Me too.
For years and years Evolutionists believed that ancient fossils could not be virtually identical to modern-day ones because of the inherent change which takes place in species evolving into other species.
No, they didn't, but thanks so much for demonstrating your poor understanding of what position "Evolutionists" might actually hold.
Yet again an anti-evolutionist reveals that he doesn't have a clue what "Darwinism" actually predicts, or any real understanding of the thing he attempts to debate against. This is called a "straw man attack", since it's like declaring victory after beating up a scarecrow instead of a real opponent.
You imply that stability of a species is not a prediction of Evolution, eh? Well gee, let's see what Darwin himself actually predicted, shall we?
Species of different genera and classes have not changed at the same rate, or in the same degree. In the oldest tertiary beds a few living shells may still be found in the midst of a multitude of extinct forms. Falconer has given a striking instance of a similar fact, in an existing crocodile associated with many strange and lost mammals and reptiles in the sub-Himalayan deposits. The Silurian Lingula differs but little from the living species of this genus; whereas most of the other Silurian Molluscs and all the Crustaceans have changed greatly. The productions of the land seem to change at a quicker rate than those of the sea, of which a striking instance has lately been observed in Switzerland. There is some reason to believe that organisms, considered high in the scale of nature, change more quickly than those that are low: though there are exceptions to this rule. The amount of organic change, as Pictet has remarked, does not strictly correspond with the succession of our geological formations; so that between each two consecutive formations, the forms of life have seldom changed in exactly the same degree. Yet if we compare any but the most closely related formations, all the species will be found to have undergone some change. When a species has once disappeared from the face of the earth, we have reason to believe that the same identical form never reappears. The strongest apparent exception to this latter rule, is that of the so- called `colonies' of M. Barrande, which intrude for a period in the midst of an older formation, and then allow the pre- existing fauna to reappear; but Lyell's explanation, namely, that it is a case of temporary migration from a distinct geographical province, seems to me satisfactory.The prediction (based on the nature of variation and selection) is that some species will change far less than others, if at all, and this has been part of Evolution since 1859. You're only 144 years behind in your scientific knowledge, which at least puts you well ahead of the many young-Earth creationists who are blissfully unaware of the 18th Century (not a typo) evidence for an old Earth (the vast age of the Earth was accepted of necessity long before either Darwin or radiometric dating were even around, contrary to what the YECs would have you believe).These several facts accord well with my theory. I believe in no fixed law of development, causing all the inhabitants of a country to change abruptly, or simultaneously, or to an equal degree. The process of modification must be extremely slow. The variability of each species is quite independent of that of all others. Whether such variability be taken advantage of by natural selection, and whether the variations be accumulated to a greater or lesser amount, thus causing a greater or lesser amount of modification in the varying species, depends on many complex contingencies, -- on the variability being of a beneficial nature, on the power of intercrossing, on the rate of breeding, on the slowly changing physical conditions of the country, and more especially on the nature of the other inhabitants with which the varying species comes into competition. Hence it is by no means surprising that one species should retain the same identical form much longer than others; or, if changing, that it should change less. We see the same fact in geographical distribution; for instance, in the land-shells and coleopterous insects of Madeira having come to differ considerably from their nearest allies on the continent of Europe, whereas the marine shells and birds have remained unaltered. We can perhaps understand the apparently quicker rate of change in terrestrial and in more highly organised productions compared with marine and lower productions, by the more complex relations of the higher beings to their organic and inorganic conditions of life, as explained in a former chapter.
-- Charles Darwin, "On the Origin of Species"
But what's funny is that even if you had been correct on that point, you'd still be wrong because of your next mistake:
Then they found the coelacanth fossil, which is ancient and yet is virtually identical to modern-day ones.
No, it isn't "virtually identical", but thanks for playing. It has changed so much from its ancient forbearers that it is assigned to not only a different species, but to a different genus entirely.
Are you sure you know what you're talking about?
Even though it should have provoked their thinking about the whole idea of the evolutionary basis of different species, they managed to turn it around and somehow declare that it is, after all, consistent with evolution.
Because, indeed, it is. The facts are, that is -- not the incorrect story you got from creationist sources. Try reading the primary scientific literature sometime. It's still clearly part of the same family, but that's hardly the same as being "virtually identical", which it most certainly is not.
If you always work backwards from the answer you always get the right answer.
Thank you, Mr. Obvious. What you overlook is that being able to actually "work backwards" while still matching the existing theory is further confirmation of the existing theory.
Charlie referred to 'living fossils' as "anomalous forms." Interestingly enough, even though the coelacanth is no longer used by most evolutionists as an example of a transitional form, this fish is sometimes still referred-to as "old four legs" in some circles. The coelacanth and many other "anomalous forms" can be found all over the globe. Good thing Charlie included numerous caveats within his writings, allowing for critters that decided to thumb their nose to evolution.