Why Science Works - And Creationism Fails - A Fossil From Mongolia Changes Scientific Minds, But Creationists Will Just Ignore It

AI-generated impression of life in the Cretaceous Gobi. The mammal in the foreground is a generalised small mammal, not Tamirkhan balcarceli, for whom there is insufficient data for a reconstruction

ChatGPT-6 Astra

Field photos of the Khugenetsavkhlant badlands in the Eastern Gobi Desert of Mongolia today, where Tamirkhan balcarceli was discovered.

Michael Novacek/© AMNH

Gobi Fossil Reshapes the Mammal Family Tree | AMNH

One of the most revealing differences between science and creationism is what happens when new evidence challenges an established explanation. In science, that is an opportunity to improve our understanding. In creationism, where the conclusion has already been declared unquestionable, it becomes a problem to explain away. A remarkable fossil from Mongolia’s Gobi Desert provides a particularly instructive example: a small mammal whose combination of teeth, skull and limb bones has prompted scientists to reconsider an enduring hypothesis about mammalian evolution. Predictably, there is no comfort here for anyone hoping that revising an evolutionary family tree means abandoning evolution.

The animal, Tamirkhan balcarceli, is described in a paper in Nature by Andres Giallombardo and colleagues. Discovered in 2004, the exceptionally informative specimen preserves a skull and part of a hind limb. This provides something researchers had previously lacked for the enigmatic mammals known as zhelestids: teeth and substantial skeletal remains belonging to the same individual.

Until now, zhelestids were known principally from teeth and fragmentary jaws. Their relatively low, rounded molar cusps resembled those of plant-eating hoofed placental mammals, encouraging suggestions that they represented an early radiation of placentals during the Cretaceous. The new fossil tests that interpretation against a much broader sample of anatomy. Its zhelestid-like molars occur alongside distinctive incisors, skull structures and hindlimb features characteristic of another ancient mammalian group, the zalambdalestoids. The researchers conclude that zhelestids belong within that group. Their apparently revealing resemblance to later herbivorous placentals arose through convergent evolution.

The significance extends beyond moving a name from one branch of a family tree to another. Identifying which ancient mammals belong within the placental radiation helps establish when that radiation began and how its early members diversified. An animal can possess teeth resembling those of a later group without belonging to that group: similar feeding demands can favour similar dental adaptations in separate evolutionary lineages. More complete fossils allow researchers to distinguish those similarities from the wider anatomical evidence of ancestry. This discovery therefore changes how an important set of Cretaceous fossils contributes to the history of placental origins; it does not, by itself, settle every question about their timing.

For young-Earth creationists, the chronological problem remains as severe as ever. This is a Late Cretaceous mammal, part of a world that existed tens of millions of years before the few thousand years into which they attempt to compress the history of Earth and its inhabitants. Revising its evolutionary relationships does nothing to bring that world within the biblical timetable. Nor does a previously mistaken interpretation of its teeth supply evidence for separately created “kinds”. To establish that claim would require positive evidence of separate creation, not merely the discovery that one proposed relationship needs correction.

Refuting Creationism - Fossils of Complex Cells In Australian Mudstone - From 1.7 Billion Years Before 'Creation Week'

Layers of 1.7 billion-year-old sedimentary rocks, Kakadu National Park, Northern Territory

Maxwell Lechte

Fossils of single-celled eukaryotic organisms with complex surface features such as extensions and plates.

Leigh Anne Riedman

Tiny fossils found in 1.7 billion-year-old mud yield clues to the evolution of complex life

For young-Earth creationists, some of the most troublesome evidence comes in the smallest packages. Microscopic fossils preserved in ancient Australian mudstones record organisms living approximately 1.75–1.4 billion years ago — an antiquity impossible to reconcile with the few thousand years allowed by a literal reading of the biblical genealogies. These organisms were already part of aLayers of 1.7 billion-year-old sedimentary rocks, Kakadu National Park, Northern Territoryn evolving biosphere more than a billion years before the supposed “Creation Week”. Their existence presents a chronological problem that no amount of argument about the meaning of “kind” can resolve.

These fossils are the subject of a paper in Nature, by Maxwell A. Lechte and colleagues, investigating the environments inhabited by some of the earliest known eukaryotes. Eukaryotes are organisms with structurally complex cells, typically containing a nucleus and specialised internal compartments; they include animals, plants, fungi and numerous microscopic organisms. Here, “complex life” refers to cellular organisation, not to miniature animals swimming through those ancient seas. Understanding these early cells helps explain the evolutionary foundations upon which much later forms of life depended.

Spot The Differences

This article is best read on a laptop, desktop computer

Readers will have noticed that I have been using ChatGPT to generate illustrations for my articles. Generally, the results are very good, but earlier versions had a habit of introducing anachronisms: Neanderthals accompanied by dogs and other livestock, for example, or Stone Age hunters carrying what appeared to be metal-tipped spears. Correcting these could become an amusing — and sometimes frustrating — exercise. Removing one error would introduce another, and the next attempt might restore the original mistake.

This time, however, something rather encouraging happened. For my previous article, about a Neolithic village in Serbia that archaeologists have re-examined, I asked ChatGPT to produce an impression of everyday life in the settlement. It generated an image, then identified an anachronism in its own output and produced a corrected version without my having to point out the problem. That does not mean historical inaccuracies are now a thing of the past, but it was a welcome example of checking and correction.

Naturally, this also presented an opportunity for a little fun. Below are the two images, side by side. Can you spot what does not belong in the image on the left? If you would like a helping hand — or simply want to cheat — click the button to reveal a nifty tool for comparing them.

