Coalacanths -- Prehistoric Fish vs Evolution.?

Question

In YA News today, I read an article of a fisherman in Indonesia who caught a large fish, whose fossil records date back 360 million years ago. Most scientists thought that the fish had become extinct with the dinosaurs, but here we are. It is interesting to note, in a period of over 360 million years the Coalacanth has remained a Coalacanth, and not evolved into lets say, a vermicious knid...what's up with that? How can this be? Is evolution selective? Why no evolution for some species, yet for others they are like Transformers? Kisses!!!!

Awww, c'mon, somebody argue with me!!!

Andy, honey, to get this straight, Adaptation=Evolution?

LOL Andora!

AnotherFugitive--I'm too lazy to do research, give me a break!!! : )

Anotherfugitive--I'm rarely ever serious on this site (or in real life) so I never take anything personally. Your answer was great, don't worry. The reason I post questions here is that I don't want to spend my time looking it up.

Answer 1

If the form works, it can persist. This is not the same coelocanth that was found in great numbers in all the oceans 360 million years ago. This is the version that found an isolated niche for which it was well adapted. In the isolation, evolutionary pressures for change are not as great. It evolved, but did not change form dramatically. The isolation of the Galapagos Islands or New Zealand create the smaller environments where the same can be seen in land animals. Less competition, less change.

Answer 2

This is not news - the first live COELACANTH was caught in 1938, and the Indonesian fisherman caught his back in May. These, however, are distinct species from the NUMEROUS others known to be extinct. However, it needs to be pointed out that Coelacanth is the common name for the ORDER Coelacanthiformes - to put that in perspective, humans (homo sapiens) are of the Primate order, along with every type of monkey and ape you can think of.

As for the aforementioned reason, Andy's spot on as to why they haven't undergone any GREAT changes. They have undergone changes, though. Crocodiles and sharks have changed as little over as many millions of years, for the same reason. When one's environment favors the most average over those that exhibit mutations, you won't see much change.

Hint for next time: it's not that hard to do some research for yourself every now and then, especially when your question's sole purpose is to instigate.

EDIT: "Too lazy to do research" = coming from a position of total ignorance - leaving you in no position to argue a point effectively. You want an argument, know a thing or two about the topic at hand.

Unless, of course, I missed the entire point and your question is facetious/satirical in nature (I really can't tell anymore).

Answer 3

Hey, someone else related transformers and evolution!!!

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;_ylt=AkgLwcSV1O3oiL.P29EDZ8Tsy6IX?qid=20070728205150AAIegsS


Evolution does not have a constant rate. If there is nothing on the environment to select different or aberrant mutations in a population it will probably remain unchanged. Even better, if there is an evolutive pressure for the population to remain the same, it'll remain the same.

Paz de Cristo

Answer 4

and yet it's a fish that walks on land, a transitional form, thus adding more proof to the theory of evolution--as does the fact that it has survived 360 million years--survival of the fittest

Answer 5

Perhaps remaining "the same" (or appearing so), is a higher form of evolution

Answer 6

Because God knows more about evolution than Charles Darwin and all his followers put together.

Answer 7

I notice you haven't gotten any answers from the "scientific community" yet...
Is that because they don't have any?