Creationism Refuted - The Evolution Of Domestic Dogs Began Long Before 'Creation Week'

Top The Eurasian Grey Wolf. Below a selection of its descendants. Creationists need to explain why this is not macro-evolution even though the scale of the differences between them and wolves is at least as great as that between humans, chimpanzees and gorillas

Various Internet sources

More dogs

Internet sources.

Dogs 10,000 years ago roamed with bands of humans and came in all shapes and sizes

Last November, just as I was finalising the second of my Ice Age Tales novels, two papers appeared in Science examining a subject central to their underlying theme: the long relationship between humans and the wolves whose descendants became domestic dogs. My stories are set some 30,000–40,000 years ago and imagine the beginnings of that relationship. The new research examines later chapters, revealing that substantial diversity among dogs was already established thousands of years before the intensive breeding that produced modern pedigree breeds.

The distinction matters. These papers do not show that domestication began only 11,000 years ago, nor that today’s breeds originated then. One identifies recognisably dog-like skull shapes in specimens dating to about that time, together with considerable variation among early Holocene dogs. The other traces how ancient dog populations moved and mixed alongside human communities over nearly 10,000 years. Both illuminate a prolonged history, rather than a single moment when wolves suddenly became dogs.

Earlier associations between wolves and hunter-gatherers remain possible, although neither paper establishes the particular scenario imagined in my novels. Taming an individual wolf is also different from domesticating a population: domestication involves inherited changes across generations, and behavioural changes need not coincide with readily identifiable changes in skull shape. The earliest stages of this relationship therefore remain difficult to reconstruct.

Dog domestication is, of course, a classic example of evolution under human influence. Its history presents several awkward questions for creationism, especially claims that substantial biological change is impossible and that the natural world fits a chronology of only a few thousand years.

Refuting Creationism - Evolution of Syphilis - How Did It Survive On The Ark?

[caption]

[credit]

The archeological site of Tequendama 1 at the border of the Sabana de Bogotá, Cundinamarca, Colombia.

© Angélica Triana.

Ancient DNA pushes back record of treponemal disease-causing bacteria by 3,000 years

Creationists who take the biblical Flood story literally have a problem that rarely features in illustrations of Noah’s floating menagerie: what happened to the infectious diseases? Saving their animal hosts would also have provided opportunities to save their pathogens. Conversely, exterminating the hosts would have threatened the survival of the very organisms that depended on them. A supposedly fresh start for life on Earth would therefore require an explanation for why so many ancient infections apparently came along for the ride.

Many pathogens, including those that infect humans are also host-specific, so that begs the question of which of the human passengers were host to the sexually-transmitted diseases, and how, if they were 'righteous' people, did they acquire them? The authors of the tale knew nothing of microorganisms or the germ theory of disease, of course, so saw no reason to explain all that stuff.

A discovery reported in Science on 22 January 2026 gives that question another uncomfortable historical dimension. An international research team has reconstructed a roughly 5,500-year-old genome of Treponema pallidum from human remains at the Tequendama I rock shelter in Colombia. This is the bacterial species whose recognised subspecies cause syphilis, yaws and bejel. The findings are described in a research paper in Science by Davide Bozzi and colleagues.

The ancient bacterium belonged to a previously unknown branch of the family tree, a sister lineage to all the genetically characterised subspecies of T. pallidum. It should therefore not be described simply as a case of modern syphilis in a prehistoric person. Nevertheless, its presence establishes that this group of pathogens was infecting people in South America long before European contact—and before the date commonly assigned to Noah’s genocidal flood.

The evolutionary history reaches further back still. The researchers’ molecular-clock analysis estimates that the ancient lineage and the other known lineages shared a common ancestor approximately 13,700 years ago. That estimate carries substantial uncertainty, with a range of roughly 6,800–20,600 years, but its central value places this ancestral population well before even the more generous versions of the usual young-Earth creationist chronology. These are estimates reconstructed from genetic evidence, not dates obtained by adding together the supposed lifespans of biblical patriarchs.

The Flood problem deserves careful examination. Genesis is ambiguous on the point. On the one hand it describes the destruction of terrestrial, air-breathing life; on the other hand it specifically refers to all living substance being destroyed. Although the authors were unaware of microorganisms so were not writing a microbiology textbook, a supposedly omniscient, creator god would not have been constrained by the ignorance of primitive pastoralists. But then these obligate parasites would not have survived the destruction of their hosts outside the ark, so the question of what 'life' the Bible is referring to become moot. If you subscribe to the Ark myth, you have to accept that any survivors must have been carried in the Ark.

The discovery of an ancient relative of syphilis does not establish that the particular Colombian lineage survived to the present. But neither qualification explains how the surviving branches of an ancient, host-associated pathogen could have persisted through the alleged destruction of their hosts outside the Ark. Within that narrative, infected passengers or another explicitly justified means of survival would be needed. Simply overlooking the pathogens does not solve the problem.

There appears to be no way to avoid the conclusion that, if the Ark myth were true, Noah and his family must have been carrying the obligate, species-specific sexually-transmitted diseases, syphilis, gonorrhoea and chlamydia as well as pubic lice and an assortment of intestinal worms.

Evolution, meanwhile, supplies the framework that makes the discovery intelligible: common ancestry, branching descent and genetic change over time. The scientists can place an unfamiliar ancient genome within a family tree and investigate when its lineage diverged from its relatives. There is no need to invent a separate creation event for each disease, or a miraculous rescue operation to carry ancient infections across an otherwise universal catastrophe. There is a history to reconstruct—and the evidence is preserved in the DNA.

Creationism Refuted - Dino Dung Tells Us More Than The Bible's Ignorant Authors Ever Could

Artist's impression of a tyrannosaur preying on an ancient diving bird.

Credit: Andrey Atuchin

The fossil feather preserved in dinosaur poop.

Credit: O’Connor, et al. (2026))

A fossil feather preserved inside dinosaur poop could help explain why birds survived the mass extinction - Field Museum

Creationism’s problems with the fossil record now extend even to dinosaur droppings. A small piece of fossilised dung from Montana preserves evidence of a meal eaten some 66 million years ago — long before the supposed ‘Creation Week’ of young-Earth creationism. Within it are feathers that may help illuminate why some ancient birds disappeared while the ancestors of today’s birds survived. As, reported in Current Biology, researchers led by Field Museum palaeontologist Jingmai O’Connor, examining a coprolite — fossilised faeces — from the Hell Creek Formation found exceptionally preserved feathers alongside fish scales and bones belonging to a hesperornithiform, an extinct diving bird.

