Living fossils, however defined, are not proof of anything. They are not even evidence against organic evolution.
I do wish you creationists would get your lies straight. The supply of coelocanths diminished once the church spread the news that they were evidence FOR organic evolution.
How would fossils prove evolution wrong?
Because they don't show it is wrong. The theory of evolution posits beneficial changes will be spread to subsequent generations. But, that doesn't equate to an active force changing things or a requirement that a change must take place. These organisms are typically well adapted to their environments so changes are more likely to reduce fitness than increase fitness.
The term "living fossil" means nothing in science. It is a term used by creationists to attempt to find faults in the evolution process. However nothing in the theory of evolution says that ancient species have to become extinct.
When you think about it "living fossils" are everywhere. Worms, jellyfish, corals, snails, dragonflies, bluegreen algae, and millions of other species could be called "living fossils". They have all existed for hundreds of millions of years.
When somebody tells you that living fossils prove evolution is wrong, you should know right away that he doesn't have a clue about what he's talking about.
“Living fossils” are animals and plants that supposedly lived millions and even hundreds of millions of years ago that forgot to evolve and look the same as they do today. There are hundreds of these, from coelacanths to ginkgo trees. They say, “Well, their environment must not have changed.” Are you telling me their environment didn’t change in 100 million years? We see environments changing today in centuries or even decades.
Things like living fossils, extreme convergent evolution, and gaps in the fossil record aren’t a major concern to most evolutionists, simply because the issue is never what fossils are dug up—it’s what stories evolutionists can tell about what they dig up. One can point to as many problems with evolution as he or she likes, but the evolutionary mythology can bend and flex to accommodate any problem.
From what I’ve seen, I have to agree with this observation that has been made—here is the Darwin Party M.O.:
Step 1: Assume evolution.
Step 2: Observe a fact.
Step 3: Make up a story to show how the fact might fit in with the assumption of evolution.
Step 4: Attack, ridicule, and persecute anyone who doesn’t toe the Darwin Party line.
Please grow up and try to learn about science and not bull sh!t written in a religious book.
A biologist will explain to you that the simple issue of living fossils will not prove evolution is wrong. Is an important misunderstanding underlying the idea that living fossils do not evolve is that stabilizing selection is an evolutionary process, perhaps even the dominant one in morphological evolution...The fact that a living fossil is a surviving representative of an archaic lineage does not imply that it must retain all the "primitive" features of its ancestral lineage. Even those living fossils exhibit "morphological stasis", stasis, in the scientific literature, does not mean that any species is strictly identical to its ancestor, much less remote ancestors.
Some living fossils are relicts of formerly diverse and morphologically varied lineages, but not all survivors of ancient lineages necessarily are regarded as living fossils.. so no scientists are ignoring anything about any living fossils, but creationist obviously like to ignore those facts to lie to their gullible believers...as usual.
Are you being serious? If so it's because "living fossils" don't disprove evolution at all. They are potential evidence of a local maxima though.
What is a living fossil?
So you were never a science major, I'm assuming. Friend, evolution is proven scientific fact. You can choose either to accept it as the fact it is or be viewed by all who know you as a complete fool. Your choice.
Because nothing in evolutionary theory predicts that "living fossils" shouldn't exist, so their existence in no way disproves the theory.
Hint: That's actually how evidence works in science. An observation is only evidence if it is material to a prediction.
Non-scientists falsely claiming that a theory makes a prediction is not the same as the theory ACTUALLY making that prediction.
I looked it up.
In popular literature "living fossil" commonly embodies radical misunderstandings such as that the organism somehow has undergone no significant evolution since fossil times, with practically no molecular evolution or morphological, but scientific investigations have repeatedly discredited any such claims about molecular evolution. An important misunderstanding underlying the idea that living fossils do not evolve is that stabilizing selection is an evolutionary process, perhaps even the dominant one in morphological evolution.
Looking things up is always a good idea. Some more stuff:
The genes of the coelacanth have a lower rate of “substitution” – a type of mutation – than other animals with backbones, which may reflect the fact that they do not need to evolve quickly because they live in the relatively unchanging environment of deep-sea caves where there are few predators, the researchers say.
“We often talk about how species have changed over time. But there are still a few places on Earth where organisms don’t have to change, and this is one of them,” said Kerstin Lindblad-Toh, scientific director of the Broad Institute’s vertebrate genome biology group, a co-author of the study.
“Coelacanths are likely very specialized to such a specific, non-changing, extreme environment – it is ideally suited to the deep sea just the way it is,” Dr Lindblad-Toh said
nobody cares CUZ THIRH...GOD MADE ALL LIFE...EVOLution is fake fake
Dumbass, a "living fossil" is an animal or plant that was thought to be extinct, but isn't.
It's because living fossils are not proof evolution is wrong. They're only proof that some species are very successful in their niches.
If you have a species group already having an anatomy brilliantly suited to their environment and the challenges it brings then the selective pressure is for their population to remain morphologically stable.
It's not that there isn't some change through time as that is unavoidable, but it does mean some species can look startlingly familiar even after hundreds of millions of years.