Refuting Creationism - Ritual Gatherings in a Cave in Israel - 25,000 Years Before 'Creation Week'

Reconstruction of a ritual gathering in Manot Cave

AI-Generated image (ChatGPT4o)

Manot Cave, Israel

Earliest deep-cave ritual compound in Southwest Asia discovered The Daily The Daily

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.

Prehistoric history of humans in the Levant. The Levant, a region in the Eastern Mediterranean encompassing modern-day Israel, Jordan, Lebanon, Syria, Palestine, and parts of Turkey, has a rich prehistoric history central to the story of human evolution and early civilization. Key aspects of its prehistoric human history include:

Early Human Occupation

1. Homo erectus and Neanderthals:
   • Homo erectus, an early human ancestor, is believed to have migrated through the Levant around 1.5 million years ago, as evidenced by tools and fossil finds in sites like Ubeidiya in Israel.
   • Neanderthals occupied the Levant intermittently, with significant remains found in caves like Amud and Kebara in Israel. These populations were adapted to cooler climates and coexisted with anatomically modern humans for some time.
2. Anatomically Modern Humans (Homo sapiens):
   • Fossil evidence from Skhul and Qafzeh Caves (dating to approximately 120,000–90,000 years ago) shows some of the earliest presence of Homo sapiens outside Africa. These individuals displayed both modern and archaic traits, suggesting a transitional phase of human evolution.

Cultural and Technological Advances

1. Middle Palaeolithic Period (250,000–50,000 years ago):
   • The Levant was part of a crucial migratory corridor for early humans. Stone tools from this period, associated with both Neanderthals and Homo sapiens, include Levallois technology, a distinctive method of producing flint tools.
   • Evidence suggests cultural exchange and possibly interbreeding between Neanderthals and modern humans during this period.
2. Upper Palaeolithic Period (50,000–20,000 years ago):
   • This era saw the dominance of Homo sapiens and the decline of Neanderthals in the region.
   • Innovations included more sophisticated tools, personal ornaments, and symbolic art, indicating cognitive and cultural advancements.

Agricultural Revolution

1. Epipaleolithic Period (20,000–10,000 years ago):
   • Cultures like the Natufians (circa 15,000–11,500 years ago) in the Levant were among the first to transition from nomadic to sedentary lifestyles.
   • They constructed semi-permanent settlements and began cultivating wild cereals and domesticating animals, setting the stage for the Agricultural Revolution.
2. Neolithic Revolution (10,000–6,000 years ago):
   • The Levant became a cradle of agriculture during this period. Sites such as Jericho and Ain Ghazal reveal early examples of farming communities with permanent dwellings, pottery, and advanced social structures.
   • Domestication of plants like wheat and barley and animals like goats and sheep transformed human societies.

Archaeological Highlights

1. Jericho:
   • One of the oldest known towns in the world, with settlement layers dating back to around 10,000 BCE, including early fortifications and a stone tower.
2. Göbekli Tepe (though geographically in Turkey, close to the Levant):
   • This site, dating to around 9600 BCE, features monumental stone structures and carvings, suggesting complex social and spiritual activities among hunter-gatherers.

Significance

The Levant's geographical location made it a crucial crossroads for human migrations between Africa, Europe, and Asia. It played a pivotal role in the spread of Homo sapiens, cultural innovations, and the transition from hunter-gatherer to agricultural societies. This region's archaeological record continues to provide critical insights into human evolution and the development of early civilizations.

Evidence for these ritual gatherings has just been published in Proceedings of the National Academy of Science (PNAS) by a team led by three Israeli archaeologists and including researchers from Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio, USA, and described in a Case Western Reserve University news release:

Earliest deep-cave ritual compound in Southwest Asia discovered

---

Case Western Reserve University researchers helped unearth evidence for ritualistic gathering in upper Palaeolithic

---

A cave in Galilee, Israel, has yielded evidence for ritualistic gathering 35,000 years ago, the earliest on the Asian continent. Three Israeli researchers led the team that published its results today in the journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

And researchers from Case Western Reserve University (CWRU) School of Dental Medicine helped unearth the cave’s secrets over more than a decade of excavation.

Manot Cave was used for thousands of years as a living space for both Neanderthals and humans at different times. In 2015, researchers from Case Western Reserve helped identify a 55,000-year-old skull that provided physical evidence of interbreeding between Neanderthal and homo sapiens, with characteristics of each clearly visible in the skull fragment.

The cave’s living space was near the entrance, but in the deepest, darkest part of the cave, eight stories below, the new paper describes a large cavern with evidence it was used as a gathering space, possibly for rituals that enhanced social cohesion.

“Turtle rock” was focal point


The cavern’s touchstone is an engraved rock, deliberately placed in a niche in the cavern, with a turtle-shell design carved into its surface. The three-dimensional turtle is contemporaneous with some of the oldest cave paintings in France.

An engraved rock with a carved symbolic turtle was placed in a niche in the ritual space.

It may have represented a totem or spiritual figure. Its special location, far from the daily activities near the cave entrance, suggests that it was an object of worship.

Omry Barzilai, lead author
The Leon Recannati Institute of Maritime Studies
School of Archaeology and Maritime Cultures
University of Haifa, Mount Carmel, Haifa, Israel.

The cavern has natural acoustics favorable for large gatherings, and evidence of wood ash on nearby stalagmites suggests prehistoric humans carried torches to light the chamber.

Manot Cave was discovered in 2008 by workers building condominiums in a mountain resort close to Israel’s border with Lebanon. Case Western Reserve’s School of Dental Medicine got involved in the excavation in 2012. The dean at the time, Jerold Goldberg, committed $20,000 annually for 10 years to CWRU’s Institute for the Science of Origins; the money was used to fund dental students’ summer research in Israel.

Dental students dug ancient bones

I’m an oral and maxillofacial surgeon by training. I provided the commitment and the money because I wanted people to understand the breadth and intellectual interest that dental schools have.