The feathers combine structures associated with waterproofing in modern aquatic birds with smaller, simpler, fuzzy body feathers. The researchers suggest that differences in insulation, feather replacement through moulting, or both might have influenced which bird lineages survived the cold conditions following the end-Cretaceous asteroid impact. Hesperornithiforms disappeared; the lineage containing all living birds survived. This remains a hypothesis, however: one coprolite cannot establish why entire groups became extinct. The distinction between the observed feathers and the proposed explanation is central to the Field Museum’s account of the findings.

For creationists, the difficulty goes beyond the date. This combination of ancestral and more derived features makes sense within an evolutionary family tree, in which different characteristics change at different rates. Evolution does not require every part of an animal to move together along some imaginary ladder from ‘primitive’ to ‘advanced’. Nor does an extinct bird need to be a direct ancestor of living species to preserve evidence of the evolutionary history they share. There is also a useful lesson here about adaptation. A feature that works adequately in one environment may become a liability when conditions change. Evolution has no foresight: natural selection cannot prepare organisms for an asteroid impact millions of years in the future. Survival depends on the circumstances organisms encounter and the characteristics they already possess, with chance also playing its part. What makes this discovery particularly telling is how an apparently unpromising object can yield evidence against which explanations can be tested. Scientists can investigate both the history of feathers and the unresolved details of extinction without invoking a designer. The uncertainty concerns which natural factors mattered most — and further fossils may help resolve it. Even a dinosaur’s discarded meal can contribute to that process.

Refuting Creationism - Norwegian Fossil Shows Complex Organisms - 560 Million Years Before 'Creation Week'

Charnia, one of the oldest 3D Ediacaran fossils found

Stratigraphic context of the Kommagnes Charnia specimen. A, photograph (facing north) of the eastern part of the cliff, with the site of the float block marked by a star. B, stratigraphic log of the left side of A, marking the stratigraphic range from which the float block could have originated.

From: Veenma, Y.P., et al. (2026)

One of the oldest known 3D animal fossils found in Norwegian sheep field | University of Cambridge

Creationists have a major problem with the so-called Cambrian Explosion, some 535 million years ago. On the one hand, they insist it was a sudden moment of creation in which multiple different body-plans were magically created without ancestry; on the other hand, they deny there was any history before 6,000-10,000 years ago. Clearly both views can't be right; However, both views can be wrong.

And for creationists of both camps, the Ediacaran presents and even bigger problem: not only did it precede the Cambrian, but it shows that complex body-plans had already evolved. This problem just got a lot more acute with the discovery of an exceptionally well-preserved fossil in a sheep field in Arctic Norway, in approximately 560 million year old rocks, of a fossils of Charnia, a branching, frond-like organism that lived during the Ediacaran Period, well before the Cambrian began. These organisms inhabited an ancient seabed hundreds of millions of years before the supposed ‘Creation Week’ of young-Earth creationism.

As a paper published in Palaeontology by researchers led by Dr Yorick Veenma reports, this is the first confirmed fossil of Charnia to be found in Scandinavia. It was found alongside other Ediacaran fossils and is a rare three-dimensional specimen which preserves anatomical details normally obscured in flattened impression.

Despite its superficial resemblance to a fern, Charnia was no plant. It belonged to the rangeomorphs, an extinct group generally interpreted as early animals, although their precise relationships to living animal groups remain debated. We need not claim that Charnia was a direct ancestor of any particular Cambrian animal to appreciate its significance: large organisms with elaborate body structures already existed before the diversification that creationists so often misrepresent as an instantaneous act of creation.

Creationism Refuted - The 'American Cheetah' Was Not A Cheetah - Convergent Evolution

An artistic rendering of two Miracinonyx, one in Beringia preying mainly on fish and one in the Lower 48 feeding on pronghorn antelope.

Credit: Julius Csotonyi (CC-BY SA)

The feline Miracinonyx trumani got its nickname, the “American cheetah,” from its slender, long-limbed body, reminiscent of an African cheetah. While the extinct Pleistocene predator did hunt down speedy prey, such as saiga antelope (illustrated), a new study shows some animals ate a diet of mostly fish, suggesting the species was more adaptable than previously thought.

Velizar Simeonovski

The extinct American ‘cheetah’ was not a cheetah after all | EurekAlert!

A cat can look rather like a cheetah without being a cheetah, and a predator with long legs need not spend its life chasing antelopes. That is the lesson from new research into the extinct “American cheetah”, Miracinonyx trumani, whose ancient DNA and dietary chemistry reveal a more complicated animal than its nickname suggests. It is also another example of why evolutionary relationships have to be investigated through evidence, rather than decided by resemblance and fitted into preconceived categories.

The study, led by Molly Cassatt-Johnstone of the University of California, Santa Cruz, and published in Current Biology, analysed ancient DNA from four specimens. It strengthens earlier evidence that Miracinonyx was more closely related to living pumas than to true cheetahs, with the puma and Miracinonyx lineages estimated to have separated approximately 2.6 million years ago. Its cheetah-like anatomy therefore reflects convergent evolution: the independent evolution of similar features in different lineages.

There is an immediate difficulty here for young-Earth creationism. The evolutionary separation of these cats occurred millions of years before the supposed “Creation Week”, while the three Yukon specimens themselves are approximately 31,000 years old. These were animals living, feeding and dying in an established ecosystem long before the entire universe supposedly existed according to a literal reading of Genesis. Their identification also extends the animal’s known distribution far into northern Canada. Science News.

Refuting Creationism - The Evidence For Denisovans Just Keeps Getting Better

Map showing the geographic locations of Denisovan fossils determined by molecular evidence. The colours of the map reflect a combination of elevation and environmental context.

From: Rao, H., Xing, S., Ruan, Q. et al. (2026).

Denisovan Radius Discovered for First Time in Southwest China----Chinese Academy of Sciences

Fragments of Denisovan teeth, and bones recovered from Bianfu Cave in Southwest China

From: Rao, H., Xing, S., Ruan, Q. et al. (2026).

Long before the universe supposedly existed, according to Young-Earth creationism, human relatives were making tools and processing animal carcasses in what is now south-western China. Two complementary papers in Nature reveal another chapter of this inconvenient prehistory, combining ancient proteins, fossil anatomy and archaeology to investigate the Denisovans of Bianfu Cave in Yunnan Province.

