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

The finding of the Ceolacanth,Nosyned, was an embarrasment to evolution as I understand it.
First this was thev exact creature that Darwin said was evidence of an intermediarie.
Therefore it was said to be extinct.
And extinct for 70 million years no less.First it shows how somebody big up there is on our side (creationist I mean)
Dawin said, and thought this fish had leg things and so went aha an intermediary. This proves it. Also of coarse since it was on its way to the land it disappeared from the sea.
Not so fast.
First it was found alive and NOT walking. It was an incompetant or imaginative restrictive error. Its legs are used for its envirorment fine and fit.
Not evidence of an intermediary. Just a kind of fish.
Also in all that time no real changes to its form while humans went from a mouse to our present glory. (speaking for myself) Unbelieavable and a direct slap to evolution's ideas of change and all great change over time taking place. The picture of it all overthrown.You folks should have no trouble admitting a loss when you take one.
Rob

With respect your info is wrong. A basic history by book of visual creations on the subject are available.
The idea was most certainly that it proved the transition between a fish and a land creature by evidence that it had the means to walk. It was only underwater photagraphy that showed this was not so.Its extinction was seen as a result of obviously evolving up and not dying out.
This fish has caught evolutionism in its errors of speculation divested of evidfence.
Rob

My knowledge of this subject is from non-creationist sources.Whether it was Darwin or his followers it is the history that it was presented as a classic case of a creature that while a fish still had deveoped leglikes that led to its walking on the land. It was presented as proof of a intermidiate creature between land and ocean.
The idea of its extinction was a part of their theory. It didn't die out but rather evolved out. That was their great point.Currant theories were influenced by the embarrasment of the discovery and observation of this fish.Loudmouth say it ain't so. Your retreating to "this isn't the same fish anyway"
Then it should be announced to the world it was an error to say a living fossil fish 70 million old was discovered. And all the past 70 years hubbub was wrong. No way. It is so the same creature as in the fossil record exactually as presented in all discussions on it.
If its an error to say this fish is the same one in the fssil record then thats all that needs to be said. Case closed. Yet you brought up other ideas to help.
I recommend all to any history of the story of this fish.
Rob

"DArwin and others were wrong" Well we've been saying that from the beginning what was the hold up. (One might ask why was he wrong. Were did the "science" break down logically. Why did the method fail. Are there more errors admitance loaming)I know its not the same specis. The operative word here is Coalacanth.
This fish's discovery and publicity is all I'm taliking about.So where are we.
I say the discovery and observation of the real fish was a blow to evolution in its method and premises. In fact I found a good info thing. creationdigest - informations les plus rcentes et jour under cutting edge and living fossils. They discuss our subject although I would add to it.It was an embarrasment when it was discovered. Now they have rearranged themselves to accomadate it. This is irrefutable.
Rob

I accept reconstruction of life's evolutionary past and Toe are different. However the the premises and process are the same and so the error is a education.In the public's eye evolution is presented for the reason of creatures today. Long time needed to go from a slug to a elephant. So along the way everything looked different. So when a creature is found that didn't change when everything else did well it is a break in logic. And creationists with effect can say the fish existence is a hint at the whole error of evolution.Again it is said it was not presented as a intermediate.I'm sure I read that Darwin and company said just this. And it has certainly always been presented with legsalmost on its way to the land. Only photography revealed the "legs" were in fact just for the envirorment they live in.
I would sugget to you folk that you need to question the methods that led to the leggy fish idea in the first place. Just looking at fossils and having a theory prompting a conclusion is an example of this subject not under the strick guidelines of science.
Rob

This is like political spin. You guys won't give up a point and still carry on with confidence .The point about photagrapy was that only recently with underwater cameras was the fish observed in how it used ots body and so it was observed that what was before claimed to be appendages that led to its dryland apperance were in fact suitable to its calling.And the discovery of the fish was a yawn. It was important because of the way it had been used to prove by the fossil record the emergence of sea creatures to dry land. And since it has had to be accomadated to fit in Toe. Yet the logic behind thier error should of led to a serious questioning of Toe.
Rob

