Evolutionary Fish Story

Evolutionists have the same facts as Creationists. What they choose to lack is an open mind that is willing to follow the evidence wherever it leads- including to the hypothesis that life on Earth is the result of the efforts of a super-intelligent Designer.

Time after time I see articles on the science sites which highlight discoveries that are claimed to be evidence for "how evolution shaped life". When viewed with an open mind, the discoveries usually either lend no support at all to the macro-evolutionary hypothesis or actually support Creationism. The latest example of this is an article on Science Daily which describes an amazing fossil. The fossil is of an ancient fish of a now-extinct type called placoderms. The recently discovered a placoderm fossil caught in the act of giving live birth. Since these creatures are dated around 380 million years old, it showed that the concept of live birth was, at the least, not a recent evolutionary development. They topped that though. The new fossil showed a mother and baby attached by an umbilical cord!

That is right, what scientists considered to be an evolutionarily advanced concept found in the most complex animal types alive today (placental mammals), was actually already tried in a very different kind of creature 380 million years ago. The article quotes Dr. John Long as saying the fossil confirms that "some placoderms had remarkably advanced reproductive biology. This discovery changes our understanding of the evolution of vertebrates".

Blindness! Christ said that he came that the blind might see, and so that those who think they see might become blind. The reproduction system is only "remarkably advanced" if you are an evolutionist. Creationist theories would predict that structures seemingly too advanced for evolution to explain would be found early in the fossil record. A Creator is not constrained to go from simple structures to complex ones. He can start with simple, complex, or a combination of both.

Creationist theory would also expect that the same complicated concept could be used in two very different types of creatures, even if one was not an evolutionary descendant of the other. The Creator is not limited to using the genes found in one type of creature to make its descendants. He can take genes used in twenty different types of creatures and combine them with custom genes to give familiar structures in a wholly new type of animal. Indeed this is often what we find. Humans have genes that they share with sponges and bacteria but are not shared with insects or other animals allegedly between humans and sponges on the macroevolutionary charts.

The problem with macroevolution is the evidence. Not only is the evidence for it lacking, much of the evidence plainly contradicts what we would expect to find if it were true and instead conforms to what we would expect to find if certain forms of Creationism were true.

But back to our fossilized umbilical cord in a primitive fish: Here we see a concept, an idea- the umbilical cord for a live birth- being used long before it supposedly "evolved" in the higher animals. The same idea is being used in two very different groups of animals- placoderms and placental mammals. Clearly, the placental mammals did not evolve their umbilical cords from a type of fish that was extinct long before the first mammals came along. Instead, the same idea is used in a very different context (type of creature). That screams out "Intelligent Design" of the creationist kind. The Designer took a concept, live birth with an umbilical cord, and plugged it in to placoderms. This complicated way of reproduction should not have shown up so early in the story if evolution alone were responsible. As advanced and complicated as it is, it was not the best reproductive solution for fish. The type of fish who used it went extinct. Later, the same idea is used in a context where it works better than the other methods.