Evolution in the News - November 2016
by Do-While Jones

Something to Chew On

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
Home Page
Back issues of
(our newsletter)
Web Site
of the Month
Topical Index


1 John A. Long, Science, 21 Oct 2016, “The first jaws”, pp. 280-281, http://science.sciencemag.org/content/354/6310/280.full
2 ibid.
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
4 ibid.
5 ibid.