This paper will have creationists hurriedly trying to redefine evolution so that it no longer means what biologists mean by it — change in allele frequencies in a population over time — but instead becomes some childish parody of the idea, carefully constructed to exclude the scientific definition and so safely miss the point. The paper, published last January (2026) in Heredity, shows that a small, isolated population of leopards (Panthera pardus) in South Africa’s Cape Floristic Region is a striking example of incipient allopatric divergence, and possibly early speciation, in progress. The population, estimated at fewer than 1,000 individuals, has developed a distinctive genome and includes small leopards, some with only about half the body mass of leopards elsewhere in Africa.
In what will also disappoint those creationists who are still eagerly awaiting the abandonment of “Darwinism” by mainstream biologists and its replacement by magic-based creationism, the authors — an international group of leopard conservationists and evolutionary biologists — interpret their findings wholly within the framework of evolutionary theory. By comparing whole-genome data from 43 leopards, including 10 from the Western Cape province (WCP), the team found that the WCP leopards diverged from those of northern South Africa about 20,000–24,000 years ago — in other words, many thousands of years before creationists’ mythical “Creation Week”. They found no obvious evidence that genetic drift alone was responsible for this divergence, and concluded instead that it is more likely to reflect the population’s demographic history, long-term isolation and adaptation to the Cape’s distinctive environmental conditions, including low prey availability.
Their conclusion is that the leopards of the Western Cape can be regarded as an evolutionarily significant unit (ESU): a genetically distinctive population representing a unique component of the species’ evolutionary history and therefore one that should be managed and conserved as such.
One of the team, and first author of the paper, Assistant Professor Laura Tensen of the University of Greifswald, has written an article in The Conversation describing the research and its findings. Her article is reproduced here under a Creative Commons licence, reformatted for stylistic consistency:
A conceptual graphic shows how growth factors BMP2 and FGF2 are applied to the injury site to stimulate tissue regeneration, highlighting new research into restoring damaged digits.
Credit: Melissa Bristow/Texas A&M University College of Veterinary Medicine and Biomedical Sciences
A–C Representative longitudinal sections and μCT images (insets) of control and FGF2 treated digits 21 days post treatment (DPT). A Control BSA treated digits do not display a regenerative response and are truncated. B The majority of FGF2 treated digits are truncated without displaying a regenerative response. C A minority of FGF2 treated digits produce an ectopic skeletal element distal to the amputation that articulates with the stump bone.
Although the Discovery Institute and its Fellows who advocate for Intelligent Design are usually careful not to identify their putative “intelligent designer” explicitly with the God of the Christian Bible, the dog-whistle signals they use leave their target audience in little doubt. The designer is understood to be the Christian god, merely relabelled for legal and tactical convenience. That being so, and if that god were actively interfering in the design and evolution of living systems — with humans as the supposed pinnacle of creation and occupying a special place in it — we might reasonably expect humans to have been given the best design available.
Instead, nature looks exactly as an unplanned evolutionary process would lead us to expect: a patchwork of compromises, contingencies and inherited limitations. As I describe in my book, The Malevolent Designer: Why Nature's God is not Good, humans are remarkable in some respects, particularly in our relatively large brains and consequent cognitive abilities, but in most other respects we are not especially impressive. We are not the strongest animals, nor the fastest. Birds of prey have far better eyesight; barn owls and dogs have far better hearing in relevant ranges; dogs have a vastly superior sense of smell; elephants and some other long-lived animals have evolved impressive cancer-resistance mechanisms; and the immune systems of many bats are tuned in ways that make our own look distinctly ordinary.
But perhaps the most striking contrast is in the ability of some animals to regenerate lost or damaged body parts. Several species can regenerate structures that humans simply cannot replace. Salamanders can regrow limbs; fish can replace fins and repair tissues that would leave mammals permanently damaged; and some invertebrates can regenerate astonishing portions of the body. Yet, noticeably, all the prayers, incantations and appeals to divine mercy have never once been shown to regrow an amputated human limb, replace a lost eye, repair a severed spinal cord, or restore dead heart muscle after an infarction. Nor do we see cancerous sections of colon removed by surgery obligingly regrowing as healthy tissue in answer to prayer. These are not impossible biological feats in principle; they are just things our lineage cannot normally do.
Now researchers from Texas A&M College of Veterinary Medicine and Biomedical Sciences (VMBS) have found something that should be even more disturbing for Intelligent Design creationists. In a paper recently published in Nature Communications, they report that non-regenerating mouse digit wounds can be induced to move part-way towards regeneration. In other words, the relevant mammalian cells may not be entirely incapable of regeneration; their capacity appears to be suppressed or obscured by the normal wound-healing response. Creationists who reject the evolutionary explanation now need to explain why an intelligent, omnibenevolent designer would leave mammals, including humans, with a latent capacity for regeneration, while allowing that capacity to be overridden by scarring.
The researchers’ explanation makes perfect sense as the outcome of a utilitarian, unplanned evolutionary process. In mammals, rapid wound closure by scar-forming fibroblasts can be life-saving. A quick patch reduces blood loss, closes a route for infection and gives the injured animal a better chance of surviving long enough to reproduce. Regeneration, by contrast, is slower and more complex. Evolution has no foresight and no obligation to produce perfection; it merely preserves what works well enough under the circumstances. The injury is patched up with a near-enough-is-good-enough solution, and the animal lives to pass on its genes.
