Refuting Creationism - How New Genetic Information Arises - Naturally

Scientists uncover key mechanism in evolution: Whole-genome duplication drives long-term adaptation | Research

Evolved macroscopic "snowflake" yeast from the MuLTEE experiment. The large size of the nuclei (yellow) and cells (cyan) are results of whole-genome duplication and aneuploidy.

Credit: Ratcliff Lab

It is a common claim in creationist circles, despite clear evidence to the contrary, that information theory prevents the creation of new genetic information. They argue incorrectly that Shannon Information Theory dictates that the total amount of information in the universe is fixed. According to this flawed view, creating new genetic information would violate the First Law of Thermodynamics, which states that energy can neither be created nor destroyed.

However, this interpretation demonstrates a misunderstanding of both thermodynamics and Shannon Information Theory, as well as how these concepts relate to genetic information. In reality, the creation of new genetic information can be readily observed each time cells replicate, as the total genetic content effectively doubles, The elements the 'information' is composed of are neither created nor destroyed in the process and, as the result of chemical processes, there is less energy in the system, so the laws of thermodynamics are conserved.

Gene duplication and entire genome duplication (polyploidy) are common occurrences in biology, particularly within the plant kingdom, where tetraploidy — possessing twice the usual diploid number of chromosomes — frequently arises. It is also sometime seen in arthropods, amphibians and reptiles.

Tetraploidy often appears spontaneously in laboratory populations of various organisms. Typically, without selective pressures favouring polyploid states, these conditions tend to revert to diploidy after several generations. However, recent studies by scientists at Georgia Tech, conducting multicellular long-term evolution (MuLTEE) research with 'snowflake yeast', Saccharomyces cerevisiae, have demonstrated that under specific selective pressures, polyploidy can become stable and confer advantageous survival traits to the organism.

The selection pressure in this case was selecting the largest yeast cells from which to produce the next generation. The researchers discovered that polyploidy had arisen early on in the experiment, after about 10 generations, and polyploid cells tended to be the largest cells, so a polyploid strain quickly arose and remained polyploid over thousands of generations - far longer than would be expected if selection had been random or unrelated to cell size.

Refuting Creationism - How A Couple of Chance Mutations Led to Big Brains in Humans

Microscopic image of a section of an electroporated, genetically modified chimpanzee brain organoid. Cell nuclei in blue, precursor cells in magenta, electroporated, genetically modified cells in green and dividing cells in orange.

This article is best read on a laptop, desktop, or tablet

Homo habilis is an extinct hominid species that lived between 2.8 and 1.5 million years ago. It is considered to be one of the earliest members of the genus Homo, and its name means "handy man" in Latin, reflecting its ability to make and use tools.

How did the large brain evolve? | DPZ

Creationists often struggle to explain why closely related species share identical genes located at the same locus on the same chromosome, typically resorting to the argument of common design rather than common descent. Even more challenging for creationists is when these shared genes exhibit slight modifications that result in significant differences between species, strongly supporting descent with modification.

A compelling recent example involves two genes, NBPF14 and NOTCH2NLB, identified by researchers from the German Primate Center - Leibniz Institute for Primate Research (DPZ) and the Max Planck Institute of Molecular Cell Biology and Genetics. These genes, modified specifically in humans, appear to explain the larger and more complex human brain compared to chimpanzees and bonobos. The research shows that NBPF14 and NOTCH2NLB act synergistically: one gene increases the production of neural progenitor cells, while the other facilitates their transformation into neurons capable of forming more extensive neural connections.

Together, these genetic modifications account for the remarkable increase in the size and complexity of the human brain relative to our closest primate relatives.

For an explanation of how two mutations with a low probability can quickly spread through the gene pool when they act synergistically, see my book Twenty Reasons To Reject Creationism: Understanding Evolution, pages 17-20, in which, using the example of a bacterium and two beneficial mutations acting synergistically, I show that the time take for 50% of the population to have both mutations is actually shorter than the time for 50% of the population to have just one mutation because, the accelerating effect of synergy increases the probability of both being inherited together.

This can explain why a large-brained archaic hominin appeared relatively suddenly in the fossil record. As we shall see, the fact that at least one of our ancestral species went through a narrow genetic bottleneck was ultimately highly beneficial because this reduces the time taken for the whole gene pool to acquire a neutral mutation by genetic drift alone.

Refuting Creationism - How Earth Was Really Formed

Impression of molten Earth at 300 million years old

AI-Generated image (Chat GPT4.5)

This article is best read on a laptop, desktop, or tablet

Artistic view of Earth’s interior during mantle solidification in the first hundreds of millions of years of Earth’s history. Gravitational segregation of dense, iron-rich magma (in orange) likely formed a basal magma ocean atop the core, that can explain the present-day structure of the lower mantle.

