Yes it has. BTW, I was wrong. The modern coelacanth is not even in the same Family as the fossil forms, but only in the same Order. Here is the classsification of the living species (of which there may actually be two, it being presently unclear, as I understand, whether African and Indonesian populations are separate species):
Kingdom: Anamilia
Phylum: Chordata
Class: Osteichthyes (bony fishes)
Order: Coelacanthini
Family: Sarcopterygii
Genus: Latimeria
Species: chalumnae
The following web page will allow you to look side by side at the modern coelacanth and one of the most similar fossil forms. Notice that they are NOT indentical. Look, for instance, as the bones surrounding the eye. The fossil form is also much smaller; 60cm, which is a typical size for fossil coelacanths. The living ones reach 2m. Finally the living coelacanth is viviparous (gives live birth rather than laying eggs) and there is no indication of this in the fossil forms.
Well then what are we to make from this comment in another portion of your cited source?
Coelacanths have not changed much over the past 380 million years. The skeleton of Macropoma lewesiensis, which is known from the upper Cretaceous, is virtually identical to that of the coelacanths caught off Sodwana Bay, Latimeria chalumnae, and differs little from the skeleton of most Devonian coelacanths.
Yes it has. BTW, I was wrong. The modern coelacanth is not even in the same Family as the fossil forms,
Way back in post# 42, I gave you a quote from the discover of the first living coelacanth:
"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
The site you give as reference, does not have fossils of the coelacanth, all it has is a drawing of a recent coelacanth and a supposedly fossil coelacanth. Sorry, but drawings are not evidence, the actual fossils are. In addition, they are the same in all essential features from front to back, from top to bottom - as the finder of the first one verifies above.
There are numerous evolutionists out there who are willing to lie for their theory (as there are here). If they want to give proof, they need to show the bones, not made up drawings which is what we get from evolutionists.
Further, the claim that this is not exactly the same as the fossil coelacanths is totally bogus. There are several different 'species' of coelacanths known from the fossil record:
Order Crossopterygii This small order contains some of the more unusual prehistoric fish known almost exclusively from the fossil record. The members of this order are known as fringe-finned or lobe-finned fish due to the unusual shape of their fins. The tail is three-lobed, and the body is covered in hard armour-like scales. Their skeletons are mostly cartilaginous material. These fish have lungs, but they are either so heavily calcified that they serve no purpose or are used as a storage area for fat. They lack the internal nostrils that many other prehistoric fish had. This order consists mainly of marine fish. All species in this order were thought to be extinct. However, one specimen, a coelacanth, was captured by a fisherman off the coast of Africa in 1938, and in 1999 a separate species of coelacanth was discovered off Indonesia..
There are several families in this order comprised of extinct fish such as the Rhipidistians. There is only one living family with two living members:
Latimeriidae (coelacanths) 2 spp
From: Lobe Finned Fish
So as you can see your nonsense means absolutely nothing. Like all evolutionists you are trying to create confusion.
Further lets note that coelacanths "Their skeletons are mostly cartilaginous material. " What that means is that the fossil preservation cannot be as good as for hard boned fish and missing pieces cannot be interpreted as different species, families, etc.. All that they show is the imperfection of the fossil record.
However, the importance of the coelacanth, and why it disproves evolution very strongly is that in 380 million years it did not evolve regular bones, it did not evolve all the 'advanced' features which evolutionists claim were essential for species survival and thus forced species to develop them. That this fish, with such supposedly 'ancient' biology can still exist, survive and thrive shows quite well that the necessity which evolution claims drives species to change is absolute bunk.