AI-generated impression of life in a Neolithic Serbian village.

Creationism In Crisis - People Were Living In A Serbian Village From Before 'Creation Week' - The Archeology Shows No Signs of A Genocidal Flood

AI-generated impression of life in Neolithic Opovo

ChatGPT-6 Astra

A minimally invasive look into the late Neolithic

One recurring difficulty for young-Earth creationism is that people were apparently building communities before the Earth on which they built them had been created. At Opovo Ugar-Bajbuk, in present-day Serbia, archaeologists place the principal occupation of a substantial Neolithic settlement around 4850–4725 BCE. That is more than seven centuries before Archbishop Ussher’s famous creation date of 4004 BCE, and long before the supposed global Flood of conventional young-Earth chronologies. These people were inconveniently getting on with their lives before that particular biblical timetable allowed them to exist.

The settlement covered more than nine hectares, with up to 220 identified house structures across its development and an estimated peak population exceeding 700. This was a substantial community whose inhabitants could organise the labour needed to construct extensive enclosing ditches. The findings are reported by Fynn Wilkes and an international team in Archaeologia Austriaca.

There is another lesson here that creationist polemics routinely misrepresent: scientists revise their conclusions. Earlier investigations, based on a much more limited excavated area, had produced a picture of a smaller settlement, estimated at about five hectares. The new researchers returned with geomagnetic surveying, coring, systematic surface collection and targeted excavation, combining their findings with radiocarbon evidence. The resulting reconstruction changes our understanding of the settlement’s scale and development. Indeed, Ruth Tringham, who led the research project in the 1980s, is herself a co-author of the reassessment.

That is how scientific knowledge improves. Earlier interpretations remain open to testing, and better evidence produced by improved techniques and better technology, can require them to change. A revision does not make every alternative explanation equally credible, nor does it give an ancient religious narrative a free pass. In this case, the revised chronology still places the community centuries before Ussher’s proposed Creation Week. Changing the reconstructed size and history of a Neolithic settlement does nothing to rescue a timetable that places the creation of the entire planet after its inhabitants had already lived there.

The researchers also distinguish evidence from interpretation. House sizes suggest relatively limited differences in material wealth, while the enclosing ditches indicate an ability to coordinate substantial communal work. Those observations are consistent with a comparatively egalitarian community, but they cannot establish that everyone enjoyed equal status or that coercion was absent. Such qualifications express the limits of the evidence — precisely the limits that responsible scholarship should acknowledge.

Opovo therefore presents two related difficulties for biblical literalism: a human history that refuses to fit its preferred chronology, and a demonstration of how knowledge advances when conclusions remain accountable to evidence. Archaeologists can reconsider what they thought they knew about the settlement because their task is to discover what happened. The evidence is allowed to change the story. Creationism by contrast refuses to change the story and attempts to change the inconvenient evidence.

Creationism Refuted - Bats Evolved In Europe - 65 Million Years Before 'Creation Week'

New study reveals bats originated in Europe and rewrites the bat family tree | University of St Andrews news

Corynorhinus townsendii.

Credit: Elizabeth Clare.

Bats present creationists with a multitude of problems: firstly, there is the fact that they have a vastly more effective immune system than humans, so creationists need to explain why an omnibenevolent creator god would not give his favourite special creation, humans, the best available immune system. Secondly, there is the famous Bible blunder where, in most English language translations, bats appear to have been classified as birds (Leviticus 11:13-19) by the ignorant people who wrote it.

Now the facts have become even more difficult in the form of an awkward combination: remarkable adaptations that invite declarations of “design”, and an evolutionary history that researchers can investigate using evidence. Calling a bat a specially created “kind” explains neither its relationships with other bats nor when and where those relationships arose. Those are questions that require fossils, genomes and testable hypotheses.

Now, a major international study, published in Nature, has brought these questions into sharper focus. Researchers working within the Bat1K consortium assembled genomic data from 103 species, representing all 21 recognised living bat families, and combined this resource with anatomical evidence from 44 fossil bats. The university summarises their findings as pointing to a European origin for bats and mammalian powered flight around 65 million years ago — tens of millions of years before the supposed “Creation Week” of young-Earth creationism.

The research reconstructs a branching history of ancestry, migration and diversification. Its geographical model favours Europe as the ancestral region, followed by dispersal into Africa and subsequent expansion into other continents. These are historical inferences that can be tested and revised as further evidence becomes available.

The study also sheds light on echolocation: the ability to use returning echoes to detect surroundings and prey. The inferred position of the extinct bat Vielasia supports the conclusion that laryngeal echolocation — using calls generated in the voice box — arose before the diversification of the group containing all living bats. This places another celebrated bat adaptation deep within their evolutionary history.

Creationism Refuted - How Life Could Have Started On Earth 4.33 Billion Years Before 'Creation Week'

AI-generated impression of the Hadean Bombardment

ChatGPT-6 Astra

New Study Pinpoints When Early Earth May Have Become Ready for Life’s Chemistry - Planetary Science Institute

For creationists who depend on gaps in scientific knowledge, research into the origin of life presents a recurring difficulty: scientists keep finding ways to investigate those gaps. One question is when the early Earth became sufficiently stable for the chemistry preceding life to persist. Producing potentially useful molecules would have achieved little if repeated impacts then destroyed them. Before life could gain a foothold, its chemical ingredients needed somewhere they could survive.

A new study by Oleg Abramov and colleagues, published in Nature Communications investigates that problem using a three-dimensional model of impact heating. The researchers identify approximately 4.33 billion years ago as a particularly favourable time for persistent prebiotic chemistry. That places the proposed opportunity billions of years before the entire universe supposedly appeared in the chronology of Young-Earth creationism.

