Quote
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.

Linda, you have already gone through these arguments on here time and time again regardless of the opposition responses and making no more progress than you did the previous times except wishing to rehash the same thing time and time again.... why is it you want to keep bringing them back up as though you had already nailed them and provided evidence, when you have not done so? Why is it you skip from one to another? Which one do you wish to discuss this time and discontinue diverting from one to the other?

We're onto this fish right now, but you've gone back to the whale and the horse again. Just because in your mind it's already been proven, doesn't make it reality and evolution has yet to achieve that. Bringing them back up won't make it any more of a reality either. Part of the repetitive hope of the evolutionists I guess.

The ordered fossil record Linda, only exists in the textbooks. Why are you constantly trying hard to impress in everybody's mind that the evidence is "out there" but you just cannot provide substance for it. Sosick has it right, you repeat the same stuff on here incessantly and then claim that you've proven something you haven't. Same old stuff.

You and RAZD cannot prove that this fish evolved, you don't know if it did or not, you do not know if it's another variety, or what the environment was like at that time. All you guys go on is ongoing assumptions but claiming evolution the whole way. Again, I repeat, did you not read my post to you Linda? DOES EVOLUTION NOT PREACH THAT SINGLE CELLED ORGANISMS HAVE EVOLVED OVER TIME INTO COMPLEX MACHINES?

If this is so, why do we not find evidence that any such simple life has evolved into complex life, not now, nor in the fossils themselves.

If this is not so, then what does evolution arise from? And please spare me the evolutionese. Start talking in frank plain language for a change.