superficially at least, appears to echo Hindu mythology. It is almost as though creationists understand perfectly well that religious myths are just that — myths — and that any evidence which appears to support someone else’s mythology can be dismissed without a second thought. Unless, of course, it happens to be their own mythology, in which case coincidence, metaphor and wishful thinking are suddenly promoted to “evidence”.

Named by its discoverers Vasuki indicus, the snake is estimated to have been between about 11 and 15 metres long, making it one of the largest snakes ever known. The genus name comes from Vasuki, the great serpent king of Hindu mythology, often depicted coiled around the neck of Shiva. Vasuki is one of the mythological nāgas associated with serpent worship, including the Hindu festival of Naga Panchami.

However, as a supposed source of the Vasuki myth, there is one small snag: Vasuki indicus lived about 47 million years ago, in the early Middle Eocene, a mere 19 million years after the end-Cretaceous mass extinction that ended the reign of the non-avian dinosaurs. That is long before humans, long before language, long before writing, and long before any culture capable of inventing and transmitting religious mythology existed. Like all religious mythology, the stories of Vasuki arose much later in human history — not in the Eocene swamps of India, and certainly not as a folk memory of a snake that had vanished tens of millions of years before there were any people to remember it.

The fossil vertebrae of Vasuki indicus were discovered in the Panandhro Lignite Mine in Kutch, Gujarat State, western India, and described by Debajit Datta and Sunil Bajpai of the Department of Earth Sciences, Indian Institute of Technology Roorkee, Uttarakhand, India. The remains consist of 27 mostly well-preserved vertebrae, some still articulated, from what appears to have been a fully grown animal. The authors identify it as a member of the extinct madtsoiid snake family and suggest that it represents a distinctive Indian lineage of large-bodied snakes. ([EurekAlert!][2])

The accompanying Springer Nature news release, reproduced by EurekAlert!, is available here. The original Springer Nature press release is accessible to accredited journalists only.

Refuting Creationism - Why Neanderthals Went Extinct - 30,000 Years Before 'Creation Week'

Neanderthal family

AI-generated image (ChatGPT 5.4 Thinking)

The study shows that regions favourable to Homo sapiens were found to be more highly connected than those of Neanderthals.

Why did the Neanderthals disappear? - UdeMnouvelles

A recent paper in Quaternary Science Reviews by a team led by Professor Arianne Burke of the Department of Anthropology at Université de Montréal, and head of the Quebec-based Hominin Dispersals Research Group, offers fresh insight into why Neanderthals disappeared from Europe around 40,000 years ago.

The timeframe alone should be enough to send any self-respecting creationist reaching deep into the catalogue of prepared excuses for dismissing inconvenient facts. What we will not see, of course, is any acknowledgement that science has once again produced evidence that flatly contradicts their beliefs, or even the faintest shadow of doubt about the Bible’s usefulness as a textbook of history or science.

Archaic hominins have always been a major problem for creationists, whose responses range from outright denial, through misrepresentation of the science, to the extraordinary mental gymnastics needed to shoehorn the evidence into a childish Bible narrative of a single ancestral human couple living some 6,000–10,000 years ago.

A recent example is Ken Ham’s assertion, through Answers in Genesis, that Adam and Eve were the ancestors not only of modern humans but also of Neanderthals and Denisovans. That would make Adam and Eve something like Homo heidelbergensis, H. antecessor, or whichever Middle Pleistocene hominin eventually proves to have been the last common ancestor of these lineages. It also neatly ignores the African fossil record and raises the obvious question — even if we ignored the evidence for the age of these archaic humans for the sake of argument — of how their descendants could have spread so widely, diversified so markedly, and then partly disappeared, all within a few thousand years.

Of course, it is nonsense, and is clearly aimed at people who are either unaware of the evidence but vaguely aware of these archaic hominins, or are so eager to clutch at straws that any apologetic will do, however absurd it becomes when placed beside the facts.

“Primitive” people were actually just humans like you and me. pic.twitter.com/NXGQm0sYCW

— Answers in Genesis (@AiG) April 13, 2026

Yes, there are still unanswered questions about the common ancestry of modern humans, Neanderthals and Denisovans, but one thing we can be certain of is that their common ancestor did not live within the absurdly compressed timeframe allowed by the Bible narrative. That is just one of the many ways in which we know the Bible story is wrong — which is precisely why Ken Ham does not want his followers to think too carefully about it.

But if the question of origins is awkward for creationists, the question of extinction is no less so. Why did the Neanderthals disappear, and why did Homo sapiens survive and expand? There are several competing explanations, and, as so often in science, they are not mutually exclusive. Did Neanderthals succumb to climate instability? Were they weakened by inbreeding and low population density in small, scattered groups? Were they outcompeted by H. sapiens, with their wider social networks, more flexible technology and perhaps, eventually, dogs? Or were some Neanderthal populations simply absorbed into the larger and expanding population of H. sapiens through interbreeding?

Now, modelling by Professor Burke’s team suggests that the answer was not a single, simple cause. Climate change and interspecific interaction with H. sapiens were factors, but their importance varied across Europe. The study suggests that a significant difference may have been the resilience of social networks. In regions favourable to H. sapiens, populations appear to have been more strongly connected than Neanderthal populations, giving them a better safety net when climate, resources or local demography became unstable.

