There's nothing quite like leaving a message behind to tell future generations that you were here.
Creationists, of course, have a message from about 5,000 years ago telling them that there were ignorant Bronze Age storytellers living in the Middle East — but sadly the only truth in their stories was the one they didn’t explicitly state: that they were making things up to explain what they didn’t know, which meant a great many stories to invent. They couldn’t have guessed, of course, that their tales would later be written down, bound up in a book, and then proclaimed to be the inerrant word of a creator god; otherwise they might have made more of an effort to get it right, or at least admitted they didn’t know. As it is, all we really learn from them is just how ignorant they were, and how vivid their imaginations must have been.
To be fair, it may not have been their intention to mislead and misinform, but that has been the result — mostly, it has to be said, through the fault of those who later declared their tales to be the authentic word of a god, because that conveniently suited their political agenda.
People living much earlier, on the Indonesian island of Sulawesi, left a much clearer and more honest message in the form of cave art, and particularly hand stencils. All they really say is, “Hi there! I was here!” — with no attempt to elevate themselves to a special status or claim to know things they didn’t know. Where they depicted the animals around them, they showed them just as they saw them: wild and free.
This cave art, which precedes the celebrated art of the French and Spanish caves by tens of thousands of years, has now been identified as the oldest known cave art, telling an unambiguous story of people living there around 70,000 years ago — long before anatomically modern humans made their presence felt in Western Eurasia. The discovery and the methods used to date the art were published in Nature, in a paper that marks a defining moment in our understanding of early symbolic behaviour.
Four of the researchers — Maxime Aubert, Professor of Archaeological Science, Griffith University; Adam Brumm, Professor of Archaeology, Griffith University; Adhi Oktaviana, Research Centre of Archeometry, Badan Riset dan Inovasi Nasional (BRIN), Jakarta, Indonesia; and Renaud Joannes-Boyau, Professor of Geochronology and Geochemistry, Southern Cross University, New South Wales, Australia — have also written an article in The Conversation that explains the significance of the find in accessible terms. Their piece is reprinted here under a Creative Commons licence, reformatted for stylistic consistency:
Top: Multiple views of MLP-3000-1, the newly discovered Paranthropus partial left mandible and molar crown. Bottom: MLP-3000-1 in side-by-side comparison with mandible fossils from other species — Australopithecus afarensis (A.L. 266-1), Paranthropus aethiopicus (OMO-57/4-1968-41 and OMO-18-1967-18), and early Homo (LD 350-1).
Alemseged Research Group
Two fragments of the newly discovered mandible specimen in the location they were originally found.
Research published two days ago in Nature by a team led by University of Chicago paleoanthropologist Professor Zeresenay Alemseged will dismay and delight creationists in about equal measure — especially those who manage to rationalise a fossil dating from about 2.6 million years before they believe Earth and everything on it was created — because it shows that scientists were wrong about something.
It is the news that the jawbone of an archaic hominin, Paranthropus, has been found in Ethiopia some 200 miles further north than the previously believed northern limit of these hominins.
Normally, to a binary-thinking creationist, science being wrong about even the most minor and unimportant detail is “proof” that science is wrong about everything. This childish belief probably stems from them having a single source-book which has been deemed to be inerrant, so even the slightest falsehood in it renders that claim untenable. They assume it is the same with science: that what scientists believe comes from supposedly inerrant textbooks written by “prophets” such as Charles Darwin, serving as the source-books from which all scientists get their information. So, if scientists are ever wrong, all the books from the science libraries of the world can be thrown in the waste bin, leaving creationism’s book of “inerrant” origin myths as the winner.
What they find hard to comprehend, apparently, is that scientific knowledge is cumulative, with current thinking always provisional, pending further confirmation or in need of revision in the light of new information, and that facts are neutral in any dispute, so can be objective referees. They fail to realise that because science works this way, scientists from all over the world will eventually converge on a single answer. Religions, by contrast, because they are not based on evidence but on the tenuous thread of interpretation of an ancient book which itself presents no evidence for its claims, continue to diversify into ever smaller sects, each claiming to have the one true answer but having no evidence to referee the dispute.
But of course, in the best scientific tradition, this jawbone simply adds richness to the hominin evolutionary story and raises the possibility that Paranthropus, like Australopithecus and Homo, was present in the Afar region of Ethiopia. And that opens up the intriguing possibility — given the propensity of hominins to diverge and then hybridise — that modern Homo sapiens could have some Paranthropus ancestry.
Paranthropus^ the “robust” hominins.
Paranthropus is an extinct genus of hominins that lived in eastern and southern Africa between about 2.7 and 1.2 million years ago. It is best known for its so-called “robust” anatomy — not in the sense of being especially large or powerful overall, but because of its massively built jaws, large molar teeth, thick enamel, and prominent cheekbones. Many species also had a sagittal crest (a ridge along the top of the skull) for the attachment of powerful chewing muscles.
These hominins were specialised for processing tough, fibrous, or gritty foods such as roots, tubers, sedges, and possibly hard seeds. Stable-isotope and microwear studies show that different species exploited different diets, but all appear adapted for heavy chewing.
Despite their imposing jaws, Paranthropus species had relatively small brains (roughly 400–550 cm³), similar to or only slightly larger than those of Australopithecus.
Where Paranthropus sits in the hominin family tree
Paranthropus is generally regarded as a specialised side-branch of the hominin lineage rather than a direct ancestor of modern humans. Most palaeoanthropologists think it diverged from an australopithecine-like ancestor sometime after about 3 million years ago, around the same time that the genus Homo was emerging.
In simplified terms:
An australopithecine ancestor gave rise to at least two major lineages:
one leading to Homo (eventually Homo sapiens),
another leading to the robust, chewing-adapted Paranthropus.
