Refuting Creationism - How Dogs Spread Across The Americas - Then Survived The Legendary Biblical Global Flood

Chihuahua dog in Mexico.

Credit: Urvashi9, Getty Images

Figure 1. Distribution of archaeological samples analysed in this study.

Manin, Aurélie, et al (2025)

Ancient DNA reveals new clues about the incredible journey of dogs in the Americas | University of Oxford

According to the Bible, all living things outside Noah’s Ark were destroyed once Noah, his family, and his chosen animals were safely sealed inside (Genesis 7:4). This supposedly happened around 4,000 years ago, according to the biblical narrative — which creationists firmly believe to be inerrant history.

The snag is, the evidence simply doesn’t support that timeline—or a global flood involving mass extinction by drowning. Not only would such a flood have left a distinctive global deposit of sediment, containing a chaotic mix of ancient and modern animal and plant species from disconnected continents, but it would also have erased all archaeological traces of earlier civilisations and palaeontological evidence of past life. In effect, it would have reset the clocks of both archaeology and palaeontology to start around 4,000 years ago.

Unfortunately for biblical literalists, that’s not what we see. The predicted tell-tale layer of silt is conspicuously absent. Instead, both archaeology and palaeontology reveal a pattern of uninterrupted occupation of the planet by animals and humans stretching back tens of thousands—and, in the case of animal and plant species, hundreds of millions—of years. For anatomically modern humans, there is a consistent archaeological record documenting their spread across all land masses (except Antarctica), during which they domesticated animals such as dogs, which migrated alongside them.

One example of this pattern — the migration of domestic dogs with humans into the Americas between 7,000 and 5,000 years ago — has just been published in Proceedings of the Royal Society B, by an international team of scientists led by Dr Aurélie Manin from the School of Archaeology at the University of Oxford. They have shown that all South American dogs prior to the arrival of Europeans, trace their ancestry back to a single female. One strain — the Mexican Chihuahua - still shows evidence of that ancestry.

Refuting Creationism - A 600-Million-Year-Old Common Ancestor of Cnidarians and Bilaterians.

Adult polyp of the sea anemone Nematostella vectensis.

Grigory Genikhovich

Bodybuilding in Ancient Times: How the Sea Anemone Got Its Back

Childish creationist claims of a young Earth, the spontaneous magical generation of all living organisms without ancestry, and the supposed absence of evidence for the evolution of life from a common ancestor have taken another blow with the publication of compelling new research that refutes these basic creationist dogmas.

An open access paper published in Science Advances describes a candidate ancestral mechanism for establishing bilaterality — symmetry along a central axis — in both bilaterians (animals with bilateral symmetry) and the sea anemone Nematostella. The study, conducted by four researchers from the Department of Neurosciences and Developmental Biology at the University of Vienna, provides crucial insights into the deep evolutionary origins of body plan organisation.

It is also clear from both the paper and the researchers' explanation in a University of Vienna press release that they regard the Theory of Evolution as essential to interpreting their findings. Their discovery fits squarely within the evolutionary framework and aligns with the established timeline for the diversification of animal life from a common ancestor.

What Is Bilateral Symmetry? Bilateral symmetry is a body plan in which an organism can be divided into roughly mirror-image halves along a single plane—from head to tail. Most animals, including humans, insects, and vertebrates, display this type of symmetry.

---

Why Is It Evolutionarily Significant?

• Directional Movement: Bilateral symmetry enables streamlined, forward-facing movement—ideal for seeking food, mates, and avoiding danger.
• Cephalisation: This symmetry is often associated with the development of a head region where sensory organs and the brain concentrate—an evolutionary advantage for processing information efficiently.
• Complexity and Specialisation: It allowed for greater internal organisation and the evolution of specialised body systems (e.g., digestive, nervous, and circulatory).

---

Evolutionary Milestone

Bilateral symmetry is thought to have evolved over 600 million years ago in a common ancestor of all bilaterians. This innovation marked a major turning point in the history of life, leading to the vast diversity of animal forms we see today.

Bodybuilding in Ancient Times: How the Sea Anemone Got Its Back

---

New insights into the evolution of the back-belly-axis.

A new study from the University of Vienna reveals that sea anemones use a molecular mechanism known from bilaterian animals to form their back-to-belly body axis. This mechanism ("BMP shuttling") enables cells to organize themselves during development by interpreting signaling gradients. The findings, published in Science Advances, suggest that this system evolved much earlier than previously assumed and was already present in the common ancestor of cnidarians and bilaterians.

