Living Fossils: There Are None by Glen Morton.

Some passages of note:

Quote
The typical young-earth position propounds the idea that the animals found in the fossil record are the remains of the preflood world, and lived less than 5,000 years ago. This requires that the young-earth creationist find ‘living fossils’, animals which are found in the fossil record in identical form to those found alive today on earth. The interesting thing is that there are very few candidates for the title living fossil. Often the young-earth advocates will take paleontological headlines which say a ‘living fossil’ was found and treat it as if the same animal was found in ancient strata as lives today. But this is a logical equivocation. What the paleontologists mean by ‘living fossil’ is not at all what the anti-evolutionists believe.

When I was a young-earth creationist, I believed in living fossils. Then I started looking at the details and found that I couldn’t find a single ‘living fossil’ which was actually identical to the ancient form.

and

Quote
Ancient coelacanths are NOT, NOT NOT identical to the modern Latimeria!!!!!!! The coelecanth was dredged up in 1938 in the Indian Ocean. It is very different than ancient coelacanths.

Note the size difference:

"Rhabdoderma, a smallish coelacanth, the size of a large minnow, is quite common in coal deposits of both Europe and North America. In the Late Triassic the extremely abundant genus Diplurus mentioned above was definitely living in freshwater lakes and rivers of North America. Also, up to this time almost all fossil coelacanths had been small fishes of less than eight to ten inches). But one species of Diplurus was much bigger (to fifteen inches)." ~ Keith Stewart Thompson, "Living Fossil: The Story of the Coelacanth," (London: Hutchinson Radius, 1991), p. 87

The modern coelacanth, Latimeria, is 4.5 feet long. They are not identical. There is NO LIVING FOSSIL if by that you mean an animal exactly like the fossil form!!!!!!

Note the difference with the scales in the 'lung'.

"When Smith found a remnant of the lung in Latimeria, he identified it by comparison to this median structure in the fossils and by comparison of both to the median lunglike structures of other fishes. It was identical except that it lacked the scales." ~ Keith Stewart Thompson, "Living Fossil: The Story of the Coelacanth," (London: Hutchinson Radius, 1991), p. 90

Some coelacanths have very different fin arrangements:

In the Triassic of Greenland there is a coelacanth genus Laugia that has a remarkable set of adaptation. Its hind or pelvic fins have become moved all the way forward and connect with the shoulder girdle; the pectoral fins accordingly have moved dorsally." ~ Keith Stewart Thompson, "Living Fossil: The Story of the Coelacanth," (London: Hutchinson Radius, 1991), p. 88

Note the references to the scientific literature about this organism. Why are people here claiming that modern coelacanths are identical to fossil ones, without seemingly looking into the reasons why modern ones are classified differently? And why, still, this insistance that an organism must change drastically in order for evolution to be legitimate? I think we need to move this discussion to one fo RAZD's threads and discuss what evolution actually is.