The Turkish daily Hürriyet carried a report titled “380-million-year missing link found” in its 20 October, 2006, edition. The article dealt with the fossil fish known as Gogonasus discovered in Australia by the palaeontologist John Long. Gogonasus had bony structures on its fins and a deep hole in its skull that enabled it to breathe. Based on this anatomy, Long claimed that Gogonasus represented a missing link in the scenario of the transition from water to dry land.
Before moving on to the details of Gogonausus”s anatomy, it needs to be made clear that the idea of a transition from water to dry land is an unscientific myth. In order to prove this claim, evolutionists need to find the missing links to establish the supposed connection they claim exists between marine and terrestrial vertebrates. Aware of this requirement but unable to find the proof they have been looking for over the last century and a half or so, evolutionist scientists interpret certain fish fossils they found just as they wish. By speculating about various anatomical structures in fish fossils such as Gogonasus, they portray these as intermediate forms. Yet this speculation has no scientific validity. The anatomical structures appearing in living fossils definitively declare that living things have no intermediate form characteristics. The most striking example on this subject is the Coelacanth, for years the subject of propaganda depicting it as the greatest evidence for the transition between water and dry land, the anatomical structures in the fossil remains of which were deceptively interpreted by evolutionists, until the capture of a living specimen. It was realised that the living specimen captured was a bottom-dwelling fish with perfect features living at depths of up to 500 metres, and this dealt a major blow to all the Darwinist scenarios based on the Coelacanth of a transition from the sea to dry land. (For more detailed information click HERE)
The greatest inconsistency in Darwinists” claims regarding the transition from water to dry land is the profound anatomical differences between marine creatures and terrestrial vertebrates. Thanks to the lifting power of water, fish have no need for a strong skeleton to carry their weight. Their skeletons are light and relatively simple structures. On the other hand, a terrestrial vertebrate has a strong and complex skeleton to bear its body weight. Moreover, in contrast to fish, terrestrial vertebrates have an internal system for temperature regulation and water use (including such an exceedingly complex organ as the kidney). They breathe through lungs, rather than with gills as fish do. Therefore, it is both illogical to maintain and scientifically impossible for such a creature to evolve into another completely different life form as the result of countless changes that could not possibly have occurred.
The fact that animals are equipped with specific components in their bodies to perform specific functions, and bearing in mind that this organisation contains an extraordinary complexity even at the molecular level, reveals that living things are created by an Almighty and Omniscient Creator. There is no doubt that this Creator is Almighty Allah (God), Lord of the Earth and skies and all that lies between.
The First Element of Speculation: The Respiratory Cavity in the Skull
Gogonasus, employed as a tool in the theory of evolution”s entirely fictitious myth of a transition from water to dry land, is a fully-fledged species of fish, totally unconnected to life on dry land. Indeed, John Long, a Nature magazine writer who discovered the fossil, makes it clear that he himself accepts this by saying that “It”s definitely a fish. It”s got gills, it swims in water, and it”s got fins,”
Gogonasus was nevertheless widely reported in the media and used as a fictitious intermediate form by Darwinists. The reason for this is the presence of various structures identified in Gogonasus and bearing a resemblance to those in other life forms. This shows that the fossil in question belongs to a mosaic creature. (Mosaic life forms have characteristics belonging to different living groups. You can find more detail on the subject HERE.) However, no matter how much evolutionists seek to make use of these similarities, mosaic life forms represent no evidence for evolution in any way whatsoever.
Darwinists resorted to various propaganda techniques on the basis of two features of the mosaic life form in question. The first of these is a hole in the fish”s skull opening onto its gills. This structure was described as “the first stage of the development of the middle ear in present-day terrestial living things.” Darwinists” rationale here is that the bone belonging to the gill section joining onto the jaw joint is thicker than normal.
In the same way that the anatomy in question constitutes no scientific evidence for evolution, the fact that all this creatures show it to be a fully fledged fish reveals that this thicker cavity is a property belonging to the fish”s own anatomy. In fact, the claim in question consists of conjecture by only a few evolutionist scientists, and has been rejected by other evolutionist scientists. Michael LaBarbera, a professor of organismal biology and anatomy from Chicago University, states that he has doubts about the structure described by Brusseau and Ahlberg, who first made the claim. Referring to Brusseau and Ahlberg”s idea, LaBarberi stated that the claim in question is “based on the interpretation of a structure that would be completely novel and unprecedented in this lineage”
The Second Element of Speculation: Fins
Gogonasus”s fins have also been variously and misleadingly interpreted by Darwinists, and the Nature article that announced the subject described these structures as “approaching the condition of Tiktaalik.” (Tiktaalik roseae is a 385-million-year-old fish fossil discovered in the polar region of Canada. Evolutionists” prejudiced interpretations of the mosaic features in this life form led to it being described as an example of a transition from water to dry land. The fact is, however, that Tiktaalik roseae is a water-dwelling fish with highly complex features. You can find more detail on the subject HERE.)
These Darwinist claims concerning Gogonasus reveal a grave lack of logic and evidence. Even Jennifer A. Clack and Per Erik Ahlberg, who maintain that Tiktaalik is an intermediate form, make this comment about Gogonasus: “Although these small distal bones bear some resemblance to tetrapod digits in terms of their function and range of movement, they are still very much components of a fin. There remains a large morphological gap between them and digits as seen in, for example, Acanthostega: if the digits evolved from these distal bones, the process must have involved considerable developmental repatterning. The implication is that function changed in advance of morphology.”
There is no doubt that such a state of affairs could never come about. To claim, solely in order to depict it as compatible with Darwinist analogies and deductions, that this structure with completely fish-like characteristics underwent countless changes and, furthermore, that finger functions developed before the morphological structure, is a violation of logic. Indeed, some evolutionists do not accept this claim.
In addition, as stated by the molecular biologist Michael Denton, “…ninety-nine per cent of the biology of any organism resides in its soft anatomy, which is inaccessible in a fossil”[i] . Fictitious changes of the kind advocated by Darwinists, such as the respiratory organ turning in an ear or fins turning into legs, require the presence of soft tissue to a far greater extent than they do that of bone structures. This means that these evolutionist claims constitute no scientific evidence.
Evolutionists” greatest hope over the last century and a half has been to find an intermediate form in the excavations that have been carried out. However, the research performed has provided not a single example of an intermediate form, and have revealed only flawless, perfect life forms possessed of complex features. In the face of this fact, and because of their ideological devotion to the religion of Darwinism, all that Darwinists can do is to speculate about the flawless fossils that are discovered and to depict these as intermediate forms, despite the absence of any evidence.
However, such endeavours avail evolutionists nothing, and the false evidence put forward is even rejected by some other evolutionists. It is clear that the perfect fish specimen discovered that demolishes the imaginary tree of evolution is a source of major disquiet for Darwinists. We advise daily Hürriyet not to lend itself to speculation by various evolutionists troubled by that unease and to provide their readers with true scientific evidence.
[i] Michael Denton., “Evolution: A Theory in Crisis”, p177