Evolution of sharks?

Question

The simplest living vertebrates, the cyclostomes (round mouths) have no jaws. But the next group on the evolutionary tree, the sharks and their friends, have them. Where have the bones that form the jaws come from, given that the lampreys and the chondrichthes had a common ancestor on whose basic (jawless) body plan the sharks were based?

Answer 1

Sharks are still around after 400 million years of non-evolution and the things that sharks supposedly came from are still around after 400+ years of non-evolution.

The truth is that scientists find some bones in the dirt and then try to line them up into an order of how they think that they evolved.

We could also wrongly do this with just about any set of similarly functioning things as the world is filled with things that have similar function but different designs.

For example

1. Knives, Spoons, Sporks, Forks

2. If I took the skulls of 25 humans from around the world still living to day, I could show an evolutionary progression, which would be an error.

3. A Tricycle, A Bicycle, A motor scooter, A Motorcycle, a car, a prop plane, a jet plane, a spaceship.

4. A dinosaur, a humming bird. (wait that one sounds pretty far fetched)

Truth is that God made a diverse set of plants and animals. He made each with similar things for similar function. He also, because of His creative majesty, made things completely dissimilar and specilized. For example

1. The Bombader beetle

2. The Glow worm

3 The Human (This was a unique creation, really special in Gods eyes)

4. The catipillar and the butterfly

5. The Duck billed Platypus

5. Basically Ad infinum (almost)

We see basic kinds of animal, which were all originally created with an imensely rich genitic code capable of quite a lot of variation, for example the earliest dog to a hound and a poodle.

These created kinds can never change into a completely new kind with mcompletely new information systems and organs. For example a banna will never turn into a tiger. A bacteria will never turn into a fish. A reptile will never turn into a peacock. An acorn will never turn into a crocodile.

The information is not in these creatures to make the other ones. It will also never accidentaly form in it. If scientists want to believe that it can happen or that it did happen long ago and far away, that is their religion and not part of science. It's called naturalism. Random changes to an informational system will never lead to an increase in complexity or specificity. That's the facts. That's the observable, testable, and mathematically probable facts.

Life does not spontaneously generate. If you want to believe that it does you better go back to the middle ages, This fact helped us come up with infectous pathologies. Before it was believed that the infections bacteria spontaneously generated in the wounds. Thanks to creation science this was proven false. Created life begets created life, or you can have mud, rocks, and sand. You may get a crystal or a snowflake from a first level physical force organization, but DNA and all of microbiology is not even close to that simple level of orginization.

Trust Jesus, He loves you and He wants to save you from your sins.

This world hates the light because their deeds are evil.

Answer 2

Every time I see that Jim guy answer something, he's completely wrong.

"Sharks are still around after 400 million years of non-evolution and the things that sharks supposedly came from are still around after 400+ years of non-evolution."

No, the sharks around today are NOT the same sharks that were around 400 million years ago, and neither are the lampreys.  Modern sharks are a lot more advanced than the first sharks, even the most primitive modern sharks like sleeper sharks are highly evolved from the original sharks.

It's stupid to say all we have are 'bones and dirt' to support evolution.  That's ignoring vast amounts of molecular evidence like DNA, which is the strongest evidence in support of evolution yet.

It an undeniable FACT that organisms evolve, this has been directly observed, only a person who is intentionally covering their eyes in ignorance could deny this.

"Life does not spontaneously generate."

No kidding.  *You're* the one who's asserting that it does.  'God snapped his fingers and life appeared' IS spontaneous generation.  Evolution, first of all, DOES NOT involve the appearance of the first life, if you were as familiar with this material as you pretend to be, you would know that is a completely different subject called abiogenesis.  Second, abiogenesis DOES NOT assert that life spontaneously generated.  that is the creationist model.

"Before it was believed that the infections bacteria spontaneously generated in the wounds. Thanks to creation science this was proven false."

No, thanks to a REJECTION of 'creation science' (an oxymoron in itself, as creationism is as far from science as one can get) we have understood germ theory.  It the creationist model that asserted disease was caused by evil spirits, and the cure was to let all the 'bad blood' out of the body, a practice that undoubtedly killed more people than the diseases themselves.

"Created life begets created life, or you can have mud, rocks, and sand."

The creationist model is the one that asserts man was made from dirt.  You're so backwards you don't even know what you're arguing for anymore.

Answer 3

Short answer: Gill arches in the fish's mouth.

Long answer: See website.

Edit: Bones and dirt?  BS!  We have genetics which just happens to fully support evolution and common descent.