---

Most animals exhibit bilateral symmetry—a body plan with a head and tail, a back and belly, and left and right sides. This body organization characterizes the vast group known as Bilateria, which includes animals as diverse as vertebrates, insects, molluscs and worms. In contrast, cnidarians, such as jellyfish and sea anemones, are traditionally described as radially symmetric, and indeed jellyfish are. However, the situation is different is the sea anemones: despite superficial radiality, they are bilaterally symmetric – first at the level of gene expression in the embryo and later also anatomically as adults. This raises a fundamental evolutionary question: did bilateral symmetry arise in the common ancestor of Bilateria and Cnidaria, or did it evolve independently in multiple animal lineages? Researchers at the University of Vienna have addressed this question by investigating whether a key developmental mechanism called BMP shuttling is already present in cnidarians.

Shuttling for development

In bilaterian animals, the back-to-belly axis is patterned by a signaling system involving Bone Morphogenetic Proteins (BMPs) and their inhibitor Chordin. BMPs act as molecular messengers, telling embryonic cells where they are and what kind of tissue they should become. In bilaterian embryos, Chordin binds BMPs and blocks their activity in a process called "local Inhibition". At the same time, in some but not all bilaterian embryonic models, Chordin can also transport bound BMPs to other regions in the embryo, where they are released again – a mechanism known as "BMP shuttling". Animals as evolutionary distant as sea urchins, flies and frogs use BMP shuttling, however, until now it was unclear whether they all evolved shuttling independently or inherited it from their last common ancestor some 600 million years ago. Both, local inhibition and BMP shuttling, create a gradient of BMP activity across the embryo. Cells in the early embryo detect this gradient and adopt different fates depending on BMP levels. For example, in vertebrates, the central nervous system forms where BMP signaling is lowest, kidneys will develop at intermediate BMP signaling levels, and the skin of the belly will form in the area of maximum BMP signaling. This way, the body's layout from back to belly is established. To find out whether BMP shuttling by Chordin represents an ancestral mechanism for patterning the back to belly axis, the researchers had to look at bilaterally symmetric animals outside Bilateria – the sea anemones.

An Ancient Blueprint

To test whether sea anemones use Chordin as a local inhibitor or as a shuttle, the researchers first blocked Chordin production in the embryos of the model sea anemone Nematostella vectensis. In Nematostella, unlike in Bilateria, BMP signaling requires the presence of Chordin, so, without Chordin, BMP signaling ceased and the formation of the second body axis failed. Chordin was then reintroduced into a small part of the embryo to see if it could restore axis formation. BMP signaling resumed—but it was unclear whether this was because Chordin simply blocked BMPs locally, allowing a gradient to form from existing BMP sources, or because it actively transported BMPs to distant parts of the embryo, shaping the gradient more directly. To answer this, two versions of Chordin were tested—one membrane-bound and immobile, the other diffusible. If Chordin acted as a local inhibitor, both, the immobile and the diffusible Chordin would restore BMP signaling on the side of the embryo opposite to the Chordin producing cells. However, only diffusible Chordin can act as a BMP shuttle. The results were clear: Only the diffusible form was able to restore BMP signaling at a distance from its source, demonstrating that Chordin acts as a BMP shuttle in sea anemones—just as it does in flies and frogs.

A shared strategy across over 600 million years of evolution?

The presence of BMP shuttling in both cnidarians and bilaterians suggests that this molecular mechanism predates their evolutionary divergence some 600-700 million years ago.

Not all Bilateria use Chordin-mediated BMP shuttling, for example, frogs do, but fish don't, however, shuttling seems to pop up over and over again in very distantly related animals making it a good candidate for an ancestral patterning mechanism. The fact that not only bilaterians but also sea anemones use shuttling to shape their body axes, tells us that this mechanism is incredibly ancient. It opens up exciting possibilities for rethinking how body plans evolved in early animals.

Dr. David Mörsdorf, first author
Department of Neurosciences and Developmental Biology
University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria.

We might never be able to exclude the possibility that bilaterians and bilaterally symmetric cnidarians evolved their bilateral body plans independently. However, if the last common ancestor of Cnidaria and Bilateria was a bilaterally symmetric animal, chances are that it used Chordin to shuttle BMPs to make its back-to-belly axis. Our new study showed that.