This makes Paranthropus a cousin lineage rather than a direct ancestor of modern humans.
However, the family tree is not a neat, branching diagram. The early hominin record shows multiple contemporaneous species living side by side, sometimes in the same regions. Genetic evidence from later hominins (such as Neanderthals and Denisovans) shows that hybridisation between hominin lineages did occur. Although no ancient DNA has yet been recovered from Paranthropus fossils, the possibility that early hominin species occasionally interbred cannot be ruled out.
Why Paranthropus matters
The existence of Paranthropus shows that human evolution was not a straight line from “ape” to “human”, but a bushy, experimental process with multiple lineages trying different ecological strategies. While the robust hominins ultimately went extinct, they represent a successful and long-lived adaptation that coexisted with early members of the genus Homo for over a million years.
Their story underlines a central point of evolutionary biology: most evolutionary experiments fail — not because they were “badly designed”, but because changing environments favour some adaptations over others.
The discovery of the jawbone and what it means for our understanding of the history of the hominins is explained in a University of Chicago news item:
New 2.6-million-year-old Paranthropus fossil reshapes understanding of early homininsA partial lower jaw discovered in Afar, Ethiopia expands the known geographic distribution of Paranthropus northward by 1000 km, revealing the genus to be more widespread and adaptively versatile than previously thought.
In a new paper published in Nature, a team led by University of Chicago paleoanthropologist Professor Zeresenay Alemseged reports the discovery of the first Paranthropus specimen from the Afar region of Ethiopia, 1000 km north of the genus’ previous northernmost occurrence. This finding offers significant new information about when and where Paranthropus existed, its adaptation to diverse environmental conditions, and how it may have interacted with other ancient relatives of modern humans including our genus Homo.
If we are to understand our own evolutionary trajectory as a genus and species, we need to understand the environmental, ecological, and competitive factors that shaped our evolution. This discovery is so much more than a simple snapshot of Paranthropus’ occurrence: It sheds fresh light on the driving forces behind the evolution of the genus.
Professor Zeresenay Alemseged, lead author
Department of Organismal Biology and Anatomy
University of Chicago
Chicago, IL, USA.
Alemseged sifts through unidentified fossil fragments in the field to find parts of a Paranthropus specimen.
Alemseged Research Group.
Paranthropus previously “missing” among hominins in the Afar and northeast Africa.
Since the human and chimpanzee lineages diverged around 7 million years ago, human ancestors went through a dramatic evolutionary process that ultimately led to the emergence of Homo sapiens around 300,000 years ago.
We strive to understand who we are and how we became to be human, and that has implications for how we behave and how we are going to impact the environment around us, and how that, in turn, is going to impact us.
Professor Zeresenay Alemseged.
In the fossil record, the human lineage is represented by over 15 hominin species that generally fit into four groups:
Facultative bipeds, e.g. Ardipithecus — Occasionally bipedal but mostly living in trees and walking on all four limbs.
Habitual bipeds: Australopithecus — Retained arboreality to some degree but mostly practiced upright walking and experimented with stone tools.
Obligate bipeds: Homo— The genus to which modern humans belong, characterized by a larger brain, sophisticated tools and obligate bipedalism.
Robust hominins: Paranthropus (also known as robust australopithecines) — Habitually bipedal like Australopithecus but distinguished by extremely large molars capped by thick enamel and facial and muscular configurations that suggest a powerful chewing apparatus.
Hundreds of fossils representing over a dozen species of Ardipithecus, Australopithecus, and Homo had been found in the Afar region of northern Ethiopia, so the apparent absence of Paranthropus was conspicuous and puzzling to paleoanthropologists, many of whom had concluded the genus simply never ventured that far north. While some experts suggested that dietary specialization restricted Paranthropus to southern regions, others hypothesized that this could have been the result of Paranthropus’ inability to compete with the more versatile Homo, [however] neither was the case: Paranthropus was as widespread and versatile as Homo and the new find shows that its absence in the Afar was an artifact of the fossil record.
Professor Zeresenay Alemseged.
Professor Zeresenay Alemseged demonstrates how fragments of the newly discovered mandible specimen fit together.
Alemseged Research Group.
Rethinking hominin biogeography, adaptation, and competition.
The 2.6-million-year-old partial jaw reported in Nature comes from the Mille-Logya research area in the Afar and is one of the oldest Paranthropus specimens unearthed to date. After recovering as many fragments as possible from the field site, the team brought them back to Chicago to analyze internal anatomy and morphology with powerful micro-CT scanning.
It’s a remarkable nexus: an ultra-modern technology being applied to a 2.6-million-year-old fossil to tell a story that is common to us all.
Professor Zeresenay Alemseged.
This new find shows that Paranthropus was as widespread and versatile as Homo and was not necessarily outcompeted by Homo.
Paranthropus was previously nicknamed the “nutcracker” genus, highlighting the very large molars, thick enamel, and heavy jaws and reflecting assumptions that this chewing apparatus caused Paranthropus to occupy a highly specialized and narrower dietary niche. But the new Paranthropus from Afar reveals that starting from its earliest origins, Paranthropus was widespread, versatile, and able to crack more than just nuts.
The new discovery gives us insight into the competitive edges that each group had, the type of diet they were consuming, the type of muscular and skeletal adaptations that they had, whether they were using stone tools or not — all parts of their adaptation and behavior that we are trying to figure out. Discoveries like this really trigger interesting questions in terms of reviewing, revising, and then coming up with new hypotheses as to what the key differences were between the main hominin groups.
Professor Zeresenay Alemseged.
Two fragments of the newly discovered mandible specimen in the location they were originally found.