That, of course, should not have been beyond the wit of an intelligent designer to improve upon. A competent designer could have given us both abilities: rapid wound closure to prevent fatal bleeding and infection, followed by orderly regeneration of the missing structures. Instead, we have the familiar evolutionary compromise: survival first, elegance later — and often not at all.
The problem centres on fibroblast cells, which can follow different developmental routes. In ordinary mammalian wound-healing, they rapidly close the wound and form scar tissue. In strongly regenerative animals, similar cells can organise into a blastema — a temporary structure that seals the wound while also providing the cellular basis for rebuilding missing tissues. The Texas A&M team showed that, after the wound had first closed, applying fibroblast growth factor 2 (FGF2), followed later by bone morphogenetic protein 2 (BMP2), could redirect the response. The result was imperfect regeneration, but it included bone, tendon, ligament and joint-like structures.
The conclusion is not that humans are about to start regrowing limbs, nor that a mouse digit is the same as a human arm or leg. It is more interesting than that. The potential for regeneration in mammals may not have vanished completely. It may still be there, hidden beneath the faster, rougher, scar-forming response that natural selection has favoured. For creationists, that raises the awkward question of why their supposed designer would equip other animals with regenerative abilities, leave traces of the same capacity in mammals, and then arrange matters so that, when humans most need it, the system normally fails.
ESA/Hubble & NASA, D. Thilker and the MAUVE-HST Team
And God said, Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters. And God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament: and it was so. And God called the firmament Heaven. And the evening and the morning were the second day. And God said, Let the waters under the heaven be gathered together unto one place, and let the dry land appear: and it was so. And God called the dry land Earth; and the gathering together of the waters called he Seas: and God saw that it was good.(Gen 1: 6-10)
And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also. And God set them in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth. (Gen 1: 16-17)
This analogy needs careful handling because creationists are adept at ignoring the point of an argument and attacking a caricature of it instead. So, to be clear from the outset, this is not a claim about what the Bible says. It is a simple thought experiment about how we test claims against reality.
Suppose someone wrote a book in which he claimed to give an accurate description of the Bible. In it, he said the Bible consisted of only four books, two in the Old Testament and two in the New Testament; that it had only 120 pages; and that the entire story was about Adam and Eve and their sons, Noah and Moses.
How would we test those claims?
The answer is hardly complicated. We would get a Bible and compare the claims with the book itself. In other words, we would test the description against the reality it claimed to describe. And once we had done so, only two serious conclusions would be available: either the author was deliberately lying in order to deceive his readers, or he was so ignorant of the facts that he simply invented them. What we could not sensibly conclude is that the Bible was wrong for failing to match his description of it.
That, in its simplest form, is how science works. A claim is tested against reality. We begin with the assumption — the null hypothesis — that there is no meaningful difference between the claim and the facts. We then look. If the evidence shows a real difference between the claim and the observable facts, the claim has failed the test. It is not reality that must be adjusted to rescue the claim; it is the claim that must be rejected or revised.
This may sound like a “Janet and John” explanation of basic science, but it is remarkable how consistently creationists get even this wrong. They have a book which, when read literally, makes claims about the age, origin and structure of the universe. With modern science, it is a straightforward matter to compare those claims with the real universe. When we do that, we find that the description and the reality are not merely different, but radically, irreconcilably different.
Yet instead of concluding that the ancient description is wrong, creationists conclude that the evidence must be wrong. The facts are not judged against reality; reality is judged against the prior demand that the Bible must be right. This is not science. It is wishful thinking dressed up as certainty.
In effect, creationists believe their beliefs trump the evidence.
So what claims does the Bible make about the age and structure of the universe, and how do those claims compare with observable reality?
To be fair, the Bible gives no explicit numerical age for the universe. The familiar young-Earth figure of about 6,000 years comes from calculations based on biblical genealogies, most famously by the 17th-century Archbishop James Ussher, who placed creation in 4004 BCE. Modern young-Earth creationists often stretch this to somewhere between 6,000 and 10,000 years, not because evidence requires it, but because the older figure is now too obviously absurd to defend with a straight face.
The Bible is more explicit, however, about the structure of the universe as understood by its ancient authors. It describes a world in which the Earth lies beneath a firmament, or dome, which separates the waters below from the waters above. The sun, moon and stars are described as lights set in this firmament to illuminate the Earth. Elsewhere, the stars are treated not as distant suns and galaxies, but as objects that can fall from heaven and be trampled underfoot. This is the cosmology of a small, human-centred world, not the universe revealed by astronomy. (Genesis 1:6-10; Genesis 1:16-17; Daniel 8:10)
So how does that ancient description compare with what we find when we actually look? Take, for example, this tiny fragment of the sky visible to the Hubble Space Telescope:
Who would be a creationist? It must be galling to wait so eagerly for that great day when biologists finally announce the collapse of evolutionary theory and admit that a better explanation of the observable evidence is one involving unevidenced magic entities doing conjuring tricks with chemistry and physics. That would make biology the first science to abandon natural explanations, ignore Occam’s Razor, and adopt magic as a basic principle. Sadly for creationists, that long-promised day shows no sign of arriving, despite having been predicted any day now for more than half a century.