Grigory Genikhovich, senior author.
Department of Neurosciences and Developmental Biology
University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria

Publication:

David Mörsdorf, Maria Mandela Prünster, Paul Knabl, Grigory Genikhovich.
Chordin-mediated BMP shuttling patterns the secondary body axis in a cnidarian.
Science Advances (2025) 11(24). DOI: 10.1126/sciadv.adu6347

Abstract Bone morphogenetic protein (BMP) signaling patterns secondary body axes throughout Bilateria and in the bilaterally symmetric corals and sea anemones. Chordin-mediated “shuttling” of BMP ligands is responsible for the BMP signaling gradient formation in many bilaterians and, possibly, also in the sea anemone Nematostella, making BMP shuttling a candidate ancestral mechanism for generating bilaterality. However, Nematostella Chordin might be a local inhibitor of BMP rather than a shuttle. To choose between these options, we tested whether extracellular mobility of Chordin, a hallmark of shuttling but dispensable for local inhibition, is required for patterning in Nematostella. By generating localized Chordin sources in the Chordin morphant background, we showed that mobile Chordin is necessary and sufficient to establish a peak of BMP signaling opposite to Chordin source. These results provide evidence for BMP shuttling in a bilaterally symmetric cnidarian and suggest that BMP shuttling may have been functional in the potentially bilaterally symmetric cnidarian-bilaterian ancestor.

INTRODUCTION
Bone morphogenetic protein (BMP) signaling acts in secondary body axis patterning across Bilateria, and its functions as morphogen have been studied in diverse animal species (1, 2). The mechanisms of the BMP-dependent axial patterning are similar between arthropods and vertebrates, indicative of the shared origin of the secondary, dorsoventral axis in protostome and deuterostome Bilateria, a notion strengthened once broader phylogenetic sampling became available (2–7). Intriguingly, the same mechanisms appear to regulate the secondary axis patterning in the bilaterally symmetric cnidarian Nematostella vectensis, indicating that a BMP-dependent secondary body axis may have evolved before the evolutionary split of Cnidaria and Bilateria [(8, 9), reviewed in (1, 10)]. However, a scenario in which BMP-mediated secondary axes evolved convergently in Bilateria and bilaterally symmetric Cnidaria is also possible (2).

BMPs are secreted signaling proteins of the transforming growth factor–β superfamily frequently acting as heterodimers (11–13). Signaling through the BMP receptor complex (Fig. 1A) results in phosphorylation and nuclear accumulation of the transcriptional effector SMAD1/5, which regulates the expression of many crucial developmental transcription factors and signaling pathway components [(14–18), reviewed in (19, 20)]. BMP signaling is tightly controlled by a plethora of intracellular (14, 21) and extracellular regulators (22–29) of which Chordin (= short gastrulation in insects) is, arguably, the most famous one. Like many other secreted BMP antagonists, Chordin binds BMP ligands, blocks the interaction with their receptor, and thereby inhibits BMP signaling (30). However, Chordin can also have pro-BMP effects and promotes long-range activation of BMP signaling in Drosophila, Xenopus, sea urchins, and in the sea anemone Nematostella (7, 31–34). The phylogenetic distribution of Chordin and two central BMP ligands, BMP2/4 and BMP5-8, and their importance for the secondary axis patterning across phyla suggests that, during early animal evolution, these molecules may have represented the minimum requirement for the formation of the bilaterally symmetric body plan (2, 10). However, to evaluate such a possibility, we need to understand the “mode of action” of BMPs and Chordin outside Bilateria, and our model, the sea anemone Nematostella, allows exactly that.

---

Fig. 1. Possible modes of action of BMP signaling during axial patterning in Nematostella.

(A) BMP signaling pathway. BMP dimers bind the heterotetrameric receptor complex, resulting in the phosphorylation of SMAD1/5. pSMAD1/5 forms a complex with the Co-Smad SMAD4, which regulates transcription in the nucleus. Chordin binds BMPs preventing them from activating the receptor complex. Metalloproteases like Tolloid and BMP-1 cleave Chordin and release BMP ligands from the inhibitory complex in Bilateria. (B) Expression domains of BMPs and BMP antagonists in an early Nematostella larva. Oral view corresponds to the optical section indicated with grey dashed line on the lateral view. Pink circles show the nuclear pSMAD1/5 gradient. (C) The shuttling model suggests that in Nematostella, a mobile BMP-Chordin complex transports BMPs through the embryo. Receptor binding is inhibited in cells close to the Chordin source due to high concentrations of Chordin. On the opposite side of the directive axis, BMPs bind their receptors and activate signaling upon release from Chordin. Tolloid might be involved in the cleavage of Chordin and release of BMPs from the complex with Chordin also in Nematostella. (D) In the local inhibition model, Nematostella Chordin acts locally to inhibit BMP signaling and promote the production of BMP2/4 and BMP5-8 mRNA. Chordin mobility is not required for asymmetric BMP signaling.

