Researchers from the University of New South Wales (UNSW), Sydney, Australia, have identified DNA switches that help control how astrocytes work. These are brain cells that support neurons and are known to play a role in Alzheimer’s disease. They have just published their findings in Nature Neuroscience.
Firstly, there is the embarrassment that the cause of Alzheimer’s is indistinguishable from Michael J. Behe’s favourite ‘proof’ of intelligent design — irreducible complexity — in that all the elements must be present for Alzheimer’s to occur.
Secondly, there is the discovery by the Australian team of which triggers ‘switch on’ which genes that affect the astrocytes implicated in Alzheimer’s. These switches are embedded in the 98% of the human genome that is non-coding, or so-called ‘junk’ DNA. Since they can be separated from the genes they regulate by thousands of base pairs, it has been notoriously difficult to identify which switches control which genes. Now, using CRISPR, the team have identified around 150 of these regulatory elements.
The existence of this non-coding DNA has long been an embarrassment for creationists, who have been unable to explain why an intelligent designer would produce so much DNA that does not contain the roughly 20,000 genes that actually code for proteins. Why such prolific waste, adding massively to the risk of errors that can result in cancer?
The creationist response has been to conflate the terms ‘non-coding’ and ‘non-functional’, and then proclaim this ‘functional DNA’ as intelligently designed — reducing, but by no means eliminating, the amount of ‘junk’ they still have to explain away. Of course, ‘non-coding’ does not mean ‘not transcribed’, only that the RNA does not code for a functional protein. However, this non-coding but functional DNA does play a role in gene expression, in that the resulting RNA can act as controls or ‘switches’ that turn genes on and off.
So, creationists — having triumphantly waved ‘functional, non-coding DNA’ as evidence for intelligent design after all — are now presented with the fact that it is part of the ‘irreducible’ cause of Alzheimer’s, and probably the cause of many other diseases with a genetic basis.
Two researchers at McGill University, Montréal, Québec, Canada, have uncovered evidence of an ecosystem teeming with giant marine predators some 130 million years ago. The largest of these predators could, quite literally, have eaten something the size of a modern orca as little more than a snack. This will make depressing reading for creationists, not only because it all happened deep in the long pre-“Creation Week” history of life on Earth, but because the evolutionary arms races that led to these giants are precisely what the theory of evolution by natural selection predicts.
It doesn’t get any easier for creationists. Just because it’s Christmas week doesn’t mean the awkward facts are going to go away, or that scientists are going to stop uncovering more of them. No matter what they post on social media; no matter how loudly they shout; or how fervently they gather on Sundays to collectively drown out their doubts, Santa is not going to deliver evidence that the Bronze Age creation myths in the Bible contain even a grain of historical truth. The problem is that truth remains true whether a creationist believes it or not, and regardless of whether their parents believed it. No amount of looking the other way or pretending the facts aren’t there will ever change that.
The palaeontologists reached their conclusions by reconstructing an ecosystem network for all known animal fossils from the Paja Formation in central Colombia. They used body sizes, feeding adaptations, and comparisons with modern animals, and then validated the results against one of the most detailed present-day marine ecosystem networks available: the living Caribbean ecosystem, which they used as a reference. The Paja ecosystem thrived with plesiosaurs, ichthyosaurs, and abundant invertebrates, giving rise to one of the most intricate marine food webs known. This complexity emerged as sea levels rose and Earth’s climate warmed during the Mesozoic era, including the Cretaceous, triggering an explosion of marine biodiversity.
Photo montage of five major elements of DAN5 fossil cranium
Credit: Dr. Michael Rogers
Map showing potential migration routes of the human ancestor, Homo erectus, in Africa, Europe and Asia during the early Pleistocene. Key fossils of Homo erectus and the earlier Homo habilis species are shown, including the new face reconstruction of the DAN5 fossil from Gona, Ethiopia dated to 1.5 million years ago.
Credit: Dr. Karen L. Baab. Scans provided by National Museum of Ethiopia, National Museums of Kenya and Georgian National Museum.
Palaeontologists at the College of Graduate Studies, Glendale Campus of Midwestern University in Arizona, have reconstructed the head and face of an early Homo erectus specimen, DAN5, from Gona in the Afar region of Ethiopia on the Horn of Africa. In doing so, they have uncovered several unexpected features that should trouble any creationist who understands their significance. The research has just been published open access in Nature Communications.
Creationism requires its adherents to imagine that there are no intermediate fossils showing a transition from the common Homo/Pan ancestor to modern Homo sapiens, whom they claim were created as a single couple just a few thousand years ago with a flawless genome designed by an omniscient, omnipotent creator. The descendants of such a couple would, of course, show no genetic variation, because both the perfect genome and its replication machinery would operate flawlessly. No gene variants could ever arise.
The reality, however, is very different. Not only are there vast numbers of fossils documenting a continuum from the common Homo/Pan ancestor of around six million years ago, but there is also so much variation among them that it has become increasingly difficult to force them into a simple, linear sequence. Instead, human evolution is beginning to resemble a tangled bush rather than a neat progression.
The newly reconstructed face of the Ethiopian Homo erectus is no exception. It displays a mosaic of more primitive facial traits alongside features characteristic of the H. erectus populations believed to have spread out of Africa in the first of several waves of hominin migration into Eurasia. The most plausible explanation is that the Ethiopian population descended from an earlier expansion within Africa, became isolated in the Afar region, and retained its primitive characteristics while other populations continued to evolve towards the more derived Eurasian form.
The broader picture that has emerged in recent years—particularly since it became clear that H. sapiens, Neanderthals, and Denisovans formed an interbreeding complex that contributed to modern non-African humans—is one of repeated expansion into new environments, evolution in isolation, and subsequent genetic remixing as populations came back into contact. DAN5 represents just one of these populations, which appears to have evolved in isolation for some 300,000 years.
