When biologists found hybrid sharks in Australian waters, lead researcher Jess Morgan told Discovery News, “This is evolution in action.”1
What did he mean by “evolution”? A University of Queensland news release and other articles about the sharks used words such as “adapt” and “hybridization” to describe the changes they saw.2 But these refer to mere variations of already existing features and have nothing to do with vertical evolution.
If “shark evolution” actually means “shark variation”—where interbreeding sharks can develop either larger or smaller bodies, for example—then the observations can fit either the creation or the evolution model. But what if it means that sharks evolved from non-sharks? Those who believe that story will have a difficult time believing the Bible, since the Bible does not allow for the millions of years that nature would supposedly need to build a shark from some other fish.
Evolutionists have written just such a story. Their tale begins with a curious group of fish called the Acanthodians, which was supposedly the shark’s evolutionary ancestor. But one fish expert very recently noted:
Acanthodians remain as one of the most enigmatic of all ancient fish groups, about which we have the least amount of anatomical knowledge and few real clues to their affinities with other types of fishes.3
Perhaps there is an advantage in claiming that sharks evolved from fish with such a little-known anatomy, since it would make any evolutionary story more difficult to refute. In other words, because of the lack of information about Acanthodians, the claim that these fish gave rise to sharks is an argument from the absence of evidence….
Continue Reading on www.icr.org