---

BMP signaling in Nematostella becomes detectable during early gastrula stage in a radially symmetric domain: The phosphorylated form of the BMP signaling effector SMAD1/5 (pSMAD1/5) is detected in the nuclei around the blastopore (14, 35). Shortly after the onset of BMP activity, the radial symmetry of the embryo breaks, establishing the secondary, “directive” body axis with minimum BMP signaling intensity detectable on the side of BMP2/4, BMP5-8, and Chordin expression and maximum BMP signaling on the side opposite to it (Fig. 1B) (14, 34, 35). The symmetry break occurs despite the fact that mRNAs of the type I BMP receptors Alk2 and Alk3/6 and the type II receptor BMPRII are maternally deposited (36) and remain weakly and ubiquitously expressed in the embryo (fig. S1) gradually developing a slight bias toward the “high pSMAD1/5” side of the directive axis by early planula stage (14). BMP2/4 and BMP5-8 are co-expressed in the late gastrula/early planula, and both these ligands are crucial for BMP signaling and directive axis patterning because knockdown of either ligand abolishes pSMAD1/5 immunoreactivity and completely radializes the embryo (34). Individual knockdowns of either BMP2/4 or BMP5-8 result in a strong up-regulation of transcription of both BMP2/4 and BMP5-8 in a radially symmetric domain showing that both these genes are negatively controlled by BMP signaling. Despite transcriptional up-regulation of BMP2/4 in BMP5-8 morphants and BMP5-8 in the BMP2/4 morphants, no nuclear pSMAD1/5 is observed in such embryos (9, 34, 35), suggesting that BMP2/4 and BMP5-8 signal as an obligate heterodimer during axial patterning in Nematostella.

The “core” BMPs, BMP2/4 and BMP5-8, are not the only BMP ligands present in the embryo at this stage. GDF5-like (GDF5L) is a BMP ligand expressed on the side of strong BMP signaling (Fig. 1B). GDF5L expression is abolished in the absence of BMP2/4 and BMP5-8, and the role of GDF5L appears to be in steepening the pSMAD1/5 gradient making it a “modulator” BMP (14, 34, 37). The BMP signaling gradient is stable over many (>24) hours during which it patterns the directive axis (9, 14, 34, 35, 37). Considering the short half-life of phosphorylated SMAD1/5 reported in other systems (15, 21), this indicates that long-range transport (~100 μm) of BMP2/4 and BMP5-8 and constant receptor complex activation is necessary to maintain BMP signaling. How it exactly happens that the core BMP ligands, BMP2/4 and BMP5-8, are expressed on one side of the embryo and the peak of BMP signaling activity is on the opposite side is currently unknown.

One possible explanation involves Chordin-mediated shuttling of BMP ligands, described in the dorsoventral patterning in Drosophila and Xenopus (7, 34, 38). In this model, Chordin inhibits BMP function locally, close to the Chordin source cells, but promotes long-range BMP signaling by forming a mobile complex with the BMP dimer, which is released once Chordin is cleaved by the metalloprotease Tolloid. The probability that this BMP dimer will bind its receptors rather than another, yet uncleaved Chordin increases with the distance to the Chordin source (Fig. 1C). In Nematostella, the shuttling model was proposed when we found that, unlike in all bilaterian models studied thus far, depletion of Chordin results in the loss of BMP signaling rather than in its enhancement (34). However, given that, in Nematostella, BMP signaling indirectly represses the transcription of the core BMPs, BMP2/4 and BMP5-8, and activates the transcription of the modulator BMP, GDF5-like (14), an alternative explanation is also possible: In this “local inhibition” scenario, Chordin locally represses BMP signaling enabling BMP2/4 and BMP5-8 production. BMP2/4 and BMP5-8 diffuse into the area of low or no Chordin (i.e., to the GDF5-like side of the directive axis) and bind the receptors there. In this scenario, Chordin knockdown results in a transient de-repression of the BMP2/4/BMP5-8–mediated signaling, which, in turn, leads to the repression of the BMP2/4 and BMP5-8 transcription. Because, in the absence of BMP2/4 and BMP5-8, GDF5-like expression is also lost (9), we may end in a situation when no BMP ligands are produced and no BMP signaling takes place, as it is the case in the Chordin morphant (9, 34). This local inhibition model, in which Chordin acts exclusively as a local repressor of BMP signaling (Fig. 1D), is similar to the situation in zebrafish, where extracellular mobility of Chordin is not required (39–41). Here, we address the role of Chordin in the BMP-dependent axial patterning in the sea anemone Nematostella and test these two alternative models.