York U research sheds light on earliest days of Earth’s formation - News@York

According to creationist mythology, approximately 6,000 to 10,000 years ago, a supernatural entity conjured Earth into existence out of nothing. This planet, according to the myth, was initially a small, flat surface covered by a dome, centred around the vicinity of the Middle East.

In stark contrast to this mythological narrative, scientific evidence reveals a completely different history — one so profoundly distinct that any metaphorical interpretation of the myth quickly collapses under scrutiny. The Earth is neither flat nor limited to a small region around the ancient Canaanite hills; nor does it possess a dome overhead. No amount of linguistic gymnastics can transform that ancient depiction into anything remotely resembling Earth, although it may well have resembled the perception of Earth from the point of view of scientifically illiterate Bronze Age pastoralists who had never travelled more than a day or two's walk from their homeland and who though the sky was blue because of all the water above the transparent dome overhead.

As though any more refutation of the idea that the Bible contains an inerrant account of actual history, a recent study by a research team led by Assistant Professor Charles-Édouard Boukaré from the Department of Physics and Astronomy at York University in Toronto, Canada, sheds new light on Earth's early geological development. Their research demonstrates how Earth gradually cooled over its first 100 million years, providing valuable insights into the planet’s current thermochemical internal structure.

Refuting Creationism - Students Discover How The Mammalian Immune System Evolved.

Nebraska undergrads uncover ancient secrets of human immunity | Nebraska Today

(C–F) Expanded views of the interaction interface between STAT2 CCD and IRF9 IAD for mouse (C), human (D), Hypanus sabinus (E), and Stegostoma tigrinum (F). The interactions are observed in the crystal structure of the mouse STAT2-IRF9 complex (PDB ID: 5OEN) [19.1]. For humans and the two cartilaginous fishes, the interactions are based on the modeled structures of the STAT2-IRF9 complex. The key residues involved in the interface are labeled. The phenylalanine (F) on the STAT2 protein is colored in green. The four residues forming the cleft on the IRF9 protein are colored in magenta. The corresponding sequences of the interface area and other details are found in Supporting Information S1: Figure S3.

Recent research conducted by undergraduate students at the University of Nebraska–Lincoln has provided compelling insights into the evolutionary development of the human immune system. Under the guidance of Professor Luwen Zhang, students Vanessa Hubing, Avery Marquis, and Chanasei Ziemann co-authored two significant studies published in the Journal of Medical Virology. Their work elucidates the progression of immune regulatory mechanisms in vertebrates, highlighting the transition to more complex systems with the evolution of jaws. Additionally, they explored how a pseudogene, potentially introduced into primate DNA via a retrovirus approximately 60 million years ago, may have enhanced ancestral immune responses.

These findings offer robust evidence supporting the theory of evolution by demonstrating the gradual and adaptive changes in genetic material that have led to sophisticated immune functions in humans. The identification of a pseudogene's integration into primate DNA and its subsequent role in immunity exemplifies natural selection's influence on genetic composition over millions of years. Such evidence challenges creationist perspectives by providing concrete examples of evolutionary processes shaping complex biological systems, underscoring the dynamic nature of genetic evolution in response to environmental pressures.

During the course of evolution, these factors have evolved as additional layers of complexity to improve and refine a system which, as the product of an unplanned, utilitarian evolutionary process was a suboptimal compromise between the tendencies to over-react to some infections and fail to respond to others. An intelligently-designed sytem would need no such regulatory mechanisms. This is how we can tell that such overly-complex systems were not intelligently designed.

Malevolent Designer News - How C. difficile is Designed to Kill Off Competition in Our Gut

C. diff uses toxic compound to fuel growth advantage VUMC News

Like all organisms, and particularly pathogenic parasites that colonise our intestines, Clostridioides difficile (C. diff) must compete with other organisms for nutrients. This competition inevitably fuels evolutionary arms races.

For devotees of creationism’s ‘intelligent designer’, C. diff might appear to be a cunning response to medical science's successful use of antibiotics against bacterial pathogens. This is because C. diff is equipped with multiple antibiotic-resistance genes, allowing it to thrive in hospital environments. It often infects patients who are already vulnerable due to other health conditions or compromised immunity, making it a significant medical challenge.

Furthermore, if one follows William A. Dembski's reasoning, the ‘complex specified information’ in C. diff’s genome, which grants it a competitive edge, must logically be attributed to an intelligent designer. Michael J. Behe’s attempt to absolve his version of an intelligent designer by blaming ‘sin’, ‘genetic entropy’, or alleged ‘devolution’ fails here. A mutation that clearly provides an adaptive advantage cannot logically be termed a ‘devolution’ from a supposedly more ‘perfect’ ancestral state.