Thank you. I'll take the grain. I'll walk ,er I mean, swimm with it.You asked what the problem this fish was with Toe.When I found this discussion the evolution supporters here were waxing eloquent and strangely about how the coelacanath was a postive thing for them or least neutral. I explained thier error.The fish was presented as a intermediate kind because it was thought to have legs.
It was extinct because it had evolved away and not died away.
It reveals in a atomic way the error of Toe in that it is not science but simply data and interpretation resticked by present knowledge/imagination.
that the fish was just the ticket for creationists and so heavon sent. Really.
Rob

Am I hearing right? Are you saying this is a missing link? A link to what? Your gang is telling me it was never presented as a link from sea to land at all. Now you seem to be saying that. What's up all.
Rob

Loudmouth this is not the way the world sees it. and rightly so.
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. This fish should of been flying by now.It is easy to say that the evirorment never changed so it never changed. Where's the evidence? OR
Do you admit the Toe leads to this conclusion rather that the scientific method!To have no change in a long time as Toe tries too say requriers either evidence for this or dropping the idea of evolution and and long geologic time in the first place.
Rob

This shows no such thing. It is only your interpretation of data. The great gaps in kinds of fossils is not shown by this fish but rather the unlikeliness in the first place that there is a great gap or intermediates.
In both cases we don't prove our point but our idea is more reasonable and will appear so to the public. And so this fish tale is a gain for us. we welcome the conversation.
Rob

Again you retreat to it didn't need to change because its envirorment stayed the same.
PROVE IT. Where's the evidence?
You simply draw this conclusion because you have to accomadate the reality of living fossils.
But you havn't proved this was the story of this particular fish?
Your scenario is unlikely in all respects surely.
For something to not change at all in so long a time when everything else life or matter did is not plausiblr to a fair minded person even if you can fit it in the theory. Your streching very far.Here again you try to say it might of changed after all (after telling me about perfect adaptation)You say the present kind is missing from the record so maybe it came on land went back to sea and a million years of gliding and then flying. Anyone can say anything here but still you show no scientific evidence only speculation.Can't have it both ways Loudmouth.Either the fish remained unchangerd or it did change and thier is just no evidence.

Thats circular reasoning. I ask for proof that there was no change in the evirorment and you say behold the fish. Before i had stressed the unchangeness of the fish and you said behold the envirorment had never changed. This is unreasonable.It our discussions on origin matters it is assumed that all premises of evolution or creation are not settled. Otherwise each party would be contending the others view while accepting some of the premises of the others view and thus making thier own view false to start with.
Rob

You offer nothing new that hasn't been discussed and accepted.It is a desperate clinging to straws/branches to say the present fish is unchanged because it is not in the record. It is in the record. The present fish father back by father is the one in the fossil record. A bat is a bat. The specis is irrelevant. The fish is famous only for the reason it is. Unchanged since its fossilization. Simple.
It is because it is unchanged that it is famous not because it slight change. I'm surprised at you guys trying to argue this is not the same unchanged fish. That is the whole point accepted by all.
Rob

OKAY you did provide explanation for how the envirorment could stay static. HOWEVER you did not prove that it did. (of coarse you can't whether it did or not).
It order to account for the fish long history you must assume a static envirorment. You don't provide a reason for any one else to assume this.I understand static morphology as part of TOE. Again I repeat.
But again it is a retreat by evolutionists to account for living fossils.And it is unlikely to common sense of the public.For this discussion this fish is the same as the one in the fossil record. Its specis is irrelevant. A horse is a horse. Coelananth is the only important word. And its fame is based on the premise of its unchanged history not its slight change.
Rob

You are all upside down about this.The whole premise of your request proves my point.
The operative word here is coelanath.
In order too compare the "ancient" with the modern requires the modern to be here.
Case closed.Also if you read any book on this creature it will show you a picture of the modern and a picture of the fossil and the caption will read "practically unchanged"
Thus the phrase for those few creatures called "living fossils"
Rob