1. The fossil is 360 million years old. The first jawed fishes emerged in the Silurian, over 400 million years ago. Therefore this fossil cannot be of a species ancestral to modern jawed fishes. Nor of bony fishes, which are a sublineage of jawed fishes. Rather, this is a fossil from "up the lamprey lineage", well after it diverged from the lineage that became jawed vertebrates.

2. The article refers to "eel lampreys" which is an unfortunate term, using "eel" to convey the sense that it is long and cylindrical. Eels, however, are a group of bony fish well up the evolutionary tree from lampreys, so no close relationship should be inferred.

3. To be picky, lampreys and hagfish are not really part of the same "family" of early vertebrates. As best as can be determined, hagfish arose as one branch of early vertebrates, whereas the lamprey lineage diverged somewhat later. The fact that both groups survive today, and lack jaws caused many systematists to group them together, but the sense now is that they do not have a common ancestor unique to themselves.

Really? What guests are those? I'm a Christian, and all I see are some comments making fun of people who are stupid (or, charitably, "ignorant").

Or do you define "Christian" as "one who believes the world was made in 4004 B.C."? "One who disbelieves the theory of evolution by natural selection"?

Definitions like those are insulting to Christians.

For the record, so as not to be seen as unedumacated, I believe the world is very, very old.

But the world is only 6000 years old…however can you explain this to your readers?

You mean like Anderson? Well he seems to have come up with a novel interpretation.