In the first paper, Huiyun Rao and colleagues identify five Denisovan remains: two teeth, two skull fragments and part of a radius, one of the forearm bones. These come from layers dated to approximately 167,000–134,000 years ago. The radius provides the first securely identified example of this bone from a Denisovan, adding valuable evidence about a human lineage whose skeleton remains frustratingly poorly known.

The identification depended on proteins preserved within the fossils. Researchers screened more than 60,000 bone fragments before selecting promising specimens for molecular analysis. Surviving protein sequences contained diagnostic Denisovan variants, allowing small fragments to acquire an evolutionary identity that their appearance alone could not securely establish. The study also places another confirmed Denisovan locality within a previously conspicuous gap in their known Asian distribution.

A second paper in Nature, by Qijun Ruan and colleagues examines the wider archaeological record. Evidence of cave use extends from approximately 190,000 to 70,000 years ago — a span of around 120,000 years. Its inhabitants hunted medium-sized and large animals, produced stone tools and made extensive use of bones without elaborate modification. These practices suggest practical exploitation of available materials in a landscape of coniferous forest and forest-steppe.

An important distinction remains: the identified Denisovan fossils cover only part of that longer sequence. Attributing the wider archaeological record to Denisovans is the researchers’ most economical interpretation, rather than direct proof that Denisovans occupied the cave throughout. Nor does the sequence establish uninterrupted residence. That qualification illustrates how scientific conclusions are bounded by the evidence.

Refuting Creationism - Creationists Bitten By Snapping Tasmanian Tiger

AI-depiction of a thylacine in the Tasmanian bush

ChatGPT 6 Astra

The last known Tasmanian tiger in footage digitised by the National Film and Sound Archive of Australia.

Photograph: National Film and Sound Archive of Australia.

3D scans of Tasmanian tiger’s skull reveal it had crocodile-style snapping jaws

The thylacine, or Tasmanian tiger, has long been a textbook example of convergent evolution: a marsupial predator whose resemblance to a wolf evolved independently in a distant branch of the mammalian family tree. For creationists, such similarities offer an opportunity to invoke a designer reusing a successful design. But that explanation overlooks the more revealing question: how far does the resemblance go, and why do similarities in some features coexist with substantial differences in others?

New research led by Flinders University’s Professor Vera Weisbecker, published in Nature Communications, shows why describing the thylacine as a “marsupial wolf” can be misleading. Its skull combined features resembling those of different carnivores with an unusual specialisation of its own. As the university’s account explains, this animal was more closely related to kangaroos than to dogs, despite its superficially canine appearance.

Three-dimensional comparisons revealed a striking mixture. The back of the skull resembled that of larger canids, including wolves, while the long, slender snout looked more like that of smaller foxes and jackals. Yet the whole skull was disproportionately large for the animal carrying it. The researchers suggest that this combination supported rapid, forceful snapping bites at relatively small prey. Some features even invite comparison with crocodiles and other vertebrates that catch agile prey with elongated jaws. These are inferences from anatomy, rather than direct observations of hunting behaviour, but they undermine the familiar image of a predator equipped to overpower large animals in the manner of a wolf. The authors explain these findings in their article for The Conversation.

Refuting Creationism - Why Nature Creates Fossils Of Different Ages In The Same Deposit - Unlike The Mythical Genocidal Flood

AI depiction of how shells accumulate in sediment

ChatGPT 6 Astra

Collection of creatures that can disturb sediment and relocate shells.

Florida Museum.

Paleontologists spent 20 years carbon-dating thousands of marine fossils, then used them to decode a process fundamental to Earth’s history – Research News

A fossil bed is not necessarily a collection of animals that lived and died together. Two shells lying side by side can belong to creatures whose lives were separated by hundreds or thousands of years. For creationists who interpret fossil-bearing deposits as the products of a single, year-long biblical Flood, that raises an awkward question: how much history is actually represented within a supposedly catastrophic snapshot?

An international study, published in PNAS, brings substantial evidence to bear on that question. Drawing on two decades of research, the team assembled dates for more than 7,500 marine fossils, obtained using radiocarbon dating and other methods. They investigated “time averaging”: the mixing of remains from different generations within the same assemblage.

Their principal finding was that sediment accumulation rate is the strongest predictor of this mixing. Where sediment accumulates slowly, remains from successive generations can collect before permanent burial. Faster accumulation generally limits that opportunity. Comparisons between observations and computer simulations showed that sedimentation exerted a stronger influence than the other factors examined, including mixing by burrowing animals and the destruction of skeletal remains. These findings concern the relatively recent fossil record; their application to much deeper time still requires testing.

The creationist response cannot therefore consist merely of declaring that the fossils were all buried by Noah’s Flood. Burial and death are different events. A sudden event could gather older shells and redeposit them, but that would concede that the resulting assemblage contains a history predating the catastrophe. It would still be necessary to explain the age differences, the source of the older material and the surrounding sedimentary evidence.

Nor does a vague appeal to “errors in carbon dating” solve the problem. An identical age offset applied to every specimen would leave their age differences intact. Other proposed errors would need to be specified, quantified and shown to account for the observed pattern. Simply assuming that inconvenient measurements must be wrong is not an explanation; it is a refusal to accept evidence.

The significance of this research is that the history preserved within fossil assemblages can be investigated and measured. Scientists can ask how much time a collection represents, identify the processes responsible and test their explanations against thousands of specimens. For Flood geology, the challenge is to produce an equally convincing account of those observations. A biblical narrative, however confidently repeated, supplies neither the measurements nor the explanation.

Creationism Refuted - A Cretaceous Dinosaur From Brazil With A Close Relative From Spain - From 120 Million Years Ago

AI-generated impression of Dasosaurus tocantinensis in the Cretaceous.

ChatGPT 6 Astra

Artistic reconstruction of the new dinosaur from Maranhão state. It was 20 meters long and had a European relative .

Paleoart: Jorge Blanco.

New long-necked dinosaur found in Northeast Brazil was a close relative of a European species

A newly described giant dinosaur from Brazil presents creationists with more than the familiar problem of a fossil vastly older than their supposed creation of the Universe. Its evolutionary relationships also preserve evidence of a world whose geography has changed profoundly: continents separating, ancestral populations dispersing, and related lineages following different evolutionary paths. This is precisely the sort of historical pattern we expect when common descent operates on a planet reshaped by plate tectonics.

