Recent Articles

Darwinists’ False Speculation Regarding the Turbot

One important component of Charles Darwin’s theory of evolution by natural selection is “gradual development.” This refers to the hypothesis that living species turn into other entities by acquiring different forms through very small, consecutive changes. However, this hypothesis has never been proved by the realities of the fossil record, and in the period after Darwin the science of palaeontology has inarguably exposed the absence of the intermediate forms required the concept of gradual development. One of the loudest voices revealing the defeat of Darwinism at the hands of the fossil record is that of the Harvard University palaeontologist Stephen J. Gould, who states that the idea of the gradual development of living things is a fantasy:
These tales, in the just-so tradition of evolutionary natural history, do not prove anything. But the weight of these, and many similar cases, wore down my faith in gradualism long ago. More inventive minds may save it yet, but concepts salvaged only by facile speculation do not appeal much to me.[1] (our emphasis)
Darwin’s hypothesis of gradual development is a concept that needs to be kept alive ideologically for the sake of the materialist world view, even though it has been totally and openly discredited by the fossil record. For that reason, the evolutionist media make great efforts to conceal the collapse of Darwinism from the public in their reports of fossil discoveries by describing gradual development as a scientific fact backed up by many specimens in the fossil record.
Forty-five-million-year-old flatfish fossils described on the Science Daily news portal and published in detail in the British scientific journal Nature, were misused in that very light. The inability of the fossils in question to resurrect Darwin’s still-born hypothesis of gradual development is set out below, thus exposing the deception perpetrated by Science Daily.
45-million-year-old turbot fossils
The research, published in the 10 July, 2008, issue of Nature, reported on examinations by the Chicago University evolutionist biologist Matt Friedman of flatfish specimens in the collections of a number of European museums. Flatfish are an exceptional case because of one element in the facial symmetry generally observed in vertebrates. The adult’s eyes are located on only one side of the face and help the fish look for prey as it lies on the sea bed. In the larva period, the eyes are located normally on the right and left sides of the head, but in subsequent developmental stages one of the eyes “migrates” to the top of the head, passes the central line and takes its place next to the other eye.
Flatfish with this interesting development have another characteristics that makes the situation even more interesting. Observation of the earliest known specimens of these fish shows no asymmetry in their faces, and that the adults’ eyes are normally sited on the right and left sides of the head.
This difference between contemporary and fossil flatfish was raised again with the specimens published by Matt Friedman in Nature. Friedman re-examined fossil flatfish specimens added to museum collections many years ago and produced 3D anatomies with the assistance of computer scanning. During his research in museum collections in Great Britain, France, Italy and Austria, he identified a third situation in terms of eye symmetry. Although the eyes in these specimens were on different sides of the face, they were still asymmetrical and one of the eyes was closer to the upper part of the head.
Evolutionists interpret this as representing a “transitional form” between the old symmetrical form and the present-day one, and are trying to use it to support their theory that living things can turn into other life forms. Science Daily distorted the facts by referring to “fossil flatfish specimens filling the evolutionary missing link gap” thus depicting them as evidence for Darwinism.
Science Daily’s mistake of depicting variation as proof of evolution
Although evolutionists have found a fossil instance of intra-species diversity, the way they attempt to portray this as supporting the claim that the flatfish is a species that emerged by way of evolution is evidently specious. The difference in eye symmetry between modern and ancient flatfish forms does not reveal any biological novelty. If the flatfish really were a species that emerged through evolution, then during the 45-million-year period involved there should have existed a great many transitional forms with eyes or other organs showing that they had developed from other biological structures. These transitional forms would have existed in large numbers and have proved that the fish assumed its present form in stages.
However, evolutionists are unable to point to any other life form regarding the origin of the flatfish than the flatfish itself, and thus emphasise how much in the dark they are. Like all other fish species, flatfish reveal no signs of any gradual development since they first appeared on Earth, but always appear fully formed and exhibit a sudden radiation. Considering the comments in Nature magazine, the supposed evolutionary origin of the acanthomorph groups, which include flatfish, is clearly shrouded in darkness:
Inferring relationships between higher groups in this explosive radiation has proved difficult, and an unresolved bush persists. Documenting the origin of these clades is vital to understanding the roots of modern biodiversity, because acanthomorph fishes comprise nearly one-third of living vertebrate species. Stem representatives such as Amphistium and Heteronectes [the two fossils discussed in the paper] in the case of pleuronectiforms [flatfish] have yet to be identified for many acanthomorph clades, but their recognition might prove invaluable in delivering a stable hypothesis of interrelationships for this exceptional vertebrate radiation.[2]
As we have seen, the flatfish groups investigated in the paper emerge suddenly and fully formed in the fossil record, and evolutionists admit that they have no scientific hypothesis with which to account for their origin. This represents significant confirmation of the fact of Creation with regard to flatfish.
It will now be advantageous to reveal how fish groups in general refute the idea of gradual evolution, and thus expose Science Daily’s evolutionist distortion.
The origin of fishes refutes evolution
We need to be aware that all the different fish categories appear suddenly in the fossil record, and with no forerunners behind them. There are millions of invertebrate fossils, and millions of fish fossils, no nobody has ever discovered even a single transitional form fossil. Like the cartilaginous fish group that includes sharks, the origin of the bony fish group to which other species belong is a complete mystery to evolutionists. In a paper titled “The Evolution of the Lung and the Origin of Bony Fishes: A Casual Relationship,” the evolutionist palaeontologist Gerald T. Todd sets out the following despairing questions in the face of this reality:
All three subdivisions of bony fishes first appear in the fossil record at approximately the same time. . . How did they originate? What allowed them to diverge so widely? How did they all come to have heavy armour? And why is there no trace of earlier, intermediate forms?[3]

Scientific findings reveal that no evolutionary relationship can be constructed between different fish groups and that the anatomical designs of all these groups have remained completely unaltered in all the hundreds of millions of years since they were first created.

No matter what speculation Darwinists may engage in on this subject, there remains once absolute truth that refutes all their claims. The fish fossil discovered in China in 1999 dates back 530 million years. That refers to the Cambrian period, when various specimens of complex life forms suddenly appeared, and when representatives of 50 separate phyla, including all the 35 animal phyla known today, emerged with all their particular details. The fish fossil in question, discovered in the Chenjiang region of China, which contains the best preserved fossils from that period, proves that vertebrates existed fully formed with the same physical structures they have today, 530 million years in the past. This shows that fish emerged at the same time as the invertebrate sea creatures that constitute their supposed ancestors. All speculation around such a finding is meaningless and invalid.


Fish fossils reveal very clearly and distinctly that these life forms have never changed over the hundreds of millions of years since they were first created. This includes that flatfish group. The way that Science Daily carries evolutionist claims regarding diversity within flatfish, although the fossil record refutes gradual development, must be considered as an indication of the helpless position in which Darwinism finds itself.

 [1] Gould S.J., The Return of the Hopeful Monster, inThe Panda”s Thumb: More Reflections in Natural History,” [1980], Penguin: London , 1990, reprint, sf.158
[3] Gerald T. Todd, “Evolution of the Lung and the Origin of Bony Fishes: A Casual Relationship”, American Zoologist, Vol. 26, No. 4, 1980, p. 757

Check Also

Plos One Journal Finally Admitted: “Lucy Is Not An Ancestor Of Man, She Is An Ape”

The 3.2 million-year-old fossil discovered in Africa in 1974, popularly known as  “Lucy”, has been …

Bir Cevap Yazın

E-posta hesabınız yayımlanmayacak. Gerekli alanlar * ile işaretlenmişlerdir