Careful reading of Romer’s book, ‘Paleontology of Vertebrates’1 seems not to allow any other conclusions except those that all major fish species are clearly and distinctly separated from each other without transitional forms connecting them. The first ones that appear in the fossil record belong to the class Agnatha. The oldest of these vertebrates, appearing in two orders, Osteostraci and Heterostraci, were almost always enclosed in bone or some other solid material, and most were equipped with bony armor plates. Regarding their origin, Romer writes: ‘In the sediments of the late Silurian and early Devonian, numerous fish-like vertebrates of various types are present, and it is clear that there was a long evolutionary history before that time. But we know nothing about that history.’ (page 15)
Regarding ostracoderms (Osteostraci), he writes: ‘When we first saw ostracoderms, they already had a long history behind them and were divided into several clearly separated groups.’ (p. 16) About the heterostracians, Romer writes that they are obviously not closely related to other forms in the Agnatha group. If they evolved, they would also have had a long evolutionary history. But, like ostracoderms, they appear suddenly in the fossil records without any evidence of evolutionary ancestors.
Placoderms are particularly problematic. Regarding them, there were about six major different types of unusual fish. About them, Romer says: ‘There are few common features that would unite these groups, except for the fact that they are, without exception, unusual.’ (p. 24) Later, he says:
‘They appear at one time – roughly between the Silurian-Devonian period – when we would expect the appearance of appropriate ancestors of sharks and higher bony fish groups. We would expect “generalized” forms that would exactly fit into our already imagined evolutionary picture. Do we have them in placoderms? No way. Instead, we find series of impossible types that do not fit any appropriate pattern; which, at first glance, do not come from any source, nor are they ancestors of any later or more advanced types. In fact, the impression is created that the presence of these placoderms, which make up such an important part of the Devonian story of fish, is an unusual episode; the situation would be much simpler if they had never existed!’ (p. 33)
But, they did exist and their records do not support, and firmly deny, the evolution model.
Higher “orthodox” fish types, structured according to fully recognized plans, with paired fins and well-developed jaws, are placed within two types, Chondrichthyes or cartilaginous fish, and Osteichthyes or higher bony fish.
Some in the past claimed that the absence of bones in cartilaginous fish represents a primitive state, and that Chondrichthyes were an evolutionary step that preceded bony fish. Romer energetically argues against this, emphasizing that sharks were one of the last major fish groups to appear in the fossil record. He says:
“This record actually better aligns with the opposite assumption: that sharks are degenerated rather than primitive in their skeletal characteristics; that their evolution was parallel to that of various other fish types in the direction toward reduction of bones; and that their ancestors should be sought in primitive bony fish with jaws of a general placoderm type. Well-known placoderms cannot be identified as true ancestors of Chondrichthyes, but we have noticed that some of the strange petalichthids show morphological transitional stages in skeletal reduction. A greater knowledge of early Devonian placoderms may one day bridge this gap.” (p.38)
Earlier, regarding placoderms, Romer said: “We must seriously acknowledge that at least sharks and chimaeras could have originated from such impossible ancestors.” (p.34) Romer insists that special creation is not permissible as a scientific explanation for species, but is willing to refer to “impossible ancestors” to support his impossible theory. Recognizing the creation model seems more reasonable than referring to “impossible ancestors.”
As for typical bony fish, Romer notes the fact that their appearance in the fossil record is “dramatically sudden.” (p.52) Later (p.53), he argues:
“The common ancestor of the group of bony fish is unknown. There are various features, many of which are listed above, in which the two typical subgroups of bony fish were already widely divergent when we first see them…”
Errol White, evolutionist and fish expert, in his presidential address to the London Linnean Society, about lungfish says:
“But whatever ideas the authorities may have on this subject, lungfish, like every major group of fish I know, have their origin firmly based on nothing…”2
Later he continues, saying: “I have often thought how little I should have to prove organic evolution in some trial.” He ends his address saying:
“We still do not know the mechanism of evolution despite overly confident claims in some areas, nor is it likely for us to make further progress in that using the classic methods of paleontology or biology; and we certainly will not improve things by jumping up and down shouting: ‘Darwin is God, and I am therefore his prophet.’ Recent research by scientists like Dean and Henshelwood (1964) already suggests the possibility of initial cracks in the apparent monolithic wall of neodarwinian Jericho.”
In his discussion about the origin of bony fish, Todd makes the following comment:
“All three orders of bony fish appear in the fossil record at approximately the same time. They are already widely divergent morphologically, and they are heavily armored. How did they arise? What allowed them to diverge so widely? How did they all end up with strong armor? And why is there no trace of earlier intermediate forms?”3
Indeed, why is there no trace of earlier intermediate forms? Evolutionists can speculate forever, but the facts do not change. Predicted evolutionary transitional forms cannot be found anywhere.
The fossil record, therefore, has not produced ancestors or transitional forms for the major fish types. Such hypothetical ancestors and sought-after transitional forms must, based on the transitional record, be nothing but products of speculation. How, then, can it be claimed that the explanation offered by the evolutionary model to explain such evidence is more scientific than the one offered by the creation model? In fact, the evidence required by the theory of evolution cannot be found.
- Literature
- A. S. Romer, Vertebrate Paleontology 3rd ed., U. of Chicago Press, Chicago, 1966, p. 12.
- E. White, Proc. Linn. Soc. London 177:8 (1966).
- G. T. Todd, Amer. Zool. 20(4):757 (1980).