Are there any "problems" with the ToE that are generally not addressed?

quote:

---

The fish was presented as a intermediate kind because it was thought to have legs.

---

Who ever thought that the coelacanth had legs?-

quote:

---

It was extinct because it had evolved away and not died away.

---

It was thought extinct because after no trace of it was found in geologic units less than 65 million years ago. And those species (in fact, those genera) not only have no trace in the fossil record after 65 million years ago, but those particular species have never been found living either.I honestly don't understand why you won't listen to people when they try to tell you about the significance of the coelacanth. You have in your head some idea of what "evolutionists" say or believe, and you won't listen when we try to tell you what we are really saying and what we really believe. It's one thing to not accept the theory of evolution, but it is simply wrong to just make up your own version of evolution and attack that and think you are making a valid point about something. Honestly, what the hell is wrong with you?

quote:

---

Toe to justify great change in kind needs great time. So when a fish from way back when all else was different is found it hints at a problem.

---

Here is Robert Byers' argument:If a lineage shows great evolutionary change, then a great deal of time must have passed.We have at least one lineage that does not show great change.Therefore a great deal of time has not passed.I'm not sure exactly which fallacy this would fall under, but it seems similar to the fallacy of denying the antecedent.

quote:

---

For something to not change at all in so long a time....[Emphasis added]

---

Robert, try to understand what I am writing. I will type slowly so that you can keep up. You may trace the words with your finger -- no one will notice. Sound the words out loud if you need to.None of the modern species of coelacanth is found in the fossil record at all. The modern species fall into the genus Latimeria. There is no known example of a fossilized specimen of a Latimerian whatsoever.If you can provide an example of a fossil dated before 65 million years ago that is the same as a modern species, with no changes at all, then please do so. If you cannot do so then you cannot truthfully claim that the present species of coelacanth have survived without any changes at all for such a long time.

Wow! This post wasn't even coherent!Let me try this again. The modern coelacanth does not appear in the fossil record. At all. The specimens of coelacanths that appear in the fossil record before 65 million years ago are not only different species, they are in different genera.You claim that the coelacanth has been unchanged for over 65 million years? Okay, it's time to put up or shut up. Present a fossil coelacanth (noting where the specimen may be found, of course), and a skeleton of a modern coelacanth. Show us that they are identical.Simply stating that it is unchanged over and over again is not going to make it true.

quote:

---

he modern Coelacanth is the Latimeria chalumnae, and its closest relative in the fossil record is the Macropoma lewesiensis. They aren't even the same genus, and so couldn't possibly be the same kind as defined by Creationists.

---

Actually, I think that the definition of a "kind" is all the descendents of a single interbreeding population created by God at the creation week -- at least that is the only way I can make sense of what creationists are saying when they speak of "kind". Slightly off-topic, but that is why you cannot demonstrate macroevolution to a creationist -- any descendant species of an ancestral species is the same "kind" by definition.At any rate, remember that you are speaking with a person who claimed in another thread that all marsupials micro-evolved their pouches and other distinctive traits when they got to Australia after the flood.

quote:

---

The creature is essentialy unchanged.

---

Okay. This proves my point. Robert Byers is insane.