Abstract
The Afar depression in northeastern Ethiopia contains a rich palaeontological and archaeological record, which documents 6 million years of human evolution. Abundant faunal evidence links evolutionary patterns with palaeoenvironmental change as a principal underlying force1. Many of the earlier hominin taxa recognized today are found in the Afar, but Paranthropus has been conspicuously absent from the region. Here we report on the discovery, in the Mille-Logya research area, of a partial mandible that we attribute to Paranthropus, dated to between 2.5 and 2.9 million years ago and found in a well-understood chronological and faunal context. The find is among the oldest fossils attributable to Paranthropus and indicates that this genus, from its earliest known appearance, had a greater geographic distribution than previously documented2. Often seen as a dietary specialist feeding on tough food, the range of diverse habitats with which eastern African Paranthropus can now be associated shows that this suggested adaptive niche did not restrict its ability to disperse as widely as species of Australopithecus and early Homo. The discovery of Paranthropus in the Afar emphasizes how little is known about hominin evolution in eastern Africa during the crucial period between 3 and 2.5 million years ago, when this genus and the Homo lineage presumably emerged.
For creationists, then, this discovery is a double embarrassment. On the one hand, it further extends the fossil record of hominins into yet another inconvenient corner of deep time and geography, while on the other it neatly illustrates how science actually works: hypotheses are refined, boundaries are adjusted, and understanding improves as new evidence comes in. What it does *not* do is undermine the entire enterprise of palaeoanthropology or cast doubt on the reality of human evolution, despite the fevered hopes of those who imagine that any minor correction is a fatal blow to all of science.
Notably, the authors themselves show no difficulty whatsoever in fitting this new find into an evolutionary framework. There is no hand-wringing, no talk of “crisis” or “collapse” of evolutionary theory, and no appeal to supernatural intervention to plug a supposed gap. Instead, the jawbone is treated exactly as it should be: as a new data point that enriches our picture of early hominin diversity, biogeography, and ecological flexibility. It refines our understanding of where Paranthropus lived, how widely it ranged, and how complex the early hominin landscape really was.
In other words, this is not a problem for evolution at all — it is a routine success story for it. The fossil record continues to grow, predictions continue to be borne out, and the messy, branching, occasionally hybridising reality of human evolution becomes ever clearer. What remains conspicuously absent, as ever, is any comparable explanatory framework from creationism — only a set of immovable dogmas that must be defended by denial, distortion, or special pleading whenever the evidence refuses to cooperate.
Once again, the facts turn out to be neutral referees in the dispute. And once again, they come down firmly on the side of an evidence-based, evolutionary account of our origins rather than on a handful of ancient origin myths that cannot be updated, tested, or corrected when they are shown to be wrong.
Advertisement
Amazon
Amazon
Amazon
Amazon
Amazon
Amazon
Amazon
Amazon
Amazon
Amazon
Amazon
Amazon
All titles available in paperback, hardcover, ebook for Kindle and audio format.
Prices correct at time of publication. for current prices.
The problems for creationists deepened today with news that two scientists, Simon Parfitt of the UCL Institute of Archaeology and a Scientific Associate at the Natural History Museum, London, and Silvia M. Bello of the Natural History Museum, have discovered an elephant bone tool dating from roughly half a million years ago — the oldest such tool discovered in Europe, from a time before anatomically modern hominins had left Africa. They published their findings in Science Advances.
Of course, most creationists will be blissfully unaware of this discovery, as with all such archaeology, because there is no point in being a creationist if you are going to read the latest scientific discoveries. How is that going to help you cling to patently absurd beliefs despite all the evidence against you? Best just ignore it and dismiss it all as some sort of Satanic conspiracy aimed at making you show weakness and change your mind.
Nevertheless, the fact is that this elephant bone tool exists and has been dated to about 490,000 years before creationism’s favourite book of Bronze Age superstitions says Earth existed. It was used by archaic hominins, probably to sharpen dulled flint tools by gently knapping the cutting edges. It was discovered at Boxgrove, Kent, England, in the early 1990s but was not recognised as a tool until recently, when finds from the Boxgrove site were studied in detail using new technology such as 3D scans and scanning electron microscopy, which revealed impact notches with embedded flint fragments.
Bone, being softer than flint, would have been the material of choice for work where precision was important, and elephant bone, with its hard outer layer of compact bone making it more durable, would have been the bone of choice. However, elephants and mammoths were rare in what is now southern England 500,000 years ago, so these tools would have been valuable objects.
It is not clear which archaic hominins used these tools in southern England, but at 500,000 years ago it was probably one of the ancestors of Neanderthals and Denisovans, which form the “muddle in the middle” of the human evolutionary story. Here the problem is not a lack of fossils but an abundance of them, showing varying mixtures of primitive and derived features typical of transitional species, coming somewhere between Homo erectus and Neanderthals. Candidates are H. heidelbergensis and H. antecessor.
The stone tools from Boxgrove are part of the widespread Acheulean technology, which originated in East Africa about 1.95 million years ago and spread across Africa and into western Eurasia after about 1.5 million years ago, persisting until between 200,000 and 100,000 years ago.
Illustrations of Ordovician, jawless vertebrates. Left is a Promissum conodont, ranging from 5 to 50 cm in length and named after unusual, cone-like teeth fossils, which are hypothesized to be ancestors of modern lampreys and hagfishes. On the right is a pair of Sacabambaspis, around 35 cm in length, which had distinct, forward-facing eyes and an armored head. Very few conodont species survived the Late Ordovician Extinction Event, and no fossils of animals like Sacabambaspis from after the event have been discovered.