The emerging picture scarcely resembles a world prepared as a comfortable home for living things. Early Earth endured bombardment by asteroids, comets and leftover planetary building blocks. As that bombardment declined, regions of the shallow crust could remain cool enough for fragile molecules to persist. Around 4.4 billion years ago, the simulations begin to show environments that escaped subsequent reheating above the study’s specified threshold.

There is an interesting complication: impacts could also help create opportunities for life’s chemistry. Water circulating through heated, fractured rock can produce hydrothermal environments with sources of chemical energy. The researchers therefore sought an overlap between enduring cooler regions and continuing hydrothermal activity. Their proposed favourable window represents a changing balance between destructive heating and potentially useful geological activity, with no foresight required.

The distinction between opportunity and occurrence matters. This study does not demonstrate that life began 4.33 billion years ago, nor establish that an “RNA world” actually existed then. It constrains the thermal conditions under which such a proposed stage could have persisted. The date also depends on assumptions about bombardment: a lower estimate of the incoming mass moves the favourable window earlier, towards 4.4 billion years ago.

For creationism, the difficulty extends beyond the enormous timescale. An unanswered question about life’s beginnings is being broken down into physical conditions that researchers can calculate, compare and challenge. Uncertainty remains, but uncertainty supplies questions for further investigation; it supplies no evidence for a supernatural designer. Here, another part of the origin-of-life problem becomes a tractable question about the history of a changing planet.

Creationism Refuted - 'Jumping Genes' Create New Functional Genetic Information - No Magic needed.

Eciton vagans, with lava from a raided wasp nest.

By Geoff Gallice from Gainesville, FL, USA Spoils of the raid, CC BY 2.0, Link

Ants look back on an evolutionary story of success. The photo shows workers of the Asian weaver ant.

© Lukas Schrader

“Jumping genes” helped ants in their evolutionary triumph after the extinction of the dinosaurs

One of creationism’s favourite assertions is that evolution cannot produce “new genetic information” without an intelligent designer. What usually goes missing is a clear definition of information, an explanation of why known genetic mechanisms cannot generate novelty, or any evidence of the supposed designer doing anything. Meanwhile, evolutionary biologists continue to investigate the natural processes by which genomes change and organisms acquire new capabilities. A new study of ants provides another example of how productive that scientific approach can be.

As reported in Science Advances, an international team led by Dr Lukas Schrader has investigated the contribution of transposable elements, commonly called “jumping genes”, to ant evolution. These mobile DNA sequences can move or copy themselves within genomes. Their activity can be disruptive, but it can also supply material for evolutionary innovation. The research links their activity to the expansion of gene families, including those encoding the odour receptors so important to ants’ chemical communication.

The researchers compared genomes from 163 ant species, representing twelve of the sixteen living subfamilies. They identified independent bursts of transposable-element activity in the ancestors of major ant groups, preceding their rapid diversification following the Cretaceous–Palaeogene, or K–Pg, mass extinction approximately 66 million years ago. The findings support a connection between changes within genomes and the evolutionary opportunities created by a profoundly altered world.

The evolutionary significance is straightforward. A mass extinction changes the conditions under which survivors live: ecological relationships are disrupted, resources become available in different ways, and opportunities arise as ecosystems recover. A genetic variant that previously offered little advantage may become useful under these new conditions. Natural selection can then favour organisms carrying it. Neither the mutation nor the environmental upheaval needs to anticipate the outcome.

Nor does genetic novelty require a complete, finished gene to appear from nowhere. Duplication supplies additional copies of existing sequences, which can subsequently diverge; changes to the regulation and arrangement of DNA can also alter what an organism does. Calling the starting material “existing information” does nothing to prevent its descendants from acquiring new functions. The relevant questions concern what changed, how it changed, and what consequences followed—not whether creationists are willing to call the result “information”.

Here, the specific finding is an association between mobile DNA, expanding gene families and subsequent diversification. It should not be inflated into a claim that every extra receptor acquired a demonstrated new function, or that the asteroid impact directly produced particular beneficial mutations. Nevertheless, the study supplies evidence for a natural route connecting genomic change with evolutionary diversification, precisely where the creationist argument substitutes an assertion of impossibility.

For young-Earth creationists, there is the additional inconvenience of the timescale. This diversification followed an extinction event some 66 million years ago—thousands of times further into the past than their entire supposed history of the Universe allows. Ant evolution was already unfolding in a world unimaginably ancient by biblical standards. What emerges is a history of genetic change, environmental catastrophe and opportunities exploited by surviving lineages, without foresight or a predetermined destination.

Fine-Tuned Fallacy Exposed - Earth Fine-Tuned For Regular Mass Extinctions - Malevolence, Incompetence Or Nature?

AI-generated impression of the End-Permian extinction

ChatGPT-6 Astra

AI-generated impression of the End-Permian mass extinction.

UNM researcher helps uncover recurring climate regimes linked to elevated extinction risk | UNM UCAM Newsroom

One of the more ridiculous of creationist claims is that Earth was perfectly ‘fine-tuned’ for life by an omniscient, omnibenevolent designer. Ridiculous because a mere glance at the reality should tell them that natural disasters such as earthquakes, seismic activity and flash-floods regularly devastate huge areas and kill vast numbers of people. The rose-tinted view requires a remarkably selective reading of the planet’s history: admire the organisms alive today, but overlook the environmental upheavals that wiped out so many of their predecessors. A world capable of supporting life is not necessarily a world designed to protect it, and the geological record provides abundant evidence of that distinction.