If creationism’s intelligent designer intended to kick people when they were down, it could hardly have done better than designing C. diff.

How C. diff competes for resource in our gut by waging chemical warfare against the other gut biota is the subject of a paper in the journal Cell Host & Microbe by researchers at Vanderbilt University Medical Center (VUMC). Their findings are described in VUMC News:

Refuting Creationism - Common Origins - Like Humans, Chimpanzees Use Engineering Skills to Make Tools

A Gombe chimpanzee using a termite fishing tool to fish termites.

Credit: Dr Alejandra Pascual-Garrido

A Gombe chimpanzee using a termite fishing tool to fish termites.

Credit: Dr Alejandra Pascual-Garrido

Research into chimpanzee ‘engineers’ has implications for understanding human technological evolution | University of Oxford

Not so long ago, it was commonly claimed that humans were exceptional due to their supposedly 'unique' ability to make and use tools. This assertion was often used to reinforce the idea that humans occupied a special position at the pinnacle of creation, justifying the biblical concept of human dominion over the rest of nature.

However, this claim was never credible to anyone observing nature carefully. It was largely promoted by religious authorities to foster a sense of human uniqueness and importance. This, in turn, reinforced belief in a creator god, supported the authority of religious institutions and their clerics, and justified their claims to the right to create laws governing human behaviour.

Scientific research has increasingly exposed the fallacy of this notion of human exceptionalism. Tool-making and tool use in humans are indeed more sophisticated than in other animals, but this ability is far from unique. Many other species demonstrate these abilities, notably chimpanzees—our closest living relatives. The widespread occurrence of tool use in nature strongly suggests this trait was present in a common ancestor we share with other primates. Furthermore, the independent evolution of tool use in species as diverse as birds, bees, and octopuses demonstrates that this capability is not unique to humans but rather a result of natural evolutionary processes.

Another human characteristic, traditionally cited by religious authorities as evidence for special creation and human exceptionalism, has, once again, been shown by science to be better explained as evidence of our evolutionary heritage within the natural world.

And today we have evidence that chimpanzees not only make and use tools but employ sophisticated 'engineering' skill in their choice of the right materials for their construction. It comes in the form of a paper published, open access, in iScience by a team of researchers led by Dr Alejandra Pascual-Garrido, of the School of Anthropology and Museum Ethnography, University of Oxford, UK.

Refuting Creationism - Scientists Confirm A Simple Model Of The Universe's First 380,000 Years

Credit: ACT Collaboration; ESA/Planck Collaboration.

This article is best read on a laptop, desktop, or tablet

Analysing the cosmic microwave background in high definition has enabled researchers to confirm a simple model of the universe, ruling out many competing alternatives.

Credit: ACT Collaboration; ESA/Planck Collaboration.

Telescope observations reveal universe’s hours-old baby pictures, scientists say - News - Cardiff University

Creationists today face a distinct challenge compared to their predecessors from one or two centuries ago. They must continually devise ways to ignore or dismiss the relentless flow of scientific evidence disproving their beliefs, while simultaneously rationalizing the complete lack of evidence supporting claims of a young Earth, special creation through supernatural means, or the existence of a creator capable of producing a universe from nothing.

Individuals with a normal degree of intellectual honesty, when confronted with overwhelming evidence against their beliefs and a lack of supportive evidence, would naturally see this as grounds for doubt and reassessment. Creationists, however, appear undeterred, convinced that their personal beliefs override scientific evidence without the necessity for evidential justification.

Compounding their difficulties, scientists recently announced a significant advancement: they have mapped the cosmic microwave background radiation—the residual echo of the Big Bang—in unprecedented detail. Utilizing data from the Atacama Cosmology Telescope (ACT) collaboration, this new research reveals conditions in the universe as they existed only 380,000 years after the Big Bang, roughly 13.8 billion years ago.

On the scale of a human lifetime, this is the equivalent of a photograph of a now middle-aged person, taken one hour after they were born, and, in a confirmation of the principle of Occam's Razor, the simplest model is conformed as the correct model.

The Unintelligent Designer - Another Error-Prone Bungle to Compensate for a Bungled Design

William Heath Robinson

Peacekeeper cells protect the body from autoimmunity during infection | Biological Sciences Division | The University of Chicago

A significant issue with our immune system is that it is poorly "designed." If it were truly the product of an intelligent designer, as creationists claim, that designer would hardly be competent enough to design a simple household item, let alone a complex biological system.

Because our immune system is so disorganized and inefficient, multiple layers of complexity have evolved to mitigate its worst shortcomings. However, these added layers themselves remain prone to errors, as they reflect the same flawed foundation. The central problem arises because the immune system must balance two contradictory requirements: it needs to be sensitive enough to identify and eliminate genuine threats, yet not so sensitive that it mistakenly attacks the body's own tissues.

