Transition from from primitive jawless fish to bony fish (Talk.Origins)

Response to Transition from from primitive jawless fish to bony fish

CreationWiki response:

Finding the identity of the fish to which the scales found in "Upper Silurian" rock belong would be necessary to make a case for a transition here.

The fossils found here are too fragmented even by evolutionists standards. They must be in really bad shape indeed.

Acanthodians consist of more than one kind of fish. They seem to have had fully functional jaws, so where is the transition from jawless fish?

Palaeoniscoid is actually an order, consisting of numerous kinds of fish, but there are also significant differences from Acanthodians. There is no real evidence of a transition between Acanthodians and Palaeoniscoids, just difference in shape.

There is a curious lack of any reference to mid and late Devonian fossils.

Where is the evidence of a transition? Canobius, and Aeduella are clearly distinct kinds of fish. No transition is indicated from palaeoniscoids; just different features emphasized.

There is no reference at all to the Permian, so they skipped an entire period here without even mentioning it.

Talk.Origins reports that parasemionotus had lungs, but that is irrelevant, as there are modern fish with lungs. Parasemionotus cannot even be considered ancestral to amphibians or any other land animal, since by evolutionary dating methods both amphibians and reptiles predated parasemionotus. This totally falsifies their claim that, "lungs first evolved in fish." Also this lung seems to be fully functional with no evidence of it evolving from a non-lung, so it is no real help to evolution.

The only references on the Internet to oreochima are on Talk.Origins and clones thereof. Where is the evidence? In addition, there is no reference to the "lung" from parasemionotus. It seems to have disappeared.

Talk.Origins' description of leptolepis seems to be based mostly on evolutionary assumptions. Interestingly, the parasemionotus "lung" is back as a swim bladder. Talk.Origins just states it as fact without giving evidence to support the claim. It is not even mentioned in oreochima, so what is the basis for this claim?

This claim is quite vague, and yet it is stated as fact with no basis given for the claim. There is not even a reference. It is most likely that this "classification problem" results more from evolutionary assumptions than reality. It is also possible that this "classification problem" results from fragmented remains.

All that is here is just what the Bible says: different kinds of animals. No transitions at all.