David Mörsdorf, Maria Mandela Prünster, Paul Knabl, Grigory Genikhovich.
Chordin-mediated BMP shuttling patterns the secondary body axis in a cnidarian.
Science Advances (2025) 11(24). DOI: 10.1126/sciadv.adu6347

Copyright: © 2025 The authors.
Published by the American Association for the Advancement of Science. Open access.
Reprinted under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International license (CC BY 4.0)

This discovery poses a significant problem for creationist claims because it provides clear molecular and developmental evidence for a shared evolutionary origin between animals with bilateral symmetry and simpler organisms like sea anemones, which lack such symmetry as adults. The fact that the genetic and developmental mechanisms for establishing a "back" or body axis predate the emergence of bilaterally symmetrical animals suggests that these features evolved gradually through modification of existing biological systems—not through sudden, miraculous creation.

Creationism relies on the assertion that complex body plans appeared abruptly, fully formed, and without evolutionary precursors. However, the findings in this study directly contradict that idea. They show that the genetic toolkit required for bilateral body structures was already present in the common ancestor of cnidarians (like sea anemones) and bilaterians and was likely repurposed and elaborated upon over millions of years. This is exactly what evolutionary theory predicts.

Moreover, the study aligns neatly with the established evolutionary timeline based on genetics, developmental biology, and the fossil record. There is no need to invoke supernatural causes or to assume that animals were created independently and without shared ancestry. Instead, the evidence points to deep continuity in the genetic architecture of life—a hallmark of common descent and a major blow to the isolated, one-off acts of creation claimed by young-Earth and Intelligent Design creationists alike.

Malevolent Design - The Sneaky Way TB Keeps On Making Us Sick

Credit: Md Ariful Islam

Study discovers DNA switch that controls TB growth – and could help unlock its antibiotic resistance secrets | University of Surrey

If you're an omniscient, omnipotent, malevolent designer of parasites — such as the bacterium that causes tuberculosis in humans — then you're hardly going to let a little thing like the immune system (which you supposedly also designed to protect them) or even the development of medical science and antibiotics spoil your fun in causing random suffering, are you? Naturally, you'd equip your creation with mechanisms to overcome these obstacles.

Within the framework of Intelligent Design creationism, that's precisely what this recent discovery should look like — at least to those creationists who don't simply ignore the obvious and pretend it isn't there. Scientists from the Universities of Surrey and Oxford have discovered that Mycobacterium tuberculosis uses a reversible process known as ADP-ribosylation to modify its DNA, controlling both replication and gene expression. This allows the bacterium to remain dormant for extended periods and reactivate when environmental threats, such as immune responses or antibiotics, have passed.

This presents a problem for creationists who insist on believing in a benevolent creator deity and simultaneously hold that features such as irreducible complexity and complex specified information are sure signs of intelligent design—claims promoted by Discovery Institute fellows Michael J. Behe and William A. Dembski. Since Mycobacterium tuberculosis displays these very characteristics, so either it was designed specifically to cause suffering, or those characteristics are not the reliable indicators of divine design that Behe and Dembski claim, and their entire argument collapses.

This discovery was recently published open access in The EMBO Journal, and further details are available in the University of Surrey press release:

How Evolution Works - Co-opting Old Genes For New Functions

Liverworts lacking a gene called RLF have severe deformations in various organs (three plants pictured right and bottom), demonstrating that RLF is involved in organ development in these basic land plants as well.

© FUKAKI Hidehiro (CC BY)

Molecular phylogenetic tree of the REDUCED LATERAL ROOT FORMATION (RLF) protein family. The unrooted molecular phylogenetic tree was constructed based on amino acid sequences of RLF and CB5A, B, C, D, E, and LP from various plant species.

Iwata, K.P., Shimizu, T., Sakai, Y.,et al(2025)

A root development gene that’s older than root development | Kobe University News site

One common way creationist apologists attempt to mislead the scientifically uninformed is by claiming that the Laws of Thermodynamics are somehow relevant to the evolution of information within a species' genome. They argue that any increase in genetic information would violate both the Second and Third Laws of Thermodynamics—asserting that increased biological complexity equates to a decrease in entropy (disorder), and that new information is akin to energy and thus cannot increase due to the Law of Conservation.

This argument is fundamentally flawed on several levels but continues to be repeated despite being repeatedly refuted by both biologists and physicists. First, it completely ignores the fact that Earth is not a closed system. The input of energy from the Sun, for example, allows local decreases in entropy (such as in the formation of complex biological structures) while the total entropy of the universe still increases, fully complying with the Second Law. The Third Law, which relates to the entropy of systems at absolute zero, is entirely irrelevant to biological evolution.

Second, the idea that genetic information is conserved like energy is a misrepresentation. Genetic information can and does change in multiple ways through mutation. A mutation can involve the loss of information (e.g. deletion of a DNA segment), a change in information (e.g. substitution of one or more nucleotides), or an increase in information (e.g. insertion of additional sequences, or the movement of transposable elements—“jumping genes”—to new locations in the genome). None of these processes require a change in the total amount of matter or energy; they simply involve the rearrangement of existing molecular components. Any local increase in biological order is offset by energy expenditure elsewhere, typically via the hydrolysis of ATP to ADP and phosphate within metabolic pathways.