While an omnipotent, supremely intelligent designer should have easily resolved such a contradiction, the reality is that our immune system frequently fails on both counts. It often permits pathogens and parasites to invade, and it also frequently turns against the body itself, leading to autoimmune diseases such as lupus, diabetes, multiple sclerosis, arthritis, and kidney or liver failure, among numerous other debilitating conditions that cause immense suffering.

Like the whimsical contraptions created by cartoonist William Heath Robinson — complex machines built from objects originally intended for entirely different purposes - the mammalian immune system is not designed top-down from a clear blueprint. Rather, it's built up gradually from one makeshift adaptation piled onto another, each new solution attempting to compensate for the shortcomings of earlier ones. Eventually, this process results in a ramshackle system so intricate that its complexity itself creates new opportunities for failure. Such complexity is not indicative of intelligent, purposeful design, which would typically favour simplicity and efficiency. Instead, it reflects an ad hoc, utilitarian approach driven by evolutionary constraints and an inability to anticipate future challenges.

And of course, this embarrassment for creationism is made worse by the fact that, according to Michael J. Behe, pathogenic parasites such as E. coli and Plasmodium falciparum are examples of irreducible complexity, so are, in creationist circles, unarguable 'proof' of intelligent design, so the immune system is allegedly designed by the designer of these pathogens to protect us from them.

It seems creationists have no difficulty in believing the same designer would design parasites to make sick, then design a system to protect us from its pathogenic designs, and even though that system doesn't work very well, it is nevertheless evidence of supreme intelligence.

Refuting Creationism - LECA Was An Asgard Archaea

An artist’s depiction of an Asgard archaeon, based on cryo-electron tomography data: the cell body and appendages feature thread-like skeletal structures, similar to those found in complex cells with nuclei.

Graphic: Margot Riggi,
Max Planck Institute of Biochemistry

Asgard tubulin.

Origin of Life: How microbes laid the foundation for complex cells | ETH Zurich

Recent research indicates that the last universal common ancestor of complex (eukaryotic) cells, which encompass all multicellular plant and animal life, likely originated from the Asgard group of archaea. This ancestor is believed to have formed a symbiotic relationship with an alphaproteobacterium, which eventually evolved into the mitochondrion.

The initial nature of this symbiotic relationship—whether parasitic or predatory—remains uncertain. However, its establishment was pivotal in setting the evolutionary course that led to the diversity of life on Earth. Compelling evidence supporting the Asgard archaea hypothesis has been uncovered by Professor Martin Pilhofer and his team at the Eidgenössische Technische Hochschule (ETH) Zurich, Switzerland. Their findings have been published in the journal Cell and is explained in an ETH news item by Peter Rüegg:

What Our Prophets Never Told Us - Because Our Prophets Hadn't Got A Clue

Euclid’s view of the Cat’s Eye Nebula

ESA - Euclid opens data treasure trove, offers glimpse of deep fields

A point I never tire of making because it contrasts so vividly what the authors of the Bible thought the Universe was like and what science is showing us it is really like, is the ludicrously naive description of a small, flat planet with a dome over it, with the moon, sun and starts attached to the dome.

Don't take my word for it. Open your Bible and read the first few pages:

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. (Genesis 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, And to rule over the day and over the night, and to divide the light from the darkness: and God saw that it was good.(Genesis 1.16-18)

How the Bible's authors saw the Universe.

Now compare that with the view of just a small fragment of the universe that the European Space Agency's space telescope, Euclid, has revealed today:

Creationism in Crisis - The Evolution of Bird Feathers From Dinosaur Ancestors

From dinosaurs to birds: the origins of feather formation - Medias - UNIGE

Feathers provide a fascinating example of how evolution can repurpose structures over time. Initially evolving in response to one set of selective pressures, feathers later opened the door for entirely new functions unrelated to their original purpose.

Early feathers appeared among dinosaurs primarily as an adaptation for thermoregulation. Simple, filamentous feathers offered significantly better insulation than traditional reptilian scales, helping dinosaurs maintain stable body temperatures. Among bipedal theropod dinosaurs, these insulating feathers eventually evolved into more complex structures, freeing forelimbs to develop into wings. Feathers subsequently became specialized for powered flight, having first likely served intermediate functions such as display or gliding.

The presence of insulating feathers likely provided a survival advantage during the dramatic climate changes following the asteroid impact that marked the end of the Cretaceous period, approximately 66 million years ago, contributing to the extinction of non-avian dinosaurs.

This is why we see a clear progression through the fossil record, unlike what would be expected of an intelligent design process, where birds, complete with flight feathers, would be expected to make a sudden appearance without ancestry.