This does not mean Neanderthals were isolated, unintelligent or incapable of maintaining relationships between groups. Archaeological evidence shows that they had interregional connections too. But, according to the models, those networks appear to have been more fragile, especially in parts of Central and Eastern Europe. In a world of rapid climatic swings, that difference may have mattered. A better-connected population can share information, exchange partners, move temporarily into allied territories, and recover after local shocks. A more weakly connected population can be left isolated, vulnerable and demographically brittle.

Creationism Refuted - The Complex Origins of Modern Humans Revealed - No Magic Required

AI-generated image (ChatGPT 5.4 Thinking)

View of the village of Kuboes, on the border of South Africa and Namibia. DNA samples were collected from Nama individuals who have historically lived in the region.

Brenna Henn/UC Davis.

New UC Davis Research Using DNA Changes Origin of Human Species | College of Biological Sciences

Research first published in Nature in 2023 shows just how wide of the mark the Bronze Age authors of the Bible’s origin myths were when they guessed at human origins. Of course, in the absence of any knowledge or understanding of the true age of Earth, the history of life on it, or the existence of deep human ancestry, their guesses were no better than we would expect from people trying to explain the world with folklore rather than evidence.

In fact, as the evidence in the 2023 paper by a team co-led by Professor Brenna Henn of the University of California, Davis, and Simon Gravel of McGill University, Montreal, Quebec, Canada, shows, modern humans did not emerge from a single founding couple, or even from one simple, isolated ancestral population. Instead, our origins lie in a complex, dynamic network of human groups that diversified within Africa, evolved in partial isolation, and later exchanged genes as populations moved and merged.

In that respect, human evolution resembles other cases in nature where populations diverge, remain partly distinct, and yet continue to exchange genes — such as the carrion crow/hooded crow Corvus complex, the Eurasian complex of the great tit (Parus major) and its related forms, and the circumpolar herring gull/lesser black-backed gull Larus complex. These examples show evolution not as a neat ladder or a set of separately created “kinds”, but as a branching, reticulating process in which boundaries can be blurred by gene flow.

This process of diversification and later remixing continued in Eurasia, where Homo sapiens interbred with Neanderthals, Denisovans and, possibly, other human populations. Neanderthals eventually disappeared as a distinct population, or were partly absorbed into expanding Homo sapiens populations, around 40,000 years ago.

Far from the single ancestral couple that may have seemed intuitive to parochial Bronze Age pastoralists, modern humanity emerged from a population history that looks less like a single line of descent and more like a tangled bush with cross-linking branches.

The researchers reached this conclusion by analysing DNA sequenced from saliva samples from 44 modern Nama individuals from southern Africa, an Indigenous population known to carry exceptionally high levels of genetic diversity compared with many other modern groups. From that genetic data, the team developed a model suggesting that the earliest detectable split among ancestral human populations occurred between 120,000 and 135,000 years ago, after two or more weakly differentiated Homo populations had already been interbreeding for hundreds of thousands of years.

Even after that split, migration continued between the populations, producing what the researchers describe as a “weakly structured stem” for modern human origins in Africa. Rather than a single stem from which humanity simply sprouted, human evolution is better understood as a reticulated process: branching, merging, and branching again.

Creationism Refuted - A Newly-Discovered Mammal That LIve Alongside Dinosaurs - 75 Million Years Before 'Creation Week'

An illustration of Cimolodon desosai on the tree with a fruit in its mouth. It was about the size of a golden hamster. It likely scampered on the ground and in the trees and ate fruits and insects.

Photo: Andrey Atuchin.

Researchers discover the fossil of a new hamster-sized mammal that lived alongside dinosaurs on the Pacific Coast – UW News

Although the catastrophe at the end of the Cretaceous exterminated about 75% of life on Earth, including all the non-avian dinosaurs, some small mammals survived. Among them were rodent-like multituberculates: not rodents, but an extinct and highly successful group of mammals that had already lived alongside dinosaurs for more than 100 million years. One newly identified member of that group was a small mammal, about the size of a golden hamster, described in a recent paper published in the Journal of Vertebrate Paleontology.

The people who made up the creation myths in the Bible could have known nothing of this, of course. As their stories show, theirs was a narrow, parochial view of the world, centred on a small part of the Middle East and on the folk history of one people. Their modern legacy is a movement of equally incurious believers who treat those ancient stories as real history and their creation fantasy as real science. Consequently, the evidence revealed by palaeontologists is almost invariably too awkward for them to acknowledge honestly.

Sadly, creationists continue trying to boost their dwindling numbers, and soothe their fragile egos, by demanding the right to indoctrinate children at public expense. Behind that demand lies the curious belief that falsehoods become less false if enough people can be persuaded to believe them. The facts themselves are of little consequence. What matters is recruitment: encouraging ignorance, anti-science conspiracism and belief in magic, while leaving children ill-equipped to evaluate evidence, understand complex data, or perhaps become the scientists society will need in the future.

Nevertheless, the facts remain what they are, regardless of who accepts them. In this case, a research team led by the University of Washington has identified a new 75-million-year-old species of Cimolodon from a fossil discovered at a research site in Baja California, Mexico. The species, named Cimolodon desosai, was about the size of a golden hamster and probably scampered both on the ground and in trees, feeding on fruit and insects.