Moreover, these objections rest on the false assumption that evolution is about the quantity of information. In reality, it is the function and meaning of genetic information that drives evolutionary change. A sequence of DNA that once encoded a protein with one function can, through mutation and natural selection, take on a new function entirely—a process known as exaptation.

A well-known example is the evolution of the mammalian middle ear bones. In ancestral fish, certain jawbones played a structural role in the jaw joint. Over time, in early synapsids, these bones were repurposed and miniaturised to become part of the auditory system, transmitting sound vibrations from the eardrum to the cochlea.

Creationism Refuted - Evolution By Advantageous Mutation

This gene variant contributed to the dietary and physiological evolution of modern humans | ScienceDaily

One of the enduring claims in creationist circles is that mutations are invariably harmful—deleterious at best, fatal at worst—and thus incapable of driving evolutionary progress. This notion underpins Michael J. Behe's concept of "devolution," which posits that genetic changes represent a decline from an assumed state of original perfection. Yet, this perspective fails to account for how such "inferior" mutations could supplant their "perfect" predecessors in a population. Moreover, if a genome were truly perfect, it would replicate without error, precluding any mutations—and, by extension, any evolutionary change.

A recent study published in Cell Genomics challenges this dogma by identifying a regulatory variant of the ACSF3 gene that appears to have played a significant role in human evolution . This variant, known as rs34590044-A, enhances the expression of ACSF3 in the liver, influencing both stature and basal metabolic rate (BMR). Notably, the effects of this mutation are amplified in individuals consuming meat-rich diets, suggesting a link between genetic adaptation and dietary shifts in human history.[1.1,2.1]

The ACSF3 gene encodes an enzyme involved in mitochondrial fatty acid synthesis, a critical process for energy metabolism. Increased expression of ACSF3 has been associated with improved mitochondrial function and bone formation, potentially contributing to greater height and higher BMR in modern humans. These findings underscore the role of beneficial mutations in human adaptation and evolution, directly contradicting the creationist assertion that mutations cannot produce advantageous traits.[3.1,4.1]

This discovery not only provides insight into the genetic factors influencing human physiology but also exemplifies how mutations can facilitate evolutionary advancements, thereby challenging the notion that all genetic changes are inherently detrimental.

The team from Human Phenome Institute, Zhongshan Hospital and School of Life Sciences, Fudan University, Shanghai, China with Mark Stoneking, Department of Evolutionary Genetics, Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology, Leipzig, Germany, have recently published their findings in the open access Cell Press journal, Cell Genomics.

Creationism Refuted - How Mammalian Cold Adaptation Evolved - Starting 2.6 Million Years Before 'Creation Week'

Musk Ox, Ovibos moschatus

Arctic fox, Vulpes lagopus

Study reveals different phases of evolution during ice age | Bournemouth University

Creationists have yet another inconvenient science paper to ignore, misrepresent, or distort. A new study led by Professor John Stewart of Bournemouth University, UK, and published in Trends in Ecology & Evolution, presents compelling evidence that environmental change—specifically the climatic fluctuations of the Ice Age—has been a major driver of evolution.

By examining both fossil and palaeogenetic data in the context of glaciation records, the research team has shown that adaptations to cold climates began emerging around 2.6 million years ago. This evolutionary process significantly accelerated about 700,000 years ago, when glacial cycles shifted and cold periods began lasting twice as long. During warmer interglacial phases, cold-adapted species appear to have retreated into climatic refugia, only to expand again as the ice returned.

The main, but not the only, cause of these periods of alternating glaciation and warmer climate were the Milankovitch cycles. For details, see the AI information panel.

Reindeer, Rangifer tarandus

This study aligns closely with Darwinian evolutionary theory, and, contrary to claims by creationists that biologists are abandoning Darwinian evolution in favour of creationism, not with the metaphysical claims of intelligent design. Unsurprisingly, the researchers make no appeal to supernatural forces or pseudo-scientific conjecture. Instead, their work builds on and reinforces the evolutionary framework that has repeatedly proven its explanatory and predictive power.

Perhaps most damning to creationist dogma, the evolutionary events described took place hundreds of thousands—if not millions—of years before young-Earth creationists claim the planet was even formed. Depending on which apologetic is in play, creationists must now choose between proposing ludicrously accelerated post-Flood evolution or invoking the second law of thermodynamics in ways physicists and biologists would find baffling, using it to try to argue that events which can be observed could not have happened due to a fundamental law of physics.

