Yes. The coelacanth has undergone change to an extent. So have other "living fossils."

What's more, in regards to what creationists here claim about there being "no evidence," I have asked before what we should logically make of fossils such as those of the whale or the horse, which are well documented in the fossil record. Why would God make one kind of horse, found only in one deeper stratum; then a slightly different kind of horse, found only in a stratum above that; then a slightly different horse, found in a stratum above . . . etc etc. And then he does this for the whale, and many others. No one here has offered an alternative explanation for this.

Nor have they explained how dating methods must, according to their beliefs, be wrong.

In other areas, they have been unable to explain how correlating dates between varves, ice cores and tree rings must, according to their beliefs, be wrong.

They have been unable to explain the lack of a genetic bottleneck in species 6,000 years ago, when a global flood, according to their beliefs, wiped out all but two of every "kind" of living thing.

They have been unable to explain, according to their beliefs, how some hominid fossils are 100% monkey while others are 100% human, and where the line is drawn between the two.

They have been unable to explain why the fossil record shows nothing but very simple organisms at deep levels; why vertebrates such as dinosaurs are found above them the world over, and why hominds are near the top -- no mixing.

There are other things we could go into more detail about, such as more of the evidence that disproves a global flood.

It seems to me that we need to see the facts for what they are and fashion our belief systems accordingly. Plenty of people seem to be able to fit religious beliefs with acceptance of the evidence above.