A recent paper published in Science Advances by Wahei Hagiwara and Professor Lauren Sallan of the Macroevolution Unit at the Okinawa Institute of Science and Technology, Japan, closes a long-standing gap in our understanding of the early radiation of vertebrates into jawed and jawless fishes following the Late Ordovician mass extinction, around ~445–443 million years ago. Their analysis shows that this radiation arose from a small number of fortunate survivors clinging on in ecological refugia. From those few lineages, of course, all modern marine and terrestrial vertebrates ultimately evolved.
This study neatly dismantles one of creationism’s favourite rhetorical fallbacks: the claim that Earth was deliberately “fine-tuned” to support complex life, and ultimately humans. The evolutionary pattern revealed here—near-annihilation followed by recovery from a few scattered refugia—is not the signature of foresight or optimisation, but of contingency and survival against the odds. Life does not flourish because conditions are perfectly arranged for it; rather, whatever happens to survive is forced to adapt to whatever conditions remain. The history of vertebrates, like that of life more generally, is therefore not one of careful planning, but of repeated catastrophe followed by opportunistic evolutionary radiation.
Creationists are notable for clinging to demonstrably false beliefs in the face of overwhelming evidence, childishly mistaking stubbornness for intellectual strength, rather like a spoilt toddler refusing to accept that they have just lost a game of Snap!. Alongside the patently absurd claim that Earth is only 6,000–10,000 years old sits the almost equally untenable belief that the planet was created exactly as it is, perfectly suited for human life. This notion is maintained despite abundant evidence for repeated mass extinctions driven by cosmic impacts, large-scale geological processes such as plate tectonics and associated seismic activity, major reorganisations of ocean circulation, and delicately balanced biogeochemical feedback systems involving oxygenation and carbon cycling that periodically spiral out of control, triggering catastrophic climate change.
What the evidence actually reveals is not a cosy, well-regulated world resembling some tranquil small town in Kansas, but a planet that is frequently so hostile to life that much of it is wiped out entirely. Most species go extinct, leaving only a handful of survivors to inherit the aftermath and radiate into new forms adapted to altered conditions—until they too are eliminated by some future catastrophe. The conclusion is unavoidable: Earth is not fine-tuned for human life, or for life in general. Instead, today’s species are the fortunate descendants of a few lucky survivors, shaped by natural selection to fit available ecological niches as neatly as a hand fits a glove.
An international team of archaeologists led by Dr Angus Graham of Uppsala University has shown that the temple to Amun-Ra at Karnak Temple Complex was originally built more than 3,000 years ago on an island formed when the Nile split into eastern and western channels. Their findings were published last October in the journal Antiquity.
One can easily imagine the jubilation with which Christian circles would greet the discovery of any credible archaeological evidence for Adam and Eve or Noah’s Ark. In practice, judging by the regular declarations of “proof” that appear on social media, almost any claim — no matter how tenuous or poorly authenticated — that can be retro-fitted to a biblical story is enthusiastically celebrated. It is hard to avoid the impression that this eagerness betrays a certain underlying insecurity.
Yet when archaeological discoveries appear to lend support to the origin myths of other cultures, the reaction is very different. The usual response is indifference, outright dismissal, or an appeal to the tentative nature of the evidence and the dangers of confirmation bias—precisely the same grounds on which much supposedly “biblical” evidence can be rejected, of course.
It will therefore be interesting to observe the reaction in Christian circles to this research from Karnak and its relevance to ancient Egyptian creation mythology, in which the land is caused to rise from the primordial waters by the creator. This bears an obvious resemblance to the later biblical motif of land being divided from the waters. The relatively high ground at Luxor is the only plausible candidate in the region for such a formation, and during periods of high Nile flood it would indeed have appeared as an island within a lake—an environment readily imbued with sacred significance by the temple builders.
Such parallels are not especially surprising. The ancient Near East was a densely interconnected cultural landscape in which ideas, myths, and cosmological frameworks circulated freely over centuries. Egyptian conceptions of creation—particularly the emergence of land from primeval waters—pre-date the composition of the Hebrew Bible by many centuries and would have been well known, directly or indirectly, throughout the eastern Mediterranean. When the authors of Book of Genesis framed their own creation narrative, they were not writing in a cultural vacuum, but drawing upon a shared mythological vocabulary that had long been established in the region.
The team also uncovered evidence that the eastern Nile channel was deliberately infilled with sand, accelerating a silting process that was already under way. These conclusions are based on detailed analysis of 61 sediment cores taken from in and around the temple complex, along with thousands of ceramic fragments recovered from the site.
A brief communication, published last November in the American Journal of Biological Anthropology may, if creationists never read past the title (as usual), have produced a frisson of excitement in those circles. It questioned the taxonomic status of one of the most complete fossil skeletons of an early ancestral hominin, Australopithecus prometheus, popularly known as “Little Foot”.
However, reading even a little further would have turned that excitement into disappointment — assuming, of course, that they understood what they were reading. The authors were not questioning whether the fossil was ancestral at all, but whether it had been assigned to the correct position in the hominin family tree, or whether it should instead be recognised as a distinct ancestral hominin species. In other words, this was a discussion about how many transitional species there are, not whether transitional species exist at all.
The only crumb of comfort available to creationists is the familiar claim that this demonstrates how science “keeps changing its mind”, something they take as evidence that science is fundamentally unreliable—presumably including even those parts they routinely misrepresent as supporting their beliefs.
For anyone who understands the scientific method, and the importance of treating all knowledge as provisional and contingent on the best available evidence, this paper represents the principle functioning exactly as it should. Far from being a weakness, this willingness to revise conclusions in the light of new information is what makes science self-correcting and progressively more accurate over time.
