Hello CTD,

Quote
Will what I actually posted be ignored? Is anyone going to concede that Glen Morton is incorrect, or offer counter-arguments in favor of his assertions? Is there a single creationist present who doesn't already have a good idea what to expect?
Size is one of the many features that are different, and the issue is that it is not the sole criteria. Size is important when the specimen is outside the normal range for a species. Yes catfish -- another general category and not a specific species -- come in a variety of sizes when mature, but when you look at individual species the variation is less than in the group as a whole. The modern coelacanth is (I believe) larger than all the ancient species:

Quote
http://www.dinofish.com/biol.htm
Quote
With a couple of exceptions ancient coelacanths were small, seldom exceeding 55 cm.
:
Today's coelacanths can reach almost six feet (2 meters) in length and weigh up to 150 or more lbs,(the giant Mozambique female shown on this site was 180 centimeters long and 95kg) but they are usually somewhat smaller, particularly the males, which average under 165cm.
That's at least 3x's the size of virtually all the ancient coelacanths for the smallest modern adults. That would be like finding an 18 ft human skeleton, or going the other way one 2 ft tall (much smaller than Homo floriensis. Or say, the difference between eohippus and the modern horse. So, yes, when the difference is of this magnetude it is a significant aspect of that species adaptation to it's environment, ... the result of evolution (the real kind). With that kind of size difference it is a difference that is hard to ignore.

As for the rest of your argument, I'll ignore it because it is really irrelevant. Evolution does not happen to every branch of every species, thus having "living fossils" does not contradict evolution: rather it is just more evidence that evolution is not a directed process but one of reaction and opportunity. Dawkins likened it to a drunkards walk, staggering along a path, and no clear goal.

I know what I expect from creationists: failure to deal with the reality that evolution has occurred no matter what you think these pictures and special instances mean. I've suggested two other threads that can be used as well as this one to go over those details. No takers?

Quote
I don't have the book, I don't find any references to scales in lungs beyond this source. They sound fairly antifunctional, and I'd expect them to cause quite a hub-bub if they could be substantiated.
You could try contacting the people at http://www.dinofish.com/ the email address is [email]dinofish@cloud9.net.[/email] While you are at it, ask how many other differences there are ...

Enjoy.
[color:"green"]
Note: my time is limited, so I only choose threads of particular interest to me and I cannot guarantee a reply to all responses (particularly if they do not discuss the issue/s), and I expect other people to do the same. Thank you for your consideration.[/color]