The last part of the above is absolute garbage. To determine whether two organisms are of the same species one must see if they are able to mate and produce viable reproducing progeny. Such a test is of course impossible when talking of present species and fossils some 100 million years old. The reason is quite simple - the dead do not reproduce. A fact which evolutionists tend to forget.
As to the coelacanth, a fish that is known to have lived as far back as some 380 million years ago, the following is from the discoverer of the first living specimen:
"We went straight to the Museum. Miss Latimer was out for the moment, the caretaker ushered us into the inner room and there it was the - Coelacanth..." Smith was not prepared for his own reaction at the sight of the creature and he was so excited he began to shake. "Yes, there was not a shadow of a doubt, scale by scale, bone by bone, fin by fin, it was a true Coelacanth. It could have been one of those creatures of 200 million years ago come alive again."
From: The Coelacanth
So much for another attempted evolutionist snow job.
There is, of course, a morphological species concept to deal with fossil creatures. It actually predates the biological species concept (based on reproduction) by hundreds of years, and was good enough for Linnaeus and innumerable other creationists to use even on living species. Is it perfect? No. Neither is the biological species concept, btw. None of this means that species don't exist, and can't be reasonably delineated.
Again, there is no evidence, so far as I am aware, of a morphological species (if you require the proviso) that has survived for hundreds of millions of years. On reflection (I don't have time to check just now) I don't think the modern coelecanth is even of the same genus as any of the ancient forms. I think it's classified in the same family.
Creationists love this argument no matter how ridiculous it is on its face.