The authors of the paper — a team led by La Trobe University adjunct Dr Jesse Martin—carried out a new analysis of the “Little Foot” fossils and concluded that the specimen was probably placed in the wrong taxon when first described on the basis that it does not share the same “unique suite of primitive and derived features” as Australopithecus africanus. Since that initial assessment, additional fossils of A. prometheus have been discovered, and it has become clear that “Little Foot” also differs from those specimens. At the same time, it remains sufficiently distinct from A. africanus that reassignment to that species is not justified. In short, it possesses its own unique combination of primitive and derived traits and should therefore be recognised as a separate species.
Naturally, there is no real comfort here for creationists. The phrase “suite of primitive and derived features” is simply palaeontological shorthand for evidence of descent with modification—what Darwin referred to as transitional forms. It follows that the researchers involved have no doubt whatsoever that the species under discussion evolved from earlier ancestors, and there is no hint that they believe it was spontaneously created, without ancestry, by magic.
This article struck a chord with me — not primarily because it refutes creationism, although it certainly does that by presenting evidence that simply should not exist if the biblical flood genocide story contained even a kernel of truth. Such evidence ought either to have been swept away entirely or buried beneath a thick layer of flood-deposited silt containing a chaotic jumble of animal and plant fossils from unrelated landmasses. It was neither.
What resonated more personally, however, is that I have just published a novel in which a clan of Neolithic hunter-gatherers forms a close association with wolves, with the animals playing a central role in both their hunting strategies and their folklore. In the novel, The Way of the Wolf: A Stone Age Epic — the second volume in the Ice Age Tales series — Almora is raised alongside a wolf cub that becomes her inseparable guide and protector. This relationship gives rise to several versions of a mythologised hunt in which the wolf, Sharma, saves the day and defends the hunters. Together with her Neanderthal partner, Tanu, Almora later leads a group of exiles who encounter a clan already familiar with these legends, and who have begun adopting abandoned wolf cubs and raising them as part of the community.
It is fiction, of course — but a deliberately realistic depiction of how wolves could have been domesticated through mutual benefit, cooperation, and prolonged social contact with humans.
The article itself concerns the discovery by researchers at the Francis Crick Institute, Stockholm University, the University of Aberdeen, and the University of East Anglia of wolf remains on a remote Baltic island that could only have been transported there by boat. Isotopic analysis shows that these wolves consumed the same food as the humans, and skeletal pathology in one individual indicates long-term care. The findings are reported in a research paper published in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS).
Geometric and mathematical patterns on Halafian pottery.
Scientists have once again — almost certainly unintentionally — produced evidence that the Bible is profoundly wrong about human history. This time it comes in the form of pottery shards dating back more than 8,000 years to the Halafian culture of northern Mesopotamia (c. 6200–5500 BCE). These artefacts show that people were not only producing sophisticated ceramics, but were decorating them with complex mathematical patterns long before the formal invention of numbers and counting systems.
According to the biblical account of global history, Earth was subjected to a catastrophic genocidal reset, inflicted in a fit of pique by a vengeful god who had failed to anticipate how his creation would turn out. Rather than simply eliminating humanity and starting again with a corrected design, this deity allegedly chose to preserve the same flawed model in a wooden boat while drowning everything else beneath a flood so deep it covered the highest mountains. The implicit hope appears to have been that repeating the experiment would somehow yield a different result.
As implausible as that story already is, we now possess a vast body of archaeological and palaeontological evidence showing not only that Earth is vastly older than the biblical narrative allows, but that this supposed catastrophic reset never occurred. The latter is demonstrated by the existence of civilisations that predate the alleged flood and continue uninterrupted through it, as though it never happened at all. Their material remains include artefacts that would have been completely destroyed or displaced by such a deluge, and settlement sites that show no sign of burial beneath a chaotic, fossil-bearing sedimentary layer containing mixed local and foreign species.
No such global layer exists. Instead, human artefacts are found precisely where they were made and used, unaffected by any mythical torrent scouring the planet clean.
The designs on the Halafian pottery themselves are particularly revealing. They include repeating patterns — for example, binary progressions such as 2, 4, 8, 16, 32 — suggesting that this culture possessed systematic ways of dividing land or goods to ensure equitable distribution.
Photo montage of five major elements of DAN5 fossil cranium
Credit: Dr. Michael Rogers
Map showing potential migration routes of the human ancestor, Homo erectus, in Africa, Europe and Asia during the early Pleistocene. Key fossils of Homo erectus and the earlier Homo habilis species are shown, including the new face reconstruction of the DAN5 fossil from Gona, Ethiopia dated to 1.5 million years ago.
Credit: Dr. Karen L. Baab. Scans provided by National Museum of Ethiopia, National Museums of Kenya and Georgian National Museum.
Palaeontologists at the College of Graduate Studies, Glendale Campus of Midwestern University in Arizona, have reconstructed the head and face of an early Homo erectus specimen, DAN5, from Gona in the Afar region of Ethiopia on the Horn of Africa. In doing so, they have uncovered several unexpected features that should trouble any creationist who understands their significance. The research has just been published open access in Nature Communications.
Creationism requires its adherents to imagine that there are no intermediate fossils showing a transition from the common Homo/Pan ancestor to modern Homo sapiens, whom they claim were created as a single couple just a few thousand years ago with a flawless genome designed by an omniscient, omnipotent creator. The descendants of such a couple would, of course, show no genetic variation, because both the perfect genome and its replication machinery would operate flawlessly. No gene variants could ever arise.
The reality, however, is very different. Not only are there vast numbers of fossils documenting a continuum from the common Homo/Pan ancestor of around six million years ago, but there is also so much variation among them that it has become increasingly difficult to force them into a simple, linear sequence. Instead, human evolution is beginning to resemble a tangled bush rather than a neat progression.
