While the biblical authors drew heavily from earlier Mesopotamian myths — most notably adapting the flood narrative from the Epic of Gilgamesh — they appear to have had little understanding of the broader historical and environmental context of the region. Recent research highlights a striking omission: the rich prehistoric past of the Arabian Peninsula, just to the south of Mesopotamia.
Far from being an eternal wasteland, the Arabian Peninsula was once a verdant, fertile region. Between approximately 11,000 and 5,500 years ago, it featured extensive river systems, lush vegetation, and a large freshwater lake. This environment supported human settlement and migration, acting as a corridor out of Africa rather than the barrier it is today.
The biblical narrative, especially in Genesis, reflects a parochial worldview, lacking any apparent awareness of the dramatic environmental transformations that shaped the region. The latest findings, published by an international team including researchers from the University of Geneva, show that around 8,000 years ago, a gradual shift in Earth’s orbit triggered a weakening of the monsoon systems. This climatic change led to severe aridification, culminating in the desertification of the region and the disappearance of the once 42-metre-deep lake.
What was once a cradle of biodiversity and human migration is now the Rub’ al-Khali or "Empty Quarter"—one of the most inhospitable deserts on the planet. The contrast between this rich prehistoric reality and the narrow scope of the biblical texts speaks volumes about the limited horizons and historical understanding of their authors.
What may present a fascinating puzzle for science often deals a fatal blow to creationism — if only its adherents would acknowledge it. However, creationism remains a "brain-dead zombie", artificially kept alive by the manoeuvres of creationist leaders whose power and income rely upon it.
For instance, the recent discovery in China of stone tools exhibiting 'Quina technology', typically associated with Neanderthals, raises intriguing questions for archaeologists and anthropologists. Neanderthals were previously thought to have inhabited primarily western Eurasia, yet these Chinese artefacts, dated to between 50,000 and 60,000 years ago, suggest their influence or presence extended much farther east than previously known. These findings pose fascinating questions regarding ancient human migration and technological exchange.
However, these same discoveries directly contradict creationist beliefs that the Earth is merely 6,000 to 10,000 years old and that humans appeared through a special creation without ancestral links. While science thrives on unanswered questions and continuously adapts its theories based on new evidence, creationism relies rigidly on dogma. When its foundational claims are refuted, the entire belief system crumbles. Religion insists upon unreasonable certainty, whereas science flourishes through reasonable uncertainty.
The discovery of this evidence of Quina Technology was made at the Longtan archaeological site in southwest China by an international group of archaeologists, which included Professor Ben Marwick of Washington University, USA. It is first such discovery in Asia of a technology known to have existed in Middle Palaeolothic Europe and associated there with Neanderthals.
The question is, does this show that Neanderthals were more widespread than we thought, or has their technology been shared with other hominins such as the Denisovans? Or did the same technology arise independently in China?
Traditionally, creationists have been fascinated by complexity, wrongly assuming that intricate biological systems are definitive evidence of intelligent design. In reality, simplicity is typically a hallmark of efficient, intelligent design, whereas complexity often emerges from evolutionary processes that accumulate layers of adaptation, frequently to compensate for earlier suboptimal features.
However, one particular form of complexity is likely to provoke considerable confusion among creationists: the evolutionary history of our own species in Africa. Once imagined as a straightforward, linear progression - from Australopithecines through transitional species like Homo erectus, which then migrated out of Africa into Eurasia - the true narrative has proven far more intricate. Homo sapiens evolved within Africa, and subsequently some populations ventured into Eurasia, encountering and interbreeding with the descendants of earlier migrations, notably Neanderthals and Denisovans, who had evolved independently from Homo erectus.
Given our species' propensity to interbreed with closely related hominins - likely facilitated by sexual activity serving recreational and social bonding purposes alongside procreation, a trait possibly shared by our ancestral and cousin species - recent research indicates a highly complex evolutionary pattern. Rather than a simple linear progression, the evolution of humans involved multiple episodes of diversification, genetic isolation, subsequent renewed contact, and interbreeding within Africa's vast landscapes, creating a rich mosaic of genetic heritage.
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; Botha, 2020). Indeed, it has been argued [e.g., by Progovac (2016) and Dediu and Levinson (2018)] that language is not uniquely the property of the lineage that produced H. sapiens. Here we accept the reasoning of that behaviors compatible with language and the consistent exercise of symbolic thinking are detectable only in the archaeological record of H. sapiens (Tattersall, 2012; Berwick et al., 2013; Berwick and Chomsky, 2016), and approach the issue of the antiquity of language in our species by showing that, although it is not yet possible to identify the time when a linguistic capacity emerged, genomic evidence allows us to establish with reasonable certainty the latest point at which it must have been present in early H. sapiens populations.
Over the past 15 years, numerous studies have addressed the question of exactly when the first division occurred in the original stem population of early H. sapiens. While those studies do not tell us exactly when language emerged, they allow us to make a reasonable estimate of the lower boundary of the possible time range for this key occurrence. H. sapiens emerged as an anatomically distinctive entity by about 230kya (Vidal et al., 2022). Sometime after that speciation event, the first division occurred, with all descendant populations of that division having full-fledged language. From this universal presence of language, we can deduce that some form of linguistic capacity must have been present before the first population divergence. If the linguistic capacity had emerged in humans after the initial divergence, one would expect to find modern human populations that either do not have language, or that have some communication capacity that differs meaningfully from that of all other human populations. Neither is the case. The 7,000 or so languages in the world today share striking similarities in the ways in which they are constructed phonologically, syntactically, and semantically (Eberhard et al., 2023).
Genomic studies of early H. sapiens population broadly agree that the first division from the original stem is represented today by the Khoisan peoples of Southern Africa (Schlebusch et al., 2012). This conclusion was reached early on Vigilant et al. (1989), Knight et al. (2003), Tishkoff et al. (2007), and Veeramah et al. (2012), and it has more recently been bolstered by studies using newer genomic techniques (Fan et al., 2019; Lorente-Galdos et al., 2019; Schlebusch et al., 2017; Schlebusch et al., 2020; Pakendorf and Stoneking, 2021). The term “Khoisan” refers to a bio-genetic affiliation that is linked both to a proposed ancestor-group and to some modern peoples, living in present-day South Africa, who include modern speakers of the Khoe-Khwadi, Tuu, and Ju-ǂHoan languages that have some genetic affiliation to the first divergence of the human population (Güldemann and Sands, 2009; du Plessis, 2014). It follows that, if we can identify when the first division occurred, we can with reasonable certainty consider that date to define the lower boundary of when human language was present in the ancestral modern human population. Based on the results of studies focusing on whole genome single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs), we estimate that this first division occurred at approximately 135kya. 1
Huybregts (2017) was the first to attempt to pinpoint the timing of the first division in this way. Although he suggested a date of ~125kya, close to our estimate of ~135kya, his estimate was necessarily based on a fairly narrow set of studies showing a remarkably variable range. The studies he examined ranged from the clearly implausible 300kya (Scally and Durbin, 2012), to 180kya (Rito et al., 2013) and as little as 100kya (Schlebusch et al., 2012). Pakendorf and Stoneking (2021) later listed several studies proposing that the first division was older than 160kya (Fan et al., 2019; Lorente-Galdos et al., 2019; Schlebusch et al., 2020), along with four others, from 140 to 110kya, that overlapped with the range suggested by Huybregts (Gronau et al., 2011; Veeramah et al., 2012; Mallick et al., 2016; Song et al., 2017). Several newer studies now allow us to approach the age of the first division with greater precision.
In conclusion, the researchers say:
4 The picture that emerges
Based on the recent genetic studies of early H. sapiens, we have pinpointed approximately 135kya as the moment at which some linguistic capacity must have been present in the human population. Looking forward from this event, modern human behaviors such as body decoration and the production of ochre pieces with symbolic engravings appeared as normative and persistent behaviors around 100kya. We believe that the time lag implied between the lower boundary of when language was present (135kya) and the emergence of normative modern human behaviors across the population suggests that language itself was the trigger that transformed nonlinguistic early H. sapiens (who nonetheless already possessed “language-ready” brains acquired at the origin of the anatomically distinctive species) into the symbolically-mediated beings familiar today. This development of the most sophisticated communication device in evolution allowed our ancestors to accelerate and consolidate symbolically-mediated behaviors until they became the norm for the entire species.
