When examining the archaeological record, it reveals that tools used by the first humans weren’t just practical innovations. They were expressions of something deeper, something that sets us apart from every other creature on Earth.

While the phrase “evolution of tools” often gets used to support evolutionary theory, we’d like to offer you a different perspective. The story of prehistoric tools actually points to evidence of God’s special creation of humanity, revealing our spiritual nature as beings made in his image.

The journey from simple stone tools to modern technology isn’t just about increasing complexity. It’s about the emergence of symbolic thinking, creative expression, and spiritual awareness that appeared suddenly and dramatically with true humans.

This perspective aligns perfectly with the biblical account of Adam and Eve, showing how science and Scripture work together to tell the same remarkable story.

We All Use Tools

The use of all tools shows the ability to plan ahead and solve problems. This remarkable trait appears in both animals and humans, though in very different ways. God created both animals and humans with this ability, but humans were given a far greater capacity to create, innovate, and express purpose through tools.

Animals create and use tools at a basic level.

The use of tools is actually widespread in the animal kingdom:

• Sea otters use flat rocks to crack open clams and shellfish, turning over on their backs in the water to use their bellies as anvils.
• Dolphins use sea sponges to protect their snouts during foraging, carefully selecting the right size and shape for their needs.
• Crows craft hooks from twigs to fish out insects, showing remarkable problem-solving abilities.
• Octopuses carry coconut shells as armor, demonstrating forward planning.
• Herons use various items as bait to catch fish, showing they understand cause and effect.
• Elephants use branches to swat flies away, modifying natural materials for their needs.
• Capuchin monkeys select specific stones to crack open nuts, choosing the right tool for the job.

This use of tools among animals drives home an important point. Tool use isn’t a defining feature of God’s image. In fact, the tool used by chimpanzees is comparable to the tool use of some hominins like Homo habilis and Homo erectus.

Humans create and use tools at a complex level. We’ve developed spears, hammers, crossbows, tractors, telescopes, computers, and countless other innovations. But what truly sets human tools apart isn’t just their complexity.

While some animals show cleverness, only humans show advancement. We refine and innovate tools generation after generation. The same stagnation we observe in animal tool use also appears in the hominin record. Neanderthals were on Earth longer than modern humans have been, but their technology remained essentially unchanged.

Our technology has exploded from primitive to sophisticated in a remarkably short time. There must be something to explain this difference. We believe it’s the image of God reflected in our symbolic capacity.

When Did Humans Start Using Tools?

Before we answer this question, we need to define our terms carefully. In scientific circles, the word “human” can mean different things depending on what you believe about our origins.

In this article, the word “human” is used with precision. We don’t use it to describe every primate creature with upright posture or a large brain. Instead, “human” is reserved for the descendants of Adam and Eve. These are beings who aren’t just biologically advanced but also spiritual image-bearers of God.

Some scientists refer to extinct hominins like Homo habilis or Neanderthals as “early humans,” but we see those beings as merely animal primates. They were biologically impressive animals, but not truly human in a theological or spiritual sense.

Humans are us, the descendants of the first two humans, Adam and Eve. We’re spiritual beings uniquely created in the image of God and distinct from all other creatures. Though biologically classified as Homo sapiens, humans aren’t the result of evolutionary processes, and we’re much more than our biology.

We’re a distinct creation, specially made with inherent dignity, value, and purpose. Some refer to us as “modern humans” to suggest we evolved from earlier species, but humans didn’t evolve from animals. We were created with spiritual capacity and moral responsibility from the beginning. Our unique identity shows up clearly in the archaeological record.

Hominins are a group of extinct primate species like australopithecines, Homo habilis, Homo erectus, Neanderthals, and others that appear in the fossil record. They share some physical similarities with humans, but hominins are nonhuman creatures.

They were biologically advanced animals created by God but were not spiritual beings made in his image. While they may have used crude tools or displayed limited intelligence, they’re not considered part of the human lineage in a theological or spiritual sense.

Neanderthals represent a specific type of hominin, created by God with impressive cognitive and physical capabilities, but still not fully human. Neanderthals were intelligent creatures capable of tool use, limited culture, and maybe even some crude symbolic behaviors. But they ultimately lacked the image of God.

They were still alive when Adam and Eve were created but went extinct shortly afterward. Neanderthals weren’t our ancestors, though some interbreeding with humans may have occurred on a biological level.

Now we can answer the question properly. From the time of their creation around 130,000 years ago, humans (Homo sapiens) have used tools. But unlike the simple tools of earlier hominins, human tools show creativity and symbolic purpose.

The archaeological record shows an explosion of innovation when the first true humans appear. Sophisticated hunting weapons, finely crafted blades, sewing needles, musical instruments, and even tools used to create art all appear suddenly. This sudden cultural advancement reflects far more than survival. It reveals a spiritual capacity for beauty, planning, and symbolic thought.

Human tool innovation appears abruptly and fully formed, consistent with the view that humans were specially created with intelligence, purpose, and the image of God. Before the appearance of humans, hominins created only crude tools. Even though they lived on Earth four times longer than humans have so far, their tool use remained unchanged and stagnant, showing no signs of advancement or innovation over time.

The hominin tool timeline tells this story clearly. Hominins began using tools perhaps as early as 3.4 million years ago. No stone tools have been discovered with australopithecines, but animal bones show signs of butchery. The australopithecines most likely used tools made from sticks, similar to what chimpanzees use today.

The habilines, such as Homo habilis, are traditionally considered the first makers of stone tools. These tools appear in the archaeological record about 2.6 million years ago and are known as Oldowan technology. (In archeology, “technology” simply means how tools were made and used—not to be confused with modern machines or electronics.)

These were flakes produced from a rock (called the core stone) that was hit with another rock (called the hammerstone). There’s some evidence that Homo habilis also used bones to make tools, in addition to stones.

Oldowan technology remained unchanged for nearly 800,000 years before it was replaced by a new technology associated with Homo erectus, called Acheulean technology. Acheulean tool making appeared around 1.76 million years ago and lasted until about 300,000 years ago when the erectines disappeared from the fossil record.

The tools of this era tend to be more symmetric and standardized. These hominins produced a range of different tool types including hand axes (teardrop-shaped tools), cleavers (large tools with broad, straight cutting edges), picks (used for digging or processing tough materials), and flakes (produced as byproducts that were deliberately used as smaller tools).

Mousterian technology is associated with Neanderthals. It appeared around 300,000 years ago until about 28,000 years ago. Mousterian technology was more sophisticated than Acheulean technology. Mousterian tools were prepared using a distinct method called the Levallois technique, which could be used to prepare a variety of tools from chipped flakes.

Crude Tools: What They Are and Why They Matter

Understanding crude or simple tools helps us see the dramatic difference between hominin and human capabilities. Crude tools represent basic functionality without refinement or symbolic meaning.