But then, what would creationism be without a dogged refusal to change its mind when the evidence demands it, and the childish belief that the evidence itself must be part of some vast conspiracy to test the strength of faith? That is not science; it is apologetics dressed up in a lab coat.
The problem, as always, is that reality refuses to conform. The universe continues to produce evidence contradicting creationism and confirming the complex evolution of humans over deep time: migration, isolation, adaptation, bottlenecks, and repeated remixing with genes from other archaic human lineages, themselves the products of long evolutionary histories.
The real-world evidence written into our genomes is that most non-African human populations carry remnants of Neanderthal DNA, while Denisovan ancestry is especially marked in Near Oceanians and in some Asian populations. There is also evidence that Neanderthals and Denisovans themselves met and interbred in central Asia. Human evolution was not a simple ladder, still less a single act of special creation, but a branching, merging, reticulated history of populations moving, separating, adapting and sometimes meeting again.
Some of these archaic genes appear to have mattered because they were useful. In particular, they are often associated with immune responses to pathogenic bacteria and viruses. This makes evolutionary sense: Denisovan-like populations had already adapted to environments outside Africa, including their local burden of pathogens. When the ancestors of present-day Near Oceanians inherited some of that genetic variation through introgression, beneficial variants could be retained by natural selection, even while many other archaic variants were gradually lost.
The Yale-led team filled an important gap in our understanding of human evolution by sequencing the genomes of 177 individuals from 12 distinct populations in different parts of Near Oceania — the southwestern Pacific region that includes Papua New Guinea, the Bismarck Archipelago, and the Solomon Islands — and analysing them alongside 1,284 previously published genomes from individuals worldwide.
They found evidence that the ancestors of Near Oceanian populations interbred with at least three distinct Denisovan-like groups. They also identified thousands of archaic variants that affect how genes are switched on or off, with a notable concentration in immune and antiviral pathways. In other words, Denisovan DNA is not merely a fossil remnant in the genome; in some populations, it is still helping to shape biology today.
A paper recently published in the journal Advanced Science, by researchers including Assistant Professor Jack Chi-Ho Ip, from Lingnan University, Hong Kong, is deeply problematic for creationists, not only because it describes a process that took place over an immense period of time incompatible with the biblical narrative, but also because it deals with a mechanism for evolution that cannot be waved aside as mere "variation within a kind", or something creationists like to dismiss as "micro-evolution".
Creationists continue to insist that large-scale evolution does not happen, so everything must have been specially created more or less as it is, with only limited variation within the "kind" — a term always left conspicuously undefined, so the goalposts can be moved whenever the evidence becomes inconvenient. This is despite the well-attested mechanisms by which biodiversity arises, including classical Darwinian natural selection acting on inherited variation, and genetic drift, in which chance changes in allele frequencies can lead to a neutral mutation becoming fixed in, or eliminated from, a population gene pool.
There is also the founder effect, where a non-representative sample of a population becomes isolated from the parent population, usually by a physical or ecological barrier. The new population therefore begins with a different allele-frequency profile from the population from which it came. Then there is hybridisation, where hybrid offspring can, in some circumstances, become reproductively isolated from both parent species, forming a new genetically distinct population or species.
And lastly, we have horizontal gene transfer, where an organism acquires genetic material from another biological lineage in its environment. This is especially familiar in bacteria, but it also occurs in animals, often through viruses. Retroviruses are particularly important in this respect because they insert a DNA copy of their genome into that of their host. Over time, the viral sequence may be disabled by mutation, or the host may evolve a defence against it. Either way, the remnant of the virus can become part of the host genome, where it is free to mutate over time. Occasionally, such inherited viral DNA is exapted for a new function, creating useful new genetic information without the slightest need for supernatural assistance. One well-known example is syncytin, derived from ancient retroviral genes, now involved in the formation and function of the mammalian placenta.
Now researchers at Hong Kong's Lingnan University and their collaborators have shown that a viral-derived gene in apple snails is probably involved in their ability to lay eggs out of water — a key adaptation in the evolution of aerial egg-laying and one reason some apple snails have become such successful invasive pests. The gene, associated with the perivitelline fluid surrounding the developing embryo, was probably acquired by the ancestor of the Ampullariidae during the Jurassic. It would be interesting to see a creationist explain how acquiring a gene from an entirely unrelated viral lineage can be described as "variation within a kind". It would also be interesting to see them explain why an intelligent designer would need to borrow viral genetic material to equip a snail to lay eggs above the waterline.
Photo by Rafael Garcia and Paul Marek, Virginia Tech
Hirudicryptus canariensis (left) Siphoniulus neotropicus (microscopic image at right) are the two rare millipedes whose DNA helped researchers complete the first evolutionary history of all living millipede orders.
Photos by Rafael Garcia and Paul Marek for Virginia Tech.