Today, feathers in modern birds retain their important role in thermoregulation while also facilitating flight and serving as display structures. Vibrant and diverse plumage has evolved under sexual selection pressures, playing a crucial role in mating rituals, mate choice, and reinforcing genetic isolation among closely related species, thereby preventing hybridization.

Unintelligent Design - How 'Selfish' Genes Can Act Like Killer Parasites

Fluorescent microscopy images of highly variable wtf genes’ poison proteins (Wtf^poison) exhibit similar aggregation and distribution within yeast cells.

Graphical illustration showing rules for effective and ineffective neutralization of poison proteins. Yeast cells are “rescued” when wtf^poison and wft^antidote specifically co-assemble and localize toward the vacuole (left panel). Otherwise, yeast cells are destroyed (right panels).

Stowers scientists uncover… | Stowers Institute for Medical Research

As Richard Dawkins explained in his influential book, The Selfish Gene, all genes can be thought of as "selfish" in the sense that natural selection favours those most effective at surviving and replicating. Such genes persist over generations at the expense of rival alleles. Even when genes form cooperative alliances, as they commonly do, it ultimately serves their own evolutionary success. Of course, genes are merely chemical entities - mindless, emotionless, and incapable of intention or planning - so the concept of "selfishness" is simply a metaphor designed to illustrate gene-cantered evolution.

However, within the genomes of many multicellular organisms, certain genes can more literally be described as selfish. These genes act parasitically, exploiting the host cell’s replication machinery solely to propagate themselves, despite having no beneficial function and often harming their host by reducing its fertility. The mechanisms behind this parasitic behaviour have puzzled scientists since these genes were first discovered.

Refuting Creationism - Our Ancestry In Africa Was More Complex Than We Thought

Early Homo sapiens in Africa

AI-generated image (ChatGPT4.5)

Plaster reconstructions of the skulls of human ancestors

Jose A. Bernat Bacete via Getty Images

Genetic study reveals hidden chapter in human evolution | University of Cambridge

Traditionally, creationists have been fascinated by complexity, wrongly assuming that intricate biological systems are definitive evidence of intelligent design. In reality, simplicity is typically a hallmark of efficient, intelligent design, whereas complexity often emerges from evolutionary processes that accumulate layers of adaptation, frequently to compensate for earlier suboptimal features.

However, one particular form of complexity is likely to provoke considerable confusion among creationists: the evolutionary history of our own species in Africa. Once imagined as a straightforward, linear progression - from Australopithecines through transitional species like Homo erectus, which then migrated out of Africa into Eurasia - the true narrative has proven far more intricate. Homo sapiens evolved within Africa, and subsequently some populations ventured into Eurasia, encountering and interbreeding with the descendants of earlier migrations, notably Neanderthals and Denisovans, who had evolved independently from Homo erectus.

Given our species' propensity to interbreed with closely related hominins - likely facilitated by sexual activity serving recreational and social bonding purposes alongside procreation, a trait possibly shared by our ancestral and cousin species - recent research indicates a highly complex evolutionary pattern. Rather than a simple linear progression, the evolution of humans involved multiple episodes of diversification, genetic isolation, subsequent renewed contact, and interbreeding within Africa's vast landscapes, creating a rich mosaic of genetic heritage.

Refuting Creationism - Human Language Had Evolved At Least 100,000 years Before 'Creation Week'!

Image: MIT News; iStock

World languages (for key, see Wikipedia source)

When did human language emerge? | MIT News | Massachusetts Institute of Technology

In stark contrast to biblical literalism's simplistic and contradictory story, recent research provides a very different picture of the origins of human language. According to Bible literalists, there are two versions of how languages come about. In the first, the descendants of each of the sons of Noah spoke different languages; in the second, language originated just five generations after the mythical global flood, when the human population — miraculously expanded from eight closely related survivors - grew large enough to undertake a massive construction project. Supposedly, this project so alarmed God that he intervened by 'confounding their tongues' to stop their cooperation.

In contrast to these Bible stories which compete for the most ludicrous and unlikely, scientists led by the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) have recently suggested that human language actually evolved between 100,000 and 135,000 years before creationists claim the universe itself existed. v

What is the current consensus on the time and place of the origins of language in humans? There is currently no clear scientific consensus regarding the exact timing and location of the origins of human language, primarily because language leaves no direct fossil evidence. However, there is broad agreement around certain key points:

Timing of Language Origin:

• General timeframe: Most researchers propose that fully-developed spoken language originated between 50,000 and 200,000 years ago, during the late Middle or early Upper Palaeolithic period, associated with anatomically modern Homo sapiens.
• Genetic clues: Genetic evidence, particularly the emergence of the FOXP2 gene mutation (linked to speech and language capability), suggests language capacity existed at least around 150,000–200,000 years ago.
• Cultural and archaeological indicators: A notable increase in symbolic behaviour, such as sophisticated art, toolmaking, and ritual practices approximately 40,000–70,000 years ago (often referred to as the "cognitive revolution"), is widely viewed as indirect evidence of fully developed linguistic capabilities. However, many linguists argue for a much earlier, more gradual development extending back hundreds of thousands of years.

Place of Origin:

• Africa hypothesis: The widely supported "Out of Africa" theory of modern human evolution implies that language, like other uniquely human traits, likely emerged first in Africa, associated with early Homo sapiens populations around 150,000–200,000 years ago.
• Multiple origins or dispersal: While most linguists and paleoanthropologists favour an African origin due to genetic and fossil evidence, some researchers have proposed language capabilities could have evolved independently or spread quickly as humans migrated. However, the single-origin hypothesis currently dominates.

Mechanism of Origin:

• Gradual evolution: The prevailing view today is that language evolved gradually through incremental cognitive, anatomical, and social adaptations, rather than appearing abruptly.
• Social complexity: Most researchers believe language emerged alongside increasing social complexity, facilitating cooperation, teaching, and cultural transmission, which in turn provided strong evolutionary advantages.

Current Scientific Consensus:

• No direct fossil evidence means pinpointing exact dates or locations remains speculative.
• Broad consensus: Language emerged gradually, probably in Africa, between 50,000–200,000 years ago, closely tied to the cognitive evolution of anatomically modern humans.

In summary, while the exact details remain debated, the dominant scientific consensus positions the origin of human language firmly within the evolutionary context of anatomically modern Homo sapiens in Africa, sometime around or shortly before humans began their global migrations.

The findings of the MIT group are published, open access, in the journal Frontiers in Psychology and are explained by Peter Dizikes in MIT News:

When did human language emerge?

---

A new analysis suggests our language capacity existed at least 135,000 years ago, with language used widely perhaps 35,000 years after that.

---

It is a deep question, from deep in our history: When did human language as we know it emerge? A new survey of genomic evidence suggests our unique language capacity was present at least 135,000 years ago. Subsequently, language might have entered social use 100,000 years ago.

Our species, Homo sapiens, is about 230,000 years old. Estimates of when language originated vary widely, based on different forms of evidence, from fossils to cultural artifacts. The authors of the new analysis took a different approach. They reasoned that since all human languages likely have a common origin — as the researchers strongly think — the key question is how far back in time regional groups began spreading around the world.

The logic is very simple. Every population branching across the globe has human language, and all languages are related. [Based on what the genomics data indicate about the geographic divergence of early human populations] I think we can say with a fair amount of certainty that the first split occurred about 135,000 years ago, so human language capacity must have been present by then, or before.

Professor Shigeru Miyagawa, co-author.
Department of Linguistics and Philosophy
Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA, USA.

The paper, “Linguistic capacity was present in the Homo sapiens population 135 thousand years ago,” appears in Frontiers in Psychology. The co-authors are Miyagawa, who is a professor emeritus of linguistics and the Kochi-Manjiro Professor of Japanese Language and Culture at MIT; Rob DeSalle, a principal investigator at the American Museum of Natural History’s Institute for Comparative Genomics; Vitor Augusto Nóbrega, a faculty member in linguistics at the University of São Paolo; Remo Nitschke, of the University of Zurich, who worked on the project while at the University of Arizona linguistics department; Mercedes Okumura of the Department of Genetics and Evolutionary Biology at the University of São Paulo; and Ian Tattersall, curator emeritus of human origins at the American Museum of Natural History.

The new paper examines 15 genetic studies of different varieties, published over the past 18 years: Three used data about the inherited Y chromosome, three examined mitochondrial DNA, and nine were whole-genome studies.

All told, the data from these studies suggest an initial regional branching of humans about 135,000 years ago. That is, after the emergence of Homo sapiens, groups of people subsequently moved apart geographically, and some resulting genetic variations have developed, over time, among the different regional subpopulations. The amount of genetic variation shown in the studies allows researchers to estimate the point in time at which Homo sapiens was still one regionally undivided group.

Miyagawa says the studies collectively provide increasingly converging evidence about when these geographic splits started taking place. The first survey of this type was performed by other scholars in 2017, but they had fewer existing genetic studies to draw upon. Now, there are much more published data available, which when considered together point to 135,000 years ago as the likely time of the first split.

The new meta-analysis was possible because “quantity-wise we have more studies, and quality-wise, it’s a narrower window [of time],” says Miyagawa, who also holds an appointment at the University of São Paolo.

Like many linguists, Miyagawa believes all human languages are demonstrably related to each other, something he has examined in his own work. For instance, in his 2010 book, “Why Agree? Why Move?” he analyzed previously unexplored similarities between English, Japanese, and some of the Bantu languages. There are more than 7,000 identified human languages around the globe.

Some scholars have proposed that language capacity dates back a couple of million years, based on the physiological characteristics of other primates. But to Miyagawa, the question is not when primates could utter certain sounds; it is when humans had the cognitive ability to develop language as we know it, combining vocabulary and grammar into a system generating an infinite amount of rules-based expression.

Human language is qualitatively different because there are two things, words and syntax, working together to create this very complex system. No other animal has a parallel structure in their communication system. And that gives us the ability to generate very sophisticated thoughts and to communicate them to others.

Professor Shigeru Miyagawa.

This conception of human language origins also holds that humans had the cognitive capacity for language for some period of time before we constructed our first languages.

Language is both a cognitive system and a communication system. My guess is prior to 135,000 years ago, it did start out as a private cognitive system, but relatively quickly that turned into a communications system.

Professor Shigeru Miyagawa.

So, how can we know when distinctively human language was first used? The archaeological record is invaluable in this regard. Roughly 100,000 years ago, the evidence shows, there was a widespread appearance of symbolic activity, from meaningful markings on objects to the use of fire to produce ochre, a decorative red color.

Like our complex, highly generative language, these symbolic activities are engaged in by people, and no other creatures. As the paper notes, “behaviors compatible with language and the consistent exercise of symbolic thinking are detectable only in the archaeological record of H. sapiens.”

Among the co-authors, Tattersall has most prominently propounded the view that language served as a kind of ignition for symbolic thinking and other organized activities.

Language was the trigger for modern human behavior. Somehow it stimulated human thinking and helped create these kinds of behaviors. If we are right, people were learning from each other [due to language] and encouraging innovations of the types we saw 100,000 years ago.

Professor Shigeru Miyagawa.

To be sure, as the authors acknowledge in the paper, other scholars believe there was a more incremental and broad-based development of new activities around 100,000 years ago, involving materials, tools, and social coordination, with language playing a role in this, but not necessarily being the central force.

For his part, Miyagawa recognizes that there is considerable room for further progress in this area of research, but thinks efforts like the current paper are at least steps toward filling out a more detailed picture of language’s emergence.

Our approach is very empirically based, grounded in the latest genetic understanding of early homo sapiens. I think we are on a good research arc, and I hope this will encourage people to look more at human language and evolution.

Professor Shigeru Miyagawa.

Recent genome-level studies on the divergence of early Homo sapiens, based on single nucleotide polymorphisms, suggest that the initial population division within H. sapiens from the original stem occurred approximately 135 thousand years ago. Given that this and all subsequent divisions led to populations with full linguistic capacity, it is reasonable to assume that the potential for language must have been present at the latest by around 135 thousand years ago, before the first division occurred. Had linguistic capacity developed later, we would expect to find some modern human populations without language, or with some fundamentally different mode of communication. Neither is the case. While current evidence does not tell us exactly when language itself appeared, the genomic studies do allow a fairly accurate estimate of the time by which linguistic capacity must have been present in the modern human lineage. Based on the lower boundary of 135 thousand years ago for language, we propose that language may have triggered the widespread appearance of modern human behavior approximately 100 thousand years ago.

1 Introduction
More than any other trait, language defines us as human. Yet there is no clear agreement on when this crucial feature emerged in our evolution. Some who have studied the archaeological record suggest that language emerged in our lineage around 100 thousand years ago (kya) (Tattersall, 2012, 2017, 2018; Wadley, 2021), while others have claimed that some form of language preceded the emergence of modern humans (Albessard-Ball and Balzeau, 2018.1; Botha, 2020). Indeed, it has been argued [e.g., by Progovac (2016) and Dediu and Levinson (2018.2)] that language is not uniquely the property of the lineage that produced H. sapiens. Here we accept the reasoning of that behaviors compatible with language and the consistent exercise of symbolic thinking are detectable only in the archaeological record of H. sapiens (Tattersall, 2012; Berwick et al., 2013; Berwick and Chomsky, 2016.1), and approach the issue of the antiquity of language in our species by showing that, although it is not yet possible to identify the time when a linguistic capacity emerged, genomic evidence allows us to establish with reasonable certainty the latest point at which it must have been present in early H. sapiens populations.

Over the past 15 years, numerous studies have addressed the question of exactly when the first division occurred in the original stem population of early H. sapiens. While those studies do not tell us exactly when language emerged, they allow us to make a reasonable estimate of the lower boundary of the possible time range for this key occurrence. H. sapiens emerged as an anatomically distinctive entity by about 230kya (Vidal et al., 2022). Sometime after that speciation event, the first division occurred, with all descendant populations of that division having full-fledged language. From this universal presence of language, we can deduce that some form of linguistic capacity must have been present before the first population divergence. If the linguistic capacity had emerged in humans after the initial divergence, one would expect to find modern human populations that either do not have language, or that have some communication capacity that differs meaningfully from that of all other human populations. Neither is the case. The 7,000 or so languages in the world today share striking similarities in the ways in which they are constructed phonologically, syntactically, and semantically (Eberhard et al., 2023).

Genomic studies of early H. sapiens population broadly agree that the first division from the original stem is represented today by the Khoisan peoples of Southern Africa (Schlebusch et al., 2012.1). This conclusion was reached early on Vigilant et al. (1989), Knight et al. (2003), Tishkoff et al. (2007), and Veeramah et al. (2012.2), and it has more recently been bolstered by studies using newer genomic techniques (Fan et al., 2019; Lorente-Galdos et al., 2019.1; Schlebusch et al., 2017.1; Schlebusch et al., 2020.1; Pakendorf and Stoneking, 2021.1). The term “Khoisan” refers to a bio-genetic affiliation that is linked both to a proposed ancestor-group and to some modern peoples, living in present-day South Africa, who include modern speakers of the Khoe-Khwadi, Tuu, and Ju-ǂHoan languages that have some genetic affiliation to the first divergence of the human population (Güldemann and Sands, 2009; du Plessis, 2014). It follows that, if we can identify when the first division occurred, we can with reasonable certainty consider that date to define the lower boundary of when human language was present in the ancestral modern human population. Based on the results of studies focusing on whole genome single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs), we estimate that this first division occurred at approximately 135kya. ¹

Huybregts (2017.2) was the first to attempt to pinpoint the timing of the first division in this way. Although he suggested a date of ~125kya, close to our estimate of ~135kya, his estimate was necessarily based on a fairly narrow set of studies showing a remarkably variable range. The studies he examined ranged from the clearly implausible 300kya (Scally and Durbin, 2012.3), to 180kya (Rito et al., 2013.1) and as little as 100kya (Schlebusch et al., 2012.1). Pakendorf and Stoneking (2021.1) later listed several studies proposing that the first division was older than 160kya (Fan et al., 2019; Lorente-Galdos et al., 2019.1; Schlebusch et al., 2020.1), along with four others, from 140 to 110kya, that overlapped with the range suggested by Huybregts (Gronau et al., 2011; Veeramah et al., 2012.2; Mallick et al., 2016.2; Song et al., 2017.3). Several newer studies now allow us to approach the age of the first division with greater precision.

In conclusion, the researchers say:

4 The picture that emerges
Based on the recent genetic studies of early H. sapiens, we have pinpointed approximately 135kya as the moment at which some linguistic capacity must have been present in the human population. Looking forward from this event, modern human behaviors such as body decoration and the production of ochre pieces with symbolic engravings appeared as normative and persistent behaviors around 100kya. We believe that the time lag implied between the lower boundary of when language was present (135kya) and the emergence of normative modern human behaviors across the population suggests that language itself was the trigger that transformed nonlinguistic early H. sapiens (who nonetheless already possessed “language-ready” brains acquired at the origin of the anatomically distinctive species) into the symbolically-mediated beings familiar today. This development of the most sophisticated communication device in evolution allowed our ancestors to accelerate and consolidate symbolically-mediated behaviors until they became the norm for the entire species.

Miyagawa, Shigeru; DeSalle, Rob; Nóbrega, Vitor Augusto; Nitschke, Remo; Okumura, Mercedes; Tattersall, Ian
Linguistic capacity was present in the Homo sapiens population 135 thousand years ago Frontiers in Psychology (2025) 16 DOI: 10.3389/fpsyg.2025.1503900

Copyright: © 2025 The authors.
Published by Frontiers Media S.A. Open access.
Reprinted under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International license (CC BY 4.0)

It appears that the evolution of language in humans followed a familiar evolutionary pattern. Genetic mutations, including those affecting the FOXP2 gene—which influences brain development and vocal control—provided cognitive advantages, opening new opportunities for natural selection. This genetic foundation set human evolution onto a new trajectory, much like how feathers, originally evolved for insulation or display in dinosaurs, eventually led to powered flight in birds.

In contrast, simplistic explanations—such as the Bible's depiction of Noah's descendants rapidly diverging into different languages (Genesis 10–11), or a deity magically imposing language barriers to thwart human cooperation at Babel (Genesis 11)—reflect limited imagination and a profound misunderstanding of how closely related languages evolve geographically.

Today, science provides a coherent and evidence-based explanation, emphasizing gene-culture co-evolution and language divergence within geographically dispersed and partially fragmented human populations.

---

Advertisement

Amazon

Amazon

Amazon

Amazon

Amazon

Amazon

Amazon

Amazon

Advertisement

Thank you for sharing!

Tweet Link