The newly reconstructed face of the Ethiopian Homo erectus is no exception. It displays a mosaic of more primitive facial traits alongside features characteristic of the H. erectus populations believed to have spread out of Africa in the first of several waves of hominin migration into Eurasia. The most plausible explanation is that the Ethiopian population descended from an earlier expansion within Africa, became isolated in the Afar region, and retained its primitive characteristics while other populations continued to evolve towards the more derived Eurasian form.
The broader picture that has emerged in recent years—particularly since it became clear that H. sapiens, Neanderthals, and Denisovans formed an interbreeding complex that contributed to modern non-African humans—is one of repeated expansion into new environments, evolution in isolation, and subsequent genetic remixing as populations came back into contact. DAN5 represents just one of these populations, which appears to have evolved in isolation for some 300,000 years.
Not only is this timescale utterly incompatible with the idea of the special creation of H. sapiens 6,000–10,000 years ago, but the sheer existence of this degree of variation is also irreconcilable with the notion of a flawless, designed human genome. Even allowing for old-earth creationist claims that a biblical “day” may represent an elastic number of millions of years, the problem remains: a highly variable genome must still be explained as the product of perfect design. A flawless genome created by an omniscient, omnipotent creator should, moreover, have been robust enough to withstand interference following “the Fall” — an event such a creator would necessarily have foreseen, particularly if it also created the conditions for that fall and the other creative agency involved (Isaiah 45:7).
As usual, creationists seem to prefer the conclusion that their supposed intelligent creator was incompetent—either unaware of the future, indifferent to it, or powerless to prevent it—rather than accept the far more parsimonious explanation: that modern Homo sapiens are the product of a long, complex evolutionary history from more primitive beginnings, in which no divine intervention is required.
Origins of Homo erectus
Homo erectus
Homo erectus appears in the fossil record around 1.9–2.0 million years ago, emerging from earlier African Homo populations, most likely derived from Homo habilis–like ancestors. Many researchers distinguish early African forms as Homo ergaster, reserving H. erectus sensu stricto for later Asian populations, although this is a taxonomic preference rather than a settled fact.
Key features of early H. erectus include:
A substantial increase in brain size (typically 600–900 cm³ initially, later exceeding 1,000 cm³)
A long, low cranial vault with pronounced brow ridges
A modern human–like body plan, with long legs and shorter arms
Clear association with Acheulean stone tools and likely habitual fire use (by ~1 million years ago)
Crucially, H. erectus was the first hominin to disperse widely beyond Africa, reaching:
The Caucasus (Dmanisi) by ~1.8 Ma
Southeast Asia (Java) by ~1.6 Ma
China (Zhoukoudian) by ~0.8–0.7 Ma
This makes H. erectus not a single, static species, but a long-lived, geographically structured lineage.
Homo erectus as a population complex
Rather than a uniform species, H. erectus is best understood as a metapopulation:
African populations
Western Eurasian populations
East and Southeast Asian populations
These groups experienced repeated range expansions, isolation, local adaptation, and partial gene flow, producing the mosaic anatomy seen in fossils such as DAN5.
This population structure is critical for understanding later human evolution.
Relationship to later Homo species
Neanderthal (H. neanderthalensis)
From H. erectus to H. heidelbergensis
By around 700–600 thousand years ago, some H. erectus-derived populations—probably in Africa—had evolved into forms often grouped as Homo heidelbergensis (or H. rhodesiensis for African material).
These hominins had:
Larger brains (1,100–1,300 cm³)
Reduced facial prognathism
Continued Acheulean and early Middle Stone Age technologies
They represent a transitional grade, not a sharp speciation event.
Divergence of Neanderthals, Denisovans, and modern humans
Genetic and fossil evidence indicates the following broad pattern:
~550–600 ka: A heidelbergensis-like population splits
African branch → modern Homo sapiens
Eurasian branch → Neanderthals and Denisovans
Neanderthals
Evolved primarily in western Eurasia
Adapted to cold climates
Distinctive cranial morphology
Contributed ~1–2% of DNA to all non-African modern humans
Denisovans
Known mostly from genetic data, with sparse fossils (Denisova Cave)
Closely related to Neanderthals but genetically distinct
Contributed genes to Melanesians, Aboriginal Australians, and parts of East and Southeast Asia, including variants affecting altitude adaptation (e.g. EPAS1)
Modern Homo sapiens
Emerged in Africa by ~300 ka
Retained genetic continuity with earlier African populations
Dispersed out of Africa multiple times, beginning ~70–60 ka
Interbred repeatedly with Neanderthals and Denisovans
The key point: no clean branching tree
Human evolution is reticulate, not linear:
Species boundaries were porous
Gene flow occurred repeatedly
Populations diverged, adapted, re-merged, and diverged again
Homo erectus is not a side branch that “went extinct”, but a foundational grade from which multiple later lineages emerged. DAN5 fits neatly into this framework: a locally isolated erectus population retaining ancestral traits while others continued evolving elsewhere.
Why this matters
This picture:
Explains mosaic anatomy in fossils
Accounts for genetic admixture in living humans
Makes sense of long timescales and geographic diversity
Is incompatible with any model of recent, perfect, single-pair creation
Instead, it shows that our species is the outcome of millions of years of population dynamics, not a single moment of design.
A new fossil face sheds light on early migrations of ancient human ancestorA New Fossil Face Sheds Light on Early Migrations of Ancient Human Ancestor
A 1.5-million-year-old fossil from Gona, Ethiopia reveals new details about the first hominin species to disperse from Africa.