Creationism Refuted - Why Snakes, Like Creationists, Don't Have A Leg To Stand On - Evolution

Najash rionegrina

AI-generated image (ChatGPT 5.4 Thinking)

Najash rionegrina

AI-generated image (ChatGPT 5.4 Thinking)

An ancient snake's cheekbone sheds light on evolution of modern snake skulls | Faculty of Science

Creationism is the art of ignoring evidence while pretending to be interested in it. Creationists continually demand that science provide supporting evidence for their childish parodies of evolution, abiogenesis, the Big Bang, and other scientific explanations; then, when the evidence is provided, they either ignore it, misrepresent it, or move the goalposts.

This is neatly illustrated by a paper published in Science Advances in 2019 by an international team of palaeontologists, including researchers from Argentina, the University of Alberta and McGill University. The paper provides creationists with something they are forever pretending to ask for — a transitional fossil — while also undermining another of their favourite assertions: that evolutionary change must always involve adding something new, and that loss or reduction cannot contribute to evolution.

The fossil in question belongs to Najash rionegrina, a rear-limbed fossil snake from Argentina. The presence of hind limbs is striking enough, but it is not the most important point of the paper. The fossil also shows that, during snake evolution, legs were not the only structures to be reduced or lost. The skull of Najash still retained a cheekbone — the jugal bone — which has almost entirely disappeared in living snakes.

That matters because it helps refine our understanding of how the modern snake skull evolved. Rather than appearing suddenly, fully formed and magically snake-like, the snake body plan was assembled over time through a series of anatomical changes, including elongation of the body, reduction of limbs, modification of the skull, and the loss or reduction of bones that were present in earlier ancestors. In other words, this is exactly the kind of transitional evidence creationists claim not to have seen, and exactly the kind of evolutionary reduction they claim cannot happen.

Evolution In Progress - How Honey Bees Are Evolving - Another Move In The Arms Race

Southern California hybrid honeybee hive hanging from a tree in the wild.

Boris Baer/UCR

Varroa destructor on a honeybee

Jon Gascoyne/Flickr

SoCal honeybees can fend off deadly mites | UCR News | UC Riverside

A new paper in Scientific Reports by Genesis Chong-Echavez and Boris Baer of the University of California, Riverside, casually refutes creationism by showing evolution in progress. It describes how honeybees, Apis mellifera, are evolving to survive in the presence of a serious parasite, the Varroa mite, Varroa destructor. And, no doubt to the consternation of any creationists who understand the implications, it also illustrates how evolutionary arms races are a major driver of adaptation. Both parasites and arms races are deeply embarrassing for creationism because they make little sense as the products of an intelligent designer. Indeed, parasites conform to the Discovery Institute’s supposed “proof” of intelligent design only if that designer is malevolent; yet if parasites are dismissed as evidence of design, creationists are simply abandoning one of their own favourite arguments.

In other words, a parasite-host arms race is a paradox that creationism cannot resolve, whereas evolutionary theory not only explains it, but is strengthened by it. The paper concerns a Southern Californian hybrid population of honeybees with ancestry from Western European, Eastern European, Middle Eastern, and African lineages. These bees are showing resistance to the Varroa mite, a parasite that has played a major role in the catastrophic losses of managed honeybee colonies in the United States, where beekeepers reported losses of up to 62% in 2025.

The researchers monitored 236 colonies over four years and found that the Californian hybrid colonies consistently had lower mite infestation rates than colonies headed by commercial queens. In the UCR summary of the work, the hybrid colonies are described as having about 68% fewer mites on average and as being more than five times less likely to cross the treatment threshold at which chemical control becomes necessary. Laboratory experiments also showed that the mites were less attracted to larvae from these hybrid bees, especially at the stage when mites would normally be most likely to invade brood cells.

The usual creationist response to examples like this is to retreat into a parody definition of evolution involving a change in “kind”, with “kind” carefully left undefined, or to fall back on Bible-literalist theology and explain parasites as the result of “sin”, by some unexplained mechanism against which their creator appears curiously powerless. But the problem of arms races remains. On that view, creationism’s single designer seems to be competing with itself, continually redesigning solutions to problems of its own making, ad infinitum. Evolutionary biology, by contrast, has no such difficulty. It predicts exactly this kind of reciprocal adaptation between parasite and host.

Refuting Creationism - How Complex Organs Evolve

Using the placenta to understand how complex organs evolve

Recently, a new creationist member of a Facebook group resorted to the familiar tactic of presenting the placenta as a complex organ that could not possibly have evolved. As so often with creationist arguments, this was little more than an argument from personal incredulity dressed up as a challenge. In place of scientific evidence, he relied on a god-of-the-gaps argument and a false dichotomy, implying that if he could not imagine a natural explanation, the only alternative must be magic performed by his preferred deity.

The new member appears to have left the group soon after replies began to appear in the comments, complete with links to articles and papers explaining exactly how the problem can be approached scientifically.

This paper in Nature by Oliver W. Griffith and Günter P. Wagner of Yale University provides precisely the sort of answer that exposes the weakness of this common creationist tactic on social media. Their argument amounts to little more than: “I do not know how this could have evolved, therefore God did it.” That is not an explanation; it is simply ignorance masquerading as evidence, and tells us more of the parochial ignorance of the creationist than they probably intended. The paper uses the evolution of the placenta to explain some basic principles of how complex organs evolved. Needless to say, no magic is involved anywhere in the process.

One of the authors, Oliver W. Griffith, has also written an article in The Conversation explaining their research and what it tells us about the evolution of complex organs in vertebrates. His article is reproduced here under a Creative Commons licence, reformatted for stylistic consistency.