New research, paper, published in Nature Communications, adds another dimension to this problem. An international team, including UNM palaeobiologist Corinne “Cori” Myers, examined approximately 539 million years of Earth’s history and identified five major, persistent ‘mega-climate’ regimes. Transitions between these regimes were associated with heightened vulnerability in the biosphere and elevated extinction risk. The history emerging from this analysis is one of prolonged climatic states punctuated by potentially dangerous reorganisations.

The study brings together carbon and oxygen isotope records, statistical analyses and a conceptual model of the interacting climate and carbon cycle. The researchers compared the environmental patterns with a measure of biological vulnerability incorporating fossil diversity and the rates at which groups appeared and disappeared. Their findings suggest that the consequences of an environmental disturbance depend partly on the state of the planetary system it affects: a perturbation can help push that system into a different regime, with serious consequences for its inhabitants.

This does not establish that every mass extinction had the same cause, or that each climate transition inevitably produced one. Volcanism, asteroid impacts and their associated environmental effects remain essential parts of the explanation. The study instead offers a broader framework for understanding why some episodes of disruption coincided with particularly severe biological crises. Its central finding concerns an association between changing climate–carbon regimes and increased vulnerability, rather than a single universal extinction mechanism.

For the creationist argument, however, the difficulty is plain. If Earth’s suitability for living organisms is to count as evidence of benevolent design, what are we to make of its capacity to become catastrophically unsuitable for organisms already living here? Invoking a designer’s concern for life while dismissing the destruction of entire evolutionary lineages is an exercise in choosing the evidence to fit the conclusion. Survival receives the credit; extinction disappears into the small print.

Creationism Refuted - The History Of Viticulture - Uninterrupted By A Global Genocide

AI-Generated image of wine-making in Iberia, 3000 Years ago

ChatGPT-6 Astra

Grape seeds from Huelva, Vitis vinifera L.

Image: Guillem Pérez Jordà.

Ancient DNA reveals that the first grapevines cultivated in the Iberian Peninsula arrived from the eastern Mediterranean 3,000 years ago

If fruit-bearing plants were created for human use by an omnipotent, omniscient god, why have humans spent thousands of years modifying them to suit our needs? Genesis 1:29 presents seed-bearing plants and fruit trees as divine provisions for humanity, yet agriculture tells a rather different story: people taking what nature supplied and, through cultivation and selection, producing crops better suited to their purposes. Grapevines provide another example of this gap between the claim of providential design and the biological history of our food.

Research published in Current Biology, traces part of that history through ancient DNA. An international team analysed 28 archaeological grape seeds from Iberia and Sardinia. Their findings indicate that cultivated vines of eastern Mediterranean ancestry reached Iberia approximately 3,000 years ago, associated with Phoenician settlement and trade. These were already domesticated plants, arriving in a landscape where wild grapevines also grew.

The imported vines subsequently crossed with local wild populations. This mixing contributed to the ancestry of traditional Iberian varieties, with characteristic lineages already identifiable in seeds from the fourth century BCE. Ancient DNA also revealed connections between medieval seeds and varieties preserved today. The record therefore contains both change and continuity: new combinations of ancestry alongside lineages maintained across centuries.

More worryingly for Bible-literalist creationist, the genetic evidence shows that viticulture (the cultivation and growing of grapes) has a continuous history from before 'Creation Week' through the mythical global flood and biological reset of Earth, right up to the present, with no evidence of interruption of either the culturally-inherited methods or of the grape varieties used.

This is a useful illustration of how evolution works. Populations do not have to acquire all their useful variation through new mutations arising on the spot. Reproduction can reshuffle existing variation, while interbreeding brings together genetic variants from previously separated populations. Cultivation then provides opportunities for people to retain and propagate plants with desirable characteristics. Human preferences influence which vines reproduce or are multiplied, but the inheritance and variation on which that selection acts are ordinary biological processes.

Refuting Creationism - Earth Fine Tuned For Catastrophe And Mass Extinction

AI-generated impression of a Yellowstone supereruption

ChatGPT-6 Astra

Yellowstone hot spring.

End of humanity? Blow-by-blow account of what would happen if the Yellowstone supervolcano erupted now

One of the more curious creationist claims is that Earth was perfectly designed for human life by an all-powerful, all-knowing and omnibenevolent creator. This comforting picture tends to concentrate on pleasant scenery, sunshine and things we can eat, while overlooking the planet’s considerable capacity to kill us. Yellowstone provides a particularly impressive example of what must be left out of the picture. It tends to be made by those fortunate individuals born to the relative comfort and security of a technologically-advanced society and it of course attributed to the locally-popular god.
Beneath the spectacular landscape of Yellowstone National Park lies a volcanic system whose history includes enormous explosive eruptions. Its most recent caldera-forming eruption occurred approximately 631,000 years ago — long before the supposed ‘Creation Week’ of young-Earth creationism. A comparable event today could devastate surrounding regions, spread ash across large areas of North America and disrupt the global climate, with serious consequences for agriculture. That is an extraordinary feature to include in a world supposedly engineered for our benefit.

None of this means Yellowstone is ‘overdue’ for a supereruption, or that such an event would wipe out humanity. As the US Geological Survey explains, volcanoes do not follow a timetable, and another catastrophic eruption at Yellowstone is by no means inevitable. Scientific accuracy matters here: the argument against benevolent design needs no assistance from exaggerated claims of impending doom. The existence and geological record of these hazards are quite sufficient.

