Early Tetrapods Had Different Skulls than Fish they Evolved From?

 You would expect the earliest tetrapods (four-footed land animals) to have skulls configured like those of the early fish that they purportedly evolved from (actually I think it is more helpful in describing the record if we separate the question of "did they evolve" from "is nature alone a reasonable explanation"). And if somehow the changes that made them a tetrapod also happened to have affected their skulls, you would still probably think "this just came with the change program, once they get on land evolution will act to produce variations until it hits on winning formulas."

Those are reasonable assumptions, but as is so often the case, it isn't what the evidence shows. Indeed this article describes a study where the researchers claim that the first tetrapod skulls were indeed very different from their supposed immediate ancestors. Further, these changes somehow "limited evolution" because of the lack of diversification of these skulls for a long time. Frogs still have skulls much like those early tetrapods!

The actual record is that when major new forms emerge, they tend to do so suddenly and then go ten million years or more without substantial speciation- as if they somehow "nature" got it right the first time and no further changes were improvements for a long time. Somehow, they hit the "big middle". Only later is there a sudden burst of speciation. Sometimes in different phyla all at once. See here for more. 

The record of nature may support "evolution", but it doesn't support naturalism. 

Can defenders of naturalism generate "just-so stories" to explain away the record? Sure, they are limited only by the power of human imagination. But that's not science. It is a manifestation of a belief system. 

*******
My book isn't about this, but something much better. It is about how early Genesis points to Christ. Obviously, this could not be so unless He really was who inspired scripure says that He is. 

You Tube Channel