Sharks and rays — fish that refuse to evolve!

Evolutionists have absolutely no evidence of what sharks and rays evolved from. Even Encyclopaedia Britannica admits that the lines of evolution of these creatures “remain to be discovered”.

Not that evolutionists have indisputable evidence for the evolution of other major kinds of creatures either, but sharks and rays are particularly unkind to the theory of evolution.

The reason is that sharks and rays are cartilaginous fishes. This means that instead of bone in their skeletons they have cartilage — a lighter and more elastic substance that does not usually fossilize like bone. The gristle found in meat is cartilage.
First sharks were clearly sharks

But don't think that because cartilage has not fossilized that there might have been part-shark ancestors for these creatures that haven't left any trace. Ancient sharks and rays are well known, particularly from teeth and scales that have fossilized. And from what has been found in the fossil record, it is obvious that the “ancient” cartilaginous fishes were little different from those around today. In fact, an “early” shark called Hydobus has been found in the West Dorset Cliffs in England, and fossilized skin and cartilage have been well preserved.

Evolutionists believe that a common ancestor for sharks and rays must have lived before the first sharks were fossilized. That “common ancestor” is only an assumption of course. There is no physical evidence that it ever existed.

Evolutionists are not even sure how sharks, rays, and chimaeras (other cartilaginous fishes) are related. They simply group these fishes together because they are all cartilaginous rather than bony.

Sharks and rays might be cartilaginous, but they are very different in other ways. Sharks have free upper eyelids — no ray has these. And sharks swim by thrashing their powerful tails from side to side, whereas rays flap their wing-like pectoral fins up and down to glide through the water.
Other differences

Their breathing is different too. A shark breathes by drawing in water through its mouth, passing it over its gills, and ejecting it through slits. But rays are generally bottom-dwellers. If they drew in water this way it would be full of sand, mud and grit, which would clog their gills. So, they have an opening behind each eye on the top of their head, which draws in clean water and takes it straight to the gills. It is then ejected through gill slits on the ray's underside.

With no proof that sharks and rays have evolved from a common ancient ancestor, and considerable evidence against it, the alternative explanation — that they were created separately and intact by God in the beginning — seems to us to be a much more reasonable explanation.

[text taken from link]

I honestly don't want to be the resident debunker around here. But it's a pretty ancient logical error to assume that 'no evidence to the contrary constitutes evidence for my position'. No evidence simply means no evidence, and leaves the field wide open to any form of speculation - which is fun but bootless because it can't be tested against the (non-existent) evidence.

The point is that natural science doesn't have all the answers. Of course to those in the scientific community, that is not a newsflash. However for many whose only scientific background are their high school science classes, they don't grasp how much natural science cannot explain.