Unintelligent Design - Bizarre Heath-Robinson Reproduction In A Marine Worm

[Body]

Close-up of female stolen – one of the independent reproductive units – from the worm Ramisyllis kingghidorahi. It has already sprouted eyes and is swimming free to find a stolon of the opposite sex with which to reproduce.

Information for the Media - Georg-August-Universität Göttingen

As a supposed product of intelligent design, the reproductive process of the branching marine worm Ramisyllis kingghidorahi is nothing short of bizarre—especially when one considers that many of its marine worm relatives manage perfectly well with far more straightforward, functional reproductive strategies, free from the Heath-Robinson complexity seen in R. kingghidorahi.

This remarkable worm comprises a branching network of segments, the ends of which can transform into free-living reproductive units known as stolons. These stolons firstly grow a pair of eyes then detach from the main body and swim off in search of a partner—another stolon of the opposite sex.

Yet the most pressing question for biologists isn’t why such a labyrinthine reproductive system evolved, but how it is controlled and coordinated across the worm’s sprawling body. This is precisely the mystery tackled by a team of researchers from Georg-August-Universität Göttingen, Germany.

Their research has just been published, open access, in the journal BMC Genomics.

Malevolent Designer News - How an Intelligent Designer COULD Have Made us all Immune to HIV but Chose not to

Researchers map 7,000-year-old genetic mutation that protects against HIV – University of Copenhagen

Let’s step into the mindset of an Intelligent Design (ID) creationist for a moment, as we examine a recent scientific study investigating why a small minority of people are immune to the Human Immunodeficiency Virus (HIV), while the vast majority are not.

A research team from the Novo Nordisk Foundation Center for Basic Metabolic Research (CBMR) at the University of Copenhagen, led by Professor Simon Rasmussen, has discovered that this immunity is conferred by a genetic mutation. This mutation originated in a single individual who lived near the Black Sea between 6,700 and 9,000 years ago.

According to Discovery Institute Fellow William A. Dembski, this mutation would represent what he calls “complex specified information”, a concept he attributes to an intelligent designer. Dembski argues that only such a designer could create the necessary genetic information, as mutation and natural selection alone are not goal-directed and therefore cannot produce the desired specificity. However, Dembski is notably vague about how we can objectively determine what genetic information is “specified” and what is not. He appears to rely on subjective judgement, essentially deeming any beneficial mutation as “specified”, while dismissing deleterious mutations as irrelevant.

Even granting Dembski his biased subjectivity, we are left with the implication that the mutation which conferred HIV immunity to this individual's descendants must have been “specified” by his proposed intelligent designer.

This raises an obvious question: if the intelligent designer of humans could have provided our species with immunity to HIV, why did it choose not to do so from the outset? Why rely on what appears to be a slow, natural evolutionary process to spread this mutation through the population—one that depends on people dying of HIV while those with the mutation survive and reproduce, creating the selection pressure for its spread? A process so gradual that, to this day, it remains a rare trait in the human gene pool, with only 18-25% of Danes carrying the mutated gene.

It also raised a couple of theological question for creationists: why would an omnibenevolent creator create HIV with its 'designed' ability to bypass our immune system the same designer allegedly designed to protect us and how is that an intelligent act by an omnibenevolent deity?

Malevolent Design News - How An 'Irreducibly Complex' Jumping Gene Survives To Cause Cancer

Credit: Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center.

Study Reveals Details of Process Driving Evolution & Major Diseases | NYU Langone News

A recent study by researchers at NYU Langone Health and Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität München has shed new light on how certain genetic elements, known as "jumping genes," contribute to both human evolution and the development of disease [1.1].

Intelligent Design (ID) proponents, such as Discovery Institute fellow William A. Dembski, claim that any genetic information which is both complex and specific can only originate from an intelligent designer. Similarly, Michael J. Behe argues that any complex biological structure or process requiring all its parts to function could not have evolved gradually and therefore must have been deliberately designed.

These arguments rest on little more than the fallacies of argument from incredulity and the God-of-the-gaps. Worse still, they inevitably raise troubling theological implications: if such "complex specified information" leads to harmful outcomes—such as diseases, congenital disorders, or parasitism—then their supposed designer must be incompetent, indifferent, or malevolent. In the case at hand, the study focuses on a type of "jumping gene," or retrotransposon, which is known to cause genetic diseases including cancers.

Proponents of ID consistently sidestep these issues, as they conflict with their effort to portray the Bible as a scientifically accurate text describing a benevolent, human-centred creator.