The underlying problem for creationism is the difference between a planet on which humans can live and one perfectly arranged for human welfare. Our existence establishes the former; it does not demonstrate the latter. Evolution provides a straightforward reason why organisms possess adaptations to the environments in which their ancestors survived. It gives us no reason to expect those environments to remain safe, or the physical processes shaping them to take account of our needs.

An omnipotent designer, however, cannot be excused as an engineer forced to work within constraints beyond its control. If the planet’s life-supporting features are to be credited to deliberate benevolence, its destructive features also require an explanation. Pointing to the beauty of Yellowstone while overlooking the processes capable of devastating its surroundings is selective accounting. Invoking a mysterious divine purpose merely assumes the benevolence that the design argument was supposed to establish.

The creationist difficulty remains even without the worst-case details: a habitable Earth is not a promise of a hospitable Earth. Our protection from its hazards depends on understanding natural processes and acting on the evidence — a rather more useful response than assuming that everything was arranged with our welfare in mind.

How Science Works - Scientists Revise The Age Of Mammoth Fossils - But It's Even Worse News For Creationists

AI-generated impression of Columbian mammoths around the sinkhole trap

ChatGPT-6 Astra

The center of the sinkhole has thin laminated sediments and extensive bone galleries. We sampled near here for MS-16-4 and MS-16-5 using metal tubes.

Mahan SA, et al (2026)

Luminescence Data for the Mammoth Site, Black Hills, South Dakota 2016-19 | U.S. Geological Survey

Creationists who seize on revisions in scientific dating as evidence that scientists cannot be trusted might want to read this particular example to the end. A famous mammoth graveyard in South Dakota has indeed been reassessed, and its previously accepted age has been substantially revised. Unfortunately for young-Earth creationism, the revision moves it much further into the past. An age already incompatible with the biblical timetable has become an even greater problem.

In a paper published in Quaternary Research, Shannon A. Mahan and colleagues report new dates for the fossil-bearing sediments at the Mammoth Site in Hot Springs, South Dakota. Long associated with an age of approximately 26,000 years, the deposit now yields luminescence ages of roughly 160,000–232,000 years — around six to nine times that familiar estimate. These are dates for the surrounding sediments, rather than direct measurements of each mammoth’s death, but they place the assemblage in a substantially earlier chapter of the Pleistocene.

How can a fossil’s age change so dramatically? A scientific date is a measurement of a particular physical process. Its reliability depends on choosing suitable material, understanding what happened to it after burial, and checking the result against other evidence.

What was dated originally?

The mammoth bones lacked preserved collagen — the protein commonly used for radiocarbon dating bone. Researchers therefore analysed carbon in the bones’ mineral component, apatite. However, interactions with groundwater can alter that carbon after burial. The resulting measurement may reflect later chemical changes rather than the animal’s death, making ancient remains appear much younger. This is a problem with the sample’s history, not evidence that radioactive decay is unreliable.

What does luminescence measure?

The new study dated feldspar grains in the surrounding sediment. Natural background radiation gradually builds up a trapped-electron signal within these minerals. Sufficient exposure to sunlight empties those traps, effectively resetting the clock. After burial, the signal accumulates again. Measuring it, together with the local radiation dose rate, allows researchers to estimate the time since the grains were last exposed to light.

Does that date the mammoths?

It dates sediment burial, rather than an animal’s death directly. The connection depends on geological evidence that the bones and sediment accumulated together. At the Mammoth Site, the main feldspar results place the fossil-bearing deposits approximately 160,000–232,000 years ago, although the detailed chronology still requires refinement.

Why trust a revised date?

Confidence grows through independent checks, not through refusing to change an answer. Here, analyses at two laboratories and comparisons with earlier dating work exposed weaknesses in the accepted chronology. Further uranium-series dating is planned. Revising an interpretation when better evidence becomes available is precisely how science improves its account of the past.

Sources: Mahan and colleagues, Quaternary Research
Phys.org research report.

As described in Sandee Oster’s report for Phys.org, the site contains more than 60 mammoths, predominantly young male Columbian mammoths. The prevailing explanation is that a warm, spring-fed sinkhole became a lethal trap: animals entering the water could not climb back up its steep, slippery sides. Their remains accumulated in the basin. The earlier radiocarbon measurements were problematic because the bones lacked preserved collagen, leaving researchers to analyse bone apatite, whose carbon can be altered by interaction with groundwater.

The new investigation used infrared-stimulated luminescence dating of feldspar grains, with analyses undertaken at two laboratories. This estimates the time since sediment grains were last exposed to sufficient light to reset their dating signal. The researchers also identify thin sediment layers deposited by runoff entering the pond. Uncertainty remains over the detailed chronology, and further uranium-series work is planned.

For creationists, the awkward point is not merely the increased age. It is how the correction was made. Scientists questioned an established interpretation, investigated the limitations of the material previously dated, and tested the chronology using a different physical process. If dates were simply manufactured to produce predetermined answers, why expose the discrepancy and publish a substantial revision? Here, changing the answer is evidence that the answer remains accountable to observations.

Creationism Refuted - Relative Bone Strengths Adds More Evidence Of Human Evolution

Image: Cullen Townsend

On the right is a depiction of an early Homo human ancestor characterized by relatively greater bone strength of the femur in the thigh compared to the humerus in the arm. To the left is a depiction of an older human ancestor, Australopithecus, characterized by more equivalent strength in the bones of the arm and thigh.

Image: Cullen Townsend

Study of bone strength reveals new clues about human evolution | EurekAlert!