A paper published today (12 June 2026) in Current Biology is almost guaranteed to upset any creationists with the courage to read it and the ability to understand it. Written by an international team led by Associate Professor Paul Marek and Dr Luisa F. Vasquez-Valverde of Virginia Tech, it reports the completion of the first evolutionary history of all living millipede orders, including two rare groups whose DNA had never previously been included in a phylogenetic analysis.
Millipedes were amongst the earliest animals to colonise the land, arriving long before vertebrates had made the transition from water to land. According to the researchers, they beat vertebrates onto land by more than 80 million years. As detritivores, they helped to establish early terrestrial ecosystems by breaking down decaying organic matter and recycling nutrients, gradually helping to create soils in which later plant communities could develop.
For more than a century, biologists have known that two rare groups of millipedes — Siphoniulida and Siphonocryptida — existed, but without fresh specimens it was impossible to analyse their DNA and confirm where they belonged in the millipede family tree. One of the groups includes species barely a centimetre long that spend their entire lives underground; the other is known from only a few locations.
Members of the team therefore travelled to Los Tuxtlas, Mexico, and the Spanish Canary Islands to collect Siphoniulus neotropicus and Hirudicryptus canariensis, the two millipedes whose DNA had not previously been included in an evolutionary analysis. By sequencing DNA from these groups, comparing hundreds of genes across 82 millipede species, and combining those results with evidence from 29 fossils, the researchers were able to determine where the groups fit into millipede history and when their lineages emerged.
The result was especially interesting because one of the supposed “orders”, Siphonocryptida, appears not to be a separate order after all, but part of an existing lineage. The other, Siphoniulida, could finally be placed among its closest relatives on the millipede evolutionary timeline. The analysis also pushed the likely origin of millipedes back to nearly 460 million years ago — roughly 35 million years earlier than the oldest known millipede fossils.
This is bad news for creationists for at least three reasons:
It shows these arthropods had their origin hundreds of millions of years before their mythical “Creation Week”.
It shows a long history of descent from a common origin, just as the Theory of Evolution predicts.
It shows the researchers were entirely dependent on evolutionary theory to frame the question, predict relationships, interpret the DNA and fossil evidence, and explain the results — with no hint that they found evolution inadequate and no need to invoke magic, special creation, or the long-promised “collapse of Darwinism” that creationists have been assuring their followers is imminent, and has been for more than half a century.
A paper published in June 2026 in Journal of Quaternary Science is a reminder that no one remembers the old dead gods, and no one mourns their passing, although they, like today’s god or gods, were real in the minds of their followers and provided their priesthoods and ruling elites with an excuse for wielding considerable unelected and unaccountable power. The paper reports on the likely origin and possible mode of transport of the so-called Altar Stone of Stonehenge — a feat which speaks of the political and social power needed to command, organise and supply a large cohort of labourers, and perhaps to exercise that power over a considerable part of the island of Great Britain.
I have written several times about the old dead gods, particularly those of Wiltshire, who inspired the building of such enduring monuments as Silbury Hill, Stonehenge and Durrington Walls. These immense civil engineering projects suggest a population large enough to support a substantial, non-productive labour force, and a ruling elite able to command and supply the workers. In turn, that suggests a unifying culture, almost certainly religious, which regarded these works as worthwhile, or even necessary, perhaps to placate or please a god or pantheon of gods and so ensure that the crops succeeded, the seasons returned in their proper order, and tomorrow was much like today, free from natural disasters, plagues and pestilence.
Of course, we do not now even know the names of these gods, let alone what their followers believed they did, but we can be fairly sure that their followers believed they needed them and worked hard to keep them ‘on side’. The extraordinary lengths to which people went, in moving stones, raising earthworks and reshaping the landscape, were probably acts of collective devotion, obligation and power, expressed in stone and soil. Given the evidence of ancient trackways converging on Salisbury Plain, the area was almost certainly one of widespread ceremonial and religious significance, perhaps known far beyond Wiltshire.
Ask those people what evidence they had for their god or gods, and they would almost certainly have given much the same ‘reasons’ as today’s theists: ‘Look at the trees!’, ‘The evidence is all around you’, ‘Who makes the sun rise?’, ‘Who sends diseases to punish us?’, and so on. The logic was the same; only the names of the gods have changed. And now even those names have gone.
One alternative explanation for the appearance of the Altar Stone at Stonehenge is that it was transported naturally by a glacier. However, analysis of its mineral grains, particularly its detrital zircon age signature, points to the Orcadian Basin of northeast Scotland as its most likely broad source region. The researchers reason that, although some Ice Age transport by glaciers may have been possible, especially towards the North Sea and Dogger Bank, there was no viable glacial pathway capable of carrying the stone all the way to Salisbury Plain. And even if a glacier had moved it as far as Dogger Bank, the timing creates another difficulty: by the time Stonehenge was constructed, Doggerland had already been inundated by rising post-glacial sea levels.
The researchers therefore conclude that, although glacial transport could have played some part in the stone’s earlier history, it cannot explain its final arrival at Stonehenge. Human transport remains the most likely explanation for that last, extraordinary stage of the journey. Perhaps the stone had some special cultural or religious significance, rather like the later Stone of Scone, which made it seem worth the considerable effort and manpower involved. Although the authors do not explore the motives of those who moved it, it is difficult to escape the suspicion that the motive was religious or ceremonial — the same kind of motive that later drove people to build cathedrals, mosques, monasteries and temples across Europe and western Asia.
