Just need a little bit of info from evolutionists.

[Trumble]

people hypothesized and very incorrectly, I am pointing it out to Bro. Qtada.. it doesn't seem like a significant "so what" to you but it actually is!... according to the Smithsonian it is even more significant than a "walking dinosaur" given its age!

People, allegedly (as I said, I cannot source that), suspected that the coelacanth may have had primitive lungs, bony fins or a different brain structure to your bog-standard Devonian fish. It turns out it didn't, but again, "so what"? You seem to have no answer to that. Sure, it suggests that the coelacanth itself was not the single "missing link" between fish and early amphibians, but the whole suggestion anyone ever thought it was is a Yahya strawman. As I said, it was merely an indicator of the sort of evolutionary changes that were going on. Quite apart from all of that, there is absolutely no reason why one coelacanth population may have remained as is while others did not for reasons I have described already. You don't think that, had an event in 1938 proved going "back to the drawing board" was necessary, we might have heard a bit more about it? Or has every paleontologist and evolutionary biologist since that time been existing on 'pseudo-science' and 'blind-faith'?! Absurd. Yup, some folks guessed wrong about the coelacanth. Does that shoot down the whole theory about how vertabrate life moved onto the land? Nope, not a bit of it.

Of course it was a very significant discovery! Finding a species alive and swimming that we thought died out 65 million years ago is amazing. But that significance has nothing to do with the implications you are trying to associate with it... which are, I'm afraid, complete nonsense.

!... your eldest ancestor still swims today "un-evolved" -- that is the bottom line!

I have already explained twice why that is neither particularly surprising nor that it has the implications you wish to associate with it. Yet again; We already knew the coelacanth was alive and swimming 2 hundred million years after the transition to land. So what did that discovery change? Your argument, such as it is, is identical whether the coelacanth was around 200 million years after the land was colonised by proto-amphibians or 265 million years after.

 

[جوري]

Yahaya seems to be your Achilles? I assure you if I leave the minuscule paragraph he wrote up there or remove it, it wouldn't make a difference whatsoever in the voluminous literature on the pseudo-science linking this fish as the transitional form (the bridge to primates. The answer as to the "so-what", is nothing more or less than people hammering in that these early so-called tetrapods are our ancestors, in fact they aren't! maybe by a long stretch of the imagination they can be.. but fact remains, and it is a fact that these 410mil. year old species still live today un-evolved.. whether or not you can source this, isn't my problem since all you have to do is either purchase the video suggested from the Smithsonian or do a simple google search , perhaps it is a psychological issue with you more than a scientific one?
further I have already included two links http://www.iscid.org/papers/Mullan_P...ell_112302.pdf
http://arxiv.org/ftp/q-bio/papers/0603/0603005.pdf
that speak of the impossibility of an undirected mutation causing different species whether or not caused by this so-called missing link the coelacanth .. perhaps you have a scotoma?

peace!