The February 21, 2003, edition of Science magazine carried an article called "Separate evolutionary origins of teeth from evidence in fossil jawed vertebrates." Based on studies of a number of fish fossils from the Devonian Period, it was suggested in the article that teeth may have evolved at least twice. The aim of this paper is to set out the inconsistent aspects of this claim.
The February 21, 2003, edition of Science magazine carried an article called "Separate evolutionary origins of teeth from evidence in fossil jawed vertebrates." Based on studies of a number of fish fossils from the Devonian Period, it was suggested in the article that teeth may have evolved at least twice. The aim of this paper is to set out the inconsistent aspects of this claim.
Written by face and skull development researcher Moya Meredith Smith and palaeontologist Zerina Johanson, the article begins by considering the origin of the fish known as placoderms according to the theory of evolution. Placodermi is the name of order of jawed fish which disappeared during the Devonian Period (between 408 and 360 million years ago). This class is regarded in the imaginary evolutionary family tree as the ancestor of all jawed vertebrates. In the current evolutionist literature it is considered that these fish had no teeth, and that teeth only evolved after the jaw, and thus in the vertebrates which came after the placoderms. However, in the Science article Smith and Johanson state that they have encountered a situation, which changes this. The researchers go on to say that they have encountered real teeth containing dentine in certain fossils belonging to some groups of the arthrodira family of the order placodermi (Eastmanosteus, Gogopiscis gracilis, Compagopiscis croucheri). This represents a new dilemma for the theory of evolution, because it appears that an organ as complex as the tooth emerged in a period far older than evolutionists had hitherto believed. This, in turn, leaves evolutionists a far narrower period of time in which to engage in speculation regarding the so-called evolution of teeth, and thus represents an enormous quandary for the theory itself.
Another problem this new finding represents for the theory of evolution is that evolutionists are now obliged to maintain that teeth evolved not once, but two separate times. In their Science magazine article, Smith and Johanson claim that teeth appeared three or more times. This reveals that evolutionists, who in any case support a totally indefensible scenario (in other words the illogical claim that a complex design such as that in teeth could be the work of chance mutations), are now obliged to propose that this scenario actually took place many times.
Let us also recall here that evolutionists already face an insuperable dilemma when it comes to the origin of fish: it has been calculated that the fossil fish Haikouichthys ercaicunensis and Myllokunmingia fengjiaoa found in China in 1999 are some 530 million years old. That figure takes us back to the exact middle of the Cambrian Period, when just about all the known animal phyla emerged. The fact that the origins of fish stretch this far back - this discovery set them back in time by a further 50 million years - demonstrates that fish emerged at the same time as the invertebrate sea creatures which are supposed to have been their ancestors, which in turn deals a lethal blow to the evolutionary "family tree."
In short, the fossil research on the origin of fish represents an insuperable problem for the theory of evolution. The evidence continues to clearly show that the origin of fish and all other living things is not evolution, but creation.