Not only is this timescale utterly incompatible with the idea of the special creation of H. sapiens 6,000–10,000 years ago, but the sheer existence of this degree of variation is also irreconcilable with the notion of a flawless, designed human genome. Even allowing for old-earth creationist claims that a biblical “day” may represent an elastic number of millions of years, the problem remains: a highly variable genome must still be explained as the product of perfect design. A flawless genome created by an omniscient, omnipotent creator should, moreover, have been robust enough to withstand interference following “the Fall” — an event such a creator would necessarily have foreseen, particularly if it also created the conditions for that fall and the other creative agency involved (Isaiah 45:7).
As usual, creationists seem to prefer the conclusion that their supposed intelligent creator was incompetent—either unaware of the future, indifferent to it, or powerless to prevent it—rather than accept the far more parsimonious explanation: that modern Homo sapiens are the product of a long, complex evolutionary history from more primitive beginnings, in which no divine intervention is required.
Origins of Homo erectus
Homo erectus
Homo erectus appears in the fossil record around 1.9–2.0 million years ago, emerging from earlier African Homo populations, most likely derived from Homo habilis–like ancestors. Many researchers distinguish early African forms as Homo ergaster, reserving H. erectus sensu stricto for later Asian populations, although this is a taxonomic preference rather than a settled fact.
Key features of early H. erectus include:
A substantial increase in brain size (typically 600–900 cm³ initially, later exceeding 1,000 cm³)
A long, low cranial vault with pronounced brow ridges
A modern human–like body plan, with long legs and shorter arms
Clear association with Acheulean stone tools and likely habitual fire use (by ~1 million years ago)
Crucially, H. erectus was the first hominin to disperse widely beyond Africa, reaching:
The Caucasus (Dmanisi) by ~1.8 Ma
Southeast Asia (Java) by ~1.6 Ma
China (Zhoukoudian) by ~0.8–0.7 Ma
This makes H. erectus not a single, static species, but a long-lived, geographically structured lineage.
Homo erectus as a population complex
Rather than a uniform species, H. erectus is best understood as a metapopulation:
African populations
Western Eurasian populations
East and Southeast Asian populations
These groups experienced repeated range expansions, isolation, local adaptation, and partial gene flow, producing the mosaic anatomy seen in fossils such as DAN5.
This population structure is critical for understanding later human evolution.
Relationship to later Homo species
Neanderthal (H. neanderthalensis)
From H. erectus to H. heidelbergensis
By around 700–600 thousand years ago, some H. erectus-derived populations—probably in Africa—had evolved into forms often grouped as Homo heidelbergensis (or H. rhodesiensis for African material).
These hominins had:
Larger brains (1,100–1,300 cm³)
Reduced facial prognathism
Continued Acheulean and early Middle Stone Age technologies
They represent a transitional grade, not a sharp speciation event.
Divergence of Neanderthals, Denisovans, and modern humans
Genetic and fossil evidence indicates the following broad pattern:
~550–600 ka: A heidelbergensis-like population splits
African branch → modern Homo sapiens
Eurasian branch → Neanderthals and Denisovans
Neanderthals
Evolved primarily in western Eurasia
Adapted to cold climates
Distinctive cranial morphology
Contributed ~1–2% of DNA to all non-African modern humans
Denisovans
Known mostly from genetic data, with sparse fossils (Denisova Cave)
Closely related to Neanderthals but genetically distinct
Contributed genes to Melanesians, Aboriginal Australians, and parts of East and Southeast Asia, including variants affecting altitude adaptation (e.g. EPAS1)
Modern Homo sapiens
Emerged in Africa by ~300 ka
Retained genetic continuity with earlier African populations
Dispersed out of Africa multiple times, beginning ~70–60 ka
Interbred repeatedly with Neanderthals and Denisovans
The key point: no clean branching tree
Human evolution is reticulate, not linear:
Species boundaries were porous
Gene flow occurred repeatedly
Populations diverged, adapted, re-merged, and diverged again
Homo erectus is not a side branch that “went extinct”, but a foundational grade from which multiple later lineages emerged. DAN5 fits neatly into this framework: a locally isolated erectus population retaining ancestral traits while others continued evolving elsewhere.
Why this matters
This picture:
Explains mosaic anatomy in fossils
Accounts for genetic admixture in living humans
Makes sense of long timescales and geographic diversity
Is incompatible with any model of recent, perfect, single-pair creation
Instead, it shows that our species is the outcome of millions of years of population dynamics, not a single moment of design.
A new fossil face sheds light on early migrations of ancient human ancestorA New Fossil Face Sheds Light on Early Migrations of Ancient Human Ancestor
A 1.5-million-year-old fossil from Gona, Ethiopia reveals new details about the first hominin species to disperse from Africa.
Summary: Virtual reassembly of teeth and fossil bone fragments reveals a beautifully preserved face of a 1.5-million-year-old human ancestor—the first complete Early Pleistocene hominin cranium from the Horn of Africa. This fossil, from Gona, Ethiopia, hints at a surprisingly archaic face in the earliest human ancestors to migrate out of Africa.
A team of international scientists, led by Dr. Karen Baab, a paleoanthropologist at the College of Graduate Studies, Glendale Campus of Midwestern University in Arizona, produced a virtual reconstruction of the face of early Homo erectus. The 1.5 to 1.6 million-year-old fossil, called DAN5, was found at the site of Gona, in the Afar region of Ethiopia. This surprisingly archaic face yields new insights into the first species to spread across Africa and Eurasia. The team’s findings are being published in Nature Communications.
We already knew that the DAN5 fossil had a small brain, but this new reconstruction shows that the face is also more primitive than classic African Homo erectus of the same antiquity. One explanation is that the Gona population retained the anatomy of the population that originally migrated out of Africa approximately 300,000 years earlier.
Dr. Karen L. Baab, lead author
Department of Anatomy
Midwestern University
Glendale, AZ, USA.