First, a short explanation of the role of the placental in placental mammals:

Refuting Creationism - Neanderthals And Modern Humans Lived Together - 120,000 Years Before 'Creation Week'

Homo sapiens and the Neanderthals shared technology and behavior

Credit: Efrat Bakshitz

Archaeological examination of the Tinshemet Cave floor.

Close Encounters of the Third Kind: Neanderthal and Homo sapiens Interactions in the Mid-Middle Palaeolithic (130,000–80,000 years ago) | EUROPEAN FRIENDS OF THE HEBREW UNIVERSITY

Neanderthals are a persistent thorn in the side of creationism because they show that human origins are far older, messier and more interesting than the simplistic creation myths in the Bible. Genetic evidence shows that people outside Africa still carry a small but significant inheritance from Neanderthals, demonstrating that human ancestry was shaped not by descent from a single primordial couple, but by repeated episodes of migration, divergence and interbreeding between distinct human populations. There is even evidence that early Homo sapiens were interbreeding with Neanderthals as long as 100,000 years ago.

Now, new research by archaeologists and palaeoanthropologists from the Hebrew University of Jerusalem and Tel Aviv University, excavating at Tinshemet Cave in central Israel, suggests that the relationship between Neanderthals and early modern humans in the Levant, between about 130,000 and 80,000 years ago, involved far more than occasional contact. Their evidence indicates sustained interaction, shared technologies, similar hunting strategies and parallel ritual behaviour, including formal burial practices. The team have just published their findings in the journal Nature Human Behaviour. What emerges is a picture of different human groups living in close contact, exchanging ideas and behaviours to such an extent that their cultural differences became increasingly blurred.

The researchers reached this conclusion by integrating evidence from four main areas: stone-tool production, hunting strategies, symbolic behaviour and social complexity. Particularly striking is the clustering of burials at Tinshemet Cave, which suggests that the cave may have served as a repeated burial site, perhaps even an early cemetery. The placement of objects such as stone tools, animal bones and pieces of ochre in graves points to shared ritual practices and symbolic behaviour, hinting at a level of social and cultural complexity that creationist caricatures of early humans simply cannot accommodate.

Creationism Refuted - Earliest Domestic Dogs - 6,000 Years Before 'Creation Week'

Cover picture for The Girl and the Wolf

Oldest genetic evidence for domestic dogs identified in Europe and Türkiye | University of Oxford

Artistic reconstruction of Pınarbaşı c. 15,800 years ago based on evidence from archaeological excavations by University of Liverpool.

(c) Kathryn Killackey

This is the first of two blog posts on a pair of recent papers published in Nature on the earliest known domestic dogs and what they tell us about when grey wolves first entered into a domestic relationship with humans. Together, these studies push the earliest firm genetic evidence for dogs back[1] about 10,900 years ago, showing that dog populations were already present in western Eurasia during the Late Upper Palaeolithic. For creationists committed to a young Earth and to the simplistic Bronze Age origin myths of the Bible, that is yet another awkward fact: dogs were already on their way to becoming humanity’s first domestic animal long before their preferred chronology even allows for the Earth to exist. [1.1]

Since then, of course, dogs have been systematically modified by selective breeding to suit the many roles humans have found for them. That alone sits uneasily with the claim that a perfect creator made all animals ready-made for human benefit. But what makes these papers especially interesting to me is not only that they create yet another problem for creationist superstition, but that they touch directly on the background to two novels I have recently published, in which the domestication of wolves forms part of the story.

The first of these books, The Girl and the Wolf, tells the story of Almora, a child of the Drognai clan, who is raised alongside a wolf cub, Sharma, who becomes her inseparable companion. When Almora meets one of the last Neanderthals, Tanu, and they fall in love, Sharma plays a crucial part in bringing them together. The kindness of Almora’s mother, Shana, in rescuing and raising the starving cub becomes the small act from which a much larger change in human history begins.

In the sequel, The Way of The Wolf: A Stone Age Epic, Almora and Sharma have become the stuff of legend, their story spreading far beyond the lands of the Drognai. When Almora’s daughter, Shana — herself of mixed Neanderthal and modern human ancestry — chooses to leave the clan because of the tensions her family’s presence has caused, Almora, Tanu and a small band of Drognai go with her to a distant land. There they discover a people who have taken the legend of Almora and Sharma to heart and formed a close relationship with a pack of tame wolves, a relationship that has helped carry them through hardship into a period of hunting success and prosperity.

These books are fiction, of course, because we cannot know exactly how wolves became domesticated. What we can say is that the current evidence points to a long and complex process rather than a single moment of “invention”. The broad consensus is that some wolves probably began by exploiting scraps around human camps, while humans gradually came to recognise their value as sentinels, scavengers and hunting partners. The rest, as they say, is history.

And according to the first of these two new papers, that history was already under way deep in the Late Ice Age. One study generated nuclear and mitochondrial genomes from canid remains from Pınarbaşı in Türkiye, dated to 15,800 years ago, and from Gough’s Cave in Somerset, dated to 14,300 years ago, and concluded that a genetically homogeneous dog population was already widely distributed across Europe and Anatolia by at least 14,300 years ago. The second study analysed 216 canid remains from Europe and found its oldest dog genome in a 14,200-year-old specimen from Kesslerloch in Switzerland, showing that European dogs were already genetically distinct by then. [1.1]

Refuting Creationism - How Humans Caused 'Warrior' Wheat to Evolve.