• Flakes and cores were small, sharp stone flakes chipped off a larger rock (core) and used for cutting meat or plants. These weren’t shaped or refined, just the result of a few strikes with another rock. 
• Choppers were rounded stones with one sharpened edge, used for smashing bones, cracking nuts, or chopping vegetation.
• Hand Axes were teardrop-shaped rocks with minimal symmetry, used for cutting or scraping. While slightly more advanced than flakes, early versions still lacked fine craftsmanship.
• Hammerstones were basic stones used to strike other materials, usually to create flakes or crack open bones. No handles or shaping were involved. 
• Digging sticks used by some hominins were simple wooden sticks used for foraging roots or insects. They weren’t carved or crafted, just selected and used.

What makes these tools “crude”?

What makes these tools “crude” is the lack of complex planning or standardization. They show minimal shaping, just a few strikes to get a rough edge. There are no handles or composite materials, no symbolic decoration or specialized functions.

We can tell the difference between genuine early human tools and Neanderthal tools in several ways. As previously mentioned, Neanderthals produced a distinct set of tools called Mousterian technology. Neanderthal tools were larger and more robust, formed using the Levallois technique.

Modern humans produced tools using a technique that involved chipping away smaller flakes with much greater precision. Modern human tools showed much greater variety than Neanderthal tools and were much more standardized.

One big difference relates to technological advancement. The tools made by Neanderthals were static. They didn’t change over the entire duration that Neanderthals were on Earth. The tools made by modern humans showed technological advancements, from primitive tools of the Upper Paleolithic to the sophisticated high-tech tools we use today. We also see clear, undisputed evidence of symbolism associated with modern human artifacts.

How Did Humans Drive the Evolution of Tools?

After Adam and Eve were created 130,000 years ago, we begin to see a sudden “explosion” of human culture. Art, language, music, and religious expression all appear together. Each of these points to a unique human ability to think symbolically, express deep meaning, and reflect spiritual awareness. No other creature possesses this ability, only humans.

This ability to use symbolism as creative and spiritual beings also sparked an unprecedented leap in tool innovation. It transformed the way humans designed and used tools.

What are some examples of symbolic behavior?

• Cave art provides powerful examples of symbolic behavior. Prehistoric tools were essential for creating these masterpieces. Stone scrapers prepared surfaces, hollow bones served as tubes for blowing pigment, and mineral-based tools created paints. Prehistoric tools made the artistic expression possible, but the art itself reveals symbolic thinking that goes far beyond survival needs.
• Burial practices show another dimension of symbolic tool use. Early human tools found in graves were often finely crafted and placed with personal ornaments or red ochre. These items were positioned with care, not just for utility, but to signify honor or belief in an afterlife. This behavior isn’t seen in animals. These tools demonstrate both symbolic intent and a leap in design complexity.
• Jewelry required specialized tools used by early humans for shaping, drilling, and threading. Shell beads and engraved pendants show a shift from basic tool use to refined craftsmanship with symbolic meaning tied to identity or status. The precision required reveals advanced planning and abstract thinking.
• Musical instruments provide perhaps the clearest evidence of symbolic capacity. Ancient flutes made from bird bones and ivory were carved with precision tools, showing a high degree of planning, creativity, and abstract thinking. The tools used by early humans to make instruments were as carefully designed as the instruments themselves. This provides further evidence of symbolic and spiritual expression.

The presence of symbolism in the archaeological record aligns perfectly with the sudden appearance of humans. This symbolic capacity isn’t found in earlier hominins or animals. Evolutionary biologists still can’t explain the origin of language, which represents the pinnacle of our symbolic capacity.

What Makes Human Tools Unique?

Several key characteristics distinguish human tools from those made by animals or hominins, revealing our special nature as image-bearers of God.

• Humans build on what came before. Unlike animals, humans don’t just make tools, we improve them over time. We’ve gone from sharp rocks to robots and rockets by learning from past generations. This cumulative improvement shows up nowhere else in the natural world.
• Humans plan ahead in remarkable ways. Human tools aren’t just made in the moment. We design them with specific purposes in mind, whether for farming, building, making music, or solving problems we anticipate in the future. This forward-thinking capacity reflects our ability to mentally travel through time.
• Humans use tools in the stone age and beyond for more than survival. Animals use tools mostly to get food. Humans do that too, often in much more complex ways, but we also use tools for art, worship, communication, and exploring the world. These uses show deeper meaning and imagination that transcends basic survival needs.
• Humans teach each other in sophisticated ways. Toolmaking isn’t instinctual or just copied through observation. It’s actively taught. Parents and teachers pass down knowledge so others can learn and improve upon it. This means our knowledge grows as a community, creating an ever-expanding base of technological capability.
• Some tools have deep meaning beyond their practical function. We use tools to express who we are or what we believe. Musical instruments and religious objects aren’t just helpful, they’re meaningful. A handmade cross, a paintbrush, or even a flag can carry deep symbolic value. These tools connect us to beauty, purpose, and something bigger than ourselves.
• This transformation started suddenly, according to the archaeological record. The leap in toolmaking didn’t happen slowly or gradually. When humans showed up, advanced tools appeared rapidly alongside art, music, and religious expression. It all points to something more than intelligence. It reveals our spiritual nature and the image of God.

This pattern continues today. While animal tool use remains essentially unchanged, human technology continues advancing at an accelerating pace. From prehistoric tools to smartphones and space shuttles, we see continuous innovation driven by our unique capacity for symbolic thought, creativity, and spiritual awareness.

The use of tools by early humans established patterns we still follow today. We create tools not just for survival, but for beauty, meaning, and connection with the divine. This reflects our fundamental nature as beings created in God’s image, designed for relationship with our Creator and dominion over the natural world.

Conclusion

The story of the evolution of tools reveals something remarkable about human nature. While Neanderthals may have made markings on cave walls and buried their dead, intentional activity doesn’t automatically carry meaning.

A dog may intentionally bury a bone, but it’s not creating a memorial or making a symbolic statement. It’s simply acting on instinct. The act is deliberate, but it doesn’t carry deeper meaning.

Human tools tell a different story entirely. They’re not just more advanced than animal tools, they’re meaningful. They show we’re more than clever animals. We’re creative, intentional, and spiritual beings designed to reflect the image of our Creator.

The archaeological record supports this view beautifully. Stone tools made by hominins remained essentially unchanged for hundreds of thousands of years. But when humans appeared, tool technology exploded with innovation, artistry, and symbolic meaning. This wasn’t gradual evolution, it was a sudden emergence of capabilities that reflect our spiritual nature.

From prehistoric tools to modern technology, we see consistent patterns of innovation, meaning, and spiritual expression that set humans apart from all other creatures. This supports the biblical account of special creation rather than gradual evolution from animal ancestors.

The post The <em class="algolia-search-highlight">Evolution</em> of Tools: A Sign of Human Origins appeared first on Reasons to Believe.

The very first verse in Genesis 1 tells us: “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.”

This opening to God’s Word declares that there certainly was a beginning and, therefore, a Cause (or Beginner) to the universe. Christians believe that God created everything and that God’s hand can be seen throughout all the amazing architecture in our natural world—from the smallest cell to the vastest galaxies and beyond.

But how did God create the heavens and the earth?

People have asked this question for thousands of years and have come up with many different ideas, including the theory of evolution.

Before we get into this topic, it’s important to remember that each person’s belief regarding evolution is a secondary issue in theology. Thankfully, no matter what your viewpoint is on evolution, it does not dictate if you are (or can be) saved by Jesus Christ. Yes, it’s an important and relevant topic, but it doesn’t impact our salvation.

As a curious person, you might be wondering . . .

Can Christians Believe in Evolution?

Christians can believe in a number of scientific concepts that aren’t explicitly outlined in the Bible, such as cells, molecules, photosynthesis, gravity, etc.

However, some scientific concepts—like evolution—can both align with and challenge the Christian worldview in different ways. When it comes to evolution, the question becomes: Which worldview best lines up with the evidence in nature and the truth of the Bible? Both will give us clues.

Christians hold different views when trying to understand how God created.

The three most common views are:

• Young-earth creationism (YEC)
• Theistic evolution / evolutionary creation (TE)
• Old-earth creationism (OEC)

Each view engages the topic of evolution differently, but all three accept at least portions of evolutionary theory. Reasons to Believe holds an old-earth creationism position and believes it offers the best explanation for what we see in the record of nature and the words of Scripture. RTB also remains skeptical of the extent to which the evolutionary paradigm explains the history of life.

But . . . What Exactly Is Evolution?

The concept of evolution emerged in the mid-19th century to help explain our ever-changing natural world. When it comes to the origin of the universe and life on Earth, evolution remains the predominant idea being taught in schools.

According to the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, the definition of evolution is “any change in the frequency of [gene variants] within a population from one generation to the next.” This means that any change in a living organism’s genetics from one generation to the next is within the realm of “evolution” (i.e., plants, animal breeds, eye color, etc.).

More simply put, evolution = changes over time.

The concept of evolution predates Charles Darwin. However, Darwin progressed and popularized the term “evolution” and the theory in connection to natural selection in the 1800s through his writings On the Origin of Species (1859) and The Descent of Man (1871).

Images from your high school textbook are probably coming to mind!

Darwin’s ideas led to something called the evolutionary paradigm, which many scientists use in an attempt to explain any biological change or even the emergence of life in the universe. The problem is, this paradigm is a mixture of proven concepts and unproven theories.

Let’s unpack it so you can clearly see which parts are well-supported by science and which ones are not.

Breaking Down the Evolutionary Paradigm

Within the evolutionary paradigm, there are five categories:

1. Microevolution: the idea that gene frequencies can change in a population (like peppered moths changing wing color in response to environmental pollution)
   
2. Speciation: the idea that one species gives rise to a closely related sister species (like the Galapagos finches changing into types of species via reproduction)
   
3. Microbial evolution: the idea that microorganisms can evolve (like bacteria acquiring resistance to antibiotics)
   
4. Chemical evolution/“origin of life”: the idea that molecules can self-organize into the very first cells via repetitive production (like simple chemicals assembling into complex molecular systems on early Earth)
   
5. Macroevolution: the idea that one major group can give rise to another group (like an ape-like creature giving rise to humans)

The first three categories are well-evidenced and noncontroversial. We see them working in our everyday lives when we go to the zoo or are given a flu vaccine at the doctor’s office. Many of us even take delight in microevolution when considering which dog or cat to choose as our beloved family pet!

But the last two, chemical evolution and macroevolution, are proposed concepts and lack full scientific rigor and support. This is why RTB remains skeptical of the full evolutionary paradigm.

Chemical evolution tries to explain how life on Earth began using only natural processes. The main idea behind it is that the basic building blocks of life—the “essential stuff” that’s loaded with detailed information (like DNA, proteins, and cells)—supposedly came together through natural processes, without any outside help. Scientists working in this field are hoping to find a way to explain how this could happen all on its own, to avoid the need for a miracle.

However, current evidence doesn’t support the idea of chemical evolution. Even with experiments in labs trying to recreate the conditions of early Earth, scientists can’t produce life without stepping in and guiding the process. This shows that natural processes alone might not be enough to explain how life started

In What Darwin Didn’t Know, biochemist Dr. Fazale “Fuz” Rana explains:

When we look at the origin of life, it seems that a divine hand is more likely than chemical evolution.

Macroevolution similarly falls short. There’s not enough data to support this idea. For example, macroevolution fails to explain:

• the sudden emergence of complex cells (the Eukaryotic big bang)
• the rapid diversification of multicellular organisms (the Cambrian explosion)
• the rapid diversification and expansion of numerous new species including fish, birds, and mammals (radiation events in vertebrate history)
• the sudden emergence of art, language, and technology (origin of social consciousness)
• And much more

Many supporters of macroevolution suggest that humans evolved from ape-like creatures through a line that may have included Neanderthals or Denisovans. In this model, scientists attempt to explain the origin of humans without the need for a Creator. But there’s not enough evidence to support human evolution, either.

Learn more about the evidence (or lack thereof) for microevolution vs. macroevolution and watch below to hear how Dr. Fazale Rana briefly responds to macroevolution:

So, to respond to the question “Do Christians Believe in Evolution?,” the simple answer is yes and no.

• Evolution, at best, can offer explanatory power for the development of much of the life we see on Earth. 
• Evolution, at worst, attempts to explain away a Creator who seems not only probable but necessary!

Evolution and the Bible

A similar question to the one above is: Can Christianity and evolution coexist? Earlier, we presented three common Christian views on the creation of the universe: young-earth creationism (YEC), theistic evolution (TE), and old-earth creationism (OEC).

Can a Christian hold any of these positions and embrace at least a form of evolution?

Young-earth creationism

Generally speaking, YEC rejects much of modern science concerning the antiquity (ancient nature) of the universe, Earth, and life’s history in order to fit a six 24-hour day reading of the Genesis 1 creation events. YEC would not be compatible with chemical evolution or macroevolution.

Without diverting from the primary purposes of this article, there are many robust biblical and theological reasons to question if YEC is the most accurate reading of Genesis 1–11 as well. We suggest exploring the days of creation or looking at how old the earth is according to the Bible.

Theistic evolution

Theistic evolution (also referred to as evolutionary creationism) accepts the scientific evidence for the antiquity of the universe, Earth, and life’s history and views the fossil record as a reflection of life’s history. But just as the name suggests, this view accepts evolution (including macroevolution), arguing that God created through evolutionary processes. Theistic evolutionists see no conflict between the evolutionary paradigm and Christianity because they believe the biblical creation account is symbolic or allegorical.

Theistic evolution also sees the Bible and nature as separate domains. Though adherents consider both to be valuable, they believe these realms should not necessarily be integrated.

Old-earth creationism

OEC accepts the antiquity of the universe, Earth, and life’s history, viewing the fossil record as a proxy (a representative tool for dating) for a real history of life on Earth. OEC expresses skepticism about the claim that all of biology can be explained as the outworking of evolutionary processes (think back to our conversation about chemical evolution and macroevolution). In other words, OEC would not be compatible with chemical or macroevolution.

Alternatively, this perspective argues that key transitions in life’s history require the Creator’s intervention. Features of biological systems seem to reflect intelligent design and the hand of an all-powerful Creator. OEC sees the Bible and nature as harmonious forms of revelation from God to humanity. When accurately interpreted, both sources point to the same truths since those truths originate from he who is truth.

Biblically speaking, the primary contention between TE and OEC is in regards to the mode of divine action. Does God intervene occasionally when he creates or does he create through natural processes alone?

Fazale Rana shares part of his testimony, why he believes OEC offers the best explanation for life, and why he does not subscribe to the TE position:

This is all well and good, but . . .

What Does the Bible Say About Evolution?

In Genesis 1, we read of key moments in the creation events. Eight times the text expresses that God spoke and then creation responded. Those phenomena include the appearance of light, separation of waters, land and sea, vegetation on the land, separation of day and night, creatures of the sea and air, creatures of the land, and, finally, man and woman.

It’s helpful to understand the verbiage of the original text of Genesis 1. The Hebrew verb bārā’ means “created” and is used three times in the chapter. In its basic form, it refers to only one subject—God—and refers to a type of creation that only God could do. It’s called creation ex nihilo or creation out of nothing. In chapter 1, this term is used when God creates the heavens and the earth, the sea creatures and the birds, and humans (Adam and Eve). In other places in the text, other verb forms are used for the act of creation such as: ‘āśâ (make, fashion, create, execute, manufacture); hāyâ (be, happen, come about); dāshā’ (sprout, bring forth, produce, or spring forth); and others. This means that there are at least three acts of special creation. One involves God creating from nothing (bārā’). A second points to other acts of creation where God’s hand guides the continued development of the earth according to the laws of nature that he had established (dāshā’). And in a third, ‘āśâ, God is directly and personally involved in his creative acts.

We can see this principle (of God’s intervention) demonstrated by findings in the fields of chemistry, biology, physics, and astronomy. A special hand of intervention from a Designer was needed to get the necessary elements for life (such as hydrogen, carbon, and oxygen). From there, other basic chemical structures would appear.

As revealed in geology, paleoanthropology, and biology, creation’s response to God’s divine action resulted in the proliferation and complexity of life. Otherwise, it would be impossible to get the diversity of creatures we see today in a short (from an evolutionary perspective) time.

Creation and evolution (God’s hand guiding continued development) together are fulfilling God’s plan. Evidence reveals the literal “spark” of creative action from God and the guided outflow of natural processes that continue his work. The result is an exquisitely designed, flourishing universe.

Also, Genesis speaks of the personal nature of God’s creation of humanity. The creation of humans is the only time that God creates “in his own image” (1:27) and with his “breath” (2:7). God then gives humans a commission (1:28). This account presents a significant challenge to the evolutionary paradigm since it implies that humans were a special creation, not a continuation of other evolved forms. For more information on the creation of Adam and Eve and the insufficiency of the evolutionary explanation, we recommend Who Was Adam?

How Should I Talk About Evolution with My Friends and Family?

Evolution is a complex subject with a long history and a variety of definitions.

Great conversations start with curious questions. Start by figuring out what your family or friends think “evolution” means and what categories they’re aware of. (For example, some people have no idea that microevolution and macroevolution are two very different concepts.)

Always define your terms—it helps everyone stay on the same page. And recognize that, as truth seekers, we want to follow the evidence.

If you express skepticism toward evolution, you can introduce a discussion based on wanting the “best evidence.” That approach will go much further than a hard statement or closed-minded attitude. If we believe “all truth is God’s truth,” we can be confident in this approach.

And remember, your friends and family may believe the rumor that the conversation is about evolution vs. faith. But you can help uncover the hand of God and separate fact from fiction.

To help you even further in this conversation, download our free ebook What Darwin Didn’t Know, where you’ll learn how 150 years of scientific advancements have impacted Darwin’s theory. Or, if you’re ready for a comprehensive deep dive into this topic, check out our online course, Creation vs. Naturalism, through Reasons Institute.

The post Can Christians Believe in <em class="algolia-search-highlight">Evolution</em>? appeared first on Reasons to Believe.

My Answer: We have several full-length, exhaustively documented books answering your question. Here is a very brief response:

There are many differing definitions for biological evolution. It is always a good idea to ask evolutionists what they mean by biological evolution.    

Evolutionists have a ton of evidence that life has existed on Earth for the past 3.8 billion years and that during those 3.8 billion years life-forms have become progressively more advanced. However, they lack evidence that the origin and history of life was strictly naturalistic. We demonstrate in our book, Origins of Life, that all conceivable explanations for a naturalistic origin of life fail to account for the observations and experiments. For an update on why the history of life on Earth requires many supernatural interventions, see our books Thinking about Evolution, Improbable Planet, and Designed to the Core.

The post Is There a Ton of Evidence for <em class="algolia-search-highlight">Evolution</em>? appeared first on Reasons to Believe.

Unfortunately, the toy designs turned out to be much more elaborate and complex than we imagined when we purchased them. And the assembly directions weren’t helpful. The instructions gave the impression that the assembly process involved a handful of easy steps. Oh, how misleading. 

Discovering LUCA’s Complexity
In the same way we struggled to assemble Christmas toys, evolutionary biologists have struggled to piece together a clear picture of life in one of its earliest forms—LUCA (life’s universal common ancestor). It now appears that LUCA was far more elaborate and complex than most evolutionary biologists had imagined. This conclusion comes from a team of collaborators from the US and the UK.¹

Estimating LUCA’s complexity is no easy task. Previous studies that relied on DNA—life’s instruction manual—were misleading and underestimated LUCA’s intricacy. Using a completely different approach to characterize LUCA—one that focused on its physiological features instead of the gene set encoded in its DNA—the international research team discovered that LUCA was perhaps more complex than contemporary bacteria and archaea. 

In the abstract of their paper, the researchers write: 

“Our results depict LUCA as likely to be a far more complex cell than has previously been proposed, challenging the evolutionary model of increased complexity through time in prokaryotes. Given current estimates for the emergence of LUCA we suggest that early life very rapidly evolved considerable cellular complexity.”² 

This insight has far-reaching scientific implications and challenges the mainstream perspective about the mode and tempo for the origin and early evolution of life. It also has implications for the design argument. And it confirms key predictions of RTB’s model for life’s origin. 

Before I describe this study and elaborate on its implications for various origin-of-life models, a brief bit of background might be helpful for readers unfamiliar with LUCA.  

The Last Universal Common Ancestor (LUCA)
The concept of LUCA is endemic to the evolutionary paradigm. In this framework, LUCA would have been a population of single cells at the root of the evolutionary tree of life.

Evolutionary biologists don’t regard LUCA as the first organism on Earth. They believe that cells existed prior to LUCA. They refer to these cells as progenotes. LUCA, however, represents the organism that evolutionary biologists think was the common ancestor that gave rise to all existing life-forms. Accordingly, LUCA produced the two major divisions of the evolutionary tree, Bacteria and Archaea. 

Figure 1: LUCA and the Tree of Life 
Credit: Wikipedia

At one time, evolutionary biologists entertained the possibility that LUCA was a collection of different organisms interconnected through horizontal gene transfer. More recently, life scientists have adopted the view that LUCA consisted of a single cell type.³ Yet, evolutionary biologists think that LUCA coexisted with a collection of other distinct cell types. LUCA was simply the cell type “lucky” enough to give rise to evolutionary lineages that persisted throughout life’s history. 

Determining LUCA’s Features
One of the abiding interests of evolutionary biologists is to identify LUCA’s characteristic features. This project has been shaped by two points of conviction. The first is that LUCA was a relatively simple, primitive cell. The second is the notion that cellular complexity would accrue gradually over a long time. Both convictions are influenced by evolutionary gradualism, where life progresses in a stepwise manner from simple life-forms to more complex. 

Support for this view seemingly comes from comparative genomics studies in which evolutionary biologists seek to identify LUCA’s gene set from the genes that are common to all bacterial and archaeal organisms. If LUCA gave rise to the evolutionary lineages that produced bacteria and archaea, then the common set of genes shared by these two groups of microorganisms must have contributed to LUCA’s genome. Estimates from these types of studies place the gene set for LUCA somewhere between about 350 to 1000 genes, depending on the study design. 

Other studies use model organisms to pursue the LUCA gene set. Operating with the presumption that LUCA must have been a simple, primitive cell, the model organisms selected are microorganisms with near-minimal genomes, such as parasites, endosymbionts, and microbes with streamlined genomes. 

These two approaches have technical limitations. (I don’t have the space to discuss them here.) They also don’t provide an adequate picture of LUCA’s morphology (shape, form) and molecular physiology. Part of the challenge arises from our limited understanding of how genotype (DNA) translates into phenotype (physical and behavioral traits)—even at the cellular level. 

New Insights into LUCA’s Complexity
To address these concerns (and others), the research team adopted a different approach by which they attempted to reconstruct LUCA’s cellular traits from evolutionary trees built using 28 traits distributed among 3,128 bacterial and archaeal species. 

From this analysis, they recovered 22 physiological and morphological features for LUCA. According to their findings, LUCA:

• Was actively motile (capable of movement)
• Had a single-cell wall
• Possessed a single-cell membrane 
• Contained a mixture of bacterial and archaeal lipids in the cell membrane 
• Was tolerant to salt water with less salinity than modern-day seawater
• Lived in high-temperature environments with temperatures above 70° C 
• Lived in waters with neutral pH values
• Lived in an environment devoid of oxygen
• Used inorganic materials as an oxidation source
• Was ovoid in shape

In technical terms, LUCA was a halotolerant, hyperthermophilic, chemolithoautotrophic, anaerobe. In lay terms, LUCA appears to have been surprisingly complex. 

Using morphological and physiological features to estimate LUCA’s features reveals complexity that wasn’t evident from the instructions found in the reconstructed gene sets. In fact, the genetic complexity required to support LUCA’s morphological and physiological complexity far outpaces the estimated complexity from reconstructing LUCA based on comparative gene studies. In fact, the research team discovered that LUCA possessed a genome that was about 2.49 million base pairs in size (similar in size and complexity to a typical bacterial genome). 

When Did LUCA Live?
One way to address this question about the timing of LUCA’s appearance is by studying the geological, geochemical, and fossil data. A preponderance of evidence indicates that cellular life unequivocally appears on Earth as early as 3.8 billion years ago. There is some evidence, though controversial, that life may have first appeared on Earth between 4.2 and 4.4 billion years ago. 

The fossil and geochemical evidence doesn’t tell researchers much about the characteristics of these early cells beyond size, overall shape, and some insight into their metabolic lifestyle. The evidence doesn’t pinpoint when LUCA existed. 

A research team from the University of Bristol (UK) sought to clarify this ambiguity by using a molecular clock analysis to locate key events in life’s early history.⁴ They conclude that eukaryotic cells first appeared around 1.8 billion years ago, bacteria and archaea appeared around 3.4 billion years ago, and LUCA showed up around 3.9 billion years ago. 

These findings cause consternation for gradualistic evolutionary models when Earth’s early planetary history is considered. Earth forms at 4.5 billion years ago. For the first few hundred million years, Earth must have been a molten planet. At the time, no crust would have existed on Earth and the water on the planet’s surface would have been steam in the atmosphere. 

Evidence indicates that by about 4.2 billion years ago, Earth cooled sufficiently for the formation of the crust and oceans to occur. Around 3.8 billion years ago, however, Earth’s relative calm was interrupted by the Late Heavy Bombardment (LHB), during which comets and asteroids pummeled the inner solar system planets. Controversy exists about the magnitude of the LHB. Some models have Earth returning to a magma world with oceans completely volatilized, once again becoming steam. In this scenario, any life on Earth would have been exterminated. 

Other models view the LHB as less catastrophic and suggest that only life on Earth’s surface was lost. Microbes deep in Earth’s crust likely survived. Still other models indicate that the severity of the LHB was limited. In these models, surface and subsurface life persisted through the LHB. 

It is remarkable to think that LUCA originated near the time of the LHB. At one extreme, if the LHB was severe, and LUCA either appeared before the LHB (and was subsequently exterminated) or right after the LHB, it leaves little time for chemical evolution to produce progenotes that, in turn, evolved the remarkable complexity displayed by LUCA. At the other extreme, if LUCA originated before the LHB and survived the series of impactors striking Earth, it still leaves little time for life to originate and evolve the complexity that characterizes LUCA. In the former scheme, the origin and evolution of life occurred over tens of millions of years. In the latter scenario, the most likely window of time for life’s origin and the evolution of LUCA is around 200 million years. Neither timescale fits mainstream thinking among evolutionary biologists. 

As the research team writes:

“Our results have the potential to push cellular complexity back to the very beginning of life. Barring the unlikelihood of panspermia, these results imply that complex phenotypic traits arose far earlier in the history of life than previously thought. . . . early life may have very quickly evolved considerable cellular complexity. We thus reveal LUCA as a potentially complex cell possessing a genetic code perhaps more intricate than many modern bacteria and archaea.”⁵

As I pointed out, these possibilities leave little time for a gradualistic evolution of the earliest cellular life. They also raise questions about how life could have evolved that level of cellular complexity so rapidly. 

The RTB Creation Model for Life’s Origin
While the latest insight into the complexity of LUCA fits uncomfortably within an evolutionary framework, it finds a place in our creation model. In Origins of Life, Hugh Ross and I present a biblically based scientific model for life’s origin.

Our model finds inspiration in the creation accounts found in the biblical text. It also adopts the perspective that a Creator played a direct role in the origin and history of life. 

One key feature of our model, if it’s valid, is that it makes predictions about what science should discover. (Details of our model and the ensuing predictions can be found in Origins of Life.)

Some of the germane predictions of our model regarding the complexity of the first life-forms include:

1. Life should appear early in Earth’s history. 
2. Life should originate under hostile conditions.
3. Life should originate rapidly.
4. First life should be complex.

The latest scientific findings about LUCA comport nicely with the RTB model for life’s origin. They also satisfy these predictions. In doing so, these advances give scientific credibility to the creation passages that pertain to early Earth and the origin of life. 

In short, the sudden, rapid, and early appearance of complex life is precisely the signature we would expect of a Creator and is indeed a response for the origin and early history of life. 

What could be simpler than that?

Resources 

• Origins of Life by Fazale Rana and Hugh Ross (book)

• The Cell’s Design by Fazale Rana (book)

RTB’s Creation Model for the Origin of Life

• “Origin-of-Life Predictions Face Off: Evolution vs. Biblical Creation” by Fazale Rana (article)

The Timing of First Life on Earth

• “When Did Life First Appear on Earth?” by Fazale Rana (article)

• “Now Hear This! New Evidence for Ancient Life!” by Fazale Rana (article)

• “Science News Flash: 3.7-Billion-Year-Old Fossils Perplex Origin-of-Life Researchers” by Fazale Rana (article)

• “What Does the Discovery of Earth’s Oldest Fossils Mean for Evolutionary Models?” by Fazale Rana (article)

The Late Heavy Bombardment

• “Insight into the Late Heavy Bombardment and RTB’s Creation Model” by Fazale Rana (article)

Life’s Minimum Complexity

• “Biochemists Ask, ‘How Low Can Life Go?’” by Fazale Rana (article)

• “Downsized by Design: Life’s Minimum Complexity Supports ID” by Fazale Rana (article)

• “More Complex than Imagined, Part 1” by Fazale Rana (article)

• “More Complex than Imagined, Part 2” by Fazale Rana (article)

Endnotes

1. Fouad El Baidouri et al., “Phenotypic Reconstruction of the Last Universal Common Ancestor Reveals a Complex Cell,” bioRxiv (October 10, 2021), doi:10.1101/2020.08.20.260398.
2. Baidouri et al., “Phenotypic Reconstruction.”
3. Douglas L. Theobald, “A Formal Test of the Theory of Universal Common Ancestry,” Nature 465 (May 13, 2010): 219–222, doi:10.1038/nature09014. 
4. Holly C. Betts et al., “Integrated Genomic and Fossil Evidence Illuminates Life’s Early Evolution and Eukaryote Origin,” Nature Ecology and Evolution 2 (October 2018): 1556–1562, doi:10.1038/s41559-018-0644-x. 
5. Baidouri et al., “Phenotypic Reconstruction.”

The post LUCA’s Complexity Challenges <em class="algolia-search-highlight">Evolution</em>ary Origin of Life appeared first on Reasons to Believe.

In June 2022, a team of University of Michigan biologists published an article called “Synonymous Mutations in Representative Yeast Genes Are Mostly Strongly Non-neutral.”¹ The words “strongly non-neutral” suggest far more than what happens in yeast genes—they carry significant implications for a scientific paradigm.

In fact, the authors claimed that 60 years of neo-Darwinism, aka the modern synthesis, has been challenged by the discovery that most “silent” (synonymous) mutations were not neutral but harmful. I’ll explain why, but first I’ll provide some background on the genetic code of life.

Codons and Amino Acids
The discovery of the genetic code in 1961 allowed scientists to learn how information in DNA molecules is translated into proteins, which are the working parts of living cells. Scientists noted that DNA had four nucleotides that “code” for 20 amino acids that make up proteins. Three-letter DNA units called “codons” code each of the 20 amino acids. DNA has 64 codon combinations for 20 amino acids (see figure 1).

Figure 1: Amino Acid Codon Table
Credit: Wikimedia Commons

Why was this the case? Why a “redundant” 64 to 20 “code” and not simply a 20 to 20 ratio? Molecular biologist Francis Crick, the codiscoverer of the DNA helix, said it was simply a “frozen accident,” meaning that the genetic code was not designed for optimality but was functional and became frozen in place (with the redundant codons) as the mode of genetic inheritance.

Mutations
Occasional errors in the genetic code, called point mutations, can be either “synonymous” or “nonsynonymous.” Synonymous mutations are “silent,” meaning that they don’t alter the protein sequences. Nonsynonymous mutations alter the protein sequences. The research team learned that redundant synonymous codons accommodate synonymous (the same) mutations with no change in amino acid production. They reasoned that “neutral” evolution protects organisms from too many mutations (hence, harm).

However, scientists now know that neo-Darwinian mutations and protein production do not adequately explain how organisms pass along fitness to survive. Other factors are involved in non-Darwinian adaptation.

If a mutation makes a nonsynonymous (not the same) codon, then a different protein is produced. This is how natural selection drives evolution. In support of this neo-Darwinian model, Crick proposed the central dogma of molecular biology, which is an explanation of the flow of genetic information within a biological system.

Figure 2: Central Dogma of Molecular Biochemistry
Credit: Wikipedia (author’s note included next to black arrows)

Does the Central Dogma Explain Genetics?
The central dogma proposes that the genetic flow of information is as follows: DNA makes RNA and RNA makes protein. The central dogma supports the nonsynonymous/synonymous neo-Darwinian model. It focuses on the “gene”-centric view of genetics with an oversimplification of the mechanisms at hand, mainly that the phenotype (protein) was entirely dependent on the DNA. On this view, we are reduced to our genes, and random favorable nonsynonymous mutations drive our destiny via natural selection.

The researchers measured the differences in protein production per the nonsynonymous/synonymous selective mechanism, and it seems to have verified their neo-Darwinian model. Yet, while true on one level, the central dogma does not account for numerous factors that the UM researchers (among others) discovered. The central dogma assumption of DNA transferring to protein doesn’t fully explain what happens in genetic mutations. Fitness and non-Darwinian adaptation have a role.

Other researchers have sequenced these mutations and derived simple formulas; for example, the Ka/Ks ratio of nonsynonymous to synonymous mutations, to calculate the strength of natural selection. Thousands of research efforts over the decades have used such methods that appear to support the notion that “natural selection did it,” meaning that natural selection randomly selected which mutations would be synonymous and which would be nonsynonymous.

However, many scientists, including me, doubted that so many favorable nonsynonymous mutations could perfectly line up over time. Simple probability worked against it.

Codon Bias
About 20 years ago, many researchers noted that synonymous codons were not random. Instead, they were “biased” in their usage. What this means is that the genetic codes of different organisms are often biased toward using one (and not others) of the several codons that encode the same amino acid. This observation was different from evolution theory assumptions that focused on protein production.² Now, this codon bias underpins fundamental research efforts in genetics, including the UM researchers’ findings.

So what changed over 60 years since the discovery of the genetic code and synonymous codons?

The metagenomic era began. Researchers developed inexpensive sequencing machines that resulted in massive DNA data for comparison. The codon bias was confirmed across all life. This confirmation promoted a race to discover why there are biased usages and to expand the question past the neo-Darwinian nonsynonymous/synonymous models, which yielded no firm answers to this question. In addition, strong computer models could measure not just protein output (per neo-Darwinism) but the “fitness effect” or non-Darwinian adaptation of these mutations on the organism.

It became evident that even though synonymous mutations produced the same protein, different synonymous codons via codon bias could change the organism’s fitness, as these biologists show in their yeast studies. These effects were seen not so much at the DNA level as the central dogma claimed, but at the RNA level. But this observation implies that there is another code outside of the central dogma and this code deflects attention from the “force” of natural selection. (I put “force” in quotes because many people treat natural selection as a force where it’s better qualified as a passive negative “filter.”)

It’s been discovered that there are numerous other steps between DNA and proteins affected by synonymous codons and that synonymous mutation can strongly affect them outside of the central dogma.

New Technique Shows High Rate of Harmful Mutations
At this point, scientists have ascertained that only measuring protein production by natural selection operating within with the central dogma and beneficial nonsynonymous mutations has left much to be discovered. Before this UM study, there had been several studies on synonymous mutations showing a range of adaptation effects, primarily deleterious.³

These UM biologists used a new tool. In 2000, the CRISPR/Cas9 system was developed. It allowed genetic engineering to achieve a level never contemplated. The team used it to induce mutations precisely to notice non-Darwinian fitness or adaptive effects, not just protein production.

They stated that one-quarter to one-third of protein-coding DNA sequence point mutations are synonymous. They quantified the fitness of each mutant strain by measuring how quickly it adaptively reproduced relative to the nonmutant fitness. Surprisingly, 76% of synonymous mutations were significantly deleterious (recall the words “strongly non-neutral” in the title), while only 1.3% were especially beneficial.

This high percentage of harmful mutations has significant implications for studying human disease mechanisms and evolutionary theory. If 76% of synonymous (silent) mutations are harmful to an organism, how have organisms survived?

The team concluded, “Since the genetic code was solved in the 1960s, synonymous mutations have generally been thought benign. We now show that this [neo-Darwinian] belief is false.”⁴

Since many biological conclusions rely on neutral synonymous mutations, their results have huge implications. They point out that synonymous mutations are generally ignored in the study of disease-causing mutations. This advance might require a rethink of genetics in medicine.

Does Evidence Point to Evolution or Design?
As important as this research is, was the biological team’s data met with accolades? No. After all, it stood to correct 60 years of evolutionary theory and possibly change genetics in medicine. Further, it explains new aspects of the “frozen” accident of the genetic code for the first time. Rather than a random accident, it appears that something else is responsible for freezing the genetic code in its universal form.

There’s been neo-Darwinian pushback. Biochemist Larry Moran claims, “the Nature paper failed to exercise the proper scrutiny of a report that contradicted many previous [neo-Darwinian] studies.”⁵

I would argue that Moran sidesteps the fact that Nature is the most respected journal in evolution and biology today. But it seems that from Moran’s perspective, the researchers committed the “unpardonable sin”—they questioned neo-Darwinian theory.

Interestingly enough, Darwin would most likely have agreed with the paper. He looked at natural selection at the fitness level, unlike the hardened gene-centric neo-Darwinian view. I don’t think Darwin would have been a neo-Darwinist.

Could it be that a 170-year quasi-religious commitment to natural selection caused evolutionists to stop asking important questions at the first discovery of the genetic code? Could the genetic code have been frozen for a reason? Could it have been designed for adaptation rather than as a mechanism of natural selection?

The Psalmist says, “How many are your works, Lord! In wisdom you made them all; the earth is full of your creatures” (Psalm 104:24).

I might add, “you made them able to adapt from the beginning.”

Endnotes

1. Xukang Shen et al., “Synonymous Mutations in Representative Yeast Genes Are Mostly Strongly Non-Neutral,” Nature 606 (June 8, 2022): 725–31, doi:10.1038/s41586-022-04823-w.
2. Inês Fragata et al., “The Fitness Landscape of the Codon Space across Environments,” Nature Heredity 121 (August 20, 2018): 422–37, doi:10.1038/s41437-018-0125-7.
3. Joshua B. Plotkin and Grzegorz Kudla, “Synonymous But Not the Same: the Causes and Consequences of Codon Bias,” Nature Reviews Genetics (November 23, 2010): 32–42, doi:10.1038/nrg2899.
4. “Study: Most ‘Silent Genetic Mutations Are Harmful, Not Neutral, a Finding with Broad Implications,” Michigan News, University of Michigan, June 8, 2022.
5. Larry Moran, “Are Synonymous Mutations Mostly Neutral or Are They Deleterious?” Sandwalk blog, August 23, 2022, https://sandwalk.blogspot.com/2022/08/are-synonymous-mutations-mostly-neutral.html?m=1

The post New Genetic Study Challenges 60 Years of <em class="algolia-search-highlight">Evolution</em>ary Theory appeared first on Reasons to Believe.

My answer: There are many. The origin of Earth’s first life, the origin of photosynthesis, the origin and proliferation of sulfate-reducing bacteria, the origin of eukaryotes, the origin of sex, the origin of cryptogamic soils, and the origin of the first large-bodied animals (the first and second Avalon explosions) are a few of the most outstanding pre-Cambrian challenges to naturalistic evolutionary models for the origin and history of life. In addition to these biological challenges, many features of the origin and history of the Milky Way Galaxy, the Sun, the solar system planets and asteroid/comet belts, the Earth, and the Moon must be fine-tuned to make the existence of life possible on Earth. For details and documentation see my book, Improbable Planet.

The post Are There Precambrian Challenges to Naturalistic <em class="algolia-search-highlight">Evolution</em>? appeared first on Reasons to Believe.

Factors Affecting Evolution
For terrestrial mammals, there are four important factors that determine whether a species will experience recognizable evolution in its morphology before it goes extinct. These are population size, population density, average adult body mass, and generation time.¹ Morphology refers to the structure, shape, size, organization, and development of the bodies and organs of individuals comprising a species. Generation time refers to time between the birth of an individual within a species and when that individual would typically reproduce. Population density is the number of individuals per unit area. The probability of a mammal species going extinct before any significant change in morphology occurs rises as the population size drops, the population density drops, the average adult body size increases, and the generation time lengthens.

Conservation field studies on mammals reveal that of the four factors the most significant is the effective population size of the species, which is the total number of individuals within a species that are able to reproduce. However, if the effective population is so widely dispersed that subgroups within the species have no contact with one another, then the extinction-determining factor is the effective population of the largest subgroup.²

Low Neanderthal Population Size
Neanderthal Tools
Neanderthals lived across southern and central Europe and in southwestern Asia from ~400,000 until 40,200 years ago.³ Analysis of recovered Neanderthal DNA, fossils, and tools and artifacts attributed to Neanderthals independently yield estimates of Neanderthals’ maximum population sizes throughout their existence.⁴ These estimates range from 1,000 to 70,000 individuals.⁵

Estimates above 10,000 are based on the number of tools and artifacts discovered. These estimates, however, assume all the tools and artifacts were manufactured by Neanderthals. They also assume the sample size of recovered tools and artifacts is largely incomplete.

Most of the tools and artifacts have been found in or near caves. If Neanderthals lived in small, isolated groups and sought caves for shelter, the sample size of recovered tools and artifacts may be more complete than estimated. Also, many of the “tools and artifacts” may have been natural, not manufactured at all. Some may, in fact, have been made by modern humans. Therefore, the estimates based on tools and artifacts are overestimates.

Neanderthal DNA
Analysis of Neanderthal DNA shows pervasive inbreeding, Allee effects (diminished cooperative hunting and tool manufacture; random, large variations in sex ratios that make finding a mate difficult), and stochasticity (chance environmental catastrophes).⁶ Such inbreeding, Allee effects, and stochasticity indicate the total Neanderthal population rarely exceeded 10,000 individuals and never exceeded 15,000 individuals. Furthermore, it reveals that these individuals must have been divided into small, isolated, inbred groups that were widely separated from one another.⁷

A measure of the degree of inbreeding occurring among Neanderthals and Denisovans (a hominid that is thought to have diverged from Neanderthals) is their low level of heterozygosity. For both species only 2 of every 10,000 nucleotides differ between two copies of a chromosome. Such low heterozygosity implies effective population sizes (number of individuals capable of breeding) of no greater than 5,000 individuals.⁸

Evidence indicates Neanderthals’ effective population remained low throughout their ~360,000-year history. As shown by a team of 18 geneticists and anthropologists, “Patterns of mtDNA protein evolution are consistent with the notion that the effective population size of Neandertals was small and not only among late Neanderthals but over a longer period of their existence.”⁹

Neanderthal Habitat Range
Anthropologists have discovered Neanderthal fossils ranging from Britain to Gibraltar to Siberia and to Mesopotamia. Neanderthals’ habitat encompassed about 26 million square kilometers (10 million square miles), which translates to a population density of only 0.0002 individuals per square kilometer (0.0005 per square mile)! For comparison, the least densely populated independent nation today, Mongolia, has 2.07 humans per square kilometer (5.4 humans per square mile).

Implications of Low Long-Term Population Size
There is no reliable DNA data for hominid species predating Neanderthals and Denisovans. Nonetheless, the fossils and artifacts attributable to them indicate their effective population sizes were likely even smaller than they were for Neanderthals and Denisovans.

As noted, the probability for evolutionary change within a species is proportional to the species’ long-term effective population size and inversely proportional to the species’ average adult body mass and average generation time. With long-term effective population sizes less than 10,000, with body sizes in the tens of kilograms, and with generation times of several years, there is no natural possibility for premodern human or hominid species to experience any significant change (evolution) in their morphologies or genomes before going extinct. These outcomes are affirmed by the lack of any observable changes in the fossils of these species. For example, the oldest Neanderthal fossils look the same as the most recent. Likewise, the oldest Homo erectus fossils look the same as the most recent.

According to the Bible, the human species began with just two individuals, Adam and Eve. It is probable, however, that God created Eve with genetically diverse eggs. Therefore, inbreeding would not have been a problem for the first several generations of Adam and Eve’s offspring. Unlike the Neanderthals, Denisovans, and earlier hominid species, the human population multiplied quickly. Humanity’s long-term effective population grew into the millions and now into the billions. Hence, humans, at least so far, have escaped the extinction crises that plagued the preceding bipedal primate species.

Given that the hominid species predating modern humans were incapable of manifesting any significant natural evolution, the hypothesis that modern humans, Neanderthals, Denisovans, Homo erectus, and the other hominid species are descended from a common ancestor is no longer scientifically viable. They must all be the product of special creation.

Endnotes

1. J. P. Hilbers et al., “An Allometric Approach to Quantify the Extinction Vulnerability of Birds and Mammals,” Ecology 97, no. 3 (March 2016): 615–626, doi:10.1890/14-2019.1.
2. Elise Eller, John Hawks, and John H. Relethford, “Local Extinction and Recolonization, Species Effective Population Size, and Modern Human Origins,” Human Biology 76, no. 5 (October 2004): 689–709, doi:10.1353/hub.2005.0006.
3. Wil Roebroeks and Marie Soressi, “Neandertals Revised,” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, USA 113, no. 23 (June 6, 2016): 6372–6379, doi:10.1073/pnas.1521269113.
4. Kay Prüfer et al., “The Complete Genome Sequence of a Neanderthal from the Altai Mountains,” Nature 505, no. 7481 (January 2, 2014): 43–49, doi:10.1038/nature12886; Fabrizio Mafessoni and Kay Prüfer, “Better Support for a Small Effective Population Size of Neandertals and a Long Shared History of Neandertals and Denisovans,” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, USA 114, no. 48 (November 28, 2017): E10256–E10257, doi:10.1073/pnas.1716918114; Jean-Pierre Bocquet-Appel and Anna Degioanni, “Neanderthal Demographic Estimates,” Current Anthropology 54, no. S8 (December 2013): S202–S213, doi:10.1086/673725.
5. Bocquet-Appel and Degioanni, “Neanderthal Demographic Estimates”; Mafessoni and Prüfer, “Better Support for a Small Effective Population.”
6. Krist Vaesen et al., “Inbreeding, Allee Effects and Stochasticity Might Be Sufficient to Account for Neanderthal Extinction,” PLoS One 14, no. 11 (November 27, 2019): id. e0225117, doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0225117; Prüfer et al., “The Complete Genome Sequence.”
7. Mafessoni and Prüfer, “Better Support”; Krist Vaesen, Gerrit L. Dusseldorp, and Mark J. Brandt, “An Emerging Consensus in Palaeoanthropology: Demography was the Main Factor Responsible for the Disappearance of Neanderthals,” Scientific Reports 11, no. 1 (March 1, 2021): id. 4925, doi:10.1038/s41598-021-84410-7; Frederico Sánchez-Quinto and Carles Lalueza-Fox, “Almost 20 Years of Neanderthal Palaeogenetics: Adaptation, Admixture, Diversity, Demography and Extinction,” Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences 370, no. 1660 (January 19, 2015): id. 1660, doi:10.1098/rstb.2013.0374.
8. Mafessoni and Prüfer, “Better Support.”
9. Adrian W. Briggs et al., “Targeted Retrieval and Analysis of Five Neandertal mtDNA Genomes,” Science 325, no. 5938 (July 17, 2009): 318–321, doi:10.1126/science.1174462.

The post Neanderthal Population Size Challenges <em class="algolia-search-highlight">Evolution</em> appeared first on Reasons to Believe.

The post Did God Or <em class="algolia-search-highlight">Evolution</em> Create Plants on Creation Day 3? appeared first on Reasons to Believe.

The post Meteorite Protein Discovery: Does It Validate Chemical <em class="algolia-search-highlight">Evolution</em>? appeared first on Reasons to Believe.

The post The Argument from Beauty: Can <em class="algolia-search-highlight">Evolution</em> Explain Our Aesthetic Sense? appeared first on Reasons to Believe.