Summary: Virtual reassembly of teeth and fossil bone fragments reveals a beautifully preserved face of a 1.5-million-year-old human ancestor—the first complete Early Pleistocene hominin cranium from the Horn of Africa. This fossil, from Gona, Ethiopia, hints at a surprisingly archaic face in the earliest human ancestors to migrate out of Africa.
A team of international scientists, led by Dr. Karen Baab, a paleoanthropologist at the College of Graduate Studies, Glendale Campus of Midwestern University in Arizona, produced a virtual reconstruction of the face of early Homo erectus. The 1.5 to 1.6 million-year-old fossil, called DAN5, was found at the site of Gona, in the Afar region of Ethiopia. This surprisingly archaic face yields new insights into the first species to spread across Africa and Eurasia. The team’s findings are being published in Nature Communications.
We already knew that the DAN5 fossil had a small brain, but this new reconstruction shows that the face is also more primitive than classic African Homo erectus of the same antiquity. One explanation is that the Gona population retained the anatomy of the population that originally migrated out of Africa approximately 300,000 years earlier.
Dr. Karen L. Baab, lead author
Department of Anatomy
Midwestern University
Glendale, AZ, USA.
Gona, Ethiopia
The Gona Paleoanthropological Research Project in the Afar of Ethiopia is co-directed by Dr. Sileshi Semaw (Centro Nacional de Investigación sobre la Evolución Humana, Spain) and Dr. Michael Rogers (Southern Connecticut State University). Gona has yielded hominin fossils that are older than 6.3 million years ago, and stone tools spanning the last 2.6 million years of human evolution. The newly presented hominin reconstruction includes a fossil brain case (previously described in 2020) and smaller fragments of the face belonging to a single individual called DAN5 dated to between 1.6 and 1.5 million years ago. The face fragments (and teeth) have now been reassembled using virtual techniques to generate the most complete skull of a fossil human from the Horn of Africa in this time period. The DAN5 fossil is assigned to Homo erectus, a long-lived species found throughout Africa, Asia, and Europe after approximately 1.8 million years ago.
How did the scientists reconstruct the DAN5 fossil?
The researchers used high-resolution micro-CT scans of the four major fragments of the face, which were recovered during the 2000 fieldwork at Gona. 3D models of the fragments were generated from the CT scans. The face fragments were then re-pieced together on a computer screen, and the teeth were fit into the upper jaw where possible. The final step was “attaching” the face to the braincase to produce a mostly complete cranium. This reconstruction took about a year and went through several iterations before arriving at the final version.
Dr. Baab, who was responsible for the reconstruction, described this as “a very complicated 3D puzzle, and one where you do not know the exact outcome in advance. Fortunately, we do know how faces fit together in general, so we were not starting from scratch.”
What did scientists conclude?
This new study shows that the Gona population 1.5 million years ago had a mix of typical Homo erectus characters concentrated in its braincase, but more ancestral features of the face and teeth normally only seen in earlier species. For example, the bridge of the nose is quite flat, and the molars are large. Scientists determined this by comparing the size and shape of the DAN5 face and teeth with other fossils of the same geological age, as well as older and younger ones. A similar combination of traits was documented previously in Eurasia, but this is the first fossil to show this combination of traits inside Africa, challenging the idea that Homo erectus evolved outside of the continent.
I'll never forget the shock I felt when Dr. Baab first showed me the reconstructed face and jaw. The oldest fossils belonging to Homo erectus are from Africa, and the new fossil reconstruction shows that transitional fossils also existed there, so it makes sense that this species emerged on the African continent,” says Dr. Baab. “But the DAN5 fossil postdates the initial exit from Africa, so other interpretations are possible.
Dr. Yousuke Kaifu, co-author
The University Museum
The University of Tokyo
Bunkyo-ku, Tokyo, Japa.
This newly reconstructed cranium further emphasizes the anatomical diversity seen in early members of our genus, which is only likely to increase with future discoveries.
Dr. Michael J. Rogers, co-author.
Department of Anthropology
Southern Connecticut State University
New Haven, CT, USA.
It is remarkable that the DAN5 Homo erectus was making both simple Oldowan stone tools and early Acheulian handaxes, among the earliest evidence for the two stone tool traditions to be found directly associated with a hominin fossil.
Dr. Sileshi Semaw, co-author
Centro Nacional de Investigación sobre la Evolución Humana (CENIEH)
Burgos, Spain.
Future Research
The researchers are hoping to compare this fossil to the earliest human fossils from Europe, including fossils assigned to Homo erectus but also a distinct species, Homo antecessor, both dated to approximately one million years ago.
Comparing DAN5 to these fossils will not only deepen our understanding of facial variability within Homo erectus but also shed light on how the species adapted and evolved.
Dr. Sarah E. Freidline, co-author
Department of Anthropology
University of Central Florida
Orlando, FL, USA.
There is also potential to test alternative evolutionary scenarios, such as genetic admixture between two species, as seen in later human evolution among Neanderthals, modern humans and “Denisovans.” For example, maybe DAN5 represents the result of admixture between classic African Homo erectus and the earlier Homo habilis species.
We’re going to need several more fossils dated between one to two million years ago to sort this out.