One of the persistent problems for creationism is that our ancestors left evidence of their existence millions of years before the supposed biblical “Creation Week”. Worse still for the claim that humans were created separately from the other apes, those ancestors possessed combinations of characteristics that make sense as stages in an evolutionary history. The creationist insistence that a fossil must be either “just an ape” or “fully human” cannot accommodate the very mixtures of ancestral and derived features that evolution predicts.

A new study published in Science Advances adds another piece to this picture. Led by Kristian J. Carlson of the Keck School of Medicine of the University of Southern California, the researchers examined CT scans of limb bones from seven fossil hominins, dating from approximately 3.7 million to 1.5 million years ago. By analysing the structure of their bone shafts, they estimated resistance to bending and twisting and compared strength across the limbs.
Bone responds to the mechanical loads placed upon it during life, so its internal structure offers clues to habitual activity. In the sampled Australopithecus individuals, relatively strong upper arms suggest substantial climbing, while the relationship between thigh-bone and shin-bone strength was more human-like. Early Homo, by contrast, showed relatively stronger thighs compared with upper arms, consistent with greater reliance on terrestrial walking. These findings support a change in locomotor behaviour, although seven individuals cannot establish every step or the precise pace of that transition.

The evolutionary significance lies in the combination. Upright walking could coexist with continued use of the trees: acquiring one capability did not require the immediate abandonment of another. An ancestor with this mixture was a functioning animal in its own environment, with no need to anticipate the anatomy or lifestyle of its distant descendants. Evolution has no destination, and modern humans were never a goal towards which these populations were consciously or inevitably progressing.

For young-Earth creationism, the chronological difficulty is equally stark. Even the youngest fossils examined are about 150 times older than a generously extended 10,000-year biblical chronology. Their bone structure provides evidence about how these individuals lived; their geological ages place those lives in a past that the creationist narrative simply does not allow. Together, they present a much more substantial account of human origins than an assertion that fully formed humans appeared by supernatural decree a few thousand years ago.

Refuting Creationism - A Day at Hengistbury Head and Millions of Years of Missing Biblical History.

Hengistbury Head, Dorset, UK

© Bournemouth University 2006 - 2026

I have just spent the day at Hengistbury Head in Dorset, where a visit to the coast brings you face to face with a history that young-Earth creationism cannot accommodate. It’s a place where creationists can take a stroll and see for themselves how far removed from reality the creation account in the Bible is.

Long before anyone made a flint tool here, let alone wrote the stories later collected into Genesis, the sediments beneath this familiar headland were accumulating in environments very different from those we see today.

Refuting Creationism - A Star Is Born - And Rewrites The Story Of The Origin Of Starfish

AI-generate impression of Yujingia glutenotunica.
(Colours and aspects of its living appearance are speculative)

ChatGPT-6 Astra

Artist's impression of Yujingia glutenotunica

Credit: Kaiyue He, et al

A star is born: half billion-year-old fossil rewrites the origin story of starfish | University of Cambridge

One of creationism’s favourite misrepresentations of the fossil record, promulgated By Stephen S. Mayer of the Discovery Institute, is that the Cambrian ‘explosion’ was a sudden creation event, when the major animal groups appeared without evolutionary ancestors, already equipped with their modern body plans. This depends on treating ‘rapid’ in the geological sense as ‘instantaneous’, and overlooking the transitional fossils that reveal how those body plans evolved. A newly described animal from China provides another awkward example for that narrative. And of course the existence of transition fossils themselves are a major problem for creationists who insist that they don't exist because their creation myth can't accommodate them.

Named Yujingia glutenotunica, this small, soft-bodied creature lived approximately 518 million years ago. As described by Kaiyue He and colleagues in their paper in Current Biology, its combination of anatomical features places it close to the common ancestor of two groups that now look remarkably different: the echinoderms, including starfish and sea urchins, and the hemichordates, including acorn worms. Together, these constitute the animal group known as Ambulacraria.

The fossils preserve a digestive tract and feather-like feeding tentacles, together with another set of appendages that may have anchored the animal to the seabed. Crucially, Yujingia possessed an elaborate feeding apparatus without a mineralised skeleton. Its anatomy therefore supports the evolutionary interpretation that specialised feeding structures preceded some of the defining features of later echinoderms.
This is what makes transitional fossils so informative. They need not resemble an animal caught halfway through changing into a modern species, nor must they be demonstrably the direct ancestors of anything alive today. They preserve combinations of characteristics that help scientists reconstruct the order in which evolutionary changes occurred. A fully functioning animal can be transitional in its anatomy: ‘transitional’ describes its relationship to other forms, not an inability to survive until evolution has finished building it.

Creationism Refuted - 55-Million-Year-Old Crocodile Eggshells From Queensland, Australia

AI-generated reconstruction of an early mekosuchine crocodilian beside a lakeshore nest in Eocene Australia

ChatGPT-6 Astra

AI-generated reconstruction of an early mekosuchine crocodilian beside a lakeshore nest in Eocene Australia.

ChatGPT-6 Astra

55 million years: Australia’s oldest crocodile eggshells found in Queensland

A major problem for young-Earth creationists is that so much of Earth’s history occurred millions or billions of years before their biblical chronology allows the planet to have existed. Fossils repeatedly confront them with evidence of animals living, reproducing and evolving in worlds that supposedly never existed. Dismissing this evidence as scientific incompetence or dishonesty does nothing to explain it. Nor does accusing researchers of manipulating dates become an acceptable substitute for evidence simply because the accusation is made in defence of the Bible.

The latest addition to this inconvenient record comes from approximately 55-million-year-old crocodilian eggshells found at Murgon in south-eastern Queensland, Australia. These animals were laying eggs more than 5,000 times further back in time than even a generous 10,000-year creationist chronology permits. The fragments are described in a paper in the Journal of Vertebrate Paleontology by an international team including Michael Stein of the University of New South Wales.