Malevolent Design - How Dembski's 'Complex Specified Information' Causes Acute Myeloid Leukemia

Rapid growth of blood cancer driven by a single genetic ‘hit’

William A. Dembski’s concept of complex specified information (CSI) remains ambiguous—arguably by design. His use of the word specified is particularly opaque: is he referring to information that produces outcomes he wishes his readers to believe are purposeful and intelligently designed by a particular deity, or is the term intended to encompass any genetic information that results in any outcome—beneficial, neutral, or harmful?

Taken at face value, and in the absence of a clear, testable definition, there appears to be no reason Dembski’s concept could not apply to information that is ultimately detrimental, either to the organism itself, or to another organism in the case of parasites or cancer. Why, for instance, should we conclude that the complex information in a gene enabling the expansion of the human brain and the enhancement of cognitive function was specified, but that the equally complex genetic information enabling a cell to become a malignant cancer, or allowing the Plasmodium falciparum parasite to evade anti-malarial drugs, was not also specified by the same intelligent designer?

Given that Dembski is a senior fellow of the Discovery Institute — an organisation notorious for its Wedge Strategy, which seeks to undermine public trust in science through disinformation and misrepresentation while promoting creationism under the guise of scientific legitimacy — it is unsurprising that complex specified information remains a nebulous and ill-defined term. The strategy’s aim has never been to engage in genuine scientific discourse or subject its claims to critical scrutiny, but rather to advance a religious agenda while avoiding the accountability that comes with reasoned analysis and empirical testing. A cynic might conclude that the leading ID advocates know their claim has no scientific basis but want their target audience to believe otherwise.

So, I invite Intelligent Design creationists to explain why the recent discovery of a gene that promotes the rapid early development of acute myeloid leukaemia should not be an example of Dembski's 'complex specified information' and so evidence that Dembski's intelligent designer designed acute myeloid leukaemia, or whether Dembski's term is deliberately vague so as to appeal to people looking for confirmation of existing bias.

Unintelligent Design - If Scientists Can Do It, Why Can't an Intelligent, Omnipotent Designer - If It Wanted To?

Treatment for mitochondrial diseases within reach | University of Gothenburg

If the human body had truly been intelligently designed by an omnibenevolent, omniscient deity, it would operate flawlessly under all conditions, free from the compromises and constraints inherent in evolutionary history.

Were this the case, much of modern medicine would be unnecessary, limited perhaps to the management and repair of traumatic injuries. Parasites, should they exist at all, would be effortlessly repelled by a perfect immune system. Genetic and structural defects, such as hernias, atherosclerosis, autoimmune disorders, blindness, deafness, neurodegenerative diseases, and complications in childbirth would simply not occur.

However, as I showed in my book, The Body of Evidence: How the Human Body Refutes Intelligent Design, the human body is not the product of intelligent design; it has evolved through a process marked by trial and error, adaptation to existing structures, and the utilitarian pressures of survival and reproduction. This explains the vast array of medical conditions that keep healthcare systems busy, often stretched to their limits. It also drives the extensive scientific research dedicated to discovering the causes and developing cures for various illnesses—achievements that an omnipotent and omnibenevolent creator, if one existed, presumably would have provided already.

Recent news highlights this contrast starkly. Scientists may have discovered a groundbreaking cure for a rare mitochondrial disease caused by mutations in the POLG gene, a condition that leads to severe disability or even early death. This advancement prompts a critical question for creationists: If human scientists can find solutions to such devastating genetic problems, why can't—or won't—your purported intelligent designer? And perhaps, more to the point, why was this defect designed in the first place?

Unintelligent Design - Another Failure By Creationism's Blundering Designer

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.

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, 2018.1; Botha, 2020). Indeed, it has been argued [e.g., by Progovac (2016) and Dediu and Levinson (2018.2)] 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, 2016.1), 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., 2012.1). This conclusion was reached early on Vigilant et al. (1989), Knight et al. (2003), Tishkoff et al. (2007), and Veeramah et al. (2012.2), and it has more recently been bolstered by studies using newer genomic techniques (Fan et al., 2019; Lorente-Galdos et al., 2019.1; Schlebusch et al., 2017.1; Schlebusch et al., 2020.1; Pakendorf and Stoneking, 2021.1). 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 (2017.2) 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, 2012.3), to 180kya (Rito et al., 2013.1) and as little as 100kya (Schlebusch et al., 2012.1). Pakendorf and Stoneking (2021.1) later listed several studies proposing that the first division was older than 160kya (Fan et al., 2019; Lorente-Galdos et al., 2019.1; Schlebusch et al., 2020.1), along with four others, from 140 to 110kya, that overlapped with the range suggested by Huybregts (Gronau et al., 2011; Veeramah et al., 2012.2; Mallick et al., 2016.2; Song et al., 2017.3). 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