Amber piece 1552.b showing bioinclusions. Arrow in a (top): inclusion of †Ctenobethylus goepperti; arrow in b (bottom): inclusion of the Sciaridae. Scale bar 5 mm.
Some years ago, while staying for a few days in Berlin in a hotel just off Goethestraße, I made the mistake of telling a taxi driver that our hotel was just off “Go-eth Straße”. It took several minutes and a map to sort out the confusion.
“Nein! Goethe-Straße!” he laughed. Only then did I realise that “Go-eth” and “Goethe” were not two different German philosophers.
“Ach ja! Danke! Goethe! Ich bin ein Engländer!” I explained, in my best German.
“Ja! Is better we speak English,” he replied.
Goethestraße — Goethe Street — is, of course, named after Johann Wolfgang von Goethe (28 August 1749 – 22 March 1832), the German writer, poet, novelist and playwright. He was also an administrator, scientist, geologist, botanist and philosopher. As a naturalist and collector, he left behind an extensive geological and mineralogical collection, including 40 pieces of Baltic amber, which have now been closely examined by biologists at Friedrich Schiller University Jena — appropriately enough, since Goethe and the playwright Friedrich Schiller were friends.
What they found was the subject of a paper in Scientific Reports, published in January 2026. It is not good news for creationists, since it concerns an approximately 40-million-year-old ant, preserved in exquisite detail and now visible using modern imaging techniques such as synchrotron micro-computed tomography. In addition to the ant, the scientists also found a fungus gnat and a blackfly in Goethe’s amber.
It is unlikely that Goethe knew these creatures were preserved in his amber, since the pieces are unpolished and the contents are barely visible to the untrained eye. He certainly could not have known that the amber was tens of millions of years old. Had he known, we can only speculate how that knowledge might have affected his view of nature, time and human origins. His famous work, Faust, draws deeply on Christian motifs, including the story of a man who makes a pact with the Devil; but Goethe was also a serious observer of nature, living at a time when geology, palaeontology and evolutionary thinking were still in their infancy.
In the early nineteenth century, Europeans had not yet accumulated the overwhelming evidence that Earth is billions of years old and that life has changed profoundly over vast periods of time. Many educated people still interpreted history, nature and morality through a biblical framework, even when their own thinking was more subtle than simple literalism. Goethe, despite his scientific curiosity, lived before Darwin, before modern stratigraphy was fully established, and long before modern imaging could reveal the hidden contents of an opaque piece of amber.
Now, of course, we know better, because of the tremendous scientific progress made over the last two centuries.
Creationists will continually demand evidence for evolution being observed, then, when the evidence is provided, immediately insist that science should adopt their childish parody of evolution, in which one species turns into an unrelated species in a single miraculous event. That is not evolution as any biologist understands it. In fact, if such a thing were ever observed, it would falsify the Theory of Evolution, not confirm it.
By demanding evidence for something no scientist has ever claimed happens, creationists imagine they are somehow refuting science, or at least providing a plausible anti-Darwin argument for people who do not understand the science.
So this example of evolution in living populations will almost inevitably be dismissed by creationists using that same disingenuous tactic. It is evidence for the evolution of island gigantism in isolated populations of the wren, Troglodytes troglodytes, on Scottish islands. And, to rub salt in creationists' wounds, it is not merely a single isolated example, but multiple examples of gigantism evolving in island environments — an example of parallel evolution in response to similar environmental pressures acting on different local populations.
In other words, this is not some local curiosity that can be waved away as a one-off oddity, but the predictable result of isolation, restricted gene flow and similar island conditions acting on related populations. The evidence has just been published, open access, in the Evolutionary Journal of the Linnean Society by researchers led by the University of Birmingham.
The researchers, led by Dr Michał Jezierski, examined four subspecies of island wren, each isolated on a specific Scottish island or archipelago — Shetland, Fair Isle, the Outer Hebrides and St Kilda. Each of these subspecies is geographically isolated, yet exposed to broadly similar island environments, and each differs significantly from the wrens found throughout mainland Britain and continental Europe.
The study showed that the wrens of St Kilda and Shetland show little evidence of interbreeding with the mainland population. These two populations have evolved spectacular island gigantism: a wren from England will typically weigh about 7–10 grams, while a St Kilda wren weighs about 13–16 grams. The largest St Kilda wrens are therefore more than twice the weight of the smallest mainland wrens, and their genetic distinctiveness is so marked that the researchers say they may be on the way to becoming separate species.
Importantly, the genomic evidence shows that the Shetland and St Kilda wrens are genetically distinct from each other, despite having evolved similar enlarged body sizes. In other words, the same broad evolutionary outcome has arisen independently in separate island populations, rather than being inherited from a single already-giant ancestor. That is exactly what evolutionary biology predicts: related populations, isolated in similar environments, can be shaped in similar directions by similar selection pressures, even when the detailed genetic route differs.