The oldest known crocodilian eggshells from Australia, they are attributed to the mekosuchines, an extinct group with a long evolutionary history in the region. These crocodilians belonged to a different branch of the family tree from Australia’s living saltwater and freshwater crocodiles. Their significance therefore extends beyond their inconvenient age: they help document an ancient crocodilian fauna that cannot simply be equated with the species inhabiting Australia today.

Eggshells also preserve information that bones and teeth alone cannot provide. Their microscopic structure offers clues to reproduction and nesting conditions; in this case, the researchers interpret the evidence as indicating nesting around the margins of an ancient lake. These tiny fragments therefore add another dimension to our understanding of how extinct crocodilians lived and interacted with their environment.

The broader evolutionary picture is one of branching lineages, ecological diversity and eventual extinction over immense spans of time. The eggshells contribute to that picture without, by themselves, revealing every evolutionary relationship or the precise identity of the animal that laid them. That distinction matters: science builds its explanations from what the evidence supports, while leaving room for further discoveries. None of that uncertainty reduces 55 million years to a few thousand.

Michael David Stein, a research associate in UNSW’s School of Biological, Earth and Environmental Sciences and a co-author of the paper, describes the discovery and its significance in an article in The Conversation, reprinted below under a Creative Commons licence and reformatted for stylistic consistency:

Creationism Refuted - Scientists Got It Wrong Again - But It's Still Bad News For Creationists

Life reconstruction of Dinodontosaurus isiyavamanda

By Gabriel Ugueto.
George, H., et al. (2026) (CC-BY 4.0)

Photograph of the outcrop at locality Z143 where NMT RB462 was collected

Photograph: K. Angielczyk.
George, H., et al. (2026) (CC-BY 4.0)

September: New species of 240-million-year-old prehistoric animal from Tanzania discovered | News and features | University of Bristol

Scientists have revised their understanding of some fossils once thought to include the oldest dinosaurs. Scientists getting it wrong and having to change their minds should be music to creationist ears — until they discover what the revision actually means. The animals concerned still lived hundreds of millions of years before the supposed ‘Creation Week’ of biblical literalism. A reassessment within the Triassic does nothing to squeeze the history of life into a few thousand years.

Creationists have an almost schizophrenic attitude towards science: On the one hand they claim scientists are not allowed to publish anything which doesn't conform to some assumed scientific orthodoxy; on the other hand they point to scientific disagreement and debate and scientists even changing their mind as evidence that science is unreliable. And they readily use a computer to inform the world via the Internet that science doesn't work, without the slightest appreciation of the irony!

The research, led by Hady George of the University of Bristol and published in the Journal of Vertebrate Paleontology, describes a new species of dicynodont from Tanzania: Dinodontosaurus isiyavamanda. Despite its name, this herbivore was a member of the mammalian evolutionary lineage, rather than a dinosaur. This discovery extends a genus previously known only from South America into Africa, around 240 million years ago.
<br

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

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

Various Internet sources

More dogs

Internet sources.

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

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

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

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

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

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

[caption]

[credit]

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

© Angélica Triana.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Unintelligent Design - How The Immune System Can Go Rogue And Cause Premature Ageing

AI-generated image

ChatGPT-6 Astra

Reversing hallmarks of rapid aging by silencing a cellular alarm system

Photo credit: Eitan Moses

How the Immune System Rewrites Rapid Aging

One of the difficulties creationists have with presenting the immune system as evidence of intelligent design is explaining why something supposedly designed to protect us so often contributes to our illnesses. A defence system that can turn the body's own damaged DNA into a trigger for further damage is hardly an obvious example of competent, benevolent engineering. It is, however, entirely understandable as a product of evolution: a collection of mechanisms favoured for their benefits, constrained by their history, and carrying costs that natural selection has never eliminated.

Research from the Hebrew University of Jerusalem provides a revealing example. In a paper published in Genes & Development, Marva Bergman and colleagues investigated how a DNA-sensing protein called cGAS contributes to disorders involving defective DNA repair; the body's response to genetic damage can itself become an important source of harm.

The underlying problem is straightforward. DNA appearing in the fluid surrounding a cell's nucleus can be a warning of infection. cGAS helps detect it and activates an inflammatory defence response. But the DNA need not belong to a virus: damaged cells can expose their own DNA to the same sensor. Consequently, an alarm that normally helps protect against infection can sustain inflammation even when there is no invading organism to fight. The response then risks damaging the very tissues it ordinarily helps defend.

The researchers modelled two human DNA-repair disorders, ataxia-telangiectasia and Bloom syndrome, in turquoise killifish, Nothobranchius furzeri. In the ataxia-telangiectasia model, disrupting the gene for cGAS partially alleviated reproductive defects, cellular senescence in the liver, and inflammation in the cerebellum. Several measures of genome instability also improved, consistent with cGAS having additional effects inside the nucleus, beyond its familiar inflammatory role.

There was, however, a crucial complication: losing cGAS in fish without the underlying repair defect made pathology and genome instability worse. This was therefore no demonstration that the immune system contains a universally dispensable component, nor a discovery that switching off one gene reverses normal ageing. The same protein could be beneficial or harmful depending on the biological circumstances.

That is precisely where the evolutionary explanation becomes useful. A sensor that responds to DNA in an unusual location offers a broadly effective means of detecting danger, but that signal does not identify the DNA's origin with certainty. Such a system needs safeguards and regulation, and its usefulness does not guarantee that those safeguards will work under every condition. Natural selection can preserve a mechanism whose overall benefits outweigh its costs; it cannot anticipate every future mutation or guarantee freedom from disease.

The study did not test the evolutionary history of cGAS, but its findings illustrate the kind of context-dependent compromise evolution produces. For intelligent-design advocates, the awkward question is why an allegedly perfect designer would make protection and self-inflicted damage so intimately connected. For evolutionary biology, the useful question is how that connection works—and whether understanding it can help us reduce the harm.

This is just one example of how the human body is not a work of perfect design, but the product of sub-optimal compromises constrained by contingent history and lacking in foresight, where additional layers of complexity are not hallmarks of intelligent design that creationists like to imagine, but of the need for controls and compensations for problems created by earlier iterations of the evolutionary cycle. Many more are explained in my book, The Body Of Evidence: How The Human Body Refutes Intelligent Design

Refuting Creationism - Bigamous Beetles Have Better Babies - Observed Evolution Over 15 Years

Red flour beetle, Tribolium castaneum.

By Udo Schmidt from Deutschland Tribolium castaneum (Herbst, 1797) CC BY-SA 2.0, Link

Red flour beetle, Tribolium castaneum

Source: Wikipedia - Public Domain, Link

How sex can help save species from extinction | UEA

One of the recurring claims of creationist apologetics is that mutations condemn living populations to relentless genetic deterioration — a supposedly inevitable decline which evolution cannot overcome. What this argument neglects is that mutations do not operate in isolation: selection influences which genetic variants pass to subsequent generations. Now, a long-running experiment with red flour beetles has provided direct genomic evidence that competition for mates can help remove harmful variants, leaving populations more resistant to extinction.

The research, led by Michael D. Pointer, of the University of East Anglia Department of Biological Sciences, described in a report in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the USA (PNAS), also addresses an interesting evolutionary question: why is sexual reproduction so widespread despite its considerable costs? Finding mates takes time and energy, competition can be costly, and reproduction requires contributions from individuals which do not themselves produce eggs. One possible compensating benefit is that competition for reproductive success helps prevent damaging mutations from accumulating.

The researchers tested this idea using populations of the red flour beetle, Tribolium castaneum, maintained under stronger or weaker sexual selection. After 156 generations, whole-genome sequencing showed that populations exposed to stronger sexual selection carried fewer genetic variants predicted to be harmful. Their overall genetic diversity, however, remained comparable. Selection had reduced the burden of damaging variants without a corresponding reduction in variation across the genome.

The distinction matters. Genetic diversity is often used as an indicator of a population’s prospects, but the amount of variation cannot tell us everything about its effects. In this experiment, the estimated burden of harmful variants was a better predictor of extinction under inbreeding than diversity alone. Populations could retain similar amounts of genetic variation while differing in their vulnerability to genetic stress.

Creationism Refuted - The Evidence That Wouldn't Be There If The Bible Were True - Climate Change Over 130,000 Years

AI-generated image showing sediment accumulating over time on an Australian lakebed.

ChatGPT-6 Astra

Getty Images

Australia’s ancient rainfall patterns more complex than previously believed – News

For creationists who attribute much of Earth’s sedimentary record to a single, year-long global flood, the difficulty goes well beyond explaining how so much sediment accumulated. They also need to explain why natural archives preserve evidence of changing environments over periods vastly longer than their preferred age of the entire Universe. Producing layers of mud is one thing; reproducing a dated history of changing climate is quite another.

A new study by Alexander F. Wall and colleagues, published in Quaternary Science Reviews brings that problem into focus. The researchers analysed 69 natural palaeoenvironmental archives from tropical Australia, collectively spanning the past 130,000 years. Their purpose was to reassess how the complexity of rainfall patterns changed through the last glacial cycle.

Their conclusion challenges the suggestion that rainfall became uniquely variable and geographically patchy during the Holocene, the geological epoch encompassing approximately the past 11,700 years. Older records generally preserve less detail, so their apparent simplicity may reflect the limitations of the surviving evidence. A blurred photograph does not establish that the landscape it depicts contained fewer features.

The relevance to creationism is straightforward, although testing the biblical flood story was no part of the researchers’ purpose, but like almost all science, they did that incidentally, simply by revealing the facts. A flood can erode older deposits, transport fossils and produce successive sediment layers. None of those observations, however, demonstrates that it can reproduce the chronology and environmental history reconstructed from natural archives. A credible alternative would have to account for the ages, the sequence of environmental changes and the differences between locations together. Simply labelling everything “Flood sediment” supplies no such explanation.

How We Know The Bible Was Written By Ignorant People - More Evidence From The James Webb Space Telescope.

IC 348, a star-forming region. It is blanketed in thick clouds of gas and dust, millions of kilometres across, that form swirling patterns. Bright stars are scattered throughout the clouds, with the densest cluster situated in the centre of the scene. Each is crowned with six long points created by the optics of the telescope’s mirrors. In the upper right, a couple of hidden stars blast out long, glowing jets of material.

ESA/Webb, NASA, CSA, K. Luhman, C. Alves De Oliveira, M. Zamani (ESA/Webb)

Webb reveals stunning panorama of star formation | ESA/Webb

No sooner do I show the comparison between the Bible's author's description of the universe with the reality science is revealing, than ESA/Webb produce another batch of images as though to reinforce the conclusion that the authors of the Bible were writing from a position of primitive ignorance.

So, I'm pleased to be able to share those images here so that fair-minded, objective people can decide whether the rest of the Bible should be read in the light of that understanding, and treated accordingly: