Thursday, June 12, 2014

More Fake Evidence for Evolution: Jawless Fish

Scientists are touting new evidence for Darwinian evolution, this time riding the fins of the ancient jawless fish Metaspriggina. This supposedly 500 million year old fish (remember, all dating is purely speculative) grew to be two inches long, and did not have jaws.

This new fossil discovery is being hailed as the precursor to the jawbone; thanks to this new discovery, they say, we can learn what animals had before the jaw evolved.

This is one of those times where evolutionists say they have proof of evolution. But this doesn’t prove evolution at all.

A jawless fish only proves that there once was a fish that had no jaw.

Proof of evolution would be transitional fossils—commonly called missing links. A fish with a partial gill system, partial jaw system would support Darwinism. Of course, nothing like this has ever been, nor will ever be found.

Even more damaging to the victory of this discovery is the fact that, still today, jawless fish exist; hagfish and lampreys are both jawless. If jaws are proof of evolutionary progress, why do hagfish and lampreys not have them? And why do all other animals (the ones supposedly older than 500 million years) have jawbones?

This is the exact opposite of proof. 

The reality is God created a diverse animal kingdom, and the more we learn, the more we should stand in awe of our magnificent Creator.


Anonymous said...

When did you know that creationism was the right choice for you? I find it too hard to not want to seek answers for things that we humans don't understand yet. God I've seen is an answer for people that don't have one or don't want to look.

How do you explain bacteria evolving? It constantly evolves to survive. Look at the flu it's constantly changing or mersa which is mostly immune to antibiotics. Also you don't seem to like the scientific community very much. I would like to know why if you don't mind.

I apologize if this sounded rude or came out that way. I've read your site for awhile and this article made me want to comment. Also sorry for my English it's not that great. Hope to hear your thoughts.

Tommy Mann said...

Thank you for your comment, and don’t worry about your English.

I have no ill feelings towards the scientific community; Darwinian evolution is not science and should not be considered part of the scientific community. Science must follow the scientific method; science must let the facts lead us to the conclusion. Evolution starts with the conclusion they so desperately want to prove (the Big Bang), then works backwards to find facts to support it. They interpret every new find (like the jawless fish) as proof for evolution instead of looking with an open mind. That isn’t science, and all scientists should stand up and protest their methods.

As far as bacteria, the flu, and MRSA, that is a great example of microevolution, or minor changes within its kind (which the Bible has taught for centuries). That happens all the time. Darwinian evolution, or macroevolution, is changing from one species to another. That has never happened.

Creationism is not what I landed on because I don’t want to look for real answers. I’ve read dozens of books on evolution, much as I have studied world religions, cults, and Christian denominations. Yes, I have been in the Christian church since I was in second grade, but I never blindly accepted anything. I’ve spent my life searching for the truth, and just like Lee Strobel and James Macdonald, after looking at all the options on the table, I have concluded that the Bible is the greatest book ever written, and Yahweh is the one true God.

This blog is not just me hurling insults at evolutionists. My book Who is God? pits the God of the Bible against the gods of other religions, including the religion of evolution. I think you might enjoy that book.

Thank you again for your comment, and I hope this answer helps.

crosskeysmom said...

Thank you, Tommy, for clearing up another confusion about evolution! One of the greatest hindrances to understanding is unclear definitions. Most people are like "Anonymous" and don't understand the ideas of macro- and micro-evolution.

Anonymous said...

What biological or logical barriers prevent microevolution from becoming macroevolution? Micro evolution is used to refer to changes in the gene pool of a population over time which result in relatively small changes to the organisms in the population. Simply put, evolution is the result of changes in genetic code. The genes encode the basic characteristics a life form will have, and there is no known mechanism that would prevent small changes (microevolution) from ultimately resulting in macroevolution.

Tommy Mann said...


There is one barrier--the fact that it hasn't happened. You can argue for this change, but your augment only proves that you have no evidence. If you had proof, that would be the silencer.

According to the Bible, written thousands of years before Darwin's theory, "God said, 'Let the earth bring forth living creatures after its kind (Genesis 1:24).'"

Every shred of science in the universe upholds this verse. Everything produces after its kind.

If you can find a transitional fossil or a missing link, let them speak. Otherwise, the record is clear. Microevolution happens, but macro cannot and will not.

As I said before, any unbiased person would have to side with the Bible on this one. Science doesn't ask, "what barriers prevent this?" Science looks at the evidence and draws a reasonable conclusion. Science fiction is not a reasonable conclusion.

Thank you for your comment.

Anonymous said...

All dating is purely speculative??? How are you sure???

Tommy Mann said...

All dating is purely speculative. The dating of the geologic columns was totally arbitrary, and has been taught so long that it is assumed true. In your email you asked me about radiocarbon dating. Carbon (C14) dating is known to be unreliable, and scientists will frequently test a sample multiple times until they get their desired result.

Nitrogen and Carbon are next to each other on the Periodic Table. Nitrogen has an atomic number of 14 and Carbon has a weight of 12. Sunlight frequently knocks the Nitrogen down to 12, thus boosting the Carbon to 14, and throwing off Carbon Dating. It is the epitome of junk science.

Peter said...

Actually a good picture of this transitional animal. Where did you find the picture? I'm interested in where the picture comes from.

"Science looks at the evidence and draws a reasonable conclusion. " In this case, the evidence is Metaspriggina and its reliable dating, and the reasonable conclusion is that this is the form of ancestors of fish in the cambrium.