The dinosaur, Dasosaurus tocantinensis, was approximately 20 metres long and lived around 120 million years ago, during the Early Cretaceous. Its remains were discovered during construction of a road–rail terminal at Davinópolis, in the north-eastern Brazilian state of Maranhão. Described by Elver Luiz Mayer and colleagues in the Journal of Systematic Palaeontology, it has its closest known evolutionary relative in what is now Spain. The researchers interpret this affinity as evidence that its ancestors probably reached South America from Europe via North Africa between about 140 and 120 million years ago.

That proposed route needs to be understood against the geography of the time. Africa and South America had not yet completed their separation, and connections between landmasses offered opportunities for dispersal that the modern map conceals. The finding therefore concerns ancestral movements through an ancient landscape, rather than dinosaurs somehow crossing the present-day Atlantic.

The broader evolutionary principle is straightforward. Populations can spread when geographical connections permit; when barriers interrupt gene flow, their descendants can diverge. Consequently, relationships between species should reflect both their ancestry and the changing opportunities for movement and isolation. Evolutionary biology supplies the explanation for the branching relationships, while plate tectonics supplies the changing geographical setting. This particular fossil does not, by itself, prove that continental separation caused a specific speciation event, but its affinities fit the larger picture remarkably well.

For young-Earth creationism, the difficulty is therefore both chronological and explanatory. A dinosaur living 120 million years ago cannot be accommodated within a literal Genesis chronology. Nor does the assertion that a creator suddenly produced separate “kinds” explain why their anatomical relationships should correspond to ancient geographical connections. Common descent makes that correspondence intelligible; magical creation provides no comparable prediction.

What emerges is a history of life unfolding on a changing Earth, with neither continents nor their inhabitants fixed in their present arrangements. Understanding that history requires evidence, evolutionary relationships and deep time — all conspicuously absent from the biblical creation account.

Creationism Refuted - Creationists Stung By Giant Scorpion - From 415 Million Years Before 'Creation Week'

Reconstruction of Praearcturus gigas in a Devonian river

AI-Generated image (ChatGPT 5.6 Sol)

Life reconstruction of Praearcturus gigas

© Franz Anthony

World’s largest scorpion revealed from 415-million-year-old fossils

Anyone attempting to reconcile Earth’s history with the creation myths in Genesis has another awkward fossil to explain: the remains of a scorpion that lived in Britain approximately 415 million years ago—more than 400 million years before the supposed biblical Creation Week.

The animal,Praearcturus gigas, inhabited the river channels and floodplains of what are now England and Wales during the Early Devonian Period. Although known only from fragmentary remains, its enormous pincers and body plates suggest that it may have approached a metre in length, making it the largest scorpion yet identified. One of its fossil claws is more than 15.9 centimetres long, while the preserved carapace is about 9.4 centimetres wide.

The fossils themselves are not a new discovery. Some were collected in the nineteenth century and have been held in the Natural History Museum’s collections for more than 150 years. First described in 1871,Praearcturus was originally classified as a giant isopod-like crustacean and was subsequently compared with several other arthropod groups. Its identity remained controversial because none of the known specimens preserves an entire animal, including the characteristic segmented tail and sting.

Now, as reported in Plaeontology, researchers from the Natural History Museum, the University of Manchester and Technological University Dublin have re-examined the specimens using detailed photography, anatomical comparisons and computed tomography. Features including its large claw-bearing pedipalps, the structure of its sternum and a stridulatory surface on one of its leg bases provide strong evidence that it was a true scorpion. The researchers also concluded that fossils previously namedBrontoscorpio anglicus andBennettarthra annwnensis probably belonged to the same species and should be treated as junior synonyms ofPraearcturus gigas.
Its age is established by its geological context. The specimens come from the St Maughans Formation of the Anglo-Welsh Basin, a sequence of river and floodplain deposits belonging to the Lochkovian Stage of the Early Devonian. Fossil spores place the relevant rocks within a recognised biological zone dated to approximately 415.8–412 million years ago. This was not the familiar green world of later geological periods: forests had not yet evolved, land plants were still small, and terrestrial ecosystems were only beginning to develop.

Refuting Creationism - Refining The Details - How Did The Common Ancestor of Hominins And Chimps Climb Trees?

Speculative depiction of the last common ancestor of hominins and chimpanzees

AI-generated image (ChatGPT 5.6 Sol)

Researchers observed and confirmed with measurements that wild sooty mangabey monkeys in an Ivory Coast forest display foot bone flexibility that facilitates vertical climbing up skinny tree trunks to hide, forage or sleep.

Photo: W. Scott McGraw.

Last common ancestor, no matter its feet, could have been a vertical climber

One of the standard creationist tactics is to portray disagreement between scientists as evidence that the science itself is unreliable. Yet disagreement over the details of an evolutionary history is not disagreement over whether evolution occurred. On the contrary, it is often the means by which science advances: competing explanations are identified, their testable implications are examined, and evidence is gathered to determine which assumptions remain tenable.

A long-running example concerns the last common ancestor of humans and chimpanzees, whose descendant lineages diverged some six to seven million years ago. Palaeoanthropologists agree that such an ancestor existed; the disagreement concerns what it looked like and how it moved. In particular, was its foot more like that of a modern African ape, with an ankle capable of substantial upward flexion during vertical climbing, or more like that of a monkey adapted principally to moving along branches?

That question matters because the evolution of habitual bipedalism cannot be understood without reconstructing the locomotion from which it developed. Fossilised foot and ankle bones preserve anatomical structure but not behaviour, so palaeoanthropologists must infer what their owners could do by comparing them with living primates. One influential assumption was that a primate needed a chimpanzee-like ankle to climb vertical tree trunks proficiently. A fossil with a more monkey-like foot might therefore be interpreted as evidence against frequent vertical climbing.

Luke D. Fannin, Carmen Pape and W. Scott McGraw have now tested that assumption with evidence from living animals. For their study published in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, they recorded wild sooty mangabeys, Cercocebus atys, climbing trees in Côte d’Ivoire’s Taï Forest and measured the movements of their feet. Mangabeys lack the highly flexible ankle of a chimpanzee, yet they achieved an average of about 46 degrees of upward flexion through the middle of the foot—virtually the same range that chimpanzees achieve at the ankle.

In other words, two differently constructed feet can solve the same biomechanical problem in different ways. Chimpanzees flex chiefly at the ankle; mangabeys obtain comparable movement from the midfoot. This is a striking example of convergent evolution: similar selection pressures have produced functionally equivalent performances by modifying different parts of an inherited anatomical system.

Creationism Refuted - Hominin Footprints - 1.4 Million Years Before 'Creation Week'

One of the large, 1.4-million-year-old footprints that the team excavated.
A 6-inch (~15 cm) ruler is shown for scale.

© Kay Behrensmeyer

Reconstruction of Parathropus boisei from holotype specimen OH5

By Daderot - Own work, CC0, Link

Fossil footprints show large body size and group dynamics in 1.4-million-year-old human relatives | Max-Planck-Gesellschaft

One of the more tangible problems for Bible-literalist creationism is that the rocks beneath our feet contain evidence of creatures that lived and died long before the supposed biblical “Creation Week”. Fossilised bones can sometimes appear remote and abstract, but footprints are different. They record a fleeting moment in the life of an individual: a foot pressed into soft mud, weight transferred forwards, toes lifted and another step taken. For a few seconds, an extinct relative of ours occupied that precise spot—and the impression it left can remain for more than a million years.

At GaJi10, on the eastern side of Lake Turkana in northern Kenya, researchers have now documented 21 hominin footprints made by at least eight individuals approximately 1.43 million years ago. The tracks occur alongside those of hippopotamuses, antelopes and other animals that crossed the same muddy lakeshore during the Early Pleistocene. Volcanic ash associated with the surrounding sediments allowed the track-bearing surface to be dated.

As an international research team reports in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS), the footprints provide much more than evidence that hominins were present. Their shape and the pattern of movement recorded in them differ from the more modern-looking tracks attributed to contemporary Homo erectus. The researchers therefore consider them most likely to have been made by Paranthropus boisei—an extinct, bipedal cousin of our own lineage, best known from its enormous chewing teeth, powerful jaws and heavily built skull. The attribution is an inference from footprint anatomy and locomotion rather than an identification that can be made with absolute certainty.

Creationism Refuted - Eurasian Homo sapiens Stopped Eating Insects - Thousands Of Years Before 'Creation Week'

Insects in Chang Moi, Mueang Chiang Mai District, Chiang Mai, Thailand.

Credit: mohigan. Licence: CC BY-SA 3.0, via Wikimedia Commons.

European Homo sapiens ate fewer insects than Neanderthals and tropical populations - Institut de Biologia Evolutiva - CSIC UPF (UPF)

Humans are strange creatures. While we recoil at the thought of tucking into a dish of sautéed maggots, fried grasshoppers or other insects, we happily eat their close arthropod relatives, crabs, lobsters and prawns, and yet the evidence is that this has only been so for Northern Eurasians for about the last 9,000 year.

People are also strange in another way: despite all the evidence to the contrary and with no supporting evidence at all, there are people who believe the whole of history can be compressed into a few thousand years and that animals can be created by magic without ancestors.

For biblical literalists, every human who has ever lived must be squeezed into the few thousand years since the supposed creation of the first couple. Yet evidence preserved in something as commonplace as calcified plaque on ancient teeth tells a very different story: one of several human lineages, changing diets, inherited genetic variation and adaptation to contrasting environments over tens of thousands of years.

In a paper published in Science Advances, Manuel Piñero and Pablo Librado of the Institute of Evolutionary Biology in Barcelona combined two independent sources of evidence to investigate the history of human insect-eating, or entomophagy. They searched ancient dental calculus for insect DNA and examined genetic variants affecting our ability to digest chitin—the tough polysaccharide forming much of an insect’s exoskeleton.

Refuting Creationism - Now It's A Transitional Early Insect - From 324 Million Years Before 'Creation Week'

Palaeoecological reconstruction of the Carboniferous stem-insect Chosha praecursor

From: Tihelka, E., Vásquez, C., Engel, M.S. et al (32026)

Amphibious stem-insect rewrites the evolutionary history of insect terrestrialization---- Nanjing Institute of Geology and Palaeontology Chinese Academy of Sciences

A favourite creationist debating tactic is to point to a gap in the fossil record and pretend that the absence of a known transitional form is evidence that no transition occurred. When a suitable fossil is eventually found, the manoeuvre simply creates two smaller gaps on either side of it—or the fossil is arbitrarily declared to be “fully formed” and therefore not transitional. A simple trick which exposes the ignorance and disingenuity of creationism, is to ask them to describe exactly what they would expect a transition fossil to look like. They tend to abruptly break off the debate, because to answer it would violate two unwritten rules of creationism - never consider being wrong and never state what evidence would cause you to change your mind in case it's produced.

This 'god of the gaps' rhetorical game depends upon treating an inevitably incomplete geological record as though it ought to contain a specimen from every generation of every evolving lineage - something that if it were true, would be hard for science to explain, given what we know of the circumstances in which fossils are formed, which actually predicts that the record will be discontinuous.

The early history of insects has offered particularly fertile ground for this tactic. Molecular-clock studies indicate that hexapods diverged from aquatic crustacean relatives hundreds of millions of years ago, yet their small, delicate bodies were poorly suited to fossilisation, especially in the environments through which they were making the transition onto land. Consequently, there has been a conspicuous interval—the so-called “hexapod gap”—between the earliest evidence of hexapods and the abundance of unmistakable insects in later Carboniferous rocks.

Now, an international team led by Erik Tihelka and Chenyang Cai has described a remarkable fossil that helps to narrow that gap while illustrating how the familiar insect body plan was assembled. The approximately 324-million-year-old animal, named Chosha praecursor, came from the Late Mississippian Tesnus Formation of western Texas. Collected in 1985 and long misidentified as a juvenile crustacean, it remained in a museum collection until examination under cross-polarised light revealed anatomical details that had previously been almost invisible. The findings are reported in Nature.

Refuting Creationism - The Slow Evolution and Extinction Of African Megafauna - Over 23 Million Years

Modern African megafauna

A selection of extinct African megaherbivores

AI-Generated image (ChatGPT 5.6 Sol)

Scarce emergence of new species drove the decline of African megaherbivores | Museo Nacional de Ciencias Naturales

Africa’s elephants, rhinoceroses and hippopotamuses are surviving representatives of a much richer assemblage of giant herbivores that once included such animals as Deinotherium, an elephant relative with downward-curving tusks, and the pig-like anthracotheres, relatives of modern hippopotamuses. These animals were not merely conspicuous members of their ecosystems. As “ecosystem engineers”, megaherbivores—here defined as herbivorous mammals weighing at least one tonne—alter vegetation, disperse seeds, open pathways, create water holes and redistribute nutrients.

Why so much of this diversity disappeared has usually been approached as a question of extinction. Large animals reproduce slowly, require extensive habitats and comparatively large quantities of food, so it seems intuitively reasonable to assume that they must have been especially vulnerable when climates and environments changed. Human hunting has also figured prominently in explanations of the much more recent global disappearance of large mammals.

But the diversity of any group depends upon two processes, not one. Extinction removes species, while speciation produces new ones. Even a lineage with a comparatively modest extinction rate will decline if its species disappear faster than evolutionary divergence can replace them. Conversely, a group can withstand relatively frequent extinctions if new species continue to arise sufficiently rapidly.

A new study published open access in Nature Communications. has now examined both sides of that evolutionary balance. Juan L. Cantalapiedra and colleagues analysed 3,327 African fossil occurrences representing 396 species of herbivorous mammals. Using neural-network models, they reconstructed changes in speciation and extinction over the past 23 million years while considering body size, tooth-crown height, evolutionary relationships and environmental change. Their results challenge the apparently obvious assumption that Africa’s largest herbivores declined because they were inherently more prone to extinction.

In fact, the models indicate that extinction rates were generally somewhat lower among the largest species. High-crowned teeth, which better withstand abrasive diets, were also associated with a reduced risk of extinction. The underlying problem for megaherbivores was that their already low speciation rates could not compensate for the species that were lost.

The imbalance developed over millions of years. As Africa became increasingly arid from about 7.2 million years ago, both speciation and extinction initially accelerated as changing vegetation and expanding open habitats reorganised its ungulate communities. Speciation then levelled off after about 3.6 million years, while extinction continued to rise and increased sharply with the beginning of the Pleistocene, about 2.58 million years ago. During the driest intervals, smaller herbivores generated new species at substantially higher rates, whereas speciation among megaherbivores was suppressed still further. The resulting decline was already well under way long before humans possessed the technology needed to hunt such enormous animals systematically.

This does not mean that humans played no part in the most recent losses, nor that climate alone explains every extinction. Rather, it places recent events within a much longer evolutionary history in which changing climate, declining ecosystem productivity, extinction and unequal rates of speciation gradually transformed the African fauna.

Unintelligent Design - The Evolutionary Compromises That Made The Human Female Pelvis - No Intelligence Involved

Virtual reconstructions of the Neanderthal pelvises of a 1.5-year-old infant from Dederiyeh Cave, Syria (left), and a young adult female from Sima de las Palomas de Cabezo Gordo, Spain (right). Age- and sex-matched modern human pelvises are superimposed in transparency to highlight form differences.

Image credit: Marcia Ponce de León
and Christoph Zollikofer
(University of Zurich)

A Neanderthal woman and Baby. Her Pelvis is the result of the same evolutionary processes as that of Homo sapiens women.

AI-generated image (ChatGPT 5.6 Sol).

Rethinking Birth and Bipedalism - School of Science University of Tokyo

The human pelvis is a particularly poor candidate for anyone wishing to argue that the human body was intelligently designed from scratch. It must support the upper body, anchor muscles used in standing and locomotion, protect internal organs, maintain the pelvic floor and— in females—provide a passage through which a large-bodied, large-brained infant can be born. The result is not an ideal solution to a single engineering problem, but an evolutionary compromise assembled by modifying an inherited structure while several competing selection pressures acted upon it.

For much of the past century, one influential explanation for its shape has been the “obstetrical dilemma”. According to the simplest version of this hypothesis, the female pelvis represents a compromise between a birth canal wide enough to accommodate a large-brained baby and hips narrow enough to permit efficient bipedal walking. Childbirth pushes pelvic evolution in one direction, in other words, while locomotion pushes it in the other.

That explanation has never been beyond dispute. Studies have questioned whether wider hips necessarily impose the assumed energetic penalty on walking or running, while alternative hypotheses have emphasised maternal metabolism, infant development and the need for a stable pelvic floor capable of supporting the abdominal organs. The pelvis is involved in too many functions for its evolution necessarily to be reduced to a single contest between walking and childbirth.

Refuting Creationism - Denisovans Show Why Scepticism Is The Stuff Of Good Science, But Toxic To Creationism

The Harbin cranium

From: Fu Q, Cao P, Dai Q (2025)

Reconstruction of Homo longi from the Harbin cranium, now identified as that of a Denisovan.

© Nobu Tamura, CC BY-SA 3.0, via Wikimedia Commons.

Were Denisovans tall compared to other ancient humans? We should be sceptical

One of the most important differences between science and creationism is not that science possesses absolute certainty while creationism does not. It is that science has procedures for recognising uncertainty, testing assumptions and preventing an interesting possibility from being promoted prematurely into an established fact. Creationism, by contrast, begins with an asserted certainty and then selects, distorts or dismisses the evidence according to whether it supports the required conclusion.

That distinction is illustrated particularly well by the recent suggestion that Denisovans may have been exceptionally tall. The claim originated in a preprint by Yousuke Kaifu and colleagues describing an incomplete femur and tibia recovered by dredging from the Penghu Channel between Taiwan and mainland China. Ancient proteins preserved in the bones identify them as Denisovan, giving scientists the first known Denisovan leg bones and potentially valuable information about the bodies of these enigmatic archaic humans.

Penghu 2 and Penghu 3 hominin leg bones.
Anterior (a), medial (b), and distal (c) views of the Penghu 2 right femoral shaft. Anterior (d), lateral (e) and distal (f) views of the Penghu 3 right tibia. Symbols: m=medial, p=posterior. Scale bar=10cm.

Kaifu, Y., et al.(2026)

Reconstructions suggest that the owner of the femur, known as Penghu 2, may have stood about 1.8 metres tall and weighed approximately 83 kilograms. The owner of the Penghu 3 tibia may have been about 1.9 metres tall and weighed around 91 kilograms. These were undoubtedly large individuals by Pleistocene standards, and their estimated dimensions compare with those of some of the largest ancient humans known from Africa and Europe.

But two large individuals do not establish that Denisovans as a population were exceptionally tall. Modern humans vary considerably in height, and no responsible anthropologist would attempt to calculate the average stature of the entire species from two people selected from a crowd. The problem is even greater when dealing with two incomplete bones recovered by trawling rather than from a documented archaeological excavation. Their exact discovery locations and original geological contexts are unknown, while large, robust bones are more likely than small or fragile ones to survive, become caught in fishing nets and be recognised as scientifically interesting.

This is the point made by palaeoanthropologist Sally Christine Reynolds in an article in The Conversation. The height estimates may be perfectly reasonable for the two individuals concerned, but extending those estimates to Denisovans generally would require a much larger and more representative sample. At present, “two Denisovans were tall” is a defensible conclusion; “Denisovans were a tall species” remains an intriguing but weakly supported generalisation.

This is evolutionary population thinking in practice. Species are not collections of identical specimens conforming to an ideal form. They are variable populations in which individuals differ because of their genes, sex, nutrition, health, environment and developmental history. Treating one or two specimens as definitive representatives of an entire species is a remnant of the typological thinking that sits much more comfortably with the creationist notion of separately manufactured and essentially unchanging “kinds”.

Creationists habitually misrepresent scientific disagreements about details as evidence that scientists are abandoning evolution. Nothing of the sort is happening here. Reynolds is not questioning whether Denisovans existed, whether they shared common ancestry with Neanderthals and Homo sapiens, or whether they interbred with the ancestors of some living people. She is questioning whether two bones provide sufficient evidence for one proposed characteristic of the Denisovan population.

Indeed, identifying these bones as Denisovan depended upon evolutionary science. Proteins change through inherited mutations, so similarities and differences in their amino-acid sequences retain evidence of common ancestry. Even when recoverable DNA and diagnostic skeletal features are unavailable, palaeoproteomics can place a fossil within an evolutionary family tree. Creationism supplies no corresponding method for predicting those nested molecular relationships and no explanation for why the history recorded by fossil proteins should agree with that reconstructed from DNA and anatomy.

One qualification should be added to the account in The Conversation. Reynolds states that neither bone has been dated directly. However, a companion preprint reporting radiocarbon and stable-isotope analyses gives Penghu 3 a direct radiocarbon age of approximately 45,575–44,522 calibrated years before the present. Penghu 2 remains undated, and the lack of stratigraphic provenance still prevents the two individuals from being assumed to have lived together or even during the same period. Both studies are also preprints and have yet to complete peer review.

Scientific scepticism therefore does not weaken the evolutionary account; it protects it from exaggeration. Scientists can accept that the bones belonged to two large Denisovans, recognise the importance of their molecular identification and direct dating, and nevertheless withhold judgement on whether Denisovans generally were unusually tall. That willingness to make the conclusion no larger than the evidence can support is one of the defining strengths of science—and the antithesis of a creationist doctrine in which the conclusion was declared infallible before any evidence was examined.

Sally Christine Reynolds's article in The Conversation is reprinted here under a Creative Commone License, reformatted for stylistic consistency:

Creationism in Crisis - Penguin Fossils Expose Creationist Lies

Ancient Penguin Fossils Offer New Window into Antarctica’s Changing Climate | Blog

Fossil collection sites, Seymour Island, Antarctica.
Images credit: Boyang Xia et al.

Embarrassed by the wealth of fossils documenting an orderly succession of changing life over hundreds of millions of years, creationists traditionally fall back on several almost equally implausible attempts to reconcile the evidence with their preferred origin myth. According to young-Earth creationism, Earth is only 6,000–10,000 years old, while most of the fossil-bearing geological record was supposedly produced during a single, year-long global flood in which almost every terrestrial vertebrate was exterminated in an act of divine genocide, leaving only a handful of survivors aboard a wooden boat.

The principal pseudo-scientific attempt to explain the orderly fossil record is something creationists call “hydrological sorting”. This proposes that the Flood sorted organisms according to such factors as their size, density, buoyancy, habitat or ability to escape the rising water. The term therefore has a nominal meaning, but it provides no credible explanation for the observed succession of organisms in the rocks. It cannot explain why particular groups appear only after their presumed ancestors, why countless short-lived species occur in a consistent order across different continents, why terrestrial and marine ecosystems succeed one another coherently, or why the same sequence agrees with radiometric dates, palaeomagnetism, plate tectonics and independent records of environmental change.

When this supposed mechanism fails, creationists can retreat into claims that are conveniently immune to evidence: that their creator deliberately planted or manipulated the fossil record to make Earth look ancient; that Satan planted the evidence to deceive the faithful; or that generations of geologists, palaeontologists, physicists and biologists have participated in a vast conspiracy to conceal the “truth”. Each claim abandons any pretence of scientific explanation because none can be tested, falsified or distinguished from an invented excuse. They serve only to protect a predetermined conclusion from inconvenient facts.

The latest inconvenient facts come from three researchers at the China University of Geosciences (Beijing): Boyang Xia, Huaichun Wu and Quanguo Li. In a paper recently published in the open-access journal Fossil Record, they report that fossil penguin bones from Seymour Island, off the Antarctic Peninsula, preserve a geochemical record of changing environmental conditions during the Eocene.

Seymour Island contains one of the world’s richest and most nearly continuous successions of Eocene penguin fossils. Xia and colleagues examined bones from three different levels in the La Meseta and Submeseta formations: an early Eocene horizon dated to 55.3–54.1 million years ago, a younger horizon dated to 49.1–45.8 million years ago, and a middle-to-late Eocene horizon dated to 41.2–37.7 million years ago. For comparison, they also examined bones from living chinstrap and emperor penguins.

Creationism in Crisis - Hunting for Earth’s First Complex Life

The bird cliff Stappen, southern Bjørnøya (Bear Island) in the Barents Sea. The island is part of Svalbard, Norway.

Michael Haferkamp,
CC BY-SA 3.0, via Wikimedia Commons

Microfossils from a sediment core of the Deep Sea Drilling Project (DSDP), Sediment sample with microfossils

Hannes Grobe (talk), Alfred Wegener Institute,
CC BY 3.0, via Wikimedia Commons

On The Hunt For Earth’s First Complex Life - Universe Today

For most of its history, Earth was not a planet of trees, animals, fungi or anything else visible without a microscope. It was a microbial world. Life had existed for well over a billion years before the first clearly recognisable eukaryotic cells appeared in the fossil record, and for roughly another billion years after that, complex life remained comparatively inconspicuous.

That immense, slowly unfolding history is the subject of On the Hunt for Earth’s First Complex Life, an article in Universe Today by science journalist Bruce Dorminey, based on an interview with University of Oxford palaeontologist Associate Professor Ross Anderson. Anderson studies some of the most elusive fossils on Earth: the microscopic and usually soft-bodied remains of the organisms that preceded animals, plants and fungi.

The article is not a report of one new research paper, but an overview of an active field of research. Fortunately, several peer-reviewed studies provide the scientific background to Anderson’s comments. Together they describe not a sudden act of creation, but a long evolutionary transition from a biosphere dominated by bacteria and archaea to one containing eukaryotic cells, multicellular organisms and, eventually, animals.

From a Microbial World to Complex Life. For most of Earth’s approximately 4.54-billion-year history, life was microscopic. The dates below represent the oldest reasonably secure evidence currently known, not necessarily the moment at which each evolutionary innovation first appeared. Any organism must have evolved before it could leave a fossil, and the earliest members of a lineage may have gone unpreserved or remain undiscovered.

Some major milestones

• About 4.54 billion years ago — Earth formed. The young planet initially experienced intense volcanism, impacts and chemical evolution before stable oceans and environments capable of supporting life developed.
• More than 3.5 billion years ago — microbial life was established. Ancient rocks preserve chemical and structural evidence of organisms that lacked nuclei and other membrane-bound organelles. Some proposed evidence is older, but its biological origin remains disputed.
• By about 2.7–2.3 billion years ago — oxygenic photosynthesis had evolved. Cyanobacteria began using sunlight to extract electrons from water, releasing oxygen as a by-product.
• About 2.4 billion years ago — the Great Oxidation Event. Oxygen began accumulating persistently in the atmosphere. This did not immediately produce complex life, but it profoundly altered ocean chemistry, mineral formation and the evolutionary opportunities available to organisms.
• At least 1.75 billion years ago — recognisable eukaryotes. Organic-walled microfossils from northern Australia are among the oldest well-supported fossil eukaryotes. Their distribution indicates that they lived on or within oxygenated seabeds and probably already possessed mitochondria.
• By about 1 billion years ago — multicellular eukaryotes. The fossil record contains increasingly persuasive examples of multicellular algae and other organisms in which cells were joined and organised. Multicellularity subsequently evolved independently in several eukaryotic lineages.
• About 791 million years ago — diverse eukaryotes in the Svalbard sea. The Svanbergfjellet Formation preserves green algae and several enigmatic organisms with complex multicellular forms.
• About 720–635 million years ago — Cryogenian global glaciations. During the “Snowball Earth” episodes, ice extended into tropical latitudes. The resulting environmental disruption probably caused extinctions while also creating new ecological opportunities after the ice retreated.
• By about 574 million years ago — macroscopic Ediacaran organisms. Large, soft-bodied organisms appeared in marine ecosystems. Some may have been early animals, although the precise affinities of several famous Ediacaran forms remain debated.
• From about 539 million years ago — the Cambrian radiation. Animal diversity, movement, burrowing, predation and biomineralisation expanded dramatically over millions of years. Skeletons and shells also made organisms much more likely to enter the fossil record.

How do scientists recognise a fossil eukaryote?

Finding a microscopic structure in an ancient rock does not automatically establish that it was alive, still less that it was a eukaryote. Palaeontologists first determine whether the object is genuinely biological, whether it was deposited with the surrounding sediment and whether it is as old as the rock containing it. They then examine combinations of features that are difficult to explain as mineral growths, later contamination or ordinary bacterial cells.

• Size: Many early eukaryotic fossils are more than 100 micrometres across, considerably larger than typical bacteria. Size alone is not decisive, however, because some bacteria also produce exceptionally large cells.
• Complex walls: Multiple wall layers, regularly arranged spines, sculptured surfaces and other elaborate structures indicate a degree of cellular control associated with eukaryotes.
• Controlled openings: Some fossils have deliberately formed openings through which a cell apparently emerged from a resistant cyst. Their regular shape and position distinguish them from accidental tears or decay.
• Internal structures: Preserved internal bodies, membranes or consistent patterns of cell division can support a eukaryotic interpretation, although claims that a particular structure represents a nucleus or organelle require especially strong evidence.
• Multicellular organisation: Regular arrangements of connected cells, branching, differentiated regions or structures resembling holdfasts can demonstrate controlled growth rather than a chance aggregation of microorganisms.
• Organic chemistry: Microscopy and spectroscopic techniques can establish that a fossil has a carbon-rich biological wall and reveal how heat, pressure and mineral reactions altered it after burial.
• Geological context: Sedimentology and geochemistry reveal whether the organism lived in a coastal lagoon, on an oxygenated seabed or in deeper anoxic water. Finding the same form repeatedly within an appropriate environment strengthens its biological interpretation.

No single characteristic is necessarily conclusive. Large cells can be prokaryotic, mineral crystals can imitate biological shapes and geological alteration can create misleading structures. The strongest identifications therefore combine morphology, chemistry, repeated occurrence and environmental context.

Even when a fossil can confidently be identified as eukaryotic, its precise relationship to modern organisms may remain uncertain. Many organic-walled microfossils are consequently described by form rather than assigned prematurely to animals, plants, fungi or a particular group of protists. This caution is a strength of palaeontology, not a weakness: conclusions are calibrated to the evidence available and revised when better specimens or analytical techniques become available.

Further information: Susannah M. Porter, “Insights into eukaryogenesis from the fossil record”; Ross P. Anderson and colleagues, “Proterozoic microfossils continue to provide new insights into the rise of complex eukaryotic life”.

For creationists, the timescale alone is fatal. The rocks being examined are hundreds of millions to more than a billion years older than the entire Universe is supposed to be according to a literal reading of Genesis. More importantly, they preserve an ordered history of biological and environmental change that bears no resemblance to a six-day creation followed by a recent global flood.

The cellular innovation behind complex life

A eukaryotic cell is fundamentally more internally organised than a bacterial or archaeal cell. Its DNA is enclosed within a nucleus, while specialised compartments called organelles perform particular functions. Among the most important of these are mitochondria, which use oxygen to release energy from food and make energy-intensive forms of cellular organisation possible.