No Evolution in Shark Jaw Study

When the word shark is mentioned, people may think of certain movies involving man-eaters with powerful bites. There are over 300 species of sharks but only a dozen are dangerous to humans. (In a ludicrous example of appealing to Darwin, NOAA said that they evolved before we did, so that is why we are not usually on the menu!*) Checking sources on which animals have the strongest bite force yielded disagreement, but the Great White was the only shark on those lists.

Tiger Shark, Flickr / Oregon State University, N. Hammerschlag (CC BY-SA 2.0), modified at PhotoFunia
Evolutionists wanted to make Charles Darwin smile so they studied a variety of shark jaws. The researchers claimed that habitat and prey shaped their jaw evolution. (The fact that sharks have always been sharks and there is no sign of evolution should have given them pause on asserting jaw evolution, but that's none of my business.) No, old son, the Master Engineer designed them to adapt, and calling what is found "evolution" is deceptive.
Sharks are back in the news, and it’s in regard to their most formidable and fearsome structure—their jaws.

Zoologists recently studied the lower jaws of a number of shark species along with their lifestyle and published the results in the journal Communications Biology.

. . .

These researchers—who are part of an international team—reported, “The results illustrate the importance of prey, level in the marine webs and habitat in relation to jaw shape diversity among shark species.”

To chew on the entire article, see "Shark Jaws."\

* First, they are presupposing fish-to-fool evolution. Second, they ignore the fact that there is no evidence for shark evolution in the fossil record. Third, sharks come in a variety of sizes, some as small as a person's forearm. Fourth, things change their eating habits as the need arises, such as the carnivorous Rainbow Lorikeet. Fifth, there are hundreds of shark species, but no uniformity in alleged evolution. The way NOAA evosplained is both illogical and unscientific.