Refuting Creationism - Why T. Rex Evolved Tiny Arms - No Intelligence Involved

Why meat-eating dinosaurs like T. rex evolved tiny arms | UCL

Although they may have retained some residual function, what the forelimbs of Tyrannosaurus rex were almost certainly not used for was grabbing and holding large prey. They were far too short and mechanically limited for that role, especially in a predator whose real killing equipment was a massive skull, powerful jaws and bone-crushing bite. So, creationists need to explain why an intelligent designer would have equipped one of the most formidable predators ever to walk the Earth with such apparently inadequate little arms in the first place.

These apparent design failures are, of course, entirely understandable as the result of an evolutionary process operating over deep time. Just such an explanation has now been proposed by three researchers from University College London (UCL) and the University of Cambridge, who have published their findings in Proceedings of the Royal Society B. It almost goes without saying that their explanation is an application of the Theory of Evolution, with no suggestion that the authors are about to abandon it in favour of creationism — as creationists have been confidently predicting for the best part of half a century, despite the singular lack of any peer-reviewed scientific movement in that direction.

The researchers found a strong association between the evolution of large, robust skulls and the reduction of forelimbs in several groups of non-avian theropod dinosaurs. In other words, the tiny arms of T. rex were not merely a side-effect of the whole body becoming larger. They were more closely linked to the evolution of powerful heads and jaws, suggesting a shift in hunting strategy in which the skull became the principal weapon and the forelimbs became less important.

The authors are careful to point out that correlation does not prove causation. But the pattern is consistent with an evolutionary arms race in which large predatory dinosaurs increasingly relied on massive skulls and crushing bites to tackle large prey, rather than on grasping forelimbs. As lead author Charlie Roger Scherer put it, trying to grab and hold a huge herbivorous dinosaur with claws would not have been ideal; attacking and holding with the jaws may have been far more effective.

For their study, the researchers developed a new way to quantify skull robustness, using factors such as how tightly the bones of the skull were connected, the compactness of the skull, and bite force. On this measure, T. rex scored highest, followed by Tyrannotitan, a large South American theropod that lived more than 30 million years earlier.

The study also showed that forelimb reduction evolved independently in at least five theropod groups: tyrannosaurids, abelisaurids, carcharodontosaurids, megalosaurids and ceratosaurids. That makes this a case of convergent evolution: different lineages arriving at a similar anatomical result because similar selective pressures favoured a similar functional solution.

The evolutionary sequence is straightforward in this case: as the prey became larger so the jaw and skull needed to become larger to kill and consume the prey. The mouth then became the primary means of gripping and killing the prey and the forelimbs, which are not needed for locomotion, became increasingly redundant but liable to injury, so there was an advantage in reducing their size. The fact that there was convergence in different lineages, is strongly suggestive that this mechanism evolved for the same reasons, multiple times.

The Evolution of the Tyrannosaurs. Tyrannosaurus rex was not the starting point of the tyrannosaur story, but one of its final and most extreme products. The wider group, Tyrannosauroidea, had a long evolutionary history stretching back into the Middle Jurassic, more than 100 million years before T. rex. For much of that time, tyrannosauroids were not gigantic apex predators, but mostly small to medium-sized, lightly built theropods living alongside, and often in the shadow of, other large carnivorous dinosaurs.[1]

Early tyrannosauroids included animals such as Proceratosaurus from Jurassic Britain and Guanlong from Jurassic China. These were not simply miniature versions of T. rex. Some had crests, longer arms and more generalised predatory bodies. Their importance lies in showing that tyrannosaurs did not appear suddenly as fully formed, giant, short-armed killing machines. The famous late Cretaceous body plan was assembled gradually, piece by piece, over tens of millions of years.[1,2]

Several Early Cretaceous tyrannosauroids also show how different the early members of the group were from their later descendants. Dilong paradoxus, from China, was small and gracile, with relatively long arms and three-fingered hands. It also preserved evidence of filamentous protofeathers, showing that at least some early tyrannosauroids were not the purely scaly monsters of older popular reconstructions.[3]

The discovery of Yutyrannus huali, also from Early Cretaceous China, pushed that point further. This was a much larger tyrannosauroid, yet it too preserved long filamentous feathers. That does not prove that an adult T. rex was fully feathered, and skin impressions from later tyrannosaurids suggest at least some scaly areas. But it does show that feathers were part of the wider tyrannosauroid evolutionary background, not an irrelevant bird-like novelty.[4]

By the Late Cretaceous, especially in Asia and western North America, tyrannosaurids had become the dominant large predators. Genera such as Albertosaurus, Gorgosaurus, Daspletosaurus, Tarbosaurus and Tyrannosaurus show the familiar trend towards massive skulls, powerful jaws, thick teeth, strong hind limbs, keen senses and reduced forelimbs. This was not a single act of design, but a long evolutionary sequence in which the skull and jaws increasingly took over the role of subduing prey.[1,5]

Recent work has added further detail to this picture. In 2025, researchers described Khankhuuluu mongoliensis, a Mongolian tyrannosauroid from the lower Upper Cretaceous, as a form close to the origin of Eutyrannosauria — the group that includes the large, late Cretaceous tyrannosaurs. Their analysis suggests a complex history of dispersal between Asia and North America, with tyrannosaur evolution involving migration, ecological opportunity and divergent growth patterns, rather than a simple straight-line progression from small ancestor to giant descendant.[6]

So the tiny arms of T. rex are not an isolated oddity needing to be excused as good design. They are part of a broader evolutionary pattern in which tyrannosaurs changed from relatively small, long-armed predators into large, skull-dominated apex predators. The result looks puzzling if imagined as the work of a designer starting from scratch, but it makes sense as the outcome of descent with modification, changing ecological pressures, and the evolutionary reworking of inherited anatomy.

The publication in Proceedings of the Royal Society B is accompanied by a news release from UCL.

Why meat-eating dinosaurs like T. rex evolved tiny arms

---

The evolution of tiny arms in several groups of meat-eating dinosaurs was likely driven by the development of strong, powerful heads, which were used to attack prey, according to a new study led by researchers at UCL and Cambridge University.

---

The study, published in the journal Proceedings of the Royal Society B, looked at data for 82 species of theropod (two-legged, mainly meat-eating dinosaurs), finding that shortening of forelimbs occurred across five groups, including tyrannosaurids, the family that included Tyrannosaurus rex.

The team, including Dr Elizabeth Steell at Cambridge and Professor Paul Upchurch at UCL, found that smaller arms were closely linked to the development of large, powerful skulls and jaws, more so than to larger overall body size, indicating that tiny arms were not just a by-product of bodies getting bigger.

The researchers suggested that the increasing size of prey, in the form of gigantic sauropods (long-necked, long-tailed plant-eaters) and other large herbivores, may have resulted in a shift to hunting using jaws and head instead of claws.

Everyone knows the T. rex had tiny arms but other giant theropod dinosaurs also evolved relatively small forelimbs. The Carnotaurus had ridiculously tiny arms, smaller than the T. rex. We sought to understand what was driving this change and found a strong relationship between short arms and large, powerfully built heads. The head took over from the arms as the method of attack. It’s a case of ‘use it or lose it’ – the arms are no longer useful and reduce in size over time. These adaptations often occurred in areas with gigantic prey. Trying to pull and grab at a 100ft-long sauropod with your claws is not ideal. Attacking and holding on with the jaws might have been more effective.

While our study identifies correlations and so cannot establish cause and effect, it is highly likely that strongly built skulls came before shorter forelimbs. It would not make evolutionary sense for it to occur the other way round, and for these predators to give up their attack mechanism without having a back-up.

Charlie Roger Scherer, lead author.
Department of Earth Sciences
University College London
London, UK.

For the study, researchers developed a new way to quantify skull robustness, based on factors including how tightly connected the bones of the head were, the dimensions of the skull (a more compact shape is stronger than an elongated shape), and bite force.

On this measure, the T. rex scored highest, followed by the Tyrannotitan, a theropod nearly as massive as T. rex who lived in what is now Argentina in the Early Cretaceous period (more than 30 million years earlier than T. rex).

The team said that increasingly gigantic prey may have resulted in an “evolutionary arms race”, where theropods developed strong skulls and jaws to better subdue this prey, and in many cases grew to gigantic sizes themselves.

Separately, the team compared forelimb length to skull length, classifying five groups of dinosaurs as having reduced forelimbs: tyrannosaurids, abelisaurids, carcharodontosaurids (including the Tyrannotitan), megalosaurids and ceratosaurids.

They found reduced forelimbs had a stronger link with skull robustness than with skull size or overall body size. The secondary importance of overall body size was illustrated by the fact that some theropods with strongly built heads and tiny arms were not very large, the researchers said, citing the Majungasaurus, an apex predator in Madagascar 70 million years ago, but weighing a mere 1.6 tonnes, about a fifth of the T. rex.

The researchers noted that the forelimbs appeared to reduce in size in different ways, with hands and the lower part of the arm (past the elbow) shortening the most in abelisaurids (with late abelisaurids such as the Majungasaurus having exceptionally tiny hands). In tyrannosaurids, on the other hand, each element of the forelimb was reduced at a similar rate.

The team concluded that the same outcome (tiny forelimbs) was likely achieved through potentially different developmental pathways in different species.

A team of five academics work on different aspects of dinosaur evolution at UCL, with strong collaborative links to the Natural History Museum. The extended research group comprises four research fellows and postdoc researchers, and more than 10 PhD students. At least four of the PhD students are working on dinosaur evolution, with the others looking at a wider array of other evolutionary questions relating to vertebrates, including crocodiles and birds.

Publication:

Charlie Roger Scherer, Elizabeth Steell, Paul Upchurch
Drivers and mechanisms of convergent forelimb reduction in non-avian theropod dinosaurs. Proc Biol Sci 1 May 2026; 293 (2071): 20260528. https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2026.0528

Abstract
Forelimb reduction has been observed in numerous and disparate non-avian theropod dinosaurs, resulting in the hypothesis that reduced forelimbs evolved convergently. Clades with reduced forelimbs also possess high degrees of cranial robusticity and gigantic body sizes. Here, we provide a novel quantification of forelimb reduction across Theropoda, and create and implement a cranial robusticity scoring system, and analyse this dataset using bivariate and comparative phylogenetic analyses. Results indicate that forelimb reduction is strongly correlated with cranial robusticity and gigantism. Reduced/vestigial forelimbs evolved in at least five theropod lineages in concert with increased cranial robusticity and gigantism. Abelisaurids, carcharodontosaurids and tyrannosaurids show the greatest forelimb reduction relative to the skull. Repeated forelimb reduction across theropods was facilitated by increased cranial robusticity and greater body size that was potentially influenced by an upward trend in prey body size. These events resulted in a shift from subduing prey using grasping forelimbs to using powerful bites and robust skulls.

Charlie Roger Scherer, Elizabeth Steell, Paul Upchurch
Drivers and mechanisms of convergent forelimb reduction in non-avian theropod dinosaurs. Proc Biol Sci 1 May 2026; 293 (2071): 20260528. https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2026.0528

Copyright: © 2026 The authors.
Published by The Royal Society. Open access.
Reprinted under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International license (CC BY 4.0)

So the famously tiny arms of Tyrannosaurus rex are not an embarrassment for evolutionary biology; they are exactly the sort of thing evolution explains. They are the result of history, contingency and trade-offs: inherited anatomy being modified over time as natural selection favoured a different way of killing prey. As the skull became larger, stronger and more effective as the main predatory weapon, the forelimbs became less important, and so there was no evolutionary pressure to maintain them as large, powerful grasping organs.

That is why this feature is so difficult to explain as the work of an intelligent designer. A designer starting from scratch could simply have produced an animal with both a massive, bone-crushing skull and proportionately useful forelimbs, or dispensed with the arms altogether. Instead, what we see is the familiar evolutionary pattern: not perfect engineering, but modified inheritance; not clean-sheet design, but anatomical compromise shaped by changing selection pressures.

Creationism has no scientific explanation for this. It can only wave the problem away by declaring, without evidence, that the tiny arms must have had some unknown purpose, or that the designer’s motives are beyond human understanding. But that is not an explanation; it is an excuse for not having one. It predicts nothing, explains nothing, and adds nothing to our understanding of tyrannosaur biology.

The Theory of Evolution, by contrast, not only explains why such apparently odd features exist, but also provides a framework in which they can be tested. The prediction is that similar ecological and functional pressures should produce similar anatomical trends in separate lineages — and that is exactly what this study found. Forelimb reduction evolved independently in several theropod groups, associated not with divine whim, but with the repeated evolution of large, robust skulls and powerful jaws.

In other words, the tiny arms of T. rex are not a mystery for science; they are evidence of evolution doing what evolution does — adapting existing structures to changing circumstances, often imperfectly, always historically, and never with the foresight or tidiness that intelligent design would require. Once again, the evidence fits the evolutionary model and leaves creationism with nothing more substantial than incredulity, special pleading and the hope that no one looks too closely.

---

Advertisement

Amazon

Amazon

Amazon

Amazon

Amazon

Amazon

Amazon

Amazon

Amazon

Amazon

Amazon

Amazon

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

Prices correct at time of publication. for current prices.

Advertisement

Thank you for sharing!

Tweet Link

Refuting Creationism - Europe's Most Complete Stegosauria Skull - From 150 Million Years Before 'Creation Week'

Illustration of Dacentrurus armatus.

Adrián Blázquez / Fundación Dinópolis.

Europe’s most complete stegosaurian skull unearthed in Teruel, Spain | Pensoft.blog

Another day, another dinosaur. At least, that must be how it feels to creationists trying to cling to demonstrably false beliefs by ignoring the evidence and pretending each new discovery is either a mistake, a fraud, or a sinister attempt by scientists to undermine their faith.

This time the problem comes from Teruel, Spain, where palaeontologists from the Fundación Conjunto Paleontológico de Teruel-Dinópolis have described an exceptionally well-preserved partial skull of a stegosaurian dinosaur from the Late Jurassic Villar del Arzobispo Formation, dating to about 150 million years ago. Their results, published in May 2025 in the Pensoft journal Vertebrate Zoology, identify the fossil as belonging to Dacentrurus armatus, and as the most complete stegosaurian skull yet found in Europe.

That matters because stegosaurian skulls are notoriously rare. Their bones were fragile, and the animals’ skulls were small compared with their heavily built bodies, so cranial material is much less commonly preserved than vertebrae, limb bones, plates or tail spikes. A skull as complete as this one is therefore not just another fossil for a museum drawer, but a valuable piece of anatomical evidence for understanding how these plated, quadrupedal herbivores evolved.

Using this specimen, the researchers were able to refine the known anatomy of Dacentrurus armatus and reassess the evolutionary relationships of stegosaurs more generally. Their analysis supports the division of Stegosauria into two major clades, Huayangosauridae and Stegosauridae, and they formalise a further grouping, Neostegosauria, to include later-diverging stegosaurids. In other words, one skull from Spain helps clarify not only a single European dinosaur species, but the wider evolutionary history and geographical spread of the iconic plated dinosaurs.

If nothing else, work such as this illustrates how science treats a new discovery: not as a threat to be denied, explained away or forced into conformity with dogma, but as additional evidence to be tested against existing knowledge. Where necessary, classifications are revised, hypotheses are adjusted, and understanding moves a little closer to reality.

Creationism, by contrast, starts with the conclusion and then tries to make the evidence fit. Science starts with the evidence and changes the conclusion when the evidence demands it. That is why a 150-million-year-old stegosaur skull from Spain is a contribution to human knowledge, not a theological inconvenience to be waved away.

Creationism Refuted - A Giant, Intelligent Predatory Octopus - 100 Million Years Before 'Creation Week'

A sketch of the giant octopus.

Image: Yohei Utsuki
Department of Earth and Planetary Sciences
Hokkaido University.

Giant octopuses may have ruled the oceans 100 million years ago – Hokkaido University

To a conspiracy-theorist creationist who sees science as an organised plot to trick them into changing their mind, it must seem that the whole world and its dog are ganging up on them. The “conspiracy” has now spread to a team of researchers led by Shin Ikegami of Hokkaido University, Japan, who have announced the discovery of fossilised jaws of giant octopuses that may have been apex predators in Late Cretaceous seas, about 100 million years before creationism’s mythical “Creation Week”. Some of these animals may have reached nearly 20 metres in length, making them among the largest invertebrates yet described.

To a creationist, apparently, it is more plausible to believe that a god self-assembled out of nothing, then made an entire universe out of nothing by magic just a few thousand years ago, than to accept that Earth and life on it are the result of long, slow, scientifically demonstrable natural processes. So, when the evidence says otherwise, the evidence must somehow be forged, misrepresented or misunderstood. Besides, Bronze Age people who thought the world was flat, with a solid dome over it, said so — and what better evidence could there be than that?

What the team of researchers from several Japanese research institutions, together with Jörg Mutterlose of Ruhr University Bochum, Germany, discovered was recently published in Science. Using high-resolution grinding tomography and an artificial intelligence model, they identified fossil jaws hidden inside rock samples from the Late Cretaceous period. The fossils, from Japan and Vancouver Island, date from between about 100 and 72 million years ago. They had been preserved in calm seafloor sediments, retaining fine details, including wear marks that reveal how these animals fed.

Based on the size and shape of the jaws, the researchers estimate that some of these extinct finned octopuses, especially Nanaimoteuthis haggarti, may have reached nearly 20 metres in total length. Their jaws show heavy chipping, scratching, cracking and polishing, consistent with repeated forceful biting into hard prey such as shells, bones or other resistant material. These were not passive, soft-bodied animals drifting harmlessly through the Cretaceous seas; they appear to have been powerful, active predators, competing in ecosystems otherwise assumed to have been dominated by large marine reptiles and sharks.

One especially intriguing finding was asymmetrical wear on the jaws. In two species, one side of the biting surface was more heavily worn than the other, suggesting that these animals may have favoured one side when handling difficult prey. This sort of behavioural lateralisation is associated in modern animals with complex neural processing, raising the possibility that advanced predatory behaviour, and perhaps a degree of intelligence, had already evolved in these early octopus relatives. The discovery also pushes the fossil record of finned octopuses back by about 15 million years, and the broader octopus record by about 5 million years.

Refuting Creationism - Multiple Origins Of The Japanese People

A mask depicting Aterui 'Lord of Tamo', a famous Emishi chief from the ancient Tohoku District in Japan. The Emishi people from north-east Asia have been identified as a possible third main ancestral group in Japan.

© Avalon.red / Alamy Stock Photo

Geographic regions in Japan from which the samples were recruited are described. These regions include the Japan archipelago, commonly known as Hondo, and the Ryukyu archipelago, which is termed as Okinawa in this study.

From: Xiaoxi Liu et al (2024).

DNA study challenges thinking on ancestry of people in Japan | RIKEN

In my previous post, I showed how scientists, unlike creationists, can and do change their minds when the facts change, using the example of revised dates for the repopulation of the post-glacial British Isles. In this post, I will use another example: a recent revision in our understanding of the origins of the population of the Japanese archipelago.

It had long been believed that a two-part model could largely explain modern Japanese people: indigenous Jomon hunter–gatherer–fishers and later migrants from continental East Asia, associated with rice farming and the cultural transformations that followed. However, whole-genome analysis of 3,256 people from across Japan has shown that the picture is more complex.

The new study identified three major ancestral components: Jomon, East Asian, and a north-east Asian component, most strongly represented in north-eastern Japan and possibly connected with the historical Emishi people. The study was conducted by researchers from RIKEN’s Center for Integrative Medical Sciences. RIKEN is Japan’s National Research and Development Agency and its leading national comprehensive research institute. The research was published, open access, in April 2024 in Science Advances.

The fact that the population history of the Japanese archipelago is best explained by multiple ancestral components, regional structure, migration and admixture is, of course, utterly incompatible with the childish creation and global flood genocide of Bible mythology. It is not a history of people magically created without ancestry, followed by a population reset from a single family of flood survivors. It is the history of an evolved species, carrying in its DNA the record of earlier populations, migrations, interbreeding and selection.

Nor was that the only embarrassing finding for creationists. The researchers also identified DNA inherited from archaic humans, including Neanderthals and Denisovans, in modern Japanese genomes. Some of these introgressed segments are medically relevant. For example, a Denisovan-derived region within the NKX6-1 gene is associated with type 2 diabetes and may influence sensitivity to semaglutide, a drug used to treat the condition. The researchers also identified 11 Neanderthal-derived segments associated with conditions including coronary artery disease, prostate cancer, rheumatoid arthritis and four other diseases. By way of comparison, the RIKEN article also notes earlier research showing that a Neanderthal-inherited cluster on chromosome 3, present in roughly half of all South Asians, is linked to a higher risk of respiratory failure and other severe effects of Covid-19.

In other words, the genomes of modern Japanese people, like the genomes of all modern human populations, contain the traces of real ancestry: migration, admixture, archaic introgression, natural selection and inherited vulnerabilities. This is exactly the sort of messy, contingent history that evolution predicts, and exactly the opposite of what creationists need if their mythology is to be treated as real history.

Refuting Creationism - Rapidly-Evolving Cacti

The phylogeny (V1), showing estimated speciation rate variation in one method (BAMM).

Thompson, J.B., Martinez, C., Avaria-Llautureo, J. et al. (2026)

The cactus on your desk is an evolution speed machine - University of Reading

Contrary to half a century of creationist assurances that biologists are about to abandon ‘Darwinism’ and adopt creationism, two biologists from the School of Biological Sciences, University of Reading, UK, have done what scientists actually do: they used evolutionary theory to investigate why cacti have speciated so rapidly. Their conclusion was not that supernatural magic was involved, but that the tempo of evolution itself appears to be a major factor.

Taking their cue from a line of thinking that goes back to Charles Darwin’s work on orchids — including his famous prediction that a then unknown moth, with an exceptionally long proboscis would be found to pollinate a highly specialised Madagascan orchid (subsequently discovered and named Xanthopan praedicta) — botanists had reason to expect cactus diversification to follow a similar pattern. If specialised flowers drive speciation, then cactus speciation should correlate with flower length, especially where long, tubular flowers are associated with particular pollinators.

But that is not what Dr Jamie B. Thompson and Professor Chris Venditti found. They studied flower-length data for more than 750 cactus species in 107 genera, covering a 185-fold range in size, from just 2 mm to 37 cm. Despite that extraordinary variation, flower length itself was only weakly related to how fast cactus lineages split into new species. What mattered was not having a particular flower size, but how rapidly floral morphology — measured here through flower length — was evolving. In other words, faster-speciating cacti had faster-evolving flowers. Their findings have recently been published in the Royal Society’s Biology Letters.

The research was made possible by a new Open Access database called CactEcoDB, created by Jamie Thompson and ten colleagues. This database brings together cactus traits, spatial distributions, environmental variables, range estimates, speciation rates and evolutionary relationships for more than 1,000 cactus species. The result is a major new resource for studying cactus ecology, evolution, biogeography and conservation, and reflects seven years of work compiling and checking data on one of the world’s most distinctive and threatened plant families.

Creationism Refuted - A Possible Human Population Bottleneck - 64,000 Years Before 'Creation Week'

Toba supereruption

AI-generated image (ChatGPT 5.4 Thinking)

An Impression of the Toba Supereruption, 74,000 Years Ago

AI-generated image (ChatGPT 5.4 Thinking)

A massive eruption 74,000 years ago affected the whole planet – archaeologists use volcanic glass to figure out how people survived

Mount Toba in the lake formed in the volcanic caldera

Sometimes, religion can be right, but, as Sam Harris has pointed out, when it is right, it is right by accident. Religious beliefs are not based on testable evidence, predictive models or a willingness to be corrected by facts; they amount to little more than inherited guesses, protected from scrutiny by faith. In the loosest possible sense, creationist stories of a tiny ancestral human population contain an accidental echo of a real scientific idea: human ancestry includes bottlenecks, founder effects and periods when populations were small and vulnerable.

But that is where the similarity ends. There was no global flood a few thousand years ago, no ark, no family of eight repopulating the world, and no magic reset of human history in the Bronze Age Middle East. One of the real events sometimes discussed in this context occurred about 74,000 years ago, when the Toba volcano, in what is now Sumatra, Indonesia, produced one of the largest eruptions of the last 2.5 million years. The eruption ejected an estimated 672 cubic miles, or about 2,800 cubic kilometres, of volcanic material into the atmosphere, with the potential to darken skies, cool the climate and devastate ecosystems close to the volcano. [1]

For some years, this gave rise to the Toba catastrophe hypothesis: the idea that the eruption caused a volcanic winter and drove the human population down to fewer than 10,000 individuals. That would have been a dramatic genetic bottleneck, and it is easy to see why it attracted attention. However, the link between Toba and a species-wide human near-extinction is still debated, and recent archaeological and environmental evidence has increasingly complicated, and in some cases weakened, the original claim. Human groups close to the eruption may well have been wiped out, but evidence from other regions suggests continuity, survival and adaptation rather than global extinction followed by repopulation from a tiny remnant. [2]

The more interesting scientific question, therefore, is not simply whether humanity was almost wiped out, but how different human populations coped with a major environmental shock. Like many catastrophic events, the Toba eruption would have imposed severe local and regional pressures. Those who survived would not have done so because they were specially created or divinely protected, but because some populations had the behavioural flexibility, social cooperation, tool use and ecological knowledge needed to adapt to rapidly changing conditions.

The evidence for the eruption and its possible effects on human evolution is discussed in an article in The Conversation by Jayde N. Hirniak, Ph.D. Candidate in Anthropology at the Institute of Human Origins, Arizona State University, USA. Her article is reproduced here under a Creative Commons licence:

Unintelligent Design - Newts Show Evolution Is About Compromise And Trade-Off

Paedomorph of Lissotriton helveticus

From Denoël, M., Mathiron, A.G., Baouch, S. et al (2026).

The aquatic paedomorph (of Lissotriton helveticus) (a) retains gills at the adult stage whereas the metamorph (b) is a metamorphosed adult that is adapted for life on land.

Photographs by M. Denoël.
From Oromi, N., Michaux, J. & Denoël (2016)

The cost of metamorphosis in amphibians

A paper recently published in BMC Biology on metamorphosis in the palmate newt, Lissotriton helveticus, illustrates something creationists rarely acknowledge: evolution is not a process of perfection, but of compromise. Adaptations come with costs as well as benefits, and the balance between the two can be so finely poised that it varies not only between environments, but even between the sexes of the same species.

For any creationist who understands the subject, that should be disturbing, because it is not what creation by an omnipotent, omniscient designer should lead them to expect. A designer supposedly capable of creating a universe from nothing should have no difficulty creating a benefit without a penalty attached. Yet, throughout nature, we see trade-offs, constraints and compromises — exactly what we should expect from an unintelligent, natural process working with what already exists, not from a perfect designer producing optimal solutions from scratch.

The paper, by Mathieu Denoël, Anthony G. E. Mathiron and Sarah Baouch, from the University of Liège, Belgium, with Jean-Paul Lena, from Université Claude Bernard Lyon 1, France, shows that metamorphosis in the palmate newt carries a measurable cost in the form of weight loss, with likely consequences for survival and reproductive fitness. In this species, metamorphosis is facultative — in other words, optional depending on environmental conditions. Some individuals retain their gills and aquatic lifestyle into reproductive adulthood, a condition known as paedomorphosis, while others undergo metamorphosis, lose their gills, and become capable of leaving the water for a terrestrial phase before returning to breed.

Metamorphosis has usually been regarded in terms of its advantages: it allows an animal to exploit different habitats and escape deteriorating aquatic conditions, such as falling water levels. But the Liège-led team has shown that this transition is not free. By experimentally manipulating water level and temperature in 80 adult paedomorphic palmate newts, and tracking individual body mass over 85 days, the researchers found that newts which metamorphosed lost significant weight, whereas those which remained paedomorphic did not show net weight loss. The weight loss was not simply the result of bodily reorganisation; the metamorphosing newts also reduced their food intake, even when food was freely available.

The study also found an important sex difference. Females began losing weight earlier, lost more weight overall, and completed metamorphosis later than males. This supports the so-called “male escape hypothesis”, which suggests that males may be more likely to metamorphose in natural populations because the transition is proportionally less costly for them. For females, remaining aquatic and paedomorphic may often be the less costly option.

So, far from showing the work of a designer optimising every feature for the benefit of the organism, the palmate newt shows the messy reality of evolution: alternative developmental pathways, each with advantages and disadvantages, shaped by environmental pressure, reproductive strategy, energy reserves and sex-specific costs. It is exactly the sort of compromise-laden system that evolutionary biology predicts — and exactly the sort of system intelligent design has to explain away.

Creationism Refuted - A Common Protist In An Oxford Pond Refutes Common Design

A ciliated protist, Oligohymenophorea, found in an Oxford pond, has a unique genetic code.

The end of genes: routine test reveals unique divergence in genetic code | Earlham Institute

When working as a Senior Medical Research Technician for Oxford University, one of my pleasures on a sunny Summer day was to take a lunch break walking in the University Parks with colleagues, where we could watch first class cricket free, or, more interestingly, explore the ponds and banks of the Cherwell. Little did we know that almost 60 years later, an organism living in one of those ponds would yield up such compelling evidence that life is the result of an evolutionary process, with no evidence of divine intervention.

Creationists often cite the near-universality of the genetic code as evidence of a single designer using the same system for all life. Of course, the more obvious scientific explanation is common ancestry: all living organisms inherited the same basic translation system from a remote common ancestor, with later lineages modifying it in small but revealing ways. But even on creationist terms, the argument is a hostage to fortune, because if the same code supposedly points to the same designer, then differences in that code raise the obvious question: why would the same designer do the job in different ways?

That awkward question is neatly illustrated by research from the Earlham Institute, published in PLOS Genetics. The research concerns a single-celled ciliate, Oligohymenophorea sp. PL0344, found in a pond in Oxford University Parks, which has done something highly unusual with its genetic code. Codons that normally act as full stops in genes have been reassigned so that, instead of telling the cell to stop making a protein, they now code for amino acids.

This is not a trivial detail. The genetic code is the rulebook by which DNA and RNA sequences are translated into proteins. In most organisms, three particular codons act as stop signals, marking the end of a gene’s protein-coding sequence. Altering those signals might be expected to cause chaos, yet here is an organism in which evolution has tinkered with one of biology’s most fundamental systems and produced a viable alternative arrangement.

For creationists, this creates a familiar problem. The genetic code is invoked when it appears convenient to claim common design, but its exceptions are quietly ignored because they point instead to historical contingency, descent with modification, and evolutionary experimentation. Biology is not showing us the work of an omniscient engineer standardising a perfect system; it is showing us inherited systems being modified, repurposed and patched by evolution.

Creationism Refuted - 240 Million-Year-Old Giant Amphibian Fossil Found In A Wall

Reconstruction of Arenaerpeton supinatus, preying on Cleithrolepis granulata.

Reconstruction by José Vitor Silva.

Arenaerpeton supinatus

From Hart, L. J., et. al(2022).

Scientists name new species of giant amphibian found in retaining wall

As a child growing up in the North Oxfordshire countryside, and already deeply interested in all things to do with nature, one of my favourite ways of looking for fossils was to search the many dry-stone walls used as field boundaries in the area. Being made largely from sedimentary limestone, they often contained fossils of ancient marine molluscs. It would probably have given a creationist nightmares to find evidence of vanished seas in a field wall, but even that is modest compared with a fossil discovered in a slab intended for use in a garden retaining wall in New South Wales, Australia.

The slab was among stones obtained in the 1990s from a local NSW quarry by a retired chicken farmer who intended to use them to build a garden retaining wall. When he spotted the fossil, however, he donated the slab to the Australian Museum in Sydney. Decades later, Australian Museum palaeontologist Lachlan J. Hart, with colleagues from the University of New South Wales and the University of Washington, Seattle, identified it as the 240-million-year-old fossil of Arenaerpeton supinatus. The fossil preserves most of the skeleton and, unusually, even shows the outline of the animal’s skin. Their formal description was published in the Journal of Vertebrate Paleontology.

Arenaerpeton supinatus, meaning ‘supine sand creeper’, inhabited freshwater rivers in what is now the Sydney Basin during the Triassic Period, around 240 million years ago. It may have been one of the top predators in that environment, hunting ancient fish such as Cleithrolepis. Superficially, it resembled the modern Chinese giant salamander, but it was more heavily built and armed with powerful teeth, including a pair of fang-like tusks in the roof of its mouth.

Creationism Refuted - Butterfly Speciation - 180,000 Years Before 'Creation Week'

Top Heliconius elevatus
Left: Heliconius pardalinus   Right: Heliconius melpomene

Heliconius elevatus, a hybrid between Heliconius melpomene and Heliconius pardalinus

New butterfly species created 200,000 years ago by two species interbreeding - News and events, University of York

About 200,000 years ago, in the Amazon rainforest of South America, something happened that creationists claim cannot happen. Not only did it happen long before the world existed according to creationist mythology, but a new species arose without the intervention of a supernatural entity, and without the magical creation of a new species without ancestors.

As reported in the journal Nature, a new species of butterfly, Heliconius elevatus, arose through hybridisation involving the ancestors of two related Heliconius species, Heliconius melpomene and Heliconius pardalinus. Today, all three species coexist in the Amazon rainforest.

But that is not the only problem for creationists who continually demand evidence of a “speciation event”, as though speciation were a single moment involving a single individual, rather than the population-level process explained by the Theory of Evolution. This example shows that speciation can be rapid in evolutionary terms, yet still go completely unnoticed. A single hybrid, even if found, would not be regarded as a new species, but as the product of a chance mating between two related species. It is only if hybridisation produces a population that remains distinct over generations, with its own ecological niche, mating preferences and genetic identity, that taxonomists are justified in recognising it as a new species.

In plants, hybrid speciation often involves polyploidy — a doubling of chromosome number — which can prevent hybrids from breeding with either parent species while allowing them to breed with one another. But Heliconius elevatus is a much rarer example of homoploid hybrid speciation, in which a new species arises without a change in chromosome number. The picture is complicated by the fact that, over time, there has been continuing gene flow from one of the parent lineages, H. pardalinus, which has homogenised about 99% of the genome. However, the remaining small islands of DNA introgressed from H. melpomene control traits that help maintain H. elevatus as a distinct species: colour pattern, wing shape, host plant preference, sex pheromones, mate choice and flight behaviour. It is this distinctive combination of traits that enables the new species to coexist with both parent species rather than being absorbed back into either of them.

Creationism Refuted - How Evolution Works

Mimicry in Butterflies Is Seen here on These Classic “Plates” Showing Four Forms of H. numata, Two Forms of H. melpomene, and the Two Corresponding Mimicking Forms of H. erato.

Source - Repeating Patterns of Mimicry. Meyer A, PLoS Biology, Vol. 4/10/2006, e341 doi:10.1371/journal.pbio.0040341, CC BY 2.5, Link

Evolution has reused the same genes for 120 million years, study shows - News and events, University of York

The great day creationists have been assuring themselves is imminent — and have been doing so for at least half a century — when evolutionary biologists finally announce that they have abandoned the Theory of Evolution because it fails to explain the evidence, seems to recede even further with almost every new research paper. Instead of being replaced by creationism, complete with unproven supernatural entities, magic, “unknowable mysteries” and evidence-free Biblical folklore treated as real history, evolution remains the basic framework within which modern biology makes sense of the evidence, formulates hypotheses and interprets results.

Almost invariably, research that appears at first sight to question some aspect of evolution is doing nothing of the sort. It is refining the details. That is the case with a new paper in PLOS Biology by a team led by scientists at the University of York, the University of Sheffield and the Wellcome Sanger Institute, which suggests that, in some circumstances, evolution may be more predictable than a simple caricature of random mutation filtered by natural selection would lead us to expect.

The team analysed the genomes of seven species of Ithomiini and Heliconius butterflies, together with the day-flying moth Chetone histrio. These lineages diverged between about 1 million and 120 million years ago, yet they have evolved remarkably similar wing colour patterns as members of neotropical mimicry rings. These warning patterns signal to predators that the insects are toxic or distasteful, so different species benefit by converging on similar “do not eat me” designs.

What the researchers found was striking. In several butterfly lineages, similar colour-pattern switches were associated with the same two genes, ivory and optix. More precisely, the important changes were not usually in the protein-coding parts of those genes themselves, but in nearby regulatory regions — the genetic switches that determine when and where those genes are turned on and off during wing development. In other words, natural selection has repeatedly arrived at similar visible results by acting on the same underlying developmental toolkit.

This is not evolution being refuted; it is evolution being understood in greater detail. What looks like simple convergence from the outside turns out, at the genomic level, to be a repeated use of the same limited set of viable routes. Evolution is still contingent, still dependent on mutation, recombination, selection and inheritance, but it is not infinitely free to do anything at all. Developmental systems constrain what variations are available, and those constraints can make some evolutionary outcomes more likely than others.

One particularly awkward aspect for creationists such as Stephen Meyer, who insist that new “information” must be intelligently inserted by some unknown mechanism, is that the study shows how major changes in form and appearance can arise from changes in the regulation and arrangement of existing DNA. In the moth Chetone histrio, colour-pattern variation is associated with a large inversion — a section of DNA flipped in orientation — closely resembling the inversion-based “supergene” architecture seen in one of the co-mimetic butterflies, Heliconius numata. No designer is required; ordinary genomic processes, filtered by selection, are enough.

It is also worth noting the timescale. These same genetic routes appear to have been available to lepidopterans since deep in the Mesozoic, around the time of the dinosaurs. The predators, environments and ecological communities have changed enormously since then, but the evolutionary principle remains the same: when similar selective pressures act on organisms with similar developmental machinery, evolution can repeatedly find similar solutions.