Gona, Ethiopia
The Gona Paleoanthropological Research Project in the Afar of Ethiopia is co-directed by Dr. Sileshi Semaw (Centro Nacional de Investigación sobre la Evolución Humana, Spain) and Dr. Michael Rogers (Southern Connecticut State University). Gona has yielded hominin fossils that are older than 6.3 million years ago, and stone tools spanning the last 2.6 million years of human evolution. The newly presented hominin reconstruction includes a fossil brain case (previously described in 2020) and smaller fragments of the face belonging to a single individual called DAN5 dated to between 1.6 and 1.5 million years ago. The face fragments (and teeth) have now been reassembled using virtual techniques to generate the most complete skull of a fossil human from the Horn of Africa in this time period. The DAN5 fossil is assigned to Homo erectus, a long-lived species found throughout Africa, Asia, and Europe after approximately 1.8 million years ago.
How did the scientists reconstruct the DAN5 fossil?
The researchers used high-resolution micro-CT scans of the four major fragments of the face, which were recovered during the 2000 fieldwork at Gona. 3D models of the fragments were generated from the CT scans. The face fragments were then re-pieced together on a computer screen, and the teeth were fit into the upper jaw where possible. The final step was “attaching” the face to the braincase to produce a mostly complete cranium. This reconstruction took about a year and went through several iterations before arriving at the final version.
Dr. Baab, who was responsible for the reconstruction, described this as “a very complicated 3D puzzle, and one where you do not know the exact outcome in advance. Fortunately, we do know how faces fit together in general, so we were not starting from scratch.”
What did scientists conclude?
This new study shows that the Gona population 1.5 million years ago had a mix of typical Homo erectus characters concentrated in its braincase, but more ancestral features of the face and teeth normally only seen in earlier species. For example, the bridge of the nose is quite flat, and the molars are large. Scientists determined this by comparing the size and shape of the DAN5 face and teeth with other fossils of the same geological age, as well as older and younger ones. A similar combination of traits was documented previously in Eurasia, but this is the first fossil to show this combination of traits inside Africa, challenging the idea that Homo erectus evolved outside of the continent.
I'll never forget the shock I felt when Dr. Baab first showed me the reconstructed face and jaw. The oldest fossils belonging to Homo erectus are from Africa, and the new fossil reconstruction shows that transitional fossils also existed there, so it makes sense that this species emerged on the African continent,” says Dr. Baab. “But the DAN5 fossil postdates the initial exit from Africa, so other interpretations are possible.
Dr. Yousuke Kaifu, co-author
The University Museum
The University of Tokyo
Bunkyo-ku, Tokyo, Japa.
This newly reconstructed cranium further emphasizes the anatomical diversity seen in early members of our genus, which is only likely to increase with future discoveries.
Dr. Michael J. Rogers, co-author.
Department of Anthropology
Southern Connecticut State University
New Haven, CT, USA.
It is remarkable that the DAN5 Homo erectus was making both simple Oldowan stone tools and early Acheulian handaxes, among the earliest evidence for the two stone tool traditions to be found directly associated with a hominin fossil.
Dr. Sileshi Semaw, co-author
Centro Nacional de Investigación sobre la Evolución Humana (CENIEH)
Burgos, Spain.
Future Research
The researchers are hoping to compare this fossil to the earliest human fossils from Europe, including fossils assigned to Homo erectus but also a distinct species, Homo antecessor, both dated to approximately one million years ago.
Comparing DAN5 to these fossils will not only deepen our understanding of facial variability within Homo erectus but also shed light on how the species adapted and evolved.
Dr. Sarah E. Freidline, co-author
Department of Anthropology
University of Central Florida
Orlando, FL, USA.
There is also potential to test alternative evolutionary scenarios, such as genetic admixture between two species, as seen in later human evolution among Neanderthals, modern humans and “Denisovans.” For example, maybe DAN5 represents the result of admixture between classic African Homo erectus and the earlier Homo habilis species.
We’re going to need several more fossils dated between one to two million years ago to sort this out.
Abstract
The African Early Pleistocene is a time of evolutionary change and techno-behavioral innovation in human prehistory that sees the advent of our own genus, Homo, from earlier australopithecine ancestors by 2.8-2.3 million years ago. This was followed by the origin and dispersal of Homo erectus sensu lato across Africa and Eurasia between ~ 2.0 and 1.1 Ma and the emergence of both large-brained (e.g., Bodo, Kabwe) and small-brained (e.g., H. naledi) lineages in the Middle Pleistocene of Africa. Here we present a newly reconstructed face of the DAN5/P1 cranium from Gona, Ethiopia (1.6-1.5 Ma) that, in conjunction with the cranial vault, is a mostly complete Early Pleistocene Homo cranium from the Horn of Africa. Morphometric analyses demonstrate a combination of H. erectus-like cranial traits and basal Homo-like facial and dental features combined with a small brain size in DAN5/P1. The presence of such a morphological mosaic contemporaneous with or postdating the emergence of the indisputable H. erectus craniodental complex around 1.6 Ma implies an intricate evolutionary transition from early Homo to H. erectus. This finding also supports a long persistence of small-brained, plesiomorphic Homo group(s) alongside other Homo groups that experienced continued encephalization through the Early to Middle Pleistocene of Africa.
Introduction
The oldest fossils assigned to our genus are ~2.8 million years old (Myr) from Ethiopia and signal a long history of Homo evolution in the Rift Valley1,2,3. There is evidence of multiple Homo lineages in Africa by 2.0–1.9 million years ago (Ma) and an archaeological and paleontological record of expansion to more temperate habitats in the Caucasus and Asia between 2.0 and 1.8 Ma4 (Fig. 1). The last appearance datum for the more archaicHomo habilis species (or “1813 group”) is ~1.67 (OH 13) or ~1.44 Ma, if KNM-ER 42703 is correctly attributed to H. habilis5, which is uncertain6. The archetypal early African Homo erectus fossils from Kenya (i.e., KNM-ER 3733, 3883; and the adolescent KNM-WT 15000) already present a suite of traits that distinguish them from early Homo taxa by 1.6–1.5 Ma, including larger brains and bodies, smaller postcanine dentition, more pronounced cranial superstructures (e.g., projecting and tall brow ridges), a relatively wide midface and nasal aperture, deep palate, and projecting nasal bridge1,6,7,8,9,10,11. The only evidence for H. erectus sensu lato in Africa before 1.8 Ma are fragmentary or juvenile fossils12,13,14, while fossils expressing both ancestral H. habilis and more derived H. erectus s.l. morphological traits are only known from Dmanisi, Georgia at 1.77 Ma15,16. Thus, H. erectus emerged from basal Homo between 2.0 and 1.6 million years ago, but when, where (Africa or Eurasia), and how it occurred remain unclear. An expanded fossil record also documents significant variation in endocranial 17,18 and craniofacial6,8 and dentognathic morphology19,20 throughout the Early Pleistocene, which extends to the Middle Pleistocene with the addition of small-brained Homo lineages to the human tree.
