New Fossil: Transitionary Link Between Fish and Land Creatures?

Recently Yahoo News!, CBS, and others declare, “Scientists have caught a fossil fish in the act of adapting toward a life on land, a discovery that sheds new light one of the greatest transformations in the history of animals.”[1] This fossil, the coelacanth, “is a large fish, some 150 cm long, covered in thick scales reminiscent of armor. It belongs to the Osteichthyes class, and the earliest fossils from it are found in strata from the Devonian Period (408-350 million years). Up until 1938, a great many evolutionist zoologists assumed that the coelacanth walked on the sea bed using its two pairs of double fins, and that it represented a transitional form between land and sea creatures. As evidence for this they pointed to the bony structure of the fins in the coelacanth fossils to hand at the time.” [2]

As in the Gospel of Judas, the media wishes us to believe that this fossil is a new find. In fact, it is not new. It has been cycled through the system for some time now. The assumption here is that this fossil is a transistionary link for the evolutionary theory of fish evolving to land dwelling creatures. This leads the evolutionist to believe that humans derive from this as well and assumes to affirm macro evolution.

The April 2003 edition of Focus magazine (a magazine affirming evolution) heralded this fossil as well, yet to their demise because the coelacanth actually refutes evolution. “A development in 1938, however, totally overturned this intermediate species claim. A living coelacanth was caught in the waters off the Republic of South Africa! Furthermore, study of this animal, believed to have disappeared at least 70 million years ago, revealed that coelacanths had undergone absolutely no changes at all for 400 million years.”[3]

In addition, in 1966 a coelacanth was frozen immediately after it was caught. Later scientists found that the coelacanth had shark blood. Focus Magazine said that this was an “evolutionary difficulty”.

The coelacanth is classified as a “living fossil” and is a “baffling enigma to evolutionists…These are creatures alive today which are identical to fossilized (sic) forms, believed to have lived ‘millions of years ago.’ Examples include the coelacanth fish (fossil coelacanths are believed by evolutionists to be 340 million years old), Gingko trees (125 million years), crocodiles (140 million years), horseshoe crabs (200 million years), the Lingula lamp shell (450 million years), Neopilina molluscs (500 million years), and the tuatara lizard (200 million years).”[4]

Evolutionists are left “baffled” by this mysterious fossil and others which have never “evolved” or experienced change. Doesn’t this defy the term “evolution” which implies that things “evolve”? Yes! As Christians there is no enigma, there is no mystery about “living fossils”. God’s Word tells us that these creatures were made to be fruitful and multiply after their kind, the Word says nothing of evolving into humans. In modern species there has been little or micro changes. These changes are normal. Dogs have changes colors and sizes yet they still remain just that—a dog.

Evolutionists cling to these mirages of hope for their cause ad nauseum. They do so at the sacrifice of their intellect, it is only to maintain the untenable declarations that there was NO creator, just the evolution of a species coming from primordial soup! Alas, therein is the rub! Humanity, fallen humanity, does not desire to be accountable to God. When they admit there is a God, they will understand He has a book. And that book—the Bible—makes demands.


[1] http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060405/ap_on_sc/landfish_fossil
[2] http://www.darwinism-watch.com/focus_0304.php
[3] http://www.darwinism-watch.com/focus_0304.php


Anonymous said...

Such a refutation as this, coming from a blog named "Evidential Faith"??? What the heck has the internet come to. Man, I came here looking for cockroach fossils. Cockroach fossils!

Bob Dole said...

- "This fossil, the coelacanth" -no, the fossile is not a coelacanth. Sentence two and there are already outright lies.
This is what they found, named Tiktaalik:

This is a coelacanth:
They are not the same

- "coelacanths had undergone absolutely no changes at all for 400 million years" - completely false. There is not a single coelacanth (a genus, not a species... just as tiger and lions are both felines) fossil of this species... The coelacanth fossiles do show changes over time.
This: http://www.oocities.org/capecanaveral/lab/9056/coelacanth.gif
Is different from this: http://www.dinofish.com/cimages/backbrown1.jpg
Which is different from this: http://mail.colonial.net/~hkaiter/earth_science_images/Caridosuctor_duo-1.jpg
Which is not the same as this: http://vertebrates.si.edu/fishes/coelacanth/indonesia_coelacanth_2.jpg

- "Later scientists found that the coelacanth had shark blood. Focus Magazine said that this was an “evolutionary difficulty”" - by shark blood, they mean it stores urea in its blood. Considering Urea production is found in sharks, land animals, and lungfish, this is not a problem at all. Focus magazine is either misquoted, or wrong... who quotes that magazine as an authority on science anyway?

- "These are creatures alive today which are identical to fossilized (sic) forms,"
As seen in the pictures above, this is completely false

- "Evolutionists are left “baffled” by this mysterious fossil and others which have never “evolved” or experienced change."
As seen above, they do change

- "Doesn’t this defy the term “evolution” which implies that things “evolve”?"
They did change, so no defiance.

In short... this article is a bunch of lies.
Therefore, this article is a violation of the 9th commandment that prohibits lying.


Adversus Trinitas

"...unless you believe that I am he you will die in your sins." (John 8:24 ESV)