Jerold Goldberg, co-author
Departments of Orthodontics and Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery
School of Dental Medicine
Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH, USA.

And although not trained in archaeology, dental students can quickly identify bone fragments from rock, which makes them invaluable at excavations like Manot Cave.

Most people would not suspect that a dental school would be involved in an archaeological excavation, but one of the things that are preserved very well in ancient skeletons are teeth, because they are harder than bone. There is a whole field of dental anthropology. As an orthodontist, I am interested in human facial growth and development, which, it turns out, is exactly what is needed to identify anthropological specimens.

Professor Mark Hans, co-author
Departments of Orthodontics and Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery
School of Dental Medicine
Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH, USA.

For 10 years, Case Western Reserve sent 10 to 20 dental students every summer to help with the Manot Cave excavation. The summer research became so popular that students from other dental and medical schools began applying to visit Israel with the CWRU team, according to Yvonne McDermott, the project coordinator.

Case Western Reserve also collaborated closely with Linda Spurlock, a physical anthropologist at Kent State University, whose expertise is putting a face on a skull using clay to build out the tissues that would have covered the bone when the person was alive.

One of the things I liked most about working on this excavation was how much we learned from the other researchers. Everyone has a narrow focus, like mammals, uranium-dating, hearths; and we all came together and shared our knowledge. We learned a lot over 10 years.

>Professor Mark Hans.

The Manot Cave project is supported by the Dan David Foundation, the Israel Science Foundation, the United States-Israel Binational Science Foundation, the Irene Levi Sala CARE Archaeological Foundation and the Leakey Foundation. The research also involved experts from the Israel Antiquities Authority, Cleveland State University, the Geological Survey of Israel, the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, the University of Haifa, Tel Aviv University, Ben-Gurion University, the University of Vienna, the University of Barcelona, the University of Siena and Simon Fraser University.

Significance
This study presents evidence from the Levant of communal rituals centered around a carved boulder within a distinct hall in the deepest and darkest part of Manot Cave. It expands our understanding of the Upper Paleolithic period beyond material culture and subsistence, delving into the more ephemeral realm of the ritual lives of the people.

Abstract
Identifying communal rituals in the Paleolithic is of scientific importance, as it reflects the expression of collective identity and the maintenance of group cohesion. This study provides evidence indicating the practice of deep cave collective rituals in the Levant during the Early Upper Paleolithic (EUP) period. It is demonstrated that these gatherings occurred within a distinct ritual compound and were centered around an engraved object in the deepest part of Manot Cave, a pivotal EUP site in southwest Asia. The ritual compound, segregated from the living areas, encompasses a large gallery partitioned by a cluster of remarkable speleothems. Within this gallery, an engraved boulder stands out, displaying geometric signs suggesting a unique representation of a tortoise. Isotopic analysis of calcite crusts on the boulder’s grooves revealed alignment with values found in speleothems from the cave dated to ~37 to 35 ka BP. Additionally, meticulous shape analysis of the grooves’ cross-section and the discernible presence of microlinear scratches on the grooves’ walls confirmed their anthropogenic origin. Examination of stalagmite laminae (36 ka BP) near the engraved boulder revealed a significant presence of wood ash particles within. This finding provides evidence for using fire to illuminate the dark, deep part of the cave during rituals. Acoustic tests conducted in various cave areas indicate that the ritual compound was well suited for communal gatherings, facilitating conversations, speeches, and hearing. Our results underscore the critical role of collective practices centered around a symbolic object in fostering a functional social network within the regional EUP communities.

When and where initial forms of collective ritual practices first appeared is still an enigma. The study of Paleolithic prehistoric art provides an important insight into past human cultures. Remarkable examples of artistic expression in Europe (1, 2), Africa (3, 4), Southeast Asia (5–7), and Australia (8, 9)—illustrate the artistic skills, cognitive abilities, and cultural development of the Paleolithic people worldwide. However, evidence regarding the symbolic behavior of Paleolithic people (e.g., refs. 6, and 10–16) is still poorly understood and subject to ongoing debate. Symbolic behavior likely emerged alongside the development of complex cognitive abilities, enabling early humans to represent and communicate abstract concepts through symbols, embedded in artistic representation, language, and ritual practices. Archaeological evidence suggests that this capacity began to develop in the Middle Stone Age, with the earliest known examples of symbolic artifacts, such as ochre engravings and beads, appearing around 100,000 y ago (17). These artifacts indicate the ability to create and understand symbols, a critical step in the evolution of culture and social structures that help maintain large and more complex social networks (18). Communal rituals, as a specific form of symbolic behavior, often leave material traces, such as public-cum-ceremonial structures, communal burial grounds, and unique artifacts, which provide insights into the symbolic and social practices of prehistoric communities (19). The discovery of constructed stalagmite circles in Bruniquel Cave, France, suggests that some form of deep cave communal ritual was already practiced by Neanderthals during the Middle Paleolithic (20). Social evolution theories argue that the appearance of communal ritual practices is intimately interconnected with the evolution of social complexity as a mechanism aimed at promoting social cohesion (21).

In the archaeological record, identification of collective rituals is challenging and usually relies on physical elements such as exceptional stone structures interpreted as temples and shrines (22–24). In the earlier prehistoric periods, evidence may come in the form of confined spaces in caves, often decorated with paintings and engravings, that can host gathered people to perform nonmundane activities (25, 26). Such confined spaces provide options for seclusion, intimacy, selective attendance, and other modes needed in ritual activities (27, 28).

Rock engravings are already evident in the Middle Paleolithic period and became more complex and frequent during the Upper Paleolithic (29, 30) (SI Appendix, 1). In the Levant, engraved artifacts are uncommon and when found, they are often categorized as artistic items. These objects are usually portable and of a personal nature (31–36), commonly discovered in close association with domestic assemblages and other artifacts. In most Paleolithic sites in the Levant, there is no clear spatial division between areas designated for domestic activities and those used for other purposes [e.g., in Qafzeh Cave (37)]. Therefore, we cannot preclude the possibility that these small artifacts were mundane, made for aesthetic purposes, evidence for the adroitness of the artist, or meant to enhance prestige.

In this paper, we report the discovery of a confined space (referred to as the “ritual compound”) with an engraved dolomite boulder found in the deepest and darkest part of Manot Cave (Fig. 1) (38–40). This space (Areas A, H, K; Fig. 1C and SI Appendix, Fig. S1), is distinctly separated from the domestic living area (Area E), which was located close to the cave entrance. Our research provides compelling evidence indicating the boulder and the space surrounding it dedicated communal space for ritual purposes.

The site location, the cave plan with excavated areas, and the major findings. (A) Location of Manot Cave and other Paleolithic sites with engraved objects. (B) Archaeological horizons in the major activity area at the cave entrance (Area E). (C) Plan of the cave with excavated areas marked. The ritual compound is marked with a dashed-line red circle. (D) The location of the boulder with its geometric markings. (E) Persian fallow deer antler retrieved from the southern “hidden” chamber next to the entrance to the gallery. (F) Cross-section of the cave. Note that the gallery is in the deepest part of the cave. Numbers (1, 2, 3) denote the main locations of groups of stalagmites. (G) Stalagmites within the cave. Note a row of speleothems at the bottom of the western talus, separating the gallery from the rest of the cave. (H) Superolateral view (looking northwest) of the recovered boulder ( in situ). Note that the cave wall is void of similar engravings. (I) A three-dimensional image (3D) of the ritual compound where the engraved boulder was found. Notice the two pillars of stalagmites (forming the “gate”) at its entrance.

Fig. 2.
Macrotopography of artificial and naturally occurring grooves on Manot Cave boulder. (A) The engraved boulder. Note the central concentric line (black arrow) connecting two levels of geometric signs. In the white circle “navicular,” boat-shape, grooves. (B and C) Close-up views on a navicular groove, presented from two different angles. (D) A navicular groove was produced during the experimental study. (E and F) The locations where groove profiles were taken. (G) Profile (cross-section) of artificial (A1 to A3, B1 to B3, E1 to E3, F1 to F3) and natural (I1 to I3, J1 to J3, K1 to K3) grooves on the boulder surfaces. The worked groove maintains a linear appearance throughout its entire length. It possesses a V-shaped cross-section with well-defined shoulders and resembles the shape of a boat, i.e., wide in the middle and converging toward its ends. In contrast, a natural groove resembles a narrow fissure or crack. It is shallower and lacks the distinctive “V”-shape characteristic of an artificial groove. (H) Microphotography of both artificial (first two from Left to Right) and natural (first two from Right to Left) grooves. Natural grooves possess a gutter-like floor, in contrast to the reverse tapered sharp edge-shaped floor observed in the worked groove.

Fig. 3.
Presence of microscratches on the slanting walls of the boulder grooves and experimental grooves. (A) The studied grooves on Manot boulder. (B) Groove A, a white line marks the profile of the groove, the blue arrow marks the location of the micro scratches. (C) Groove F, the white line marks the profile of the groove, the blue arrow points to the location of the micro scratches on the sidewall of the groove. (D) Micro scratches in groove A. (E) Micro scratches in groove F. Due to erosion, the scratches are hard to notice. Major parts of the groove were covered by crust and could not be inspected for micro scratches. (F) The experimental study carried out with flint tools, consisting of carinated and dihedral burins (#1 to 3) and a heavy-duty scraper (#4) (G) produced similar navicular-shaped grooves (H) and micro scratches on the side walls (I and J) due to repeated movements of the sharp flint. The starting point can be easily detected.

For intellectually honest people, having an article of faith falsified so spectacularly as this would be reason enough to change their minds and reassess the basis of their beliefs. Not so, creationists whose first (and usually last) resort is to stick to their belief despite the contrary evidence and instead look for ways to ignore the contrary evidence. Their superstition is sacred, so facts must be ignored.

Refuting Creationism - Domesticated Dogs 2000 Years Before 'Creation Week'

A tibia, or lower-leg bone, of an adult canine from Swan Point, Alaska, radiocarbon dated to about 12,000 years old.

François Lanoë
School of Anthropology

Eurasian/North American Grey Wolf, Canis lupus.

By User:Mas3cf - This file was derived from: Eurasian wolf.JPG, CC BY-SA 4.0, Link

How did humans and dogs become friends? Connections in the Americas began 12,000 years ago | University of Arizona News

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

Transitional Form News - Precambrian Common Ancestor of Insects, Arachnids, and Nematode Worms

3D laser scans enable the researchers to study the fossils’ shape and curvature.

Droser Lab/UCR

Researchers Scott Evans (left) and Ian Hughes examine a fossil bed at Nilpena Ediacara National Park.

Droser Lab/UCR.

Tiny worm makes for big evolutionary discovery | UCR News | UC Riverside

The refutation of creationism continues today with news of another one of those 'non-existent' transitional species that turn up with monotonous regularity only to be dismissed by creationists as 'not transitional but fully formed' with now two gaps in the record where there was originally one, or by simply dismissing the dating method as unreliable and coincidentally wrong by an order of magnitude sufficient to make 6-10,000 years look like x-million years.
Another big disappointment for creationists is the fact that this one is from before the Cambrian when their traditional disinformation claims lots of species popped into existence without ancestors by magic in a single event called the 'Cambrian explosion'. The Cambrian 'explosion' was of course a period of some 6-10 million years during which many of the basic body plans of multicellular organisms evolved.

This fossil however was before then and was clearly the ancestral stem species from which a whole range of Cambrian organism, collectively known as Ecdysozoa evolved. These are a group of organisms with an outer cuticle which is shed periodically as the organism grows. The vast group includes nematode worms and arthropods such as insects, spiders, crustaceans like crabs, shrimps, lobsters, and the horseshow crab. So, this discovery, which the palaeontologists have named Uncus dzaugisi sits at the base of this branch of the evolutionary tree. It resembled a nematode worm.

Tell me all about the Ecdysozoa, please. Ecdysozoa is a major clade of animals within the larger group known as Protostomia, distinguished by their unique mode of growth, which involves periodic moulting of an external cuticle. The term "ecdysozoa" comes from the Greek word ecdysis, meaning "to strip off" or "to shed," referring to this moulting process.

Characteristics of Ecdysozoa

1. Moulting (Ecdysis):
   • The defining feature of Ecdysozoans is the shedding of their cuticle—a tough, non-living outer layer made of proteins, polysaccharides (like chitin), or collagen. This process allows them to grow, as the rigid cuticle limits continuous size increase.
   • After moulting, a new, larger cuticle is secreted, which hardens over time.
2. Body Structure:
   • Many have a hydrostatic skeleton, relying on fluid pressure in their body cavity for movement and structure.
   • Most lack cilia or flagella in their adult form, distinguishing them from other protostomes.
3. Diversity:
   • The group includes some of the most diverse and abundant organisms on Earth, ranging from microscopic species to large, visible ones.
4. Nervous System:
   • Typically, they have a ventral nerve cord and a dorsal brain, with varied sensory adaptations.

---

Major Groups Within Ecdysozoa
Ecdysozoa includes eight phyla, with two of the most well-known being Arthropoda and Nematoda:

1. Arthropoda
   • The largest and most diverse group of animals, including insects, arachnids, crustaceans, and myriapods.
   • They have segmented bodies, jointed appendages, and a hard exoskeleton.
   • Examples: Butterflies, crabs, spiders, centipedes.
2. Nematoda (Roundworms)
   • Microscopic to macroscopic worms with a cylindrical, unsegmented body.
   • Found in nearly every habitat on Earth, often as parasites in plants and animals.
   • Examples: Caenorhabditis elegans (a model organism), Ascaris (a human intestinal parasite).
3. Tardigrada (Water Bears)
   • Microscopic, water-dwelling animals known for their extreme resilience to harsh environments.
   • They can survive desiccation, radiation, and even the vacuum of space.
4. Onychophora (Velvet Worms)
   • Segmented, soft-bodied terrestrial animals with slime glands used for capturing prey.
5. Priapulida
   • Marine worms with a tubular body, often found burrowing in sediment.
6. Kinorhyncha
   • Tiny, segmented marine animals often referred to as "mud dragons."
7. Loricifera
   • Microscopic animals inhabiting marine sediment, with a complex, retractable body.
8. Nematomorpha (Horsehair Worms)
   • Parasites as larvae, often controlling the behaviour of their insect hosts.

---

Evolution and Phylogeny

• Ecdysozoa was proposed as a clade in 1997, based on molecular evidence (notably studies of ribosomal RNA).
• They share a common ancestor with other protostomes but diverged early to adopt their unique moulting strategy.
• Their evolutionary success is evident in their sheer numbers and adaptability, especially in arthropods.

---

Ecological and Economic Importance

1. Ecological Roles:
   • Many ecdysozoans are key components of ecosystems as decomposers, predators, prey, and parasites.
   • Insects, a subgroup of arthropods, are critical for pollination and nutrient cycling.
2. Economic Impact:
   • Beneficial: Insects (e.g., bees) aid in agriculture, while nematodes play a role in soil health.
   • Harmful: Some ecdysozoans are pests or parasites causing diseases in humans, animals, and crops.

---

Fun Facts

• Tardigrades can enter a state called cryptobiosis, surviving for decades without water or food.
• Arthropods are the most successful phylum, with over a million described species, and likely many more undiscovered.
• Nematodes may account for about 80% of individual animals on Earth.

The discovery was made by a team from University of California, Riverside (UCR), led by Professor Mary Droser a distinguished professor of geology. The have explained their findings in the journal, Current Biology, and in a UCR press release:

Tiny worm makes for big evolutionary discovery

---

UC Riverside scientists have described ‘Uncus,’ the oldest ecdysozoan and the first from the Precambrian period

---

Everyone has a past. That includes the millions of species of insects, arachnids, and nematode worms that make up a major animal group called the Ecdysozoa. Until recently, details about this group’s most distant past have been elusive. But a UC Riverside-led team has now identified the oldest known ecdysozoan in the fossil record and the only one from the Precambrian period. Their discovery of Uncus dzaugisi, a worm-like creature rarely over a few centimeters in length, is described in a paper published today in Current Biology.

Scientists have hypothesized for decades that this group must be older than the Cambrian, but until now its origins have remained enigmatic. This discovery reconciles a major gap between predictions based on molecular data and the lack of described ecdysozoans prior to the rich Cambrian fossils record and adds to our understanding of the evolution of animal life.

Mary L. Droser, co-author Earth and Planetary Sciences University of California, Riverside
Riverside, CA , USA.

The ecdysozoans are the largest and most species-rich animal group on Earth, encompassing more than half of all animals. Characterized by their cuticle — a tough external skeleton that is periodically shed — the group comprises three subgroups: nematodes, which are microscopic worms; arthropods, which include insects, spiders, and crustaceans; and scalidophora, an eclectic group of small, scaly marine creatures.

Like many modern-day animal groups, ecdysozoans were prevalent in the Cambrian fossil record and we can see evidence of all three subgroups right at the beginning of this period, about 540 million years ago. We know they didn’t just appear out of nowhere, and so the ancestors of all ecdysozoans must have been present during the preceding Ediacaran period.

Ian V. Hughes, first author
Organismic and Evolutionary Biology
Harvard University, Cambridge, MA, USA.

DNA-based analyses, used to predict the age of animal groups by comparing them with their closest living relatives, have corroborated this hypothesis. Yet ecdysozoan fossil animals have remained hidden among scores of animal fossils paleontologists have discovered from the Ediacaran Period.

Top: Uncus fossil from Nilpena Ediacara National Park. The numbers correspond to the coordinates of this fossil on the fossil bed surface. Bottom: 3D laser scans enable the researchers to study the fossils’ shape and curvature.

Droser Lab/UCR.

Ediacaran animals, which lived 635-538 million years ago, were ocean dwellers; their remains preserved as cast-like impressions on the seabed that later hardened to rock. Hughes said uncovering them is a labor-intensive, delicate process that involves peeling back rock layers, flipping them over, dusting them off, and piecing them back together to get “a really nice snapshot of the sea floor.”

This excavation process has only been done at Nilpena Ediacara National Park in South Australia, a site Droser and her team have been working at for 25 years that is known for its beautifully preserved Ediacaran fossils.

Nilpena is perhaps the best fossil site for understanding early animal evolution in the world because the fossils occur during a period of heightened diversity and we are able to excavate extensive layers of rock that preserve these snapshots. The layer where we found Uncus is particularly exciting because the sediment grains are so small that we really see all the details of the fossils preserved there.

Assistant Professor Scott Evans, co-author
Earth, Ocean, and Atmospheric Sciences
Florida State University, Tallahassee, FL, USA.

While the team didn’t set out to find an early ecdysozoan during their 2018 excavation, they were drawn to a mysterious worm-like impression that they dubbed “fishhook.”

Sometimes we make dramatic discoveries and sometimes we excavate an entire bed and say ‘hmmm, I’ve been looking at that thing, what do you think?’ That’s what happened here. We had all sort of noticed this fishhook squiggle on the rock. It was pretty prominent because it was really, really deep.

Because it was deep, we knew it wasn’t smooshed easily so it must have had a pretty rigid body. At this point we knew this was a new fossil animal and it belong to the Ecdysozoa.

Ian V. Hughes

After seeing more of the worm-like squiggles the team paid closer attention, taking note of fishhook’s characteristics. Other defining characteristics include its distinct curvature and the fact that it could move around — seen by trace fossils in the surrounding area. Paul De Ley, an associate professor of nematology at UCR, confirmed its fit as an early nematode and ruled out other worm types.

The team called the new animal Uncus, which means “hook” in Latin, noting in the paper its similarities to modern-day nematodes. Hughes said the team was excited to find evidence of what scientists had long predicted; that ecdysozoans existed in the Ediacaran Period.

It’s also really important for our understanding of what these early animal groups would have looked like and their lifestyle, especially as the ecdysozoans would really come to dominate the marine ecosystem in the Cambrian.

Ian V. Hughes

The paper is titled “An Ediacaran bilateran with an ecdysozoan affinity from South Australia.” Funding for the research came from NASA.

Highlights

• A new, motile bilaterian is described from the Ediacaran of South Australia
• Features including morphology and movement suggest an ecdysozoan affinity
• This discovery firmly places ecdysozoans in the Precambrian

Summary
Molecular clocks and Cambrian-derived metazoans strongly suggest a Neoproterozoic origin of many animal clades.^1,2,3,4 However, fossil bilaterians are rare in the Ediacaran, and no definitive ecdysozoan body fossils are known from the Precambrian. Notably, the base of the Cambrian is characterized by an abundance of trace fossils attributed to priapulid worms,^5,6 suggesting that major divisions among ecdysozoan groups occurred prior to this time. This is supported by ichnofossils from the latest Ediacaran or early Cambrian left by a plausible nematoid,^7,8,9 although definitively attributing this inferred behavior to crown-Nematoida remains contentious in the absence of body fossils.¹⁰ Given the high probability of the evolution of Ecdysozoa in the Proterozoic, the otherwise prolific fossil record of the Ecdysozoa, and the identification of more than 100 distinct Ediacaran genera, it is striking that no Ediacaran body fossils have been confidently assigned to this group. Here, we describe Uncus dzaugisi gen. et. sp. nov. from the Ediacara Member (South Australia), a smooth, vermiform organism with distinct curvature and anterior-posterior differentiation. The depth of relief of Uncus is unique among Ediacara fossils and consistent with a rigid outer cuticle. Ecological relationships and associated trace fossils demonstrate that Uncus was motile. Body morphology and the inferred style of movement are consistent with Nematoida, providing strong evidence for at least an ecdysozoan affinity. This validates the Precambrian origin of Ecdysozoa, reconciling a major gap between predicted patterns of animal evolution and the fossil record.⁴

Hughes, Ian V.; Evans, Scott D.; Droser, Mary L.
An Ediacaran bilaterian with an ecdysozoan affinity from South Australia
Current Biology, DOI: 10.1016/j.cub.2024.10.030

© 2024 Elsevier.
Reprinted under the terms of s60 of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988.

I think my favourite quote from one of the scientists is "We know they didn’t just appear out of nowhere, and so the ancestors of all ecdysozoans must have been present during the preceding Ediacaran period", which just about describes the difference between someone who knows the Theory of Evolution is correct because he understands the evidence for it, and a creationists who believes in fully formed living organisms made from nothing, magically popping into existence from nowhere, with magic spells cast by an unproven supernatural deity their mummy and daddy told them about.

The ancestral form, the transitional species, was in exactly for rock formation of exactly the right age which the theory of evolutionary decent with modifiction from a common ancester predicted.

And in case a creationist is tempted to try the 'radiometric dating is flawed/wrong/faked fallacy. The Ediacaran rock formation these fossils were found in was independently dated several different ways that all converged on a 98-million-year span from 635 to 538 million years ago known as the Ediacaran. The Most important being the Uranium-Lead (U-Pb) dating of zircons found in the layers of volcanic ash sandwiched within the rocks. To compress 600 million years of radioactive decay into less than 6-10,000 years would have caused Earth's rocks to melt and the seas to boil away. And the weak nuclear force would have been so weak that atoms could not have formed, let alone life, and there would have been no planet and no universe to fine tune for it either.