Miyagawa, Shigeru; DeSalle, Rob; Nóbrega, Vitor Augusto; Nitschke, Remo; Okumura, Mercedes; Tattersall, Ian Linguistic capacity was present in the Homo sapiens population 135 thousand years agoFrontiers in Psychology (2025) 16 DOI: 10.3389/fpsyg.2025.1503900
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.
Deep within the labyrinthine recesses of the Chauvet-Pont-d’Arc Cave, where the air hung thick with the scent of damp stone and ancient fires, an eight-year-old girl ventured forth. The elders had warned her — that part of the cave was forbidden. It was where the spirits of the great beasts dwelled, where their whispers echoed through the dark, and where even the bravest hunters dared not tread alone.
But the girl was no hunter—yet. And she was not alone.
By her side padded a massive wolf, its dark fur bristling as it moved with quiet confidence. They had grown together, these two—child and beast—inseparable since infancy, their bond forged in the flickering light of the hearth. The wolf was full-grown now, but the girl was still small, still fragile, her feet unsteady on the slick cave floor. Yet she pressed on, curiosity outweighing caution.
The torch in her hand sputtered as she stepped deeper into the shadows, its flame fed by a crude bundle of dried bark fibres and animal fat. The light danced across the walls, bringing to life the spirits of their ancestors—painted bison, galloping horses, towering mammoths—all shifting and writhing as if breathing. The girl had seen these images many times, had heard the shaman’s tales of how they held the souls of the animals her people hunted. But tonight, they seemed different. More alive. Watching.
Her wolf moved ahead, silent, its keen senses attuned to something unseen. The girl’s bare feet left faint imprints in the cool clay, slipping now and then, leaving streaks where she caught herself. Her companion, ever sure-footed, made no such mistakes. Their prints ran parallel, weaving through the traces of cave bears long gone—the ghosts of the great beasts that had once roamed this cavern.
A Chukchi reindeer herder. The Chukchi are an ethnic group native to Siberia.
Image credit: Natalie Fobes via Getty Images.
Most scientists think that humans reached Australia at least 50,000 years ago. Here, an Indigenous man holds traditional weapons during a ceremonial dance at a festival in Cape York, Australia.
Modern humans had dispersed out of Africa and populated every continent except Antarctica, thousands of years before creationism's little god created a small flat planet with a dome over it in the Middle East and claimed it was the entire Universe, according to creationist mythology.
So, what was the timeline of this dispersion?
After our species, Homo sapiens, emerged in Africa at least 300,000 years ago, some eventually ventured out, trekking and voyaging across the world.
Reconstruction of Yamnayan life in the Pontic Area, 5000 years ago
AI-generated image (ChatGPT4o)
Reconstruction of Yamnayan life in the Pontic Area, 5000 years ago.
AI-generated image (ChatGPT4o).
New research based on an analysis of the genomes of 435 individuals has revealed the rich history of the ancestors of modern Europeans, especially the mixing of multiple ethnic groups in the Pontic Area - modern Ukraine - between 8,400 and 4,000 year ago which eventually gave rise to the Yamnaya people who get their name from the Russian for 'pit burial' (Yamna in Ukrainian).
Before the Yamnaya spread into Europe, they were preceded by two earlier waves of migration: firstly, hunter-gatherers who arrived about 45,000 years ago having interbred with and replaced the Neanderthals who had lived there for the previous 250,000 years. These were followed by farmers who came from the Middle East, starting about 9,000 years ago.
The Yamnaya, having formed a stable linguistic and cultural group, and either invented or copied ox-drawn carts and skilled horsemanship, which gave them great mobility, began to expand their range, probably under population pressure beginning about 5,300 years ago and lasting for some 1,800 years, eventually reaching all parts of Western Europe including the Iberian Peninsula and the British Isles.
A good 8,000 years before creationism's little god created the small flat planet with a dome over it as described in Genesis, modern humans were painting wonderful paintings in caves in France and Spain, and cannibalising other humans in what is now southern Poland.
These people were the Magdalenian, a pan-European culture that existed during the Last Glacial Maximum, who are widely regarded as having a form of religion and belief in an afterlife, or at least a spiritual connection to the animals they hunted and depicted on cave walls. However, judging by their cannibalism and casual disposal of human remains along with the bones of the species they hunted for food, and the fact that they decorated and used human bones as utilities such a drinking cups made from human skull caps, they may not have had much regard for the dead.
Scottish Blackface from Applecross, Scotland - a common sheep breed of the British Isles. This breed is represented in the panel of modern reference genomes.
Domesticated animals are an embarrassment for creationists who believe that their god created all the animals for the convenience of mankind, because just about every domesticated animal (or plant for that matter) has been highly modified by selective breeding to make it suitable for whatever purpose it was domesticated for.
An intelligent god could have made them fit for purpose in the first place, if it had really created them for mankind's convenience. This shows that either the creation myth is wrong, or the creator god lacked the foresight to know what humans would be using the animals for. So, we've had to modify them, in some cases. almost beyond recognition as the descendants of their wild ancestors, to make them fit for purpose.
And it gets worse when we discover that the domestication process began long before the same creation myth says all the animals were created in the same week as humans.
Sheep, for example, according to a study by an international and interdisciplinary team of researchers led by geneticists from Trinity College Dublin, and zooarchaeologists from Ludwig Maximilian University Munich and the Bavarian State Collections of Natural History (SNSB) were first domesticated over 11,000 years ago. An analysis of their genome also reflects patterns of migration in the human population, with whom sheep have been intertwined for over 11,000 years.
Clovis people hunting mammoth in Montana during the Ice Age
AI Generated (ChatGPT4o)
An artist’s reconstruction of Clovis life 13,000 years ago shows the Anzick-1 infant with his mother consuming mammoth meat near a hearth. Another individual crafts tools, including dart projectile points and atlatls. A mammoth butchery area is visible nearby. The scene is inspired by the La Prele mammoth site in Wyoming and set against the Montana landscape where the Anzick burial was discovered. Artist Eric Carlson created the scene in collaboration with archaeologists Ben Potter (UAF) and Jim Chatters (McMaster University).
A good 3,000 years before creationism's small god allegedly created the little flat planet with a dome over it described in the Bible, thinking that's what a universe looked like, human beings had migrated to North America and were hunting mammoths.
This is according to a new stable isotope analysis by a team led by researchers from the University of Alaska Fairbanks (UAF). Creationists should note that a stable isotope analysis does not depend on radioactive decay rates, so the evidence-free claim that radioactive decay rates have changed isn't open to them. Stabel isotope analysis shows us what the person's diet consisted of.
The analysis was conducted by Professor Ben Potter of the University of Alaska Fairbanks and James Chatters of McMaster University, and their colleagues. Their findings are published, open access, in the journal Science Advances and is explained in a UAF new release:
Clearly, the authors of the creation myths in Genesis had no knowledge of their own history let alone the history of the rest of the world, as 25,000 years before the time in which they set their 'creation week', there were people holding ritual gatherings in a cave in what is now Israel.
Before the mythical 'creation week' there was supposedly no Earth, no Universe, no living beings and only a god made of nothing which had self-assembled out of nothing according to a design it made before it existed.
Creationists reason that the Universe and life on Earth is too complex to have arisen spontaneously, and it couldn't have all come from nothing, so an even more complex god must have arisen spontaneously out of nothing first then created everything else out of nothing by magic. To a child-like creationists there is no possible flaw in that reasoning.
At least 2,000 years before Creationists' little god created a small flat planet with a dome over it in the Middle East, human in Alaska were feeding domesticated dogs on salmon, according to the findings of palaeontologists from the University of Arizona.
But of course, the parochial Bronze Age pastoralists from the infancy of our species who made up that myth, couldn't possibly have known anything about when dogs were domesticated, or Alaska for that matter because, as we can see from the tales they made up, they knew nothing of the world beyond a day or two's walk from their pastures and were completely ignorant of the geography, geology and history of the planet and life on it - which is why they made up such implausible origin myths in the first place.
That there were people feeding salmon to their domesticated dogs about 12,000 years ago is the subject of a paper published recently in Science Advances by the Arizona University team led by Assistant Professor François Lanoë, of the School of Anthropology in the College of Social and Behavioral Sciences. They explain their findings in an Arizona University News release
One of creationism's many problems is that being a counter-factual superstition it is easy to refute with facts. For example, trying to cling to the childish belief that the Universe and Earh are both between 6 and 10,000 years old, must be difficult in view of all the evidence of things happening on Earth before then - like people using fire in Tasmania 41,000 years ago.
But, as though to illustrate how creationism is not science but superstition, creationists have a knee-jerk response to that sort of news by simply shrugging their shoulders and declaring that the scientists have either lied, misunderstood the data or failed to recognise that their dating method must be wrong because it doesn't agree with creationists.
The evidence, of course, comes not only from dating the charcoal found in mud, which shows us that people used fire to clear the land, but the sudden change in the pollen found in the same mud at the same time as the charcoal appears, showing how the vegetation was destroyed by fire to be replaced with other flora. This was discovered by a team of researchers from the UK and Australia, who published their findings, open access, recently in the journal, Science, and explained it in a University of Cambridge, press release.
Artistic representation of the Gibraltar sill rupture at the end of the Messinian Salinity Crisis. In the final moments of this crisis, the level of the Mediterranean Sea was around 1 km lower than that of the Atlantic Ocean.
The two accumulation phases of the Mediterranean salt layer during the Messinian Salinity Crisis. In the first phase, salt accumulated in a Mediterranean Basin filled with brine; in the second phase, salt accumulated in a Mediterranean completely isolated from the Atlantic Ocean, as a result of the significant drop in sea level in the western and eastern Mediterranean sub-basins.
Despite living not a stone's throw from it, the authors of Genesis appear to have known next to nothing about the Mediterranean, and, having guessed that Earth was created about 4,000 earlier they blundered on with their preposterous, counterfactual mythology. Had they been away of real history they might have made a better fist of it, but there was no way they could have known that about 5.5 million years earlier there was no sea to speak of; instead there was a salt-filled depression due to what is now called, The Messinian Salinity Crisis.
This event was caused by land rising up under the straights of Gibraltar restricting inflow from the Atlantic and eventually closing it altogether, and, as water levels fell, the ridge between Sicily and the North African coast formed another barrier, effectively dividing the Mediterranean into two seas.
Just about every paper published in the fields of biology, palaeontology, cosmology and archaeology refuted just about every claim on which creationism rests, whether the claims of a young earth with the YEC obsession with a global flood, the supposed absence of 'transitional fossils', the proclaimed 'impossibility of 'life' or genetic information arising without a magic creator', or Michael J Behe's 'irreducible complexity'.
None of them have garnered the slightest degree of support on the scientific community and it holds as true today as it did When Behe was forced to admit under oath in the Kitzmiller case, "...there are no peer reviewed articles by anyone advocating for intelligent design supported by pertinent experiments or calculations which provide detailed rigorous accounts of how intelligent design of any biological system occurred."
Despite the regular repeated claims by creationists that the Theory of Evolution is a theory in crisis, about to be overthrown in scientific circles by Intelligent design theory, there is not the slightest indication of that happening. False witnessing remains the single most important tactic of the creationist movement as it seeks to fool ignorant people of the scientific validity of the childish superstition. Scientific support for Darwinian evolution remains as strong today as it was in 1991 when the Discovery Institute launched its campaign to confuse and misinform public and scientific opinion about the strength of the evidence for the TOE and the claimed 'gaps' and 'defects' in the theory.
The so-called 'controversy' was never anything of the sort and attempt to 'teach the controversy' and introduce Christian fundamentalism into public school science classes disguised as a legitimate science have been met with barrage of condemnations and detailed rebuttals from major science professional bodies and teaching estabishments.
The only success the Discovery Institute can claim, is in its campaign to confuse American public opinion about the level of support for creationism in biomedical science circles. While some 98-99% of biomedical scientists fully accept the TOE as the only explanation for humans in their modern form, American public opinion believes only some 66% do and that there is a debate to be had.
This new book, The Failure of Creationism: The Theory That Never Was, is an exposé of that failure with examples of recent scientific papers that implicitly refute creationism and appendices containing the absurd claims by creationists of the TOE imminent demise, the published opposition to teaching creationism in science classes by major scientific and educational bodies and the Discovery Institute's politically subversive 'Wedge Strategy'.