Fig. 1: Early Homo and Homo erectus timeline between 2.0 and 1.0 Ma and map of key sites in Africa and southern Eurasia.
The solid bars of the timeline indicate well-established first and last appearance data; the horizontal stripes indicate possible extensions of the time range based on fragmentary or juvenile fossils. Diagonal lines signal earlier archaeological presence in those regions. The question mark indicates a possible date of <1.49 Ma for the Mojokerto, Indonesia site cf.22,23,24,25. The horizontal gray bar represents the time range associated with DAN5/P1. Colors on the map indicate presence of fossils matching taxa or geographic groups of H. erectus as indicated in the timeline. Surface renderings of the best-preserved regional representatives of archaic or small-brained Homo fossils (beginning at top and continuing clockwise): D2700, KNM-ER 1813, KNM-ER 1470, KNM-ER 3733, SK 847, OH 24, KNM-WT 15000, and DAN5/P1. All surface renderings visualized at FOV 0° (parallel). Map was generated in “rnaturalearth” package68 for R.
The initial announcement of DAN5/P1 assigned it to H. erectus on the basis of derived neurocranial traits21. Subsequent analyses of neurocranial shape and endocranial morphology confirmed affinity with H. erectus but also noted similarities to early (pre-erectus) Homo fossils such as KNM-ER 181317,18. Only limited information about the partial maxilla and dentition was presented in the original description21. Yet, facial and dental traits are increasingly important in early Homo systematics, given overlap in brain size among closely related hominins6,8,22. The DAN5/P1 fossil is a rare opportunity to evaluate neurocranial, facial, and dental anatomy in a single Early Pleistocene Homo fossil and thus has significant implications for this discussion.
Here we present a new cranial reconstruction of the 1.6–1.5 Myr DAN5/P1 fossil from Gona, Ethiopia. This study demonstrates that the small-brained adult DAN5/P1 fossil (598 cm321) presents a previously undocumented combination of early Homo and H. erectus features in an African fossil.
Taken together, the evidence leaves little room for the idea that Homo erectus was a dead-end curiosity, neatly replaced by something entirely new. Instead, it represents a long-lived, widely dispersed, and internally diverse population complex that provided the evolutionary substrate from which later human lineages emerged. Its descendants were not produced by sudden leaps or special creation events, but by the ordinary, observable processes of population divergence, isolation, and adaptation acting over deep time.
Modern Homo sapiens, Neanderthals, and Denisovans did not arise as separate “kinds”, nor did they follow clean, branching paths. They represent regional outcomes of this erectus-derived heritage, shaped by geography, climate, and repeated episodes of contact and interbreeding. The genetic legacy of those interactions is still present in living humans today, providing independent confirmation of what the fossil record has long been indicating.
What emerges is not a ladder of progress but a dynamic, reticulated history: populations spreading, fragmenting, evolving in isolation, and reconnecting again. Fossils such as DAN5 are not anomalies to be explained away; they are exactly what we should expect from evolution operating on structured populations across continents and hundreds of thousands of years.
For creationism, this is deeply inconvenient. For evolutionary biology, it is precisely the kind of rich, internally consistent picture that arises when multiple independent lines of evidence converge on the same conclusion: humanity is the product of a long, complex evolutionary history, not a recent act of design.
In another major embarrassment for those creationists who understand it, researchers at the Gladstone Institutes and Stanford University have developed a method for linking the genome of a cell to diseases caused by specific gene variants. They have recently published their findings, open access, in Nature.
Creationists insist that the human genome was intelligently designed, with every outcome the result of “complex specified information” which, according to Discovery Institute Fellow William A. Dembski, constitutes definitive evidence of intelligent design. If this were true, it would follow that genes which cause disease were intelligently designed to cause those diseases.
The difficulty deepens for creationists when one considers that many diseases involve multiple genes, sometimes hundreds or even thousands, all of which must possess the “correct” variants for the disease to emerge. In other words, some diseases not only depend on Dembski’s “complex specified genetic information”, but also conform to Michael J. Behe’s proposed hallmark of intelligent design: irreducible complexity.
Unless creationists invoke an additional creator—one over whom their reputedly omnipotent and omniscient god has no control—their supposedly intelligent designer must have deliberately created these gene variants to produce the suffering they cause.
By contrast, the evolutionary explanation requires no such mental gymnastics. The existence of genetic variants is exactly what evolutionary theory predicts, and provided such variants remain rare within a population, there is little selective pressure to remove them. A genome produced by an omniscient, perfect designer, however, would contain no such variants: the original design would be flawless, as would the mechanisms responsible for replicating it. The very existence of gene variants is therefore evidence against intelligent design.
The technique developed by the research team is sensitive enough to examine the entire genome and determine which genes influence which cell types. This makes it possible to identify which genes contribute to particular diseases. In cases where a single gene is involved, this can be relatively straightforward, but where many genes are implicated, it can be extremely difficult to disentangle their individual effects—precisely the problem this new technique helps to overcome.
Having recently watched a grey squirrel carefully plot a route through a line of trees, I was struck by the sophistication of its behaviour. It was not simply moving at random. It clearly knew where it wanted to go and was able to take into account such factors as how much slender branches would bend under its weight, how wide a gap it could safely jump, and—perhaps most importantly—exactly where it was within its own mental map of the environment. It is difficult to see how such behaviour could be possible in a creature that was not conscious and, to some degree, self-aware.
In animal psychology, there is now little doubt that many vertebrates possess some level of self-awareness and therefore consciousness. The remaining debate has centred not on whether consciousness exists in non-human animals, but on how it arose. The fact that consciousness is found across a wide range of vertebrates, and even in molluscs such as cephalopods, suggests either that it originated in a remote common ancestor or that it evolved independently multiple times through convergence. Either way, this strongly points to an evolutionary origin.
According to two papers published in a special edition of the journal Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B, by working groups led by Professors Albert Newen and Onur Güntürkün at Ruhr University Bochum in Germany, consciousness can indeed be explained as the outcome of an evolutionary process, with each step conferring a selective advantage. Moreover, consciousness only makes sense as an evolved biological function. The two open-access papers can be found here and here.
This work is bound to provoke another bout of denialism among creationists, for whom consciousness remains one of the standard “impossible to explain without supernatural intelligence” fallback arguments. As with abiogenesis and the Big Bang, the reasoning typically amounts to: “Science hasn’t explained it and I don’t understand how it could, therefore God did it.” This false dichotomy conveniently removes any obligation to provide evidence in support of the supernatural claim. Creationists also like to flatter themselves that consciousness is a uniquely human trait and thus evidence of special creation. In scientific terms, however, this does not even rise to the level of a hypothesis: it proposes no mechanism, makes no testable predictions, and is unfalsifiable by design. It is, in essence, wishful thinking rooted in the belief that the Universe is obliged to conform to personal expectations.
By contrast, the Ruhr University team have identified three distinct levels of consciousness and demonstrated the evolutionary advantage of each, drawing on detailed studies of birds that show parallel forms of consciousness to those seen in humans. These levels are:
Basic arousal — such as the perception of pain, which signals that harm is occurring and that corrective action is required.
General alertness — awareness of the broader environment, allowing threats and opportunities to be recognised and responded to appropriately.
Reflexive (self-)consciousness — the ability to place oneself within an environment, learn from past experience, anticipate future outcomes, and formulate an action plan; in other words, to construct a narrative with oneself as a participant.
If we take creationist claims about the human body at face value – that we are the special design of an omniscient, omnipotent creator god – we would have to conclude that this putative god equipped us for life in small, dispersed bands of hunter-gatherers, entirely free from the pressures of modern urban existence. That is the inescapable implication of new work by Daniel P. Longman of the School of Sport, Exercise and Health Sciences, Loughborough University, UK, and Colin N. Shaw of the Department of Evolutionary Anthropology, University of Zürich, Switzerland.
In their study, recently published in Biological Reviews, they argue that human evolutionary fitness has deteriorated markedly over the past 300 years, beginning with the Industrial Revolution. They attribute this to the escalating stresses of urban life, which are increasingly linked to counter-survival problems such as declining fertility rates and the rising prevalence of chronic inflammatory conditions, including autoimmune diseases. They also highlight impaired cognitive function in urban settings, with chronic stress playing a central role in many of these conditions.
As they note, our stress responses were shaped in environments where predators such as lions posed intermittent but existential threats. A sudden burst of adrenaline and cortisol – the classic fight-or-flight reaction – made the difference between survival and being eaten. Today, however, we summon exactly the same physiological response to traffic noise, difficult conversations with colleagues or family, and that irritatingly arrogant but ignorant creationist on the Internet. Where a lion encounter would once have been an occasional shock, we now experience the physiological equivalent of facing several lions a day.
For creationists, this poses an awkward problem. An omniscient designer should have foreseen humanity’s future circumstances and endowed us with a physiology robust enough to cope with them. Evolution, by contrast, cannot predict even the next generation, let alone the demands of life tens or hundreds of millennia later. It optimised our ancestors for survival on open African landscapes, not for navigating congested cities, chronic noise, 24-hour information streams, and the relentless stimuli of modern technology. This helps explain why our inherited design is increasingly mismatched to our environment, and why evolution cannot adjust us quickly enough to keep pace.
My own family history illustrates this accelerating mismatch. My grandparents grew up in rural Oxfordshire, before the arrival of the motor car, electricity, modern sanitation, or powered heating. Their lives were essentially unchanged from those of their parents and grandparents. My parents, by contrast, had electricity, piped water, proper sanitation, and radio; later a motor car, a television, and eventually a telephone. Now we have smartphones, laptops, air travel, satnavs, and city centres jammed with traffic. We spend hours each day staring at screens, communicating instantly across the world. My grandparents’ lives would have been recognisable to their great-grandparents, but mine would be unrecognisable to them – such has been the accelerating pace of technological change. No evolutionary process could possibly adapt a species to that speed of environmental transformation.
We are, in effect, experiencing stress levels akin to those of ancestors living among a pride of lions, not merely encountering one on rare occasions. And crucially, we have little or no time to recover before the next ‘lion’ appears.
Research led by the University of Bristol and published in the journal Nature a few days ago suggests that the transition from simple prokaryote cells to complex eukaryote cells began almost 2.9 billion years ago – nearly a billion years earlier than some previous estimates. Prokaryotes — bacteria and archaea — had been the dominant, indeed the only, life forms for the preceding 1.1 billion years, having arisen about 300 million years after Earth coalesced 4 billion years ago.
Creationists commonly forget that for the first billion or more years of life on Earth, it consisted solely of single-celled prokaryotes — bacteria and archaea. They routinely post nonsense on social media about the supposed impossibility of a complex cell spontaneously assembling from ‘non-living’ atoms — something no serious evolutionary biologist has ever proposed as an explanation for the origin of eukaryote cells.
There is now little doubt among biologists that complex eukaryote cells arose through endosymbiotic relationships between archaea and bacteria, which may have begun as parasitic or predator–prey interactions before evolving into symbioses as the endpoint of evolutionary arms races. The only questions concern when exactly eukaryote cells first began to emerge, and what triggered their evolution.
The team collected sequence data from hundreds of species and, combined with fossil evidence, reconstructed a time-resolved tree of life. They then used this framework to resolve the timing of historical events across hundreds of gene families, focusing on those that distinguish prokaryotes from eukaryotes.