---

Advertisement

Refuting Creationism: Why Creationism Fails In Both Its Science And Its Theology

A systematic refutation of creationism, exposing the childish parodies, fallacies and pseudo-science that underpins it. This book takes the reader through the major themes of creationism from the Big Bang, through abiogenesis and the origin of the genetic code, the evidence for evolution, falsifying the claims of creationism with scientific evidence. Also exposed is the deliberate disinformation to be found on creationist websites and publications and the absurdity of the belief that the Bible, particularly the origin myths in Genesis, is real science and genuine history, written or inspired by an omniscient, inerrant creator god

Available in Hardcover, Paperback, or ebook for Kindle

Advertisement

The Failure of Creationism: The Theory That Never Was

An exposé of the failure of creationism and especially the Discovery Institute's Wedge Strategy, showing that the Theory of Evolution is as central to biomedical science today as it was when the DI launched its disinformation campaign in 1991. Creationism is not a science; it is religious fundamentalism and, as was shown in the Kitzmiller case, Intelligent design is creationism dressed in a lab coat.

Available in paperback, hardcover, or ebook for Kindle

Advertisement

Thank you for sharing!

Tweet Link

Refuting Creationism - How Pterosaurs Evolved

Life restoration of two Skiphosoura bavarica in flight.

Credit: Gabriel Ugueto.

AI-generated image.

New fossil discovery reveals key step in the evolution of flying reptiles - Queen Mary University of London

Although creationists insist dinosaurs coexisted with humans before their god launched his genocidal flood, and even twist words like 'behemoth' in the Bible to try to show how the authors of genesis were familiar with dinosaurs (as though there was only one species) what they never explain is why the same authors said nothing at all about the pterodactyls that were contemporaneous with dinosaurs.

The real reason is of course that pterodactyls and dinosaurs lived in that vast expanse of time before 'Creation Week' when 99.9975% of everything that happened on Earth happened.

The evidence for this can be found in any palaeontological article that deals with the evolution of these first flying vertebrates, like this one about the discovery of a new species, Skiphosoura bavarica, which is also helping to understand how these reptiles evolved. It was identified by a team led by Dr David Hone, a palaeontologist from Queen Mary University of London. Early pterosaurs had a wingspan of about 2 meters (6 feet) but they evolved into massive creatures with wing spans up to 10 meters (30 feet). On the ground, some of them may have been at tall as a giraffe!

Pterosaurs, their evolution, and their relationship to dinosaurs. Pterosaurs were a group of flying reptiles that lived during the Mesozoic Era, from the late Triassic (about 228 million years ago) to the end of the Cretaceous (66 million years ago). They were the first vertebrates to achieve powered flight and were remarkable for their diversity in size, morphology, and ecological niches. Here's a detailed overview of pterosaurs, their evolution, and their relationship to dinosaurs:

---

1. Evolutionary Origins
   
   • Pterosaurs belonged to the clade Pterosauria, which is part of the larger group Archosauria, making them close relatives of dinosaurs and crocodilians.
   • Their exact evolutionary origins are debated, but they likely evolved from small, ground-dwelling or arboreal reptiles within the clade Avemetatarsalia, which also includes dinosaurs and birds.
   • Early pterosaurs, such as Eudimorphodon and Dimorphodon, appeared in the late Triassic and already exhibited the characteristic wing structure.
2. Anatomy and Adaptations for Flight
   
   • Pterosaurs' wings were formed by a membrane of skin, muscle, and other tissues stretched along an elongated fourth finger, which supported the main wing structure.
   • Other adaptations included:
     • Lightweight skeletons with hollow bones to reduce weight.
     • Keel-like breastbones to anchor powerful flight muscles.
     • Complex cranial crests in some species, possibly for display or aerodynamic purposes.
     • Unique respiratory adaptations with air sacs similar to those in modern birds.
3. Relationship to Dinosaurs
   
   • Pterosaurs and dinosaurs share a common ancestor, but they are distinct groups within Archosauria. Pterosaurs are not considered dinosaurs.
   • The distinction lies in their lineage: dinosaurs belong to the clade Dinosauria, while pterosaurs form their own separate clade.
4. Diversity and Evolutionary Trends
   
   • Pterosaurs diversified into two main groups:
     1. Rhamphorhynchoids (Early Pterosaurs):
        • Typically small to medium-sized.
        • Long tails with a vane or rudder-like structure at the tip.
        • Examples: Rhamphorhynchus, Dimorphodon.
        • Lived during the Triassic and Jurassic periods.
     2. Pterodactyloids (Advanced Pterosaurs):
        • Larger body sizes, including giants like Quetzalcoatlus with wingspans exceeding 10 meters.
        • Short tails or no tails.
        • Adapted to various ecological roles, such as fish-eating, filter-feeding, and scavenging.
        • Examples: Pteranodon, Istiodactylus, Quetzalcoatlus.
        • Dominated the skies during the Jurassic and Cretaceous periods.
5. Ecological Roles
   
   • Pterosaurs occupied diverse ecological niches:
     • Some were piscivores, using long, pointed jaws to catch fish.
     • Others were filter feeders, like Pterodaustro, which had bristle-like teeth.
     • Large pterosaurs may have been scavengers or predators of small terrestrial animals.
     • Their crests may have been used for sexual selection, thermoregulation, or species recognition.
6. Extinction
   
   • Pterosaurs went extinct at the end of the Cretaceous period during the mass extinction event 66 million years ago, likely caused by the asteroid impact and subsequent environmental changes.
   • Birds, which evolved from theropod dinosaurs, survived and continued to dominate the skies, taking over many of the ecological niches once held by pterosaurs.
7. Fossil Evidence
   
   • Pterosaur fossils are relatively rare due to their fragile skeletons, but significant discoveries have been made worldwide, revealing exquisite details of their anatomy and even soft tissues like wing membranes and pycnofibers (hair-like structures covering their bodies).