An artist’s reconstruction of a Marathousa 1 paleolithic woman producing a digging stick from a small alder tree trunk with a small stone tool. This kind of wood was used for the Marathousa 1 digging stick. Use-wear analysis of stone tools at Marathousa 1 shows evidence of woodworking.
Credit: Original art by G. Prieto, copyright K. Harvati.
This is another of those pieces of evidence that should not exist if the Bible narrative were true — yet it does. The only honest conclusion is that the Bible narrative is false. It simply never happened. In scientific terms, this is falsification.
The evidence was published on 26 January 2026 in the journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America (PNAS). It consists of two worked wooden objects discovered at Marathousa 1, in Greece’s central Peloponnese, by an international team led by researchers from the University of Reading, the University of Tübingen and the Senckenberg Centre for Human Evolution and Palaeoenvironment. The tools have been dated to about 430,000 years ago, making them the earliest known hand-held wooden tools and pushing back direct evidence for this kind of technology by at least 40,000 years.
That is awkward evidence for creationists, because the Bible is commonly interpreted by them as saying that humans were created only about 6,000–10,000 years ago, followed by a catastrophic global flood that supposedly covered even the highest mountains. Such an event should either have obliterated fragile evidence of wooden tool use or buried it beneath a thick, worldwide layer of flood sediment containing the remains of the animals and plants destroyed in that catastrophe. And, of course, loose wooden tools submerged in a global flood would hardly be expected to remain neatly preserved in the archaeological context in which they were used.
Yet these wooden tools exist. They were recovered from secure Middle Pleistocene deposits, not from some chaotic jumble of flood debris. They are associated with stone tools, worked bone and butchered animal remains, including elephant, showing that Marathousa 1 was a lakeshore site used by early humans for a range of activities, including butchery and woodworking. In other words, the evidence is not floating around without context; it forms part of a coherent archaeological scene about 420,000 years older than the creationist date for the magical creation of Earth and everything on it.
One of the objects is a small alder trunk fragment with clear traces of shaping and use-wear, consistent with a multifunctional digging stick probably used at the edge of the ancient lake. The other is a much smaller worked piece of willow or poplar, possibly representing a previously unknown type of small Pleistocene wooden tool. A third piece of alder, initially investigated as a possible artefact, appears instead to have been marked by a large carnivore, possibly a bear — another indication that humans and carnivores were exploiting the same lakeshore environment.
The Marathousa 1 site lay in the Megalopolis Basin, a region that appears to have acted as a glacial refugium during a critical period in human evolution, when more complex behaviours and more diverse technologies were developing. The finds show early humans using not just stone, but wood and bone too — exactly what we should expect from intelligent, adaptable hominins making use of the materials around them, and exactly what is so rarely preserved because wood normally decays long before it can fossilise or survive archaeologically.
Although they may have retained some residual function, what the forelimbs of Tyrannosaurus rex were almost certainly not used for was grabbing and holding large prey. They were far too short and mechanically limited for that role, especially in a predator whose real killing equipment was a massive skull, powerful jaws and bone-crushing bite. So, creationists need to explain why an intelligent designer would have equipped one of the most formidable predators ever to walk the Earth with such apparently inadequate little arms in the first place.
These apparent design failures are, of course, entirely understandable as the result of an evolutionary process operating over deep time. Just such an explanation has now been proposed by three researchers from University College London (UCL) and the University of Cambridge, who have published their findings in Proceedings of the Royal Society B. It almost goes without saying that their explanation is an application of the Theory of Evolution, with no suggestion that the authors are about to abandon it in favour of creationism — as creationists have been confidently predicting for the best part of half a century, despite the singular lack of any peer-reviewed scientific movement in that direction.
The researchers found a strong association between the evolution of large, robust skulls and the reduction of forelimbs in several groups of non-avian theropod dinosaurs. In other words, the tiny arms of T. rex were not merely a side-effect of the whole body becoming larger. They were more closely linked to the evolution of powerful heads and jaws, suggesting a shift in hunting strategy in which the skull became the principal weapon and the forelimbs became less important.
The authors are careful to point out that correlation does not prove causation. But the pattern is consistent with an evolutionary arms race in which large predatory dinosaurs increasingly relied on massive skulls and crushing bites to tackle large prey, rather than on grasping forelimbs. As lead author Charlie Roger Scherer put it, trying to grab and hold a huge herbivorous dinosaur with claws would not have been ideal; attacking and holding with the jaws may have been far more effective.
For their study, the researchers developed a new way to quantify skull robustness, using factors such as how tightly the bones of the skull were connected, the compactness of the skull, and bite force. On this measure, T. rex scored highest, followed by Tyrannotitan, a large South American theropod that lived more than 30 million years earlier.
The study also showed that forelimb reduction evolved independently in at least five theropod groups: tyrannosaurids, abelisaurids, carcharodontosaurids, megalosaurids and ceratosaurids. That makes this a case of convergent evolution: different lineages arriving at a similar anatomical result because similar selective pressures favoured a similar functional solution.