One surprising finding was that mitochondria were late to the party, arising only as atmospheric oxygen levels increased for the first time — linking early evolutionary biology to Earth’s geochemical history.
Scientists at the Institute of Science and Technology, Austria, have found that terminally ill pupae in an ant colony emit a chemical signal that prompts worker ants to disinfect them with formic acid — a process that also brings about their death. This behaviour helps keep the colony free from infection and represents a clear example of evolved altruism with a genetic basis. Their findings are reported, open access, in Nature Communications.
One of the criticisms often levelled at evolutionary biology is that it cannot explain altruism, since individuals that sacrifice themselves for others seemingly shouldn’t survive to pass on any genes responsible for such behaviour.
This is plainly untrue. Acts of altruism are widespread in nature: male spiders and mantises are consumed by their mates, providing nutrients for developing eggs; the offspring of social spiders consume their mother, then go on to consume one another. These behaviours persist because they enhance the success of the genes involved.
The key lies in what Richard Dawkins termed the selfish gene. Contrary to creationist misrepresentations, this is not a claim that there exists a gene for selfishness. It refers instead to the way genes appear to act in their own interests. Genes promoting altruistic behaviour benefit when that behaviour increases the reproductive success of individuals carrying the same genes — typically close relatives. The sacrifice of one carrier can thereby enhance the spread of the genes responsible for the altruism.
In humans, altruism arises not only from genetic evolution but also from memetic evolution — the inheritance and adaptation of ideas, norms, and cultural expectations. Human altruism rarely requires life-or-death sacrifice; it more often involves smaller acts such as sharing resources, giving up a seat on a bus, or letting another driver go first at a junction. The advantage, at both genetic and memetic levels, is that such behaviours help build societies where cooperation is reciprocated. Altruism is ultimately an investment in a more stable, supportive environment that may benefit the genes and memes of the individuals who contribute to it.
Creationists and other religious fundamentalists claim that their god deliberately fashions each human life according to a divine plan — that every individual is personally designed, even down to the genes they inherit from their parents. But this raises a perpetually unanswered question: why produce so many sperm cells, all competing to reach the egg, if the outcome is pre-ordained?
Creationists also insist that our DNA is a “code”, equivalent to a computer program that must have been created by an intelligent designer or programmer.
If that were true, we would expect the genes bestowed on each individual to be robustly designed and immutable.
However, new research by scientists at the Centre for Genomic Regulation, Barcelona, Catalunya, Spain, just published in Nature Communications, shows that this is not the case — and once again, a prediction of fundamentalist creationism has been falsified by science.
The researchers found that the human genome is especially vulnerable to mutations in the first 100 base pairs of genes, particularly during the earliest rounds of cell division in embryo development. Each division introduces mutations with the potential to cause disease, including cancer. Because these mutations do not appear in every cell of the early embryo, the resulting individual becomes a genetic mosaic, with some cells and tissues carrying certain mutations while others do not. But if the mutated cells give rise to germ cells — eggs or sperm — the mutation can be passed to the next generation, whose members will carry it in all their cells and may develop disease as a result.
Unless creationism’s designer god intended this outcome, or is incompetent, there is no coherent way to present this as the deliberate work of an intelligent designer. It is, however, entirely consistent with an unintelligent, utilitarian evolutionary process that settles for sub-optimal solutions based on a single criterion: what produces the most descendants who themselves reproduce?
You would think that a planet designed specifically for humans would be safe—one with an abundant supply of clean water to drink and wholesome food to eat.
Sadly, that is far from the case. As recent research has shown, on top of the pathogens and parasites that abound in nature—and which seem almost purpose-built to cause suffering, not just to humans but to virtually every other life form—there now exists yet another threat. Wherever you look in the natural world, every species has one or more parasites adapted to live in or on it, and even parasites themselves often fall prey to their own parasites. To this long list we can now add a group of cyanobacteria capable of turning fresh water into a deadly neurotoxin during warm weather. It is almost as though Earth wasn’t designed by an intelligent, benevolent creator after all.
In science, this is what’s known as a falsified hypothesis. You begin with an idea—in this case, that Earth was designed for humans by an omnibenevolent, omniscient deity—then you consider what predictions would logically follow. One such prediction might be that a planet designed for human well-being would contain no natural hazards or harmful organisms that routinely inflict suffering. Then you examine the evidence. If the facts contradict the prediction, the hypothesis is falsified.
And that is precisely what the existence of harmful organisms does. The evidence directly contradicts the creationist claim of an intelligently designed planet optimally crafted for humans. This does not, in itself, disprove the existence of such a deity; rather, it falsifies the specific claim that the deity is all-loving and all-knowing, or that it intentionally designed Earth and its myriad pathogens and parasites. The alternative is that the god described in the Bible and Qur’an is not as advertised—or does not exist and played no role in designing the world. The pathogens and parasites appear to have arisen from entirely different processes while this supposed designer either looked away or was not involved at all. Such outcomes are not the work of a benevolent creator.
In fact, the deity’s reputation would fare better if it didn’t exist, because then it could not be held responsible.
Researchers at The Rockefeller University's Laboratory of Biochemistry and Molecular Biology have uncovered the mechanism that enables breast cancer cells not only to withstand environmental stress, but to turn it to their advantage. They have just published their findings in Nature Chemical Biology.
For ID creationists, these findings pose yet another challenge—one typically ignored or waved away as the consequence of ‘sin’, neatly exposing the Discovery Institute’s attempt to persuade US legislators and educators that ID is a genuine scientific alternative. No real science explains inconvenient evidence by invoking fundamentalist doctrine or unevidenced forces inherited from ancient superstition.
The Rockefeller University team has shown that breast cancer cells can override a regulatory factor that normally controls gene expression. The transcription of DNA into mature messenger RNA involves the enzyme RNA polymerase II (POL II), whose activity depends on around 30 subunits. One of these, MED1, normally carries acetyl groups. Without those acetyl groups, MED1 loses its ability to regulate POL II, allowing the enzyme to transcribe genes that help cancer cells survive. Environmental stress deacetylates MED1. In essence, conditions such as low oxygen or elevated temperature—deadly to normal cells—can instead make cancer cells more resilient.