---

Key Distinctions from Dinosaurs

• Dinosaurs were primarily terrestrial, with a diverse range of locomotion and body plans, whereas pterosaurs were adapted for flight.
• Birds are considered modern-day dinosaurs (descendants of theropods), but they are not descended from pterosaurs.

---

Pterosaurs are an incredible example of evolutionary innovation, showcasing how vertebrates conquered the skies long before birds. Their fossils continue to provide insights into the complexity of prehistoric life and the adaptive potential of ancient reptiles.

Dr Hone's team have published their findings in the journal Current Biology and describe it in a Queen Mary University news release:

New fossil discovery reveals key step in the evolution of flying reptiles

---

A remarkable new fossil discovery is shedding light on how flying reptiles, known as pterosaurs, evolved from their early forms into the later giants that ruled prehistoric skies.

---

The new species, named Skiphosoura bavarica, was identified by a team led by Dr David Hone, a palaeontologist from Queen Mary University of London. Their findings were published today in the journal Current Biology.

The pterosaurs, close relatives of dinosaurs, were the first vertebrates to achieve powered flight. While early species typically had wingspans of about 2 metres, later pterosaurs evolved into enormous forms with wingspans reaching 10 metres. The discovery of Skiphosoura bavarica provides critical insights into how these transformations occurred.

Hailing from southern Germany, Skiphosoura boasts a rare, nearly complete skeleton preserved in three dimensions—a significant contrast to the often-flattened fossils of its relatives. Measuring about 2 metres in wingspan, the new species’ most striking feature is its short, stiff, sword-like tail, which inspired its name: “sword tail from Bavaria.”

This is an incredible find. It really helps us piece together how these amazing flying animals lived and evolved. Hopefully, this study will inspire more research into this important evolutionary transition.

Dr. David William Elliott Hone, lead author, School of Biological and Behavioural Sciences
Queen Mary University of London, UK.

For two centuries, scientists divided pterosaurs into two major groups: early non-pterodactyloids, characterised by short heads, long tails, and specific wing and toe structures, and the later pterodactyloids, which had larger heads, shorter tails, and other adaptations for efficient flight. Intermediate species, like the Darwinopterus discovered in the 2010s, showed how the head and neck evolved first. Skiphosoura represents a critical step beyond the Darwinopterus. Its head and neck resemble the more advanced pterodactyloids, while its wrist, tail, and foot show transitional features. These traits help trace the gradual adaptations that allowed later pterosaurs to grow to massive sizes. The study also reconstructed the evolutionary family tree of pterosaurs, placing Skiphosoura between Darwinopterus and true pterodactyloids. Additionally, a Scottish pterosaur named Dearc was identified as a key intermediate between early pterosaurs and Darwinopterus. Together, these findings form a near-complete evolutionary sequence for pterosaurs, detailing how their anatomy changed over time. The discovery was made possible through the efforts of an international team. Adam Fitch, from the University of Wisconsin-Madison, highlighted the significance of Skiphosoura:

Pterosaurs have long been symbols of the unique life of the past. Skiphosoura represents an important new form for working out pterosaur evolutionary relationships and how this lineage arose and changed.

Adam Fitch, co-author
University of Wisconsin-Madison UW Geology Museum, Madison, WI, USA.

Having worked on over 60 pterosaurs from the Solnhofen limestone, it became clear during preparation that this fossil displayed features from both major groups of pterosaurs, with the shortened tail being a crucial diagnostic trait.

Stefan Selzer, co-author
Grabenäcker 12, Hemhofen, Germany.

Bruce and René Lauer of the Lauer Foundation, who contributed to the project, underscored the importance of modern techniques such as UV photography in uncovering fine details of the specimen.

We are proud to bring this important specimen to science and further the understanding of pterosaur evolution.

Bruce Lauer, co-author
Lauer Foundation for Paleontology, Science and Education
Wheaton, IL, USA.

With its blend of cutting-edge research, meticulous preparation, and international collaboration, the study of Skiphosoura bavarica offers a significant leap forward in understanding the evolutionary journey of these extraordinary flying reptiles.

Highlights

• A new pterosaur, Skiphosoura bavarica, is named from the Jurassic of Germany
• The specimen is much larger than other known forms and is preserved in three dimensions
• The Skiphosoura helps document the transition from early pterosaurs to the pterodactyloids
• The tail is short but retains the supporting structures of earlier forms

Summary For over a century, there was a major gap in our understanding of the evolution of the flying Mesozoic reptiles, the pterosaurs, with a major morphological gap between the early forms and the derived pterodactyloids.¹ Recent discoveries have found a cluster of intermediate forms that have the head and neck of the pterodactyloids but the body of the early grade,² yet this still leaves fundamental gaps between these intermediates and both earlier and more derived pterosaurs. Here, we describe a new and large Jurassic pterosaur, Skiphosoura bavarica gen. et sp. nov., preserved in three dimensions, that helps bridge the gap between current intermediate pterosaurs and the pterodactyloids. A new phylogeny shows that there is a general progression of key characteristics of increasing head size, increasing length of neck and wing metacarpal, modification to the fifth toe that supports the rear wing membrane, and gradual reduction in tail length and complexity from earlier pterosaurs into the first pterodactyloids. This also shows a clear evolution of the increasing terrestrial competence of derived pterosaurs. Furthermore, this closes gaps between the intermediates and their ancestors and descendants, and it firmly marks the rhamphorhynchines and ctenochasmatid clades as, respectively, being the closest earliest and latest groups to this succession of transitional forms.