Abstract
The African Early Pleistocene is a time of evolutionary change and techno-behavioral innovation in human prehistory that sees the advent of our own genus, Homo, from earlier australopithecine ancestors by 2.8-2.3 million years ago. This was followed by the origin and dispersal of Homo erectus sensu lato across Africa and Eurasia between ~ 2.0 and 1.1 Ma and the emergence of both large-brained (e.g., Bodo, Kabwe) and small-brained (e.g., H. naledi) lineages in the Middle Pleistocene of Africa. Here we present a newly reconstructed face of the DAN5/P1 cranium from Gona, Ethiopia (1.6-1.5 Ma) that, in conjunction with the cranial vault, is a mostly complete Early Pleistocene Homo cranium from the Horn of Africa. Morphometric analyses demonstrate a combination of H. erectus-like cranial traits and basal Homo-like facial and dental features combined with a small brain size in DAN5/P1. The presence of such a morphological mosaic contemporaneous with or postdating the emergence of the indisputable H. erectus craniodental complex around 1.6 Ma implies an intricate evolutionary transition from early Homo to H. erectus. This finding also supports a long persistence of small-brained, plesiomorphic Homo group(s) alongside other Homo groups that experienced continued encephalization through the Early to Middle Pleistocene of Africa.
Introduction
The oldest fossils assigned to our genus are ~2.8 million years old (Myr) from Ethiopia and signal a long history of Homo evolution in the Rift Valley1,2,3. There is evidence of multiple Homo lineages in Africa by 2.0–1.9 million years ago (Ma) and an archaeological and paleontological record of expansion to more temperate habitats in the Caucasus and Asia between 2.0 and 1.8 Ma4 (Fig. 1). The last appearance datum for the more archaicHomo habilis species (or “1813 group”) is ~1.67 (OH 13) or ~1.44 Ma, if KNM-ER 42703 is correctly attributed to H. habilis5, which is uncertain6. The archetypal early African Homo erectus fossils from Kenya (i.e., KNM-ER 3733, 3883; and the adolescent KNM-WT 15000) already present a suite of traits that distinguish them from early Homo taxa by 1.6–1.5 Ma, including larger brains and bodies, smaller postcanine dentition, more pronounced cranial superstructures (e.g., projecting and tall brow ridges), a relatively wide midface and nasal aperture, deep palate, and projecting nasal bridge1,6,7,8,9,10,11. The only evidence for H. erectus sensu lato in Africa before 1.8 Ma are fragmentary or juvenile fossils12,13,14, while fossils expressing both ancestral H. habilis and more derived H. erectus s.l. morphological traits are only known from Dmanisi, Georgia at 1.77 Ma15,16. Thus, H. erectus emerged from basal Homo between 2.0 and 1.6 million years ago, but when, where (Africa or Eurasia), and how it occurred remain unclear. An expanded fossil record also documents significant variation in endocranial 17,18 and craniofacial6,8 and dentognathic morphology19,20 throughout the Early Pleistocene, which extends to the Middle Pleistocene with the addition of small-brained Homo lineages to the human tree.
Fig. 1: Early Homo and Homo erectus timeline between 2.0 and 1.0 Ma and map of key sites in Africa and southern Eurasia.
The solid bars of the timeline indicate well-established first and last appearance data; the horizontal stripes indicate possible extensions of the time range based on fragmentary or juvenile fossils. Diagonal lines signal earlier archaeological presence in those regions. The question mark indicates a possible date of <1.49 Ma for the Mojokerto, Indonesia site cf.22,23,24,25. The horizontal gray bar represents the time range associated with DAN5/P1. Colors on the map indicate presence of fossils matching taxa or geographic groups of H. erectus as indicated in the timeline. Surface renderings of the best-preserved regional representatives of archaic or small-brained Homo fossils (beginning at top and continuing clockwise): D2700, KNM-ER 1813, KNM-ER 1470, KNM-ER 3733, SK 847, OH 24, KNM-WT 15000, and DAN5/P1. All surface renderings visualized at FOV 0° (parallel). Map was generated in “rnaturalearth” package68 for R.
The initial announcement of DAN5/P1 assigned it to H. erectus on the basis of derived neurocranial traits21. Subsequent analyses of neurocranial shape and endocranial morphology confirmed affinity with H. erectus but also noted similarities to early (pre-erectus) Homo fossils such as KNM-ER 181317,18. Only limited information about the partial maxilla and dentition was presented in the original description21. Yet, facial and dental traits are increasingly important in early Homo systematics, given overlap in brain size among closely related hominins6,8,22. The DAN5/P1 fossil is a rare opportunity to evaluate neurocranial, facial, and dental anatomy in a single Early Pleistocene Homo fossil and thus has significant implications for this discussion.
Here we present a new cranial reconstruction of the 1.6–1.5 Myr DAN5/P1 fossil from Gona, Ethiopia. This study demonstrates that the small-brained adult DAN5/P1 fossil (598 cm321) presents a previously undocumented combination of early Homo and H. erectus features in an African fossil.
Taken together, the evidence leaves little room for the idea that Homo erectus was a dead-end curiosity, neatly replaced by something entirely new. Instead, it represents a long-lived, widely dispersed, and internally diverse population complex that provided the evolutionary substrate from which later human lineages emerged. Its descendants were not produced by sudden leaps or special creation events, but by the ordinary, observable processes of population divergence, isolation, and adaptation acting over deep time.
Modern Homo sapiens, Neanderthals, and Denisovans did not arise as separate “kinds”, nor did they follow clean, branching paths. They represent regional outcomes of this erectus-derived heritage, shaped by geography, climate, and repeated episodes of contact and interbreeding. The genetic legacy of those interactions is still present in living humans today, providing independent confirmation of what the fossil record has long been indicating.
What emerges is not a ladder of progress but a dynamic, reticulated history: populations spreading, fragmenting, evolving in isolation, and reconnecting again. Fossils such as DAN5 are not anomalies to be explained away; they are exactly what we should expect from evolution operating on structured populations across continents and hundreds of thousands of years.
For creationism, this is deeply inconvenient. For evolutionary biology, it is precisely the kind of rich, internally consistent picture that arises when multiple independent lines of evidence converge on the same conclusion: humanity is the product of a long, complex evolutionary history, not a recent act of design.