Life reconstruction of Wadisuchus kassabi in Late Cretaceous Egypt, depicting an adult seizing a lungfish in a wetland while a juvenile looks on. The scene reflects the rich Quseir Formation ecosystem, complete with turtles and dense vegetation revealed by fossil evidence.
When scientists from Mansoura University, Egypt, recently announced in the Zoological Journal of the Linnean Society of London the discovery of an 80-million-year-old marine crocodyliform unearthed in Egypt’s Western Desert, the headlines hailed it as “the earliest known member of Dyrosauridae”, a forgotten branch of ancient crocodile-relatives adapted for coastal and marine life.
Found in mid-Campanian deposits of the Quseir Formation, Wadisuchus kassabi is represented by partial skulls and jaws from several individuals — enough to show that by this stage dyrosaurids already possessed the long, narrow snout and needle-sharp teeth suited for grabbing fish or turtles.
What makes this find so important is not merely the age — though pushing the dyrosaurid fossil record back by several million years is notable — but the evolutionary implications and what it tells us about the scientific method. The cranial anatomy of Wadisuchus exhibits a transitional mixture of primitive and derived features: reduced premaxillary alveoli, modified jaw-occlusion patterns, and dorsally positioned nostrils for surface-breathing, reflecting a transitional form on the path from earlier crocodyliforms toward specialised marine dyrosaurids. Phylogenetic analyses consistently recover Wadisuchus as the basal (earliest-diverging) dyrosaurid — pushing the origin and early diversification of the family deeper into the Cretaceous.
This discovery underscores a fundamental truth of modern science: claims are not fixed dogma, but provisional explanations always subject to revision in the light of new evidence. Just as Wadisuchus reshapes our view of when and where dyrosaurids emerged, other fossil finds have repeatedly nudged back the origins of major vertebrate lineages, re-drawn phylogenetic trees, or revealed unexpected ancestral forms. In this way the scientific method resembles nothing so much as a continual conversation with Nature — a conversation always open to challenge, refinement, or outright contradiction when the data demand it.
Unlike creationists, whom recent research has shown, believe not changing their mind is a sign of strength of character and commitment to their 'faith', scientists know that the real test of character is a willingness to accept the evidence and the humility to allow it to dictate opinion.
Incidentally, it might come as a shock to creationists that a marine fossil was found in the Sahara Desert and that Earth was not created as it just a few thousand years ago, but has changed significantly over the millions of years, including periods of 'green Sahara'. As someone who has flown in a small plane over the Egyptian desert, I can attest to the existence of dry riverbeds and feeder streams in that desert, even though today rain is almost unknown in the vicinity of Luxor.
Researchers at the University of Chicago have uncovered how prolonged exposure to ultraviolet (UV) radiation can lead to skin cancer by disabling a vital protective mechanism in skin cells. They have just published their findings, open access, in Nature Communications.
This protective mechanism relies on a protein called YTHDF2, which plays a key role in regulating RNA metabolism and maintaining cellular health. Sunlight degrades this protein, removing that safeguard and allowing damage to accumulate.
For advocates of Intelligent Design (ID) creationism, this research presents several awkward questions—questions they will either ignore or attribute to ‘sin’.
First, why is this protection needed at all? If life were intentionally and intelligently designed, why would RNA metabolism require an additional, failure-prone layer of regulation to keep cells functioning? Why not design it to be robust in the first place?
Second, why create a system so fragile that sunlight—an unavoidable feature of life on Earth—can disable it? Designing a repair mechanism that breaks down precisely when it is needed most hardly inspires confidence in the designer’s competence.
And then there is the broader problem: ID creationism equates its designer with the supposedly omniscient and omnipotent god of the Bible or Qur’an. If that is true, why design a mechanism that predictably causes cancer? Was this an act of malevolence or oversight?
If YTHDF2 were flawless and impervious to degradation, Discovery Institute fellow William A. Dembski would no doubt present it as an example of “complex specified information,” a supposed indicator of intelligent purpose. But its vulnerability raises uncomfortable possibilities: Is this an unsuccessful attempt to patch over earlier design flaws in RNA metabolism? A sign of competing designers beyond the control of ID’s putative omnipotent creator? Or evidence that the designer is actively introducing harm and suffering?
The answer, of course, is that this problem arises because the human body is not the product of intelligent design at all, but of a long evolutionary process that modifies existing processes and structures to produce workable—though often imperfect—solutions. Evolution favours whatever improves short-term reproductive success, even if it introduces compromises and sub-optimal outcomes that undermine long-term survival and health. These sub-optimal systems then drive the evolution of an additional layers of complexity to minimise the results of failure.
Like other organism's the human body is full of these examples of evolutionary compromises and sub-optimal solutions that cause diseases and health problems that illustrate the difference between an intelligently designed system and an evolved system. Looked at in detail, the human body is evidence against intelligent design and strongly supports the Theory of Evolution, as I show in my book, The Body of Evidence: How the Human Body Refutes Intelligent Design.
Advocates of Intelligent Design argue that all genetic information must originate from an intelligent agent, claiming that anything both complex and specified cannot arise without deliberate design. Their proposed designer is invariably indistinguishable from the god of the Bible and Qur’an: an all-knowing, all-powerful and supposedly benevolent creator.
What they never address is why a system attributed to such a being should fail at all—let alone in ways that cause profound suffering. It is akin to a human engineer producing an aircraft with engines that randomly fail or wings that detach mid-flight. And because this designer is held to be omniscient, the failure cannot be inadvertent. It must have been foreseen and deliberately incorporated, making such mutations part of the intended plan rather than unfortunate accidents.
Following the internal logic of ID creationism, Alzheimer’s dementia would therefore count as an intended outcome—meeting William Dembski’s own criteria for “complex specified genetic information”. This provides yet another instance, alongside the cancer example I discussed recently, of biological processes that appear designed to destroy. It sits comfortably among the many parasites and pathogens explored in The Malevolent Designer: Why Nature’s God is Not Good, all pointing to a distinctly malign pattern in the supposed “design”.
