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

In fact, coelocanths may not even be the closest related group to land animals.Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2004 Apr 6;101(14):4900-5. Epub 2004 Mar 22. Related Articles, LinksNuclear protein-coding genes support lungfish and not the coelacanth as the closest living relatives of land vertebrates.Brinkmann H, Venkatesh B, Brenner S, Meyer A.Department of Biology, University of Konstanz, 78457 Konstanz, Germany.The colonization of land by tetrapod ancestors is one of the major questions in the evolution of vertebrates. Despite intense molecular phylogenetic research on this problem during the last 15 years, there is, until now, no statistically supported answer to the question of whether coelacanths or lungfish are the closest living relatives of tetrapods. We determined DNA sequences of the nuclear-encoded recombination activating genes (Rag1 and Rag2) from all three major lungfish groups, the Australian Neoceratodis forsteri, the South American Lepidosiren paradoxa and the African lungfish Protopterus dolloi, and the Indonesian coelacanth Latimeria menadoensis. Phylogenetic analyses of both the single gene and the concatenated data sets of RAG1 and RAG2 found that the lungfishes are the closest living relatives of the land vertebrates. These results are supported by high bootstrap values, Bayesian posterior probabilities, and likelihood ratio tests.

quote:

---

You dop't prove (if I may use that word) that the ocean was static this long. You say it could of been but the great changes on earth from the Toe idea in geology makes it an extreme position.

---

which fish would that be? You do realize that there are multiple species of coelocanth's and that the modern ones are ONLY distantly related to the fossil species? From your discussion it appears you lack this understanding. The only thing relatively static about coelocanths are their body plan much like sharks (though morphologically plastic) which stick to a fairly uniform body plan i.e. you can identify most sharks as belonging to the group. While conditions in the ocean may have changed over time, the ancestors of the modern coelocanths up to the ones living today were able to survive in those environments, the changes over time are apparent in the variation in their DNA among populations, species, and groups.And just for your edification, mere gross morphological similarity does not always indicate recent common ancestry. Canids and extinct Tasmanian wolves are morphologically very similar yet they are not at all closely related one being a marsupial and the other a group of eutherian mammals.Anything can be written on paper..even mythology like the bible...but only some things can be supported by evidence, tested, and falsified.

Oh yeah..they are so non changing that they have speciated....it must be fun to assert from ignorance rather than actually investigate the subjects you debate...saves the work and trouble of developing a logical and cohesive argument that does not get blown out of the water with a simple search of the literature.Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 1999 Oct 26;96(22):12616-20. Related Articles, LinksTwo living species of coelacanths?Holder MT, Erdmann MV, Wilcox TP, Caldwell RL, Hillis DM.Section of Integrative Biology, Institute of Cellular and Molecular Biology, University of Texas, Austin, TX 78712, USA. mtholder@mail.utexas.eduDuring the period of September 1997 through July 1998, two coelacanth fishes were captured off Manado Tua Island, Sulawesi, Indonesia. These specimens were caught almost 10,000 km from the only other known population of living coelacanths, Latimeria chalumnae, near the Comores. The Indonesian fish was described recently as a new species, Latimeria menadoensis, based on morphological differentiation and DNA sequence divergence in fragments of the cytochrome b and 12S rRNA genes. We have obtained the sequence of 4,823 bp of mitochondrial DNA from the same specimen, including the entire genes for cytochrome b, 12S rRNA, 16S rRNA, four tRNAs, and the control region. The sequence is 4.1% different from the published sequence of an animal captured from the Comores, indicating substantial divergence between the Indonesian and Comorean populations. Nine morphological and meristic differences are purported to distinguish L. menadoensis and L. chalumnae, based on comparison of a single specimen of L. menadoensis to a description of five individuals of L. chalumnae from the Comores. A survey of the literature provided data on 4 of the characters used to distinguish L. menadoensis from L. chalumnae from an additional 16 African coelacanths; for all 4 characters, the Indonesian sample was within the range of variation reported for the African specimens. Nonetheless, L. chalumnae and L. menadoensis appear to be separate species based on divergence of mitochondrial DNA.

You seem to be the typical creationist who ignores the facts and repeats their assertions....bump of last post that the fish have changed a lot contrary to your assertion.Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 1999 Oct 26;96(22):12616-20. Related Articles, LinksTwo living species of coelacanths?Holder MT, Erdmann MV, Wilcox TP, Caldwell RL, Hillis DM.Section of Integrative Biology, Institute of Cellular and Molecular Biology, University of Texas, Austin, TX 78712, USA. mtholder@mail.utexas.eduDuring the period of September 1997 through July 1998, two coelacanth fishes were captured off Manado Tua Island, Sulawesi, Indonesia. These specimens were caught almost 10,000 km from the only other known population of living coelacanths, Latimeria chalumnae, near the Comores. The Indonesian fish was described recently as a new species, Latimeria menadoensis, based on morphological differentiation and DNA sequence divergence in fragments of the cytochrome b and 12S rRNA genes. We have obtained the sequence of 4,823 bp of mitochondrial DNA from the same specimen, including the entire genes for cytochrome b, 12S rRNA, 16S rRNA, four tRNAs, and the control region. The sequence is 4.1% different from the published sequence of an animal captured from the Comores, indicating substantial divergence between the Indonesian and Comorean populations. Nine morphological and meristic differences are purported to distinguish L. menadoensis and L. chalumnae, based on comparison of a single specimen of L. menadoensis to a description of five individuals of L. chalumnae from the Comores. A survey of the literature provided data on 4 of the characters used to distinguish L. menadoensis from L. chalumnae from an additional 16 African coelacanths; for all 4 characters, the Indonesian sample was within the range of variation reported for the African specimens. Nonetheless, L. chalumnae and L. menadoensis appear to be separate species based on divergence of mitochondrial DNA.

the point is that you claim "the fish" has remained unchanged for millions of years and this is patently false. The "old news" as you so quaintly put it seems to have escaped your attention yet refutes a point you have repeated ad nauseum.