What do you say? I see where another Coelacanth has been caught. Now!, this is a fish that evolutionists and?

Question

scientists say existed more than 360 million years ago and went extinct some 80 million years ago, they claimed it was a transitional fossil because it has lobed fins. The ones that have been recently caught are said to have not really changed in all that time from the ones they say lived 360 + million years ago. So, what happened, could you have been any further off base? Proves creation to me.

Also goes to show that you really don't have any idea about what your talking about and that you just are speaking your own opinions and thoughts.

My point was that your so-called intelligent scientists of evolution said this fish went extinct 80 million years ago because that what their so-called fossil record shows, how wrong they were, and if there were wrong there it shows that they really don't know what they have or what they know, it's all heresay. If their precious fossils record is obviously wrong so is the rest. This was never a transitional fish, it was complete as created. And I don't believe in a young earth, I don't believe in the 6 literal days of creation but 6 creative days which is not stated how long it was. God's days are not like our days.

Answer 1

Creation makes since to me

Answer 2

Posting a science question in the religion and spirituality section often means the asker does not really want an answer. His goal is to ask a question that he believes proves some scientific knowledge to be wrong, or that science does not yet answer, and make the implicit claim that the only other explanation is a god, and specifically, the same god he happens to believe in.

It's the "god of the gaps" - intellectually bankrupt, since it favors ignorance instead of knowledge, and because of the contained logical fallacy.

However, on the off chance that you really want to know the answer:

Claim CB930.1:

The coelacanth, thought to have been extinct for seventy million years and used as an example of a fish-tetrapod transition, is found still alive, unchanged in form, today.

Response:

The modern coelacanth is Latimeria chalumnae, in the family Latimeriidae. Fossil coelacanths are in other families, mostly Coelacanthidae, and are significantly different in that they are smaller and lack certain internal structures. Latimeria has no fossil record, so it cannot be a "living fossil."

Even if the modern coelacanth and fossil coelacanths were the same, it would not be a serious problem for evolution. The theory of evolution does not say that all organisms must evolve. In an unchanging environment, natural selection would tend to keep things largely unchanged morphologically.

Coelacanths have primitive features relative to most other fish, so at one time they were one of the closest known specimens to the fish-tetrapod transition. We now know several other fossils that show the fish-tetrapod transition quite well.

Answer 3

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.

The two (known) remaining species are deep water species, hardly relevant to the invasion of land. Classic branching some fish are fish, and some other relatives became the tetrapod vertebrates. Finding isolated populations of once common creatures is commonplace.

Answer 4

1. Animals that are suited to the environment they're in, even as it changes, do not evolve. If there's no reason to adapt or change, why should that? Since they're already suited perfectly for the environment, even if it's changed, like it has over the millions of years, then changing could produce even worse results and end the species.
2. There are unexplained things in science and you know something? Most things in science are just that - theories. The only one people truly love to dispute is evolution. Gravity? That's a theory - it's been proven right so many times that it's become a law, but it's a theory.

Most things in science are not said to be exact or definite because scientists leave room for change and doubt - two things religion leaves absolutely no room for. Just because something isn't foolproof, does not make it wrong.

Answer 5

So, the fact that there have been maybe 20 of these fish caught over the past century, evolution is false? Are you daft man? These fish live in the deepest parts of the ocean. When we weren't catching them, but we were finding fossil records, we assumed they had gone extinct. This turned out to not be the case. This just means that this species did survive, either in much smaller numbers or in areas that aren't often fished.

Answer 6

How does the fact that a whole order of animals hasn't gone completely extinct disprove evolution?

In fact there are only two known living species of coelacanths (although there may be more as yet undiscovered). The vast majority of coelacanth species have in fact gone extinct, but that doesn't mean the whole order would, any more than the fact that prokaryotes being our distant ancestors means that prokaryotes must have gone extinct as a kingdom.

I'm not sure your understanding of what a "transitional species" is the same as what most scientists have.

Answer 7

While the basic body plan of coelacanths has not changed in millions of years, the coelacanth species of today are readily distinguishable from those of several million years ago. The group has evolved more slowly than some other animal groups, just like sharks, but they have certainly evolved. That is a given. There is no species alive on earth today that was alive a million years ago.

Answer 8

Not only that, but Kirk Cameron showed a photoshopped picture of a crocacanth on "The Way of the Puppet Master," last week.
In your face, evolutionists -- no half-reptile / half-lobe-finned-fish fossils have EVER been found! HA-HAAA!!

Answer 9

Your knowledge of evolution is obviously not sound enough to make these kind of judgement calls.

Try again when you've finished high school biology and not failed it for staging a walk out when it gets to evolution.

Answer 10

Evolution is NOT disproved by the rare examples where isolated organisms have managed to survive in small niches unchanged. Creationism IS disproved by the evidence of the many organisms that have changed, and the evidence of great geological ages over which it happened.

Answer 11

Apes stayed the same while humans evolved. We just share a common ancestor. Think of all the fish out there. What are the chances that none ever changed?!