ID proponents typically fall back on blaming “The Fall”, implying the existence of another creative force beyond the control of their designer. This manoeuvre only further undermines their claim that ID is a scientific enterprise rather than creationism thinly disguised, since it relies on biblical literalism to rescue the argument from the conclusion of an incompetent or malevolent designer—an outcome that is theologically awkward and, for many believers, outright heretical.
Scientists led by Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory (CSHL) Professor Christopher Vakoc have uncovered a mechanism by which certain cancers manage to evade modern medical treatments: they can disguise themselves as ordinary cells from entirely different tissues, such as those of the skin. In two recent papers — one in Nature Communications and another in Cell Reports — Vakoc’s team identify the proteins that determine whether pancreatic cancer cells retain their pancreatic identity or slip into a skin-cell-like state. They also highlight a different set of proteins with a pivotal role in tuft-cell lung cancer.
Proteins, of course, are specified by genetic information, and if that information is altered, so too is the protein’s function. In the language of ID creationists, proteins are products of “complex, specified genetic information”.
This presents intelligent design creationists with a familiar problem — one they usually address, as with parasites and pathogens, by ignoring it and relying on the scientific illiteracy of their followers. If complex, specified information were genuinely evidence of an intelligent designer, then that same designer would be implicated in the origin of the proteins that maintain and diversify cancers. Their “specified information” is neither less complex nor less specific than the proteins involved in cognition, immunity, or embryonic development.
Only by refusing to define “complex specificity” in scientific terms — or to explain how it might be distinguished from information that is supposedly non-complex or non-specified — do ID advocates manage to maintain the fiction that all beneficial traits are the work of their designer, while harmful traits must arise from some other agency. This selective attribution, based entirely on subjective human preference, underscores the religious foundations of intelligent design creationism and its distance from genuine science.
Fig. 9: Schematic of microbial succession and biogeochemical processes in serpentinite mud at the Mariana forearc.
This schematic depicts lipid biomarker transitions from pelagic sediment communities to extremophiles adapted to high pH and redox conditions in serpentinite mud. The Mariana forearc biosphere is fueled by alkaline serpentinization fluids enriched in H2, CH4, DIC, and organic acids, sustaining specialized microbial communities. Lipid and stable carbon isotope data reveal a shift from relict methanogenic archaea, likely engaged in hydrogenotrophic methanogenesis, to a later ANME-SRB community mediating anaerobic oxidation of methane (AOM). Changes in substrate availability likely drove this transition. Distinct lipid signatures, including unsaturated diethers, acyclic GDGTs, and ether-based glycolipids, highlight adaptations to pH stress, phosphate limitation, and fluctuating redox conditions. The presence of in-situ branched GDGTs suggests previously uncharacterized bacterial communities persisting in these ultra-oligotrophic conditions. The Mariana forearc serpentinite biosphere, shaped by episodic fluid flow and substrate shifts, provides insights into deep-sea subsurface habitability. DIC = dissolved inorganic carbon, ANME anaerobic methanotrophic archaea, SRB sulfate-reducing bacteria, AOM anaerobic oxidation of methane, GDGT glycerol dialkyl glycerol tetraether.
Researchers at MARUM – Bremen University’s Centre for Marine Environmental Sciences – have made a discovery, just published open access in the journal Communications Earth & Environment, which, properly understood, should make depressing reading for creationists.
They have found living organisms both on and within the ocean floor, surviving in conditions where normal life would be impossible. These microorganisms inhabit mud volcanoes with a pH of 14, metabolising hydrogen and carbon to form methane by drawing energy from minerals in the surrounding rock. In other words, they live entirely without oxygen and with almost no organic matter, synthesising all they need from inorganic sources.
Informed creationists will recognise that these organisms directly refute their frequent assertion that life cannot arise from non-life — because producing life from non-life is precisely what these microorganisms are doing.
This also contradicts the biblical claim that all living things were created for the benefit of humans, since there is no conceivable way these organisms could serve any human purpose. Of course, to be fair, the authors of the Bible were completely ignorant of microorganisms, deep-ocean mud volcanoes, and chemosynthetic metabolism. They could only attempt to explain the larger creatures that lived in the limited region around their homes in the Canaanite hills.
And, as any informed creationist should also understand, these are exactly the sort of extreme conditions that biologists believe may have fostered the emergence of the earliest living organisms during the origin of life on Earth — once again undermining any claim that abiogenesis is impossible.
The discovery fits seamlessly within the framework of Darwinian evolution. Two once-connected populations became isolated and exposed to different ecological conditions, followed their own evolutionary paths. Over time, their genomes accumulated distinct mutations reflecting adaptation, genetic drift, and local environmental pressures. The result is two clearly defined species whose divergence can be explained entirely by natural processes acting over generations — a textbook demonstration of evolution in action.
Yet this same process now drives both species along a far more perilous trajectory. As their habitats continue to shrink and fragment, their populations are losing genetic diversity and becoming increasingly inbred. Evolution has no foresight or purpose; it cannot plan for the future or reverse the consequences of environmental destruction. The very mechanism that once diversified life on Earth can, under relentless human pressure, just as readily lead to extinction.
There is no sign of “intelligent design” in this grim reality — only the blind, natural workings of selection, drift, and chance operating within a degraded environment. If a designer were guiding life towards some higher purpose, it would hardly produce a situation where its own creations are being driven to extinction by the ecological collapse of their habitats. The plight of the maned sloths stands as a vivid reminder that life’s diversity, beauty, and tragedy arise not from supernatural intent, but from the impersonal and unyielding logic of evolution.
As world leaders prepare for COP30 in Brazil, the message from the maned sloths’ genomes could not be clearer: conservation must be guided by evolutionary science and ecological understanding, not by comforting myths of divine oversight. Only by recognising the true, natural processes that shape life can we hope to protect what remains of it.