Early farming unintentionally bred highly competitive "warrior" wheat, study finds | Biosciences | The University of Sheffield

One of the more embarrassing questions you can ask a creationist is this: if an omniscient, perfect god created all living things for the benefit of humankind, as the biblical creation myth claims, why have humans had to modify almost all our domesticated animals and cultivated crops to make them fit for purpose? In many cases, we have altered them so extensively that they are barely recognisable as the same species as their wild ancestors.

The story of how humans domesticated wild species and gradually modified them is, in effect, a textbook example of evolution in progress. Sometimes this happened through conscious selective breeding, but often it was an unintended consequence of domestication itself. Wheat, for example, evolved grains that were more firmly attached to the stalk. This meant fewer grains were lost when harvested and carried back to camp for communal use, so the plants whose seeds stayed attached were more likely to have those seeds planted again, whether deliberately or accidentally, around early hunter-gatherer encampments.

Another example in wheat is the evolution of taller plants with more upright leaves. As humans began planting wheat more densely, they created an environment in which the more aggressive plants literally overshadowed their neighbours and captured a greater share of the sunlight. In this struggle for existence, the plants best suited to the human-made environment were the ones most likely to survive and become the parents of the next generation.

That is the conclusion of a research group led by Dr Yixiang Shan and Professor Colin Osborne of the University of Sheffield, working in collaboration with colleagues from the Autonomous University of Madrid, Rey Juan Carlos University in Spain, and Wageningen University in the Netherlands. Their findings are published in Current Biology.

Refuting Creationism - Origin Of Western Europeans - Thousand Of Years Before The Mythical Flood

The Hunter-gatherer life-style persisted in Netherlands and Belgium until about 2,500 BCE

AI-Generated Image (ChatGPT Latest)

Map indicating hunter-gatherer ancestry proportions across Europe 4500–2500 BCE. Darker is more.

New research into ancient DNA sheds light on key phase in European prehistory - University of Huddersfield

This second post on discoveries made by international teams of palaeontologists and geneticists, including scientists from the University of Huddersfield’s Archaeogenetics Research Group, examines the genetic evidence for the ancestry of modern western Europeans. As so often happens in research into human origins and archaeology, the findings are not what creationists keep hoping for: not a scrap of evidence that the creation myths in the Bible contain even a grain of historical truth. Instead, the team’s findings, published in Nature, add yet more evidence for a deep, complex and thoroughly non-biblical human past.

As usual, the evidence sits squarely at odds with those childish fairy tales of magical creation and a recent global population reset caused by a genocidal flood. The study shows that farming practices were reaching parts of western Europe long before biblical chronology allows for such events, and that there is no sign of the extreme genetic bottleneck such a story would require. On the contrary, both the archaeological and genetic evidence point to continuity across the period, with farming introduced unevenly into the region and with women of Early European Farmer ancestry from the Near East marrying into local hunter-gatherer communities.

Nor are these findings any comfort to far-right white supremacists who fantasise about Europeans as some sort of ancient “pure race”. Research led by scientists including Dr Maria Pala, Professor Martin B. Richards and Dr Ceiridwen J. Edwards of the University of Huddersfield shows that modern Europeans carry ancestry from multiple distinct populations: indigenous hunter-gatherers, Neolithic farmers ultimately derived from the Near East, and later pastoralist groups associated with the Eurasian steppe. In other words, the population history of Europe is one of movement, mixture and cultural exchange, not racial purity.

The team also found that the hunter-gatherer way of life persisted in what are now Belgium and the Netherlands for thousands of years longer than in most other parts of Europe. Rather than being rapidly replaced, these communities retained high levels of hunter-gatherer ancestry well into the Neolithic, apparently because the wetland, riverine and coastal environments allowed them to adopt some farming practices without abandoning their existing lifeways.

Refuting Creationism - Modern Humans Reached Australia 50,000 Years Before 'Creation Week'

AI-Generated imaginative reconstruction of first humans arriving in Sahul

ChatGPT Latest

The migration of the first settlers to Sahul 60,000 years ago.

Photo: Helen Farr and Erich Fisher.

New genetic research supports “long chronology” for first settlement of Sahul - University of Huddersfield

Two recent papers by teams that included members of the Archaeogenetics Research Group at the University of Huddersfield, UK, show how modern DNA extraction and sequencing techniques are adding yet another independent line of evidence in support of the Theory of Evolution and against creationism. Together, they reveal the ancient and complex origins of modern humans, in stark contradiction to the simplistic Bronze Age origin myths of the Bible.

The first of these papers, published last November (2025), and available open access in Science Advances, examines human migration into Australia and lends support to the ‘long chronology’ hypothesis for the earliest settlement of Sahul, the Ice Age landmass that united Australia, New Guinea and nearby islands.

The second paper examines the more recent population history of Western Europe. That will be the subject of my next blog post.

According to the long chronology hypothesis, humans first reached Sahul around 60,000 years ago, whereas the short chronology hypothesis places their arrival between about 45,000 and 50,000 years ago. Either date is, of course, utterly incompatible with the childish notion of magical creation just 6,000-10,000 years ago. And unlike geochronological dating methods, which creationists routinely dismiss as fraudulent, flawed or unreliable whenever the results embarrass them, this evidence comes from genetic analysis of mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA). Because mtDNA is inherited through the female line, it can be used to reconstruct maternal ancestry in remarkable detail.

Creationism Refuted - A Possible Ancestor Of All The Apes - From Egypt

Masripithecus moghraensis in Early Miocene Egypt

AI-generated image (ChatGPT Latest) based on artist's reconstruction.

Masripithecus: A new Miocene ape from Egypt sheds light on the origins of modern apes

Another piece of the rich and complex story of human evolution may have come to light, and it is not quite what researchers had expected. Competing theories have placed the ancestral home of the common ancestor of African and Asian anthropoid apes either in Eurasia or in Africa. This discovery, however, points instead to Egypt, and more broadly to North Africa and the Middle East, as the region in which the pivotal transition from Old World monkeys to the lineage that gave rise to the modern apes may have occurred.

News that this distant ancestor of humans came from Egypt and the wider Middle East may briefly gladden the hearts of creationists desperate for support for the biblical myth of a special creation of humans in that region. That enthusiasm is unlikely to survive contact with the details, however, because this animal lived 17–18 million years ago and was not a human at all, but part of the lineage leading to the common ancestor of humans, chimpanzees, gorillas and the Asian apes. Like so much palaeontological evidence, it therefore stands not in support of the Genesis creation myth, but as evidence for Darwinian evolution.

The discovery is described in a recent paper in Science by a research team from the Mansoura University Vertebrate Paleontology Center in Egypt and the University of Southern California in the USA, led by Mansoura University palaeontologist Hesham Sallam.

The fossil, belonging to a species the team have named Masripithecus moghraensis, was discovered at Wadi Moghra. The generic name combines Masri, the Arabic word for “Egyptian”, with the Greek píthēkos, meaning “ape”, so the name can be read as “Egyptian ape from Moghra”.

Although the find consists only of a lower jaw, it preserves several features not seen in any contemporaneous apes, including exceptionally large canine and premolar teeth, and molars with rounded, heavily textured chewing surfaces, all set in a robust mandible. Taken together, these features suggest a flexible feeder able to eat both fruit and harder foods such as nuts, an adaptation that may have helped it cope with the increasingly seasonal climate of Early Miocene Egypt.

In addition to the sophisticated Bayesian methods that placed Masripithecus earlier in ape evolutionary history than any other known fossil anthropoid, the researchers point out that during the Early Miocene the Egyptian region lay at a geographical crossroads between Eurasia and Africa. At that time, the African and Arabian plates were still moving northwards towards Eurasia, while fluctuating sea levels periodically opened migration routes between the continents. As so often in palaeontology, multiple independent lines of evidence converge on the same conclusion.

Refuting Creationism - Observed Rapid Evolution

Biologists in Europe, the Middle East and U.S. planted 360 small plots of Arabidopsis (above) in various types of climates — from alpine to desert — and left them for five years to evolve or die.

Artist: Emma Vidal
for Moisés Expósito-Alonso/
UC Berkeley

White-flowering Arabidopsis growing in sand at a beach near the Baltic sea. The plant, a member of the mustard family, grows in a broad range of climates, from alpine to desert, and is commonly used in genetic experiments in the lab.

Moisés Expósito-Alonso/UC Berkeley

One-of-a-kind experiment tracked plant evolution in response to climate change at 30 sites worldwide - Berkeley News

You won’t need to spend long on a creationist social media site before someone demands evidence of “observed evolution”, only to shift the goalposts the moment you provide exactly that: measurable changes in allele frequencies within a population in response to environmental change. At that point, they usually abandon the scientific definition of evolution and retreat instead to one of their childish caricatures of it — one species suddenly turning into an unrelated taxon, new structures appearing overnight, or, most absurdly of all, unable to let go of the arrogant assumption that the entire universe has a single purpose - to produce them - a bacterium somehow “becoming human”, as though evolution had a preordained anthropocentric goal.

So we can predict with some confidence how creationists will react to news that science has now published precisely the sort of evidence they keep demanding. In a paper published on 26 March 2026 in the journal Science, a team led by Assistant Professor Moisés Expósito-Alonso of the University of California, Berkeley, reported the results of a remarkable outdoor evolution experiment designed to measure how quickly plants can adapt to changing climates. The researchers planted genetically diverse populations of the common laboratory plant Arabidopsis thaliana across 30 climate zones in Western Europe, the Mediterranean, the Middle East and North America, ranging from the snowy Alps to the heat of the Negev Desert, and tracked the evolutionary changes over five years.

Of course, the purpose of the experiment was not to “test” the Theory of Evolution. Evolutionary theory was the framework on which the entire study was built and by which the results were interpreted. The aim was to observe evolution in real time and discover how quickly plant populations can adapt to climate change — and where the limits of that adaptive capacity may lie.

An early analysis of the first three years of genomic data — covering 12 plots at each of the 30 sites, 360 experiments in total — showed that most populations evolved rapidly in response to their new environments. In many locations, similar genetic changes appeared repeatedly, exactly as one would expect when natural selection favours variants suited to local conditions. In the hottest environments, however, the pattern was different: although some populations showed genetic change, it appeared chaotic rather than predictably adaptive, and these populations subsequently went extinct.

If this pattern proves typical of other plant species, it is deeply concerning, because rising global temperatures are precisely the conditions to which many plants will now need to adapt if they are to avoid climate-driven extinction. The study suggests that rapid adaptation is possible, but also that there may be a tipping point beyond which extreme heat pushes populations past an evolutionary breaking point.

Refuting Creationism - New Deep Ocean Species Discovered

Collage of the 24 new Amphipod species identified in Clarion-Clipperton Zone

Credit: National Oceanography Centre, Southampton

(A) Generalized body plan of a gammaridean amphipod, (B) Caprella equilibra, (C) family Corophiidae, and (D) Gammarus tigrinus.

Ritter, Carmen J.; Bourne, David G. (2024)[2]

Biodiversity Boost: 24 new deep-sea species discovered in major Pacific research | EurekAlert!

Among the Bible’s more obviously false claims is the one found in the second creation account, where God first creates Adam, then creates all the animals as “help meets” [sic] for him. In the earlier account, all the animals are created before Adam and Eve. In the revised version, however, none of the animals proves suitable for Adam, so God then creates Eve to be his “help meet”.

In virtually every depiction of Adam and Eve, however, both are shown with navels, implying placental reproduction rather than magical creation. Adam was also supposedly created with genitalia, although it is unclear what purpose these served before God created Eve, after his first attempt to provide Adam with companions had failed through, presumably, a lack of foresight.

Leaving aside the implausibility of that story, there is another major problem that creationists never address: if God created all the animals for the benefit of Adam and his descendants, over whom they were supposedly given dominion, why were so many of them hidden away in inaccessible places such as the deep ocean floor, where we are only now becoming aware of them?

For example, a team of 16 experts led by Dr Anna Jażdżewska of the University of Lodz (UL) and Tammy Horton of the National Oceanography Centre (NOC) have just announced the identification of 24 new species of amphipods found in the Clarion-Clipperton Zone (CCZ), a 6 million square kilometre region of the Pacific Ocean between Hawai'i and Mexico.

These new species comprise ten new families of predators and scavengers, including a new family (Mirabestiidae), a new superfamily (Mirabestioidea), and two new genera of predators and scavengers, Mirabestia and Pseudolepechinella.

These findings form part of the International Seabed Authority’s Sustainable Seabed Knowledge Initiative (SSKI), which aims to describe 1,000 new species by the end of the decade.

None of these species was known to humans until now, nor do they appear to provide us with any obvious benefit of the kind implied by the Bible’s claim that animals were created for human use. It is almost as though creationism’s creator god forgot what these species were supposedly for and slipped instead into a purposeless, automatic process of generating biodiversity for its own sake — much as biologists understand the undirected natural process of evolution to do.

Refuting Creationism - A Rhino From The Canadian Arctic - 23 Million Years Before 'Creation Week'

Artist’s recreation of Epiaceratherium itjilik, at its forested lake habitat, Devon Island, Early Miocene. The plants and animals shown are based on fossil finds at the site, including the transitional seal Puijila darwini.

© Julius Csotonyi

Fossil bones of Epiaceratherium itjilik. About 75% of the animal’s bones were recovered, including diagnostic bones such as the teeth, mandibles and parts of the cranium.

Pierre Poirier © Canadian Museum of Nature

A rhino from the Arctic - Canadian Museum of Nature

Another day, another incidental refutation of the childish biblical creation myth.

This one comes, as so many do, from scientists doing what scientists do best: uncovering the facts and following the evidence wherever it leads.

In this case, the evidence shows that a species of rhinoceros was living in the Canadian High Arctic about 23 million years ago. Even more significantly, the find suggests that rhinoceroses, once widespread across Eurasia and North America, crossed into North America far later than previously thought, by way of northern land connections that remained viable well into the Cenozoic.

Scientists from the Canadian Museum of Nature have just announced the discovery of the species they named Epiaceratherium itjilik in the journal Nature Ecology & Evolution.

The discovery creates problems for creationism on several fronts. Most obviously, its age places it far outside the tiny timescale permitted by creationist mythology. It also demolishes the notion that modern animal distributions can be explained by descent from a single surviving pair a mere 4,000 years ago, because no such recent land bridge existed to carry rhinoceroses into North America. Instead, the fossil fits neatly into the well-established evolutionary history of rhinos, which stretches back roughly 40 million years, and into the geological evidence for changing sea levels and intermittent northern land connections between Eurasia and North America. These independent lines of evidence converge for the simple reason that they describe what really happened.

The fossilised remains, representing about three-quarters of a skeleton, were recovered from the rich fossil deposits of Haughton Crater on Devon Island, Nunavut. The animal is now the northernmost rhinoceros species yet known, and its excellent preservation has given palaeontologists an unusually complete picture of this unexpected Arctic browser.

Refuting Creationism - Archaic Hominins In Spain - 390,000 Years Before 'Creation Week'

Homo antecessor working at the Gran Dolia butchery site

AI-generated image (ChatGPT Latest)

The Gran Dolina site at Atapuerca reveals an almost exclusive use of local chert 400,000 years ago | CENIEH

In stark contrast to the simplistic Bronze Age mythology of the Bible, in which all humanity is supposedly descended from a single magically created couple with no ancestors just a few thousand years ago, followed by a biological reset in a global genocidal flood a mere 4,000 years ago, archaeology continues to reveal a far richer and more complex human story. Instead of a single recent origin, the evidence shows a deep evolutionary history stretching back hundreds of thousands of years, involving multiple related human species and regional populations, with occasional interbreeding. Part of that long history was played out in Eurasia.

A study led by scientists from the Spanish Centro Nacional de Investigación sobre la Evolución Humana (CENIEH), just published in Quaternary International, has identified 400,000-year-old human artefacts at the Gran Dolina site in Atapuerca, Burgos, Spain, together with what may be the earliest evidence of communal hunting. The findings show the sophisticated manufacture of stone tools from locally available chert. The site is also associated with the remains of 60 bison, strongly suggesting a communal butchering site that implies strategic planning, cooperation, and large-scale social coordination.

What makes this especially striking is that these activities took place before the hominin lineage had diversified into Neanderthals, Denisovans, and modern humans. Taken together with other evidence from Atapuerca, including discoveries from Sima de los Huesos (‘Cave of Bones’), the findings indicate that archaic hominins such as Homo antecessor had established themselves in Iberia long before Homo sapiens entered Eurasia.

Refuting Creationism - A Reptile That Looks Like A Cross Between a Greyhound And A Crocodile - From 215 Million Years Ago

Life reconstruction of Galahadosuchus jonesi n. gen. n. sp. The morphology of regions of the body that are not currently known for Galahadosuchus jonesi (i.e., not preserved in NHMUK PV R 10002) is inferred from comparison with Terrestrisuchus gracilis (Spiekman et al., 2023, 2024) due to the high degree of morphological similarity between these two taxa. Scale bar represents 100 mm.

Artwork by M. Dempsey.

New species of ancient crocodile named in honour of Welsh school teacher | Natural History Museum

A newly named, 215-million-year-old species of crocodile-like reptile, discovered in Gloucestershire, UK, and described in The Anatomical Record, looks rather like the sort of creature creationists imagine a transitional fossil should be: half of one modern species and half of another from an unrelated group. That, of course, is the ridiculous parody of evolution that the creationist cult teaches its followers to believe is what those crazy scientists think the Theory of Evolution describes.

In reality, this discovery is nothing of the sort. What it actually reveals is a species that raises interesting questions about the environmental pressures that shaped its evolution. It was a long-legged, fast-running crocodylomorph, resembling a greyhound with scales and a crocodile’s head and jaws. It probably lived its entire life on land, using its speed to hunt small animals. That, in turn, suggests its prey were also fast-moving, rather like the relationship between cheetahs and gazelles, which have co-evolved speed in an evolutionary arms race: one to catch fast prey, the other to escape a fast predator. It is exactly the sort of process that refutes the notion of intelligent design, yet is entirely predictable under the Theory of Evolution by natural selection.

This animal lived in what was then an area of high ground overlooking hot, arid plains during the Late Triassic. That was a period of major diversification, brought to an end by a mass extinction caused by intense volcanic activity. It was followed by the Jurassic, so comparing animals from before and after that extinction event can help us understand how life responded to those dramatic environmental changes. Among the creatures that survived were the ancestors of the dinosaurs, and later, birds and mammals.

The research team, led by PhD student Ewart H. Bodenham of University College London, with colleagues from UCL, the Natural History Museum, London, and the Staatliches Museum für Naturkunde Stuttgart, Germany, carried out a detailed analysis of this and other fossils from fissure deposits on either side of the Bristol Channel, in South Wales and South-West England. They concluded that this specimen represented a species new to science.

Unintelligent Design - Men Lose Their Y Chromosome - And Why It Matters

Men lose their Y chromosome as they age. Scientists thought it didn’t matter – but now we’re learning more

Creationists who point to the supposed 'perfection' of the human body as evidence of intelligent design have yet more evidence to ignore if they are to retain that belief. In my book, The Body of Evidence: How the Human Body Refutes Intelligent Design, I listed many of the conditions and vulnerabilities from which humans suffer precisely because our bodies are the products of evolution, not intelligent design. Viewed objectively, rather than through the rose-tinted lens of creationism, the human body is one of the strongest arguments against intelligent design and in favour of evolution.

We now have additional evidence of this. As men age, increasing numbers of their cells lose the Y chromosome — the chromosome that males normally possess alongside a single X chromosome, while females usually have two X chromosomes. It is becoming increasingly clear that this loss is implicated in several diseases that affect men disproportionately, including cardiovascular disease, Parkinsonism, and some cancers such as ocular melanoma. Together, these help to explain men's lower life expectancy.

According to the ID creationist paradigm, the human body is the supreme achievement of their god's design. So, if we assume, as they do, that this designer is the omniscient and omnibenevolent god of the Bible and Qur'an, then this male-specific vulnerability must either have been intended or be the accidental result of incompetence and lack of foresight. Traditionally, of course, ID creationists try to absolve their designer of responsibility for such flaws by blaming them on some other entity supposedly capable of thwarting the divine plan, with humans bearing the guilt because of the 'sin' of a mythical ancestral couple. This merely exposes Intelligent Design for what it really is: not science, as the Discovery Institute and its allies insist, but biblical literalism in a lab coat, forced to rely on fundamentalist superstition to explain away the failures of its own claims when the facts are examined.

How scientists are discovering this age-related loss of the Y chromosome in men's cells, and the damaging effects it has on male health, is the subject of an article in The Conversation by the distinguished geneticist Jenny Graves, Distinguished Professor of Genetics and Vice-Chancellor's Fellow at La Trobe University, Australia. Her article is reproduced here under a Creative Commons licence, reformatted for stylistic consistency.

First, some background information on the origins and function of the Y chromosome: