Unintelligent Design - Another Failure By Creationism's Blundering Designer

Genetics

Machine for repairing broken mtDNA.

AI-Generated image
(with apologies to William Heath Robinson)

The graphic shows images of a cell under mtDNA replication stress made using so-called Correlative Light and Electron Microscopy (for short: CLEM). The mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA, green) is ejected from the mitochondria (magenta) and taken up by a lysosome, which contains the retromer (cyan). The highlighted section was also analysed using 3D-CLEM to obtain volumetric information.

Fig.: HHU/David Pla-Martín.

Medicine: Publication in Science Advances

Yet Another Workaround for a Flawed Design.

Researchers led by Professor Dr David Pla-Martín of Heinrich Heine University Düsseldorf, alongside colleagues from the University of Cologne, have uncovered yet another complex but error-prone workaround—this time, to fix a problem that stems from an earlier design flaw.

They have identified a mechanism used to repair mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) when it breaks. From an intelligent design perspective, mitochondria — once free-living bacteria—were supposedly the 'quick fix' to give eukaryotic cells the ability to efficiently convert glucose into adenosine triphosphate (ATP) using oxygen. ATP is the primary energy currency used in metabolic reactions, formed from adenosine diphosphate (ADP) and phosphate.

A truly intelligent designer, however, could have simply endowed cells with this biochemical machinery from the start—no need to incorporate foreign bacteria complete with their own DNA. But apparently, that would have been too simple.

This convoluted solution, predictably, comes with problems. Mitochondria often replicate their DNA imperfectly, or the DNA becomes damaged, leading to mitochondrial failure and a range of diseases. So, yet another layer of biological complexity has evolved to patch up the broken mtDNA. And, in classic Heath Robinson fashion, this repair mechanism is itself error-prone.

Refuting Creationsm - Evolution By Loss of Genes, Horizontal Gene Transfer And Gene Duplication

Nitzschia sp

By Kristian Peters - Own work,
CC BY-SA 3.0,
Wikimedia

This article is best read on a laptop, desktop, or tablet

Nitzschia sing1 lives on the alginate in the cell walls of decaying brown algae.

A borrowed bacterial gene allowed some marine diatoms to live on a seaweed diet | PRESS-NEWS.org

A fundamental axiom of creationism is the claim that any loss of genetic information is invariably detrimental—so much so that any mutation resulting in such a loss would be fatal and could therefore play no role in evolution. A second axiom asserts that new genetic information cannot arise naturally and must instead be supplied by a supernatural intelligent designer.

Both of these assertions are demonstrably false. Nevertheless, they continue to feature in creationist apologetics, relying on the audience's ignorance and incredulity to pass as justification for belief in an intelligent creator.

To add further difficulty for creationist claims, scientists have now identified a marine diatom, Nitzschia sing1, that has not only lost the genes and organelles required for photosynthesis — present in its photosynthetic relatives — but has also adapted successfully without them. It achieved this by acquiring new genetic information through horizontal gene transfer from a marine bacterium. The transferred gene subsequently underwent extensive duplication and diversification into three gene families, each with complementary functions. Together, these 91 versions of the acquired gene enable N. sing1 to metabolise alginate, a carbohydrate found in the cell walls of brown algae such as kelp.

Refuting Creationism - People Of the Green Sahara - No Flood Noticed

View of the Takarkori rock shelter in Southern Libya.

© Archaeological Mission in the Sahara,
Sapienza University of Rome

View from the Takarkori rock shelter in Southern Libya.

© Archaeological Mission in the Sahara,
Sapienza University of Rome.

First ancient genomes from the Green Sahara deciphered

According to literal interpretations of biblical creationism, the first two humans were created approximately 6,000 years ago without any ancestors. Subsequently, around 4,000 years ago, the Earth was supposedly submerged by a global flood. According to this narrative, all present-day humans descended from the eight survivors who endured a year-long voyage in a large vessel accompanied by two (or, in some accounts, seven) individuals of each animal species. After the flood receded, these survivors are said to have repopulated a barren and sterile world in which all previously existing life had been destroyed.

In contrast, scientific evidence indicates that more than 7,000 years ago, human populations inhabited a Sahara region that was markedly different from today's desert. At the time, a wetter climate supported forests, grasslands, lakes, and rivers. These Saharan people were only distantly related to other non-African populations, as they had diverged from East and South African Homo sapiens around the same period—approximately 50,000 years ago—that modern non-African populations migrated out of Africa into Eurasia. Subsequently, the Saharan population remained largely isolated from both sub-Saharan African and Eurasian populations.

The critical distinction between these two accounts lies in their evidence base. Creationism relies solely on written narratives from a text of uncertain historical authenticity, whereas science relies upon verifiable, physical evidence, in this case DNA extracted from two mummified Saharan individuals discovered in Algeria.

This fundamental difference exemplifies the contrast between religion and science: religion typically relies on tradition, superstition, and narratives lacking empirical support, whereas science is grounded in observable evidence and logical deduction.

The evidence for the existence and origin of this Saharan population comes from the work of researchers at the Dept. of Archaeogenetics, Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology, Leipzig, Germany. It's significance is that it argues against the green Sahara being one of the migration routes for modern humans out of Africa and a return migration back into Africa because the Saharan population were genetically distinct and have a very low level of Neanderthal DNA unlike the western Eurasian Homo sapiens.

The findings of the group are published open access in Nature. The research is described in a Max Planck Institute News release:

Unintelligent Design - The Heath-Robinson Machine That Keeps Rogue DNA Under Control

How a critical enzyme keeps potentially dangerous genes in check – lji.org

The human body, like those of most multicellular organisms, exhibits numerous instances of suboptimal design. These imperfections arise from evolutionary processes that balance competing demands, often prioritizing immediate reproductive success over long-term well-being and efficiency. As a result, many biological structures and functions are prone to errors, which tend to accumulate and manifest more prominently with age.

These inherent imperfections have driven the evolution of additional layers of complexity aimed at mitigating potential failures. Such complexity would likely be unnecessary if these biological systems had been optimally designed from the outset. Therefore, the presence of intricate mechanisms to counteract inherent errors serves as compelling evidence for evolution and challenges the notion of intelligent design. Examples of these compensatory complexities are abundant across all multicellular organisms.

A pertinent example involves the regulation of transposable elements (TEs), often referred to as "jumping genes." These DNA sequences can move within the genome, potentially causing significant disruptions if not properly controlled. In healthy cells, TEs are kept in check within heterochromatin — a tightly packed form of DNA that serves as a "prison" for these elements. Recent research led by Professor Anjana Rao, Ph.D., at the La Jolla Institute for Immunology, published in Nature Structural & Molecular Biology, has shed light on this control mechanism. The study reveals that the enzyme O-GlcNAc transferase (OGT) plays a crucial role in suppressing TE activity by restraining TET enzymes, thereby maintaining genomic stability.

This intricate system of checks and balances underscores the evolutionary arms race within our genomes, highlighting the complexity that arises from natural selection's ongoing efforts to mitigate the potential harms posed by transposable elements.

Refuting Creationism - How New Genetic Information Arises - Naturally

Scientists uncover key mechanism in evolution: Whole-genome duplication drives long-term adaptation | Research

Evolved macroscopic "snowflake" yeast from the MuLTEE experiment. The large size of the nuclei (yellow) and cells (cyan) are results of whole-genome duplication and aneuploidy.

Credit: Ratcliff Lab

It is a common claim in creationist circles, despite clear evidence to the contrary, that information theory prevents the creation of new genetic information. They argue incorrectly that Shannon Information Theory dictates that the total amount of information in the universe is fixed. According to this flawed view, creating new genetic information would violate the First Law of Thermodynamics, which states that energy can neither be created nor destroyed.

However, this interpretation demonstrates a misunderstanding of both thermodynamics and Shannon Information Theory, as well as how these concepts relate to genetic information. In reality, the creation of new genetic information can be readily observed each time cells replicate, as the total genetic content effectively doubles, The elements the 'information' is composed of are neither created nor destroyed in the process and, as the result of chemical processes, there is less energy in the system, so the laws of thermodynamics are conserved.

Gene duplication and entire genome duplication (polyploidy) are common occurrences in biology, particularly within the plant kingdom, where tetraploidy — possessing twice the usual diploid number of chromosomes — frequently arises. It is also sometime seen in arthropods, amphibians and reptiles.

Tetraploidy often appears spontaneously in laboratory populations of various organisms. Typically, without selective pressures favouring polyploid states, these conditions tend to revert to diploidy after several generations. However, recent studies by scientists at Georgia Tech, conducting multicellular long-term evolution (MuLTEE) research with 'snowflake yeast', Saccharomyces cerevisiae, have demonstrated that under specific selective pressures, polyploidy can become stable and confer advantageous survival traits to the organism.

The selection pressure in this case was selecting the largest yeast cells from which to produce the next generation. The researchers discovered that polyploidy had arisen early on in the experiment, after about 10 generations, and polyploid cells tended to be the largest cells, so a polyploid strain quickly arose and remained polyploid over thousands of generations - far longer than would be expected if selection had been random or unrelated to cell size.

Refuting Creationism - How A Couple of Chance Mutations Led to Big Brains in Humans

Microscopic image of a section of an electroporated, genetically modified chimpanzee brain organoid. Cell nuclei in blue, precursor cells in magenta, electroporated, genetically modified cells in green and dividing cells in orange.

This article is best read on a laptop, desktop, or tablet

Homo habilis is an extinct hominid species that lived between 2.8 and 1.5 million years ago. It is considered to be one of the earliest members of the genus Homo, and its name means "handy man" in Latin, reflecting its ability to make and use tools.

How did the large brain evolve? | DPZ

Creationists often struggle to explain why closely related species share identical genes located at the same locus on the same chromosome, typically resorting to the argument of common design rather than common descent. Even more challenging for creationists is when these shared genes exhibit slight modifications that result in significant differences between species, strongly supporting descent with modification.

A compelling recent example involves two genes, NBPF14 and NOTCH2NLB, identified by researchers from the German Primate Center - Leibniz Institute for Primate Research (DPZ) and the Max Planck Institute of Molecular Cell Biology and Genetics. These genes, modified specifically in humans, appear to explain the larger and more complex human brain compared to chimpanzees and bonobos. The research shows that NBPF14 and NOTCH2NLB act synergistically: one gene increases the production of neural progenitor cells, while the other facilitates their transformation into neurons capable of forming more extensive neural connections.

Together, these genetic modifications account for the remarkable increase in the size and complexity of the human brain relative to our closest primate relatives.

For an explanation of how two mutations with a low probability can quickly spread through the gene pool when they act synergistically, see my book Twenty Reasons To Reject Creationism: Understanding Evolution, pages 17-20, in which, using the example of a bacterium and two beneficial mutations acting synergistically, I show that the time take for 50% of the population to have both mutations is actually shorter than the time for 50% of the population to have just one mutation because, the accelerating effect of synergy increases the probability of both being inherited together.

This can explain why a large-brained archaic hominin appeared relatively suddenly in the fossil record. As we shall see, the fact that at least one of our ancestral species went through a narrow genetic bottleneck was ultimately highly beneficial because this reduces the time taken for the whole gene pool to acquire a neutral mutation by genetic drift alone.

Creationism in Crisis - The Evolution of Bird Feathers From Dinosaur Ancestors

From dinosaurs to birds: the origins of feather formation - Medias - UNIGE

Feathers provide a fascinating example of how evolution can repurpose structures over time. Initially evolving in response to one set of selective pressures, feathers later opened the door for entirely new functions unrelated to their original purpose.

Early feathers appeared among dinosaurs primarily as an adaptation for thermoregulation. Simple, filamentous feathers offered significantly better insulation than traditional reptilian scales, helping dinosaurs maintain stable body temperatures. Among bipedal theropod dinosaurs, these insulating feathers eventually evolved into more complex structures, freeing forelimbs to develop into wings. Feathers subsequently became specialized for powered flight, having first likely served intermediate functions such as display or gliding.

The presence of insulating feathers likely provided a survival advantage during the dramatic climate changes following the asteroid impact that marked the end of the Cretaceous period, approximately 66 million years ago, contributing to the extinction of non-avian dinosaurs.

This is why we see a clear progression through the fossil record, unlike what would be expected of an intelligent design process, where birds, complete with flight feathers, would be expected to make a sudden appearance without ancestry.

Today, feathers in modern birds retain their important role in thermoregulation while also facilitating flight and serving as display structures. Vibrant and diverse plumage has evolved under sexual selection pressures, playing a crucial role in mating rituals, mate choice, and reinforcing genetic isolation among closely related species, thereby preventing hybridization.

Unintelligent Design - How 'Selfish' Genes Can Act Like Killer Parasites

Fluorescent microscopy images of highly variable wtf genes’ poison proteins (Wtf^poison) exhibit similar aggregation and distribution within yeast cells.

Graphical illustration showing rules for effective and ineffective neutralization of poison proteins. Yeast cells are “rescued” when wtf^poison and wft^antidote specifically co-assemble and localize toward the vacuole (left panel). Otherwise, yeast cells are destroyed (right panels).

Stowers scientists uncover… | Stowers Institute for Medical Research

As Richard Dawkins explained in his influential book, The Selfish Gene, all genes can be thought of as "selfish" in the sense that natural selection favours those most effective at surviving and replicating. Such genes persist over generations at the expense of rival alleles. Even when genes form cooperative alliances, as they commonly do, it ultimately serves their own evolutionary success. Of course, genes are merely chemical entities - mindless, emotionless, and incapable of intention or planning - so the concept of "selfishness" is simply a metaphor designed to illustrate gene-cantered evolution.

However, within the genomes of many multicellular organisms, certain genes can more literally be described as selfish. These genes act parasitically, exploiting the host cell’s replication machinery solely to propagate themselves, despite having no beneficial function and often harming their host by reducing its fertility. The mechanisms behind this parasitic behaviour have puzzled scientists since these genes were first discovered.

Refuting Creationism - Human Language Had Evolved At Least 100,000 years Before 'Creation Week'!

Image: MIT News; iStock

World languages (for key, see Wikipedia source)

When did human language emerge? | MIT News | Massachusetts Institute of Technology

In stark contrast to biblical literalism's simplistic and contradictory story, recent research provides a very different picture of the origins of human language. According to Bible literalists, there are two versions of how languages come about. In the first, the descendants of each of the sons of Noah spoke different languages; in the second, language originated just five generations after the mythical global flood, when the human population — miraculously expanded from eight closely related survivors - grew large enough to undertake a massive construction project. Supposedly, this project so alarmed God that he intervened by 'confounding their tongues' to stop their cooperation.

In contrast to these Bible stories which compete for the most ludicrous and unlikely, scientists led by the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) have recently suggested that human language actually evolved between 100,000 and 135,000 years before creationists claim the universe itself existed. v

What is the current consensus on the time and place of the origins of language in humans?

There is currently no clear scientific consensus regarding the exact timing and location of the origins of human language, primarily because language leaves no direct fossil evidence. However, there is broad agreement around certain key points:

Timing of Language Origin:

• General timeframe: Most researchers propose that fully-developed spoken language originated between 50,000 and 200,000 years ago, during the late Middle or early Upper Palaeolithic period, associated with anatomically modern Homo sapiens.
• Genetic clues: Genetic evidence, particularly the emergence of the FOXP2 gene mutation (linked to speech and language capability), suggests language capacity existed at least around 150,000–200,000 years ago.
• Cultural and archaeological indicators: A notable increase in symbolic behaviour, such as sophisticated art, toolmaking, and ritual practices approximately 40,000–70,000 years ago (often referred to as the "cognitive revolution"), is widely viewed as indirect evidence of fully developed linguistic capabilities. However, many linguists argue for a much earlier, more gradual development extending back hundreds of thousands of years.

Place of Origin:

• Africa hypothesis: The widely supported "Out of Africa" theory of modern human evolution implies that language, like other uniquely human traits, likely emerged first in Africa, associated with early Homo sapiens populations around 150,000–200,000 years ago.
• Multiple origins or dispersal: While most linguists and paleoanthropologists favour an African origin due to genetic and fossil evidence, some researchers have proposed language capabilities could have evolved independently or spread quickly as humans migrated. However, the single-origin hypothesis currently dominates.

Mechanism of Origin:

• Gradual evolution: The prevailing view today is that language evolved gradually through incremental cognitive, anatomical, and social adaptations, rather than appearing abruptly.
• Social complexity: Most researchers believe language emerged alongside increasing social complexity, facilitating cooperation, teaching, and cultural transmission, which in turn provided strong evolutionary advantages.

Current Scientific Consensus:

• No direct fossil evidence means pinpointing exact dates or locations remains speculative.
• Broad consensus: Language emerged gradually, probably in Africa, between 50,000–200,000 years ago, closely tied to the cognitive evolution of anatomically modern humans.

In summary, while the exact details remain debated, the dominant scientific consensus positions the origin of human language firmly within the evolutionary context of anatomically modern Homo sapiens in Africa, sometime around or shortly before humans began their global migrations.

ChatGPT4o [Response to user request]
Retrieved from https://chatgpt.com/

Information Continually updated

The findings of the MIT group are published, open access, in the journal Frontiers in Psychology and are explained by Peter Dizikes in MIT News:

When did human language emerge?

---

A new analysis suggests our language capacity existed at least 135,000 years ago, with language used widely perhaps 35,000 years after that.

---

It is a deep question, from deep in our history: When did human language as we know it emerge? A new survey of genomic evidence suggests our unique language capacity was present at least 135,000 years ago. Subsequently, language might have entered social use 100,000 years ago.

Our species, Homo sapiens, is about 230,000 years old. Estimates of when language originated vary widely, based on different forms of evidence, from fossils to cultural artifacts. The authors of the new analysis took a different approach. They reasoned that since all human languages likely have a common origin — as the researchers strongly think — the key question is how far back in time regional groups began spreading around the world.

The logic is very simple. Every population branching across the globe has human language, and all languages are related. [Based on what the genomics data indicate about the geographic divergence of early human populations] I think we can say with a fair amount of certainty that the first split occurred about 135,000 years ago, so human language capacity must have been present by then, or before.

Professor Shigeru Miyagawa, co-author.
Department of Linguistics and Philosophy
Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA, USA.

The paper, “Linguistic capacity was present in the Homo sapiens population 135 thousand years ago,” appears in Frontiers in Psychology. The co-authors are Miyagawa, who is a professor emeritus of linguistics and the Kochi-Manjiro Professor of Japanese Language and Culture at MIT; Rob DeSalle, a principal investigator at the American Museum of Natural History’s Institute for Comparative Genomics; Vitor Augusto Nóbrega, a faculty member in linguistics at the University of São Paolo; Remo Nitschke, of the University of Zurich, who worked on the project while at the University of Arizona linguistics department; Mercedes Okumura of the Department of Genetics and Evolutionary Biology at the University of São Paulo; and Ian Tattersall, curator emeritus of human origins at the American Museum of Natural History.

The new paper examines 15 genetic studies of different varieties, published over the past 18 years: Three used data about the inherited Y chromosome, three examined mitochondrial DNA, and nine were whole-genome studies.

All told, the data from these studies suggest an initial regional branching of humans about 135,000 years ago. That is, after the emergence of Homo sapiens, groups of people subsequently moved apart geographically, and some resulting genetic variations have developed, over time, among the different regional subpopulations. The amount of genetic variation shown in the studies allows researchers to estimate the point in time at which Homo sapiens was still one regionally undivided group.

Miyagawa says the studies collectively provide increasingly converging evidence about when these geographic splits started taking place. The first survey of this type was performed by other scholars in 2017, but they had fewer existing genetic studies to draw upon. Now, there are much more published data available, which when considered together point to 135,000 years ago as the likely time of the first split.

The new meta-analysis was possible because “quantity-wise we have more studies, and quality-wise, it’s a narrower window [of time],” says Miyagawa, who also holds an appointment at the University of São Paolo.

Like many linguists, Miyagawa believes all human languages are demonstrably related to each other, something he has examined in his own work. For instance, in his 2010 book, “Why Agree? Why Move?” he analyzed previously unexplored similarities between English, Japanese, and some of the Bantu languages. There are more than 7,000 identified human languages around the globe.

Some scholars have proposed that language capacity dates back a couple of million years, based on the physiological characteristics of other primates. But to Miyagawa, the question is not when primates could utter certain sounds; it is when humans had the cognitive ability to develop language as we know it, combining vocabulary and grammar into a system generating an infinite amount of rules-based expression.

Human language is qualitatively different because there are two things, words and syntax, working together to create this very complex system. No other animal has a parallel structure in their communication system. And that gives us the ability to generate very sophisticated thoughts and to communicate them to others.

Professor Shigeru Miyagawa.

This conception of human language origins also holds that humans had the cognitive capacity for language for some period of time before we constructed our first languages.

Language is both a cognitive system and a communication system. My guess is prior to 135,000 years ago, it did start out as a private cognitive system, but relatively quickly that turned into a communications system.

Professor Shigeru Miyagawa.

So, how can we know when distinctively human language was first used? The archaeological record is invaluable in this regard. Roughly 100,000 years ago, the evidence shows, there was a widespread appearance of symbolic activity, from meaningful markings on objects to the use of fire to produce ochre, a decorative red color.

Like our complex, highly generative language, these symbolic activities are engaged in by people, and no other creatures. As the paper notes, “behaviors compatible with language and the consistent exercise of symbolic thinking are detectable only in the archaeological record of H. sapiens.”

Among the co-authors, Tattersall has most prominently propounded the view that language served as a kind of ignition for symbolic thinking and other organized activities.

Language was the trigger for modern human behavior. Somehow it stimulated human thinking and helped create these kinds of behaviors. If we are right, people were learning from each other [due to language] and encouraging innovations of the types we saw 100,000 years ago.

Professor Shigeru Miyagawa.

To be sure, as the authors acknowledge in the paper, other scholars believe there was a more incremental and broad-based development of new activities around 100,000 years ago, involving materials, tools, and social coordination, with language playing a role in this, but not necessarily being the central force.

For his part, Miyagawa recognizes that there is considerable room for further progress in this area of research, but thinks efforts like the current paper are at least steps toward filling out a more detailed picture of language’s emergence.

Our approach is very empirically based, grounded in the latest genetic understanding of early homo sapiens. I think we are on a good research arc, and I hope this will encourage people to look more at human language and evolution.

Professor Shigeru Miyagawa.

Recent genome-level studies on the divergence of early Homo sapiens, based on single nucleotide polymorphisms, suggest that the initial population division within H. sapiens from the original stem occurred approximately 135 thousand years ago. Given that this and all subsequent divisions led to populations with full linguistic capacity, it is reasonable to assume that the potential for language must have been present at the latest by around 135 thousand years ago, before the first division occurred. Had linguistic capacity developed later, we would expect to find some modern human populations without language, or with some fundamentally different mode of communication. Neither is the case. While current evidence does not tell us exactly when language itself appeared, the genomic studies do allow a fairly accurate estimate of the time by which linguistic capacity must have been present in the modern human lineage. Based on the lower boundary of 135 thousand years ago for language, we propose that language may have triggered the widespread appearance of modern human behavior approximately 100 thousand years ago.

1 Introduction
More than any other trait, language defines us as human. Yet there is no clear agreement on when this crucial feature emerged in our evolution. Some who have studied the archaeological record suggest that language emerged in our lineage around 100 thousand years ago (kya) (Tattersall, 2012, 2017, 2018; Wadley, 2021), while others have claimed that some form of language preceded the emergence of modern humans (Albessard-Ball and Balzeau, 2018; Botha, 2020). Indeed, it has been argued [e.g., by Progovac (2016) and Dediu and Levinson (2018)] that language is not uniquely the property of the lineage that produced H. sapiens. Here we accept the reasoning of that behaviors compatible with language and the consistent exercise of symbolic thinking are detectable only in the archaeological record of H. sapiens (Tattersall, 2012; Berwick et al., 2013; Berwick and Chomsky, 2016), and approach the issue of the antiquity of language in our species by showing that, although it is not yet possible to identify the time when a linguistic capacity emerged, genomic evidence allows us to establish with reasonable certainty the latest point at which it must have been present in early H. sapiens populations.

Over the past 15 years, numerous studies have addressed the question of exactly when the first division occurred in the original stem population of early H. sapiens. While those studies do not tell us exactly when language emerged, they allow us to make a reasonable estimate of the lower boundary of the possible time range for this key occurrence. H. sapiens emerged as an anatomically distinctive entity by about 230kya (Vidal et al., 2022). Sometime after that speciation event, the first division occurred, with all descendant populations of that division having full-fledged language. From this universal presence of language, we can deduce that some form of linguistic capacity must have been present before the first population divergence. If the linguistic capacity had emerged in humans after the initial divergence, one would expect to find modern human populations that either do not have language, or that have some communication capacity that differs meaningfully from that of all other human populations. Neither is the case. The 7,000 or so languages in the world today share striking similarities in the ways in which they are constructed phonologically, syntactically, and semantically (Eberhard et al., 2023).

Genomic studies of early H. sapiens population broadly agree that the first division from the original stem is represented today by the Khoisan peoples of Southern Africa (Schlebusch et al., 2012). This conclusion was reached early on Vigilant et al. (1989), Knight et al. (2003), Tishkoff et al. (2007), and Veeramah et al. (2012), and it has more recently been bolstered by studies using newer genomic techniques (Fan et al., 2019; Lorente-Galdos et al., 2019; Schlebusch et al., 2017; Schlebusch et al., 2020; Pakendorf and Stoneking, 2021). The term “Khoisan” refers to a bio-genetic affiliation that is linked both to a proposed ancestor-group and to some modern peoples, living in present-day South Africa, who include modern speakers of the Khoe-Khwadi, Tuu, and Ju-ǂHoan languages that have some genetic affiliation to the first divergence of the human population (Güldemann and Sands, 2009; du Plessis, 2014). It follows that, if we can identify when the first division occurred, we can with reasonable certainty consider that date to define the lower boundary of when human language was present in the ancestral modern human population. Based on the results of studies focusing on whole genome single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs), we estimate that this first division occurred at approximately 135kya. ¹

Huybregts (2017) was the first to attempt to pinpoint the timing of the first division in this way. Although he suggested a date of ~125kya, close to our estimate of ~135kya, his estimate was necessarily based on a fairly narrow set of studies showing a remarkably variable range. The studies he examined ranged from the clearly implausible 300kya (Scally and Durbin, 2012), to 180kya (Rito et al., 2013) and as little as 100kya (Schlebusch et al., 2012). Pakendorf and Stoneking (2021) later listed several studies proposing that the first division was older than 160kya (Fan et al., 2019; Lorente-Galdos et al., 2019; Schlebusch et al., 2020), along with four others, from 140 to 110kya, that overlapped with the range suggested by Huybregts (Gronau et al., 2011; Veeramah et al., 2012; Mallick et al., 2016; Song et al., 2017). Several newer studies now allow us to approach the age of the first division with greater precision.

In conclusion, the researchers say:

4 The picture that emerges
Based on the recent genetic studies of early H. sapiens, we have pinpointed approximately 135kya as the moment at which some linguistic capacity must have been present in the human population. Looking forward from this event, modern human behaviors such as body decoration and the production of ochre pieces with symbolic engravings appeared as normative and persistent behaviors around 100kya. We believe that the time lag implied between the lower boundary of when language was present (135kya) and the emergence of normative modern human behaviors across the population suggests that language itself was the trigger that transformed nonlinguistic early H. sapiens (who nonetheless already possessed “language-ready” brains acquired at the origin of the anatomically distinctive species) into the symbolically-mediated beings familiar today. This development of the most sophisticated communication device in evolution allowed our ancestors to accelerate and consolidate symbolically-mediated behaviors until they became the norm for the entire species.

Miyagawa, Shigeru; DeSalle, Rob; Nóbrega, Vitor Augusto; Nitschke, Remo; Okumura, Mercedes; Tattersall, Ian
Linguistic capacity was present in the Homo sapiens population 135 thousand years ago Frontiers in Psychology (2025) 16 DOI: 10.3389/fpsyg.2025.1503900

Copyright: © 2025 The authors.
Published by Frontiers Media S.A. Open access.
Reprinted under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International license (CC BY 4.0)

It appears that the evolution of language in humans followed a familiar evolutionary pattern. Genetic mutations, including those affecting the FOXP2 gene—which influences brain development and vocal control—provided cognitive advantages, opening new opportunities for natural selection. This genetic foundation set human evolution onto a new trajectory, much like how feathers, originally evolved for insulation or display in dinosaurs, eventually led to powered flight in birds.

In contrast, simplistic explanations—such as the Bible's depiction of Noah's descendants rapidly diverging into different languages (Genesis 10–11), or a deity magically imposing language barriers to thwart human cooperation at Babel (Genesis 11)—reflect limited imagination and a profound misunderstanding of how closely related languages evolve geographically.

Today, science provides a coherent and evidence-based explanation, emphasizing gene-culture co-evolution and language divergence within geographically dispersed and partially fragmented human populations.

---

Advertisement

Amazon

Amazon

Amazon

Amazon

Amazon

Amazon

Amazon

Amazon

Advertisement

Thank you for sharing!

Tweet Link

Last Modified: Tue Apr 08 2025 19:27:47 GMT+0000 (Coordinated Universal Time)

Malevolent Design - How Creationism's Divine Malevolence Co-opted A Solutions For It's Own Incompetence, To Ensure Cancers Survive

The Pol-θ enzyme (blue) joins two parts of a broken DNA strand (yellow).
This process is mutagenic and can give rise to cancer.

Credit: Scripps Research

How a crucial DNA repair protein works—and what it means for cancer treatment | Scripps Research

According to creationist mythology, once upon a time a magic creator created animal life complete with DNA which needs to be replicated every time a cell divides for growth and/or repair.

Unfortunately, the process it designed to make this happen wasn't very well designed, so the resulting DNA is often broken or faulty. DNA can be broken in a number of ways, all of which could have been avoided by a more robust design, which should have been within the capabilities of an omniscient deity, capable of creating living organisms ex nihilo:

DNA double-strand breaks can occur in multiple phases of the cell cycle, not just mitosis. While replication stress is a major endogenous source, environmental factors like radiation, chemicals, and viruses can also introduce DSBs. Cells rely on homologous recombination (HR), non-homologous end joining (NHEJ), and alternative end joining (alt-EJ) to repair these breaks, though error-prone pathways like Pol θ-mediated repair contribute to mutagenesis.

Then, in a method typical of creationism's incompetent designer, which in every respect resembles a mindless utilitarian natural process, proceeding without a plan and settling for suboptimal solutions, it added yet another layer of complexity as a work-around for its failure, and designed the enzyme, polymerase θ (Pol-θ), which searches the DNA looking for faults. Unfortunately, due to suboptimal design, this too fails and produces cancers.

Refuting Creationism - A Simple Mutation Could Have Given Us the Power of Speech.

;

Expression pattern of NOVA1 in the brain of a mouse. NOVA1 in green, nuclei (DAPI) in blue.

Darnell lab.

Model of the evolutionary timing for the 197th amino acid change in the NOVA1 gene, noting the Nova1^hu/hu mice generated in this study. Nova1^hu/hu mice express the modern human-specific amino acid in the NOVA1 protein. The bottom panel shows the corresponding position within the KH2 domain of the NOVA1 protein. Amino acids structurally proximal (<5 Å) to the 197th amino acid, as predicted by AlphaFold2, are highlighted in pink.

Tajima, Y., Vargas, C.D.M., Ito, K. et al (2024) (CC BY 4.0)

The Rockefeller University » A single protein may have helped shape the emergence of spoken language

In the simplistic creationist parody of evolution, intelligently designed to make cult members feel superior to real scientists, the evolution of something like speech in humans must have involved complex, specified, information, that humans alone have that other, lesser, species don't have. Of course, this could only be the result of intelligent design by a supreme intelligence who favours humans, its special creation, who can be whichever your favourite deity is, although it’s not religion because it doesn’t mention God or the Bible. Got it!

The surprising thing is that neither William A. Dembski, nor Michael J. Behe, leading Deception Institute fellows, have written a widely acclaimed (in creationist circles and in selected magazine and newspaper articles emanating from the Deception Institute, for its brilliant conclusive proof of the failure of 'Darwinism') book, detailing the sheer astounding complexity of the genetic basis for human speech, and how this proves we don't share a common ancestor with the African apes.

Perhaps they were aware already of the fact that the genetic basis for human speech involves, no such complexity, but just a single point mutation in a gene we share with the other apes and many other mammals.

Rather than proof of human exceptionalism, our ability to speak turns out to be evidence for common ancestry.

The mutation was discovered by researchers from The Rockefeller University and is a simple substitution of the amino acid isoleucine for valine, in the protein NOVA1 which resulted from the substitution of guanine (G) in the first position in the codon for isoleucine for adenine (A). So, the simplest of all mutations - a single point substitution of one nucleotide for another in a gene, may have enabled humans to speak.

Refuting Creationism - Where Europeans' Ancestors Came From - Thousands of Years Before 'Creation Week'

Reconstruction of Yamnayan life in the Pontic Area, 5000 years ago

AI-generated image (ChatGPT4o)

Reconstruction of Yamnayan life in the Pontic Area, 5000 years ago.

AI-generated image (ChatGPT4o).

New research based on an analysis of the genomes of 435 individuals has revealed the rich history of the ancestors of modern Europeans, especially the mixing of multiple ethnic groups in the Pontic Area - modern Ukraine - between 8,400 and 4,000 year ago which eventually gave rise to the Yamnaya people who get their name from the Russian for 'pit burial' (Yamna in Ukrainian).

Before the Yamnaya spread into Europe, they were preceded by two earlier waves of migration: firstly, hunter-gatherers who arrived about 45,000 years ago having interbred with and replaced the Neanderthals who had lived there for the previous 250,000 years. These were followed by farmers who came from the Middle East, starting about 9,000 years ago.

The Yamnaya, having formed a stable linguistic and cultural group, and either invented or copied ox-drawn carts and skilled horsemanship, which gave them great mobility, began to expand their range, probably under population pressure beginning about 5,300 years ago and lasting for some 1,800 years, eventually reaching all parts of Western Europe including the Iberian Peninsula and the British Isles.

Unintelligent Design - How Creationism's Heath-Robinson Designer Muddles Through But Still Messes Up.

spB^d-II complex at average resolutions of 3.2 and 3.1 Å.

Quality control during splicing: When an error in the precursor mRNA is detected, the spliceosome is blocked, the recruited control factors interrupt the “normal” cycle, and a molecular short circuit causes the spliceosome to disassemble.

© K. Wild, K. Soni, I. Sinning.

Spliceosome: How Cells Avoid Errors When Manufacturing mRNA

Q. How can you tell when something is designed by a supreme intelligence with the inerrant ability of foresight?

A. It works perfectly, without errors and does exactly what it was intended to do, nothing more and nothing less.

Q. How can you tell when something is 'designed' by a natural, utilitarian process like evolution by natural selection?

A. It works most of the time, even if not very efficiently, is over-complex and so prone to errors and doesn't anticipate change. It also frequently requires additional layers of complexity to compensate for its errors and inefficiency.

Sadly for intelligent design advocates, structures and processes found in nature are almost never perfect and free from errors and, when examined closely, are seen to be error-prone, suboptimal and requiring additional complexity to compensate for the errors and inefficiencies. And these error-correction mechanisms are themselves error-prone and prone to failure.

One such mechanism, the details of which have just been worked out by researchers at the Heidelberg University Biochemistry Center (BZH) in collaboration with colleagues from the Australian National University, is the system of spliceosomes found in eukaryote cells, that correct the errors in messenger RNA (mRNA) before they are transcribed into functional proteins.

The reason these large nuclear proteins are required is because the DNA the mRNA is transcribed from is contains 'introns' - small sequences that are not part of the gene being coded for. Imagine a computer database of words, which, when a retrieved, inserts random letters in the middle of the word.

Unintelligent Design - Sex Determination in Octopuses - For 480 Million Years

Californian two-spot octopus, Octopus bimaculoides

Californian two-spot octopus, Octopus bimaculoides

Octopuses have some of the oldest known sex chromosomes | OregonNews

Although few of them will know enough to understand why, the genetic basis for sex determination in different organisms is a problem for intelligent design advocates because it illustrates a few embarrassing things which can't be explained as the design of an intelligent designer.

Firstly, there are several ways in which gender is determines, rather than the single method a single intelligent designer of all living things would have settled for (see the AI information panel). Secondly, the actual basis is consistent within major clades such as mammals, birds and orders of insects such as Hymenoptera (Bees, wasps and ants), and thirdly, because the methods are unstable over evolutionary time, since the sex chromosomes are unpaired in the heterozygous gender, so the unpaired chromosome tends to acquire mutations, which are not corrected by cross over during meiosis, and the non-sex-determining genes tend to be conserved on the chromosome which is paired in the homozygous gender.

In mammals, this means that the Y-chromosome tends to degenerate; in some species of rodents, which have a short generation time and large litters, so evolution can progress faster than in most other mammals, the Y-chromosome has disappeared, to be replaced by an alternative sex-determining system. No intelligent designer worthy of the name would design a process that degenerates and need to be replaced every few million years.