The evolutionary sequence is straightforward in this case: as the prey became larger so the jaw and skull needed to become larger to kill and consume the prey. The mouth then became the primary means of gripping and killing the prey and the forelimbs, which are not needed for locomotion, became increasingly redundant but liable to injury, so there was an advantage in reducing their size. The fact that there was convergence in different lineages, is strongly suggestive that this mechanism evolved for the same reasons, multiple times.
The Evolution of the Tyrannosaurs.
Tyrannosaurus rex was not the starting point of the tyrannosaur story, but one of its final and most extreme products. The wider group, Tyrannosauroidea, had a long evolutionary history stretching back into the Middle Jurassic, more than 100 million years before T. rex. For much of that time, tyrannosauroids were not gigantic apex predators, but mostly small to medium-sized, lightly built theropods living alongside, and often in the shadow of, other large carnivorous dinosaurs.[1]
Early tyrannosauroids included animals such as Proceratosaurus from Jurassic Britain and Guanlong from Jurassic China. These were not simply miniature versions of T. rex. Some had crests, longer arms and more generalised predatory bodies. Their importance lies in showing that tyrannosaurs did not appear suddenly as fully formed, giant, short-armed killing machines. The famous late Cretaceous body plan was assembled gradually, piece by piece, over tens of millions of years.[1,2]
Several Early Cretaceous tyrannosauroids also show how different the early members of the group were from their later descendants. Dilong paradoxus, from China, was small and gracile, with relatively long arms and three-fingered hands. It also preserved evidence of filamentous protofeathers, showing that at least some early tyrannosauroids were not the purely scaly monsters of older popular reconstructions.[3]
The discovery of Yutyrannus huali, also from Early Cretaceous China, pushed that point further. This was a much larger tyrannosauroid, yet it too preserved long filamentous feathers. That does not prove that an adult T. rex was fully feathered, and skin impressions from later tyrannosaurids suggest at least some scaly areas. But it does show that feathers were part of the wider tyrannosauroid evolutionary background, not an irrelevant bird-like novelty.[4]
By the Late Cretaceous, especially in Asia and western North America, tyrannosaurids had become the dominant large predators. Genera such as Albertosaurus, Gorgosaurus, Daspletosaurus, Tarbosaurus and Tyrannosaurus show the familiar trend towards massive skulls, powerful jaws, thick teeth, strong hind limbs, keen senses and reduced forelimbs. This was not a single act of design, but a long evolutionary sequence in which the skull and jaws increasingly took over the role of subduing prey.[1,5]
Recent work has added further detail to this picture. In 2025, researchers described Khankhuuluu mongoliensis, a Mongolian tyrannosauroid from the lower Upper Cretaceous, as a form close to the origin of Eutyrannosauria — the group that includes the large, late Cretaceous tyrannosaurs. Their analysis suggests a complex history of dispersal between Asia and North America, with tyrannosaur evolution involving migration, ecological opportunity and divergent growth patterns, rather than a simple straight-line progression from small ancestor to giant descendant.[6]
So the tiny arms of T. rex are not an isolated oddity needing to be excused as good design. They are part of a broader evolutionary pattern in which tyrannosaurs changed from relatively small, long-armed predators into large, skull-dominated apex predators. The result looks puzzling if imagined as the work of a designer starting from scratch, but it makes sense as the outcome of descent with modification, changing ecological pressures, and the evolutionary reworking of inherited anatomy.
The publication in Proceedings of the Royal Society B is accompanied by a news release from UCL.
Why meat-eating dinosaurs like T. rex evolved tiny armsThe evolution of tiny arms in several groups of meat-eating dinosaurs was likely driven by the development of strong, powerful heads, which were used to attack prey, according to a new study led by researchers at UCL and Cambridge University.
The study, published in the journal Proceedings of the Royal Society B, looked at data for 82 species of theropod (two-legged, mainly meat-eating dinosaurs), finding that shortening of forelimbs occurred across five groups, including tyrannosaurids, the family that included Tyrannosaurus rex.
The team, including Dr Elizabeth Steell at Cambridge and Professor Paul Upchurch at UCL, found that smaller arms were closely linked to the development of large, powerful skulls and jaws, more so than to larger overall body size, indicating that tiny arms were not just a by-product of bodies getting bigger.
The researchers suggested that the increasing size of prey, in the form of gigantic sauropods (long-necked, long-tailed plant-eaters) and other large herbivores, may have resulted in a shift to hunting using jaws and head instead of claws.
Everyone knows the T. rex had tiny arms but other giant theropod dinosaurs also evolved relatively small forelimbs. The Carnotaurus had ridiculously tiny arms, smaller than the T. rex. We sought to understand what was driving this change and found a strong relationship between short arms and large, powerfully built heads. The head took over from the arms as the method of attack. It’s a case of ‘use it or lose it’ – the arms are no longer useful and reduce in size over time. These adaptations often occurred in areas with gigantic prey. Trying to pull and grab at a 100ft-long sauropod with your claws is not ideal. Attacking and holding on with the jaws might have been more effective.
While our study identifies correlations and so cannot establish cause and effect, it is highly likely that strongly built skulls came before shorter forelimbs. It would not make evolutionary sense for it to occur the other way round, and for these predators to give up their attack mechanism without having a back-up.
Charlie Roger Scherer, lead author.
Department of Earth Sciences
University College London
London, UK.
For the study, researchers developed a new way to quantify skull robustness, based on factors including how tightly connected the bones of the head were, the dimensions of the skull (a more compact shape is stronger than an elongated shape), and bite force.
On this measure, the T. rex scored highest, followed by the Tyrannotitan, a theropod nearly as massive as T. rex who lived in what is now Argentina in the Early Cretaceous period (more than 30 million years earlier than T. rex).
The team said that increasingly gigantic prey may have resulted in an “evolutionary arms race”, where theropods developed strong skulls and jaws to better subdue this prey, and in many cases grew to gigantic sizes themselves.
Separately, the team compared forelimb length to skull length, classifying five groups of dinosaurs as having reduced forelimbs: tyrannosaurids, abelisaurids, carcharodontosaurids (including the Tyrannotitan), megalosaurids and ceratosaurids.
They found reduced forelimbs had a stronger link with skull robustness than with skull size or overall body size. The secondary importance of overall body size was illustrated by the fact that some theropods with strongly built heads and tiny arms were not very large, the researchers said, citing the Majungasaurus, an apex predator in Madagascar 70 million years ago, but weighing a mere 1.6 tonnes, about a fifth of the T. rex.
The researchers noted that the forelimbs appeared to reduce in size in different ways, with hands and the lower part of the arm (past the elbow) shortening the most in abelisaurids (with late abelisaurids such as the Majungasaurus having exceptionally tiny hands). In tyrannosaurids, on the other hand, each element of the forelimb was reduced at a similar rate.
The team concluded that the same outcome (tiny forelimbs) was likely achieved through potentially different developmental pathways in different species.
A team of five academics work on different aspects of dinosaur evolution at UCL, with strong collaborative links to the Natural History Museum. The extended research group comprises four research fellows and postdoc researchers, and more than 10 PhD students. At least four of the PhD students are working on dinosaur evolution, with the others looking at a wider array of other evolutionary questions relating to vertebrates, including crocodiles and birds.
Abstract
Forelimb reduction has been observed in numerous and disparate non-avian theropod dinosaurs, resulting in the hypothesis that reduced forelimbs evolved convergently. Clades with reduced forelimbs also possess high degrees of cranial robusticity and gigantic body sizes. Here, we provide a novel quantification of forelimb reduction across Theropoda, and create and implement a cranial robusticity scoring system, and analyse this dataset using bivariate and comparative phylogenetic analyses. Results indicate that forelimb reduction is strongly correlated with cranial robusticity and gigantism. Reduced/vestigial forelimbs evolved in at least five theropod lineages in concert with increased cranial robusticity and gigantism. Abelisaurids, carcharodontosaurids and tyrannosaurids show the greatest forelimb reduction relative to the skull. Repeated forelimb reduction across theropods was facilitated by increased cranial robusticity and greater body size that was potentially influenced by an upward trend in prey body size. These events resulted in a shift from subduing prey using grasping forelimbs to using powerful bites and robust skulls.
So the famously tiny arms of Tyrannosaurus rex are not an embarrassment for evolutionary biology; they are exactly the sort of thing evolution explains. They are the result of history, contingency and trade-offs: inherited anatomy being modified over time as natural selection favoured a different way of killing prey. As the skull became larger, stronger and more effective as the main predatory weapon, the forelimbs became less important, and so there was no evolutionary pressure to maintain them as large, powerful grasping organs.
That is why this feature is so difficult to explain as the work of an intelligent designer. A designer starting from scratch could simply have produced an animal with both a massive, bone-crushing skull and proportionately useful forelimbs, or dispensed with the arms altogether. Instead, what we see is the familiar evolutionary pattern: not perfect engineering, but modified inheritance; not clean-sheet design, but anatomical compromise shaped by changing selection pressures.
Creationism has no scientific explanation for this. It can only wave the problem away by declaring, without evidence, that the tiny arms must have had some unknown purpose, or that the designer’s motives are beyond human understanding. But that is not an explanation; it is an excuse for not having one. It predicts nothing, explains nothing, and adds nothing to our understanding of tyrannosaur biology.
The Theory of Evolution, by contrast, not only explains why such apparently odd features exist, but also provides a framework in which they can be tested. The prediction is that similar ecological and functional pressures should produce similar anatomical trends in separate lineages — and that is exactly what this study found. Forelimb reduction evolved independently in several theropod groups, associated not with divine whim, but with the repeated evolution of large, robust skulls and powerful jaws.
In other words, the tiny arms of T. rex are not a mystery for science; they are evidence of evolution doing what evolution does — adapting existing structures to changing circumstances, often imperfectly, always historically, and never with the foresight or tidiness that intelligent design would require. Once again, the evidence fits the evolutionary model and leaves creationism with nothing more substantial than incredulity, special pleading and the hope that no one looks too closely.
Advertisement
Amazon
Amazon
Amazon
Amazon
Amazon
Amazon
Amazon
Amazon
Amazon
Amazon
Amazon
Amazon
All titles available in paperback, hardcover, ebook for Kindle and audio format.
Prices correct at time of publication. for current prices.