Figure 1 Key elements of Skiphosoura

1. The anterior part of the skull with the premaxillary crest and large teeth. Also seen is the humerus. Scale bar, 100 mm.
2. The short caudal vertebrate with long zygapophyses and the elongate chevrons. Scale bar is 10 mm.

ca, caudal vertebra; cn, chevron; dr, dorsal rib; fe, femur; hu, humerus; pb, pubis; pm, premaxilla; wpx 1, wing phalanx 1. See also Figures S1, S2, S7, and S9

---

Figure 2 Simplified phylogeny of Macronychoptera showing the phylogenetic placement of Skiphosoura bavarica gen. et sp. nov
The new taxon is recovered outside of Pterodactyloidea as a late-diverging member of a grade of non-pterodactyloid monofenestratans. Note that Monofenestrata also lies within an earlier-diverging grade of “rhamphorhynchids” (Dorygnathus to Angustinaripterus) and that “rhamphorhynchines” (Rhamphorhynchini, Dearc, Angustinaripterus) here represent the closest relatives of Monofenestrata. See also Figure S10 and Table S2.

Figure 3 The transition of pterosaur proportions across the transition from early pterosaurs to the pterodactyloids
Upper left: Nopsca curves of the proportions of major elements of the skeleton scaled against the length of the humerus showing the transition of major proportions. Center: simplified phylogeny showing the transition of key characters in the evolution of pterodactyloids from the rhamphorhynchines and “through” the early monofenestratans. Skeletals showing the transition with representational taxa: Rhamphorhynchus, Dearc, Darwinopterus, Skiphosoura, and Pterodactylus. This shows the transitions of multiple features across the tree: (1) the increasing length of the skull and increase of the size of the naris before fusion to form the NAOF, (2) increase in the length of the cervical series, (3) proportional reduction in the length of the wingfinger and increase in the length of the proximal wing, (4) increase in the length of the first wing phalanx to be the longest of the four phalanges, (5) increase in the length of the wing metacarpal, (6) increase in the size of the prepubes, (7) reduction of the fifth toe, and (8) reduction and simplification of the tail. Reconstructions modified from Unwin,¹⁵ Wellnhofer,¹⁶ and Witton.¹ These are not to scale but are all set to a uniform torso length.
See also Figures S1–S8 and S11 and Table S1.

Hone, David William Elliott; Fitch, Adam; Selzer, Stefan; Lauer, René; Lauer, Bruce
A new and large monofenestratan reveals the evolutionary transition to the pterodactyloid pterosaurs Current Biology (2024) Doi: 10.1016/j.cub.2024.10.023

Copyright: © 2024 The authors.
Published by Elsevier Inc. Open access.
Reprinted under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International license (CC BY 4.0)

As Though to rub salt into creationist wounds, not only is this pterosaur from the Lower Tithonian (i.e. 148-150.8 million years old) but as the palaeontologist explain, it forms part of a transitional sequence of fossils showing how this group of reptiles evolved.

Refuting Creationism - What Did The Denisovans Ever Do For Us?

Denisova Cave

By Демин Алексей Барнаул - Own work,
CC BY-SA 4.0, Link

Denisovan Girl Reconstruction (Smithsonian)

Artwork by Mayaan Harel, Mayaan Visuals.

New insights into the Denisovans – the new hominin group that interbred with modern day humans - News & Events | Trinity College Dublin

In marked contrast to the childish creationist notion of a single founder couple being magically created without ancestors 6-10,000 years ago, evidence is growing that one ancestral species that contributes some of its DNA to modern non-African humans, the Denisovans, were once widespread especially in Southeast Asia and may have reached South America, or at least people carrying some Denisovan DNA may have done, but not via the traditional route - Siberia, Beringia and Alaska - followed by later Homo sapiens.

My understanding is that they and Neanderthals were most likely direct descendants of H. erectus that migrated out of Africa some 2 million years ago and gave rise to the Denisovans in Eastern Eurasia and Neanderthals in Western Eurasia. These two then interbreed with the H. sapiens migrants as they came up out of Africa and spread throughout Eurasia and down to Melanesia, Austronesia and Oceania.

So, rather than a single ancestral couple magically created out of dirt, without ancestors, as creationists believe, modern non-African humans don't have an ancestral couple, they don't even have a single ancestral species but are the result of hybridization between at least three ancestral species.

There is also evidence, according to two researchers from Trinity College, Dublin, Ireland, that there may have been several regional populations of Denisovans, each of which contributed to the Homo sapiens genome at different times. As with other hominin species, they were diversifying as they spread in what may have been the beginnings of classical allopatric speciation.

The Denisovan DNA that was retained by H. sapiens as they migrated into the different environments in Asia was that which gave them an advantage, such as the ability to survive in the low oxygen partial pressure of the Tibetan Plateau - something that the Tibetans have inherited - immunity to certain endemic pathogens and an improved ability to keep their body temperature up during cold weather by burning stored body fats - something that Innuits have inherited.

Refuting Creationism - How Bird's and Bat's Wings Evolved

Wing of a blue roller, Albrecht Dürer, 1512

Wikipedia (Public Domain) Link

Unlike birds, the evolution of bats’ wings and legs is tightly coupled, which may have prevented them from filling as many ecological niches as birds.

Jason Koski/Cornell University

Bats’ and birds’ evolutionary paths are vastly different | Cornell Chronicle

Unlike an intelligent designer, the process of evolution can't go back to basic and start again. It is normally an additive process that has no control over what it has to work with and simply refines and improves on what is there. That's not to say new structures can't evolve but they do so by enlarging or remodelling something that was already there - the membrane of a bat's wing, for example is the webbing that exists in the tetrapod embryo between the fingers and toes, while the feathers of a bird's wing are highly modified scales. Both those structures evolved out of tissues that were already there. It would have been impossible for a bat to grow wing feathers instead of a membrane, for example, because the earliest mammals had lost their scales and evolved fur.

But of course, that would not have been a problem for an omnipotent intelligent designer who, having designed one wing would not need to set about designing another way to do the same thing.

So, constrained as evolution was by what it could use, it's not really surprising that birds and bats evolved on two different trajectories, with the only thing in common being flight (and of course the basic vertebrate skeletal body plan).