|Evolution in the News - November 2016|
|by Do-While Jones|
Even the evolution of something as simple as the jaw is a problem.
Here’s a recent example of evolutionists believing something even though they know it doesn’t make sense from a scientific point of view.
On page 334 of this issue, Zhu et al. report the discovery of a placoderm from Qujing in Yunnan, China, that fills a big gap in our understanding of how vertebrate jaws evolved. 1
The editors of Science admit there was “a big gap in our understanding of how vertebrate jaws evolved,” but evolutionists believed it anyway.
The Entelognathus jaw pattern posed a conundrum for evolutionary biologists. 2
You can use the footnote links if you want to read the details. Here are some key points:
The discovery of Entelognathus revealed the presence of maxilla, premaxilla, and dentary, supposedly diagnostic osteichthyan bones, in a Silurian placoderm. However, the relationship between these marginal jaw bones and the gnathal plates of conventional placoderms, thought to represent the inner dental arcade, remains uncertain. 3
This finding upends the traditional belief that the two types of jaw were nonhomologous and sheds light on the evolution of the complex maxilla, a key component of diversification across many modern taxa, including humans. 4
We predict that future discoveries from the Xiaoxiang fauna will continue to fuel the debate about jawed vertebrate origins and challenge long-held beliefs about their evolution. 5
Despite what the article headlines say, they still don’t know how jaws evolved.
|Quick links to|
|Science Against Evolution
|Back issues of
of the Month
John A. Long, Science, 21 Oct 2016, “The first jaws”, pp. 280-281, http://science.sciencemag.org/content/354/6310/280.full
3 Min Zhu, Science, 21 Oct 2016, “A Silurian maxillate placoderm illuminates jaw evolution”, pp. 334-336, http://science.sciencemag.org/content/354/6310/334.full