[Dimensio]

This is getting to the heart of the matter for me. WHICH TRAITS?

All of them. Geez. Every trait that the animal posesses provides no reproductive disadvantage, and no new traits that have emerged have provided any significant additional reproductive advantage. Not any single specific new or old trait, but all.

For the theory to be valid it has to show why difference A leads to difference B.

I can't parse this.

Specifically in the case of the Ceolocanth {sic?} what is it about this fish swimming in the sea that allowed it to remain unchanged while other fish swimming in the same part of the same sea changed dramatically?

If you paid attention, it did not "remain unchanged". It's a different species, it just happens to be in the same order as its ancestral relatives.

[trek]

"All of them. Geez. Every trait that the animal posesses provides no reproductive disadvantage, and no new traits that have emerged have provided any significant additional reproductive advantage. Not any single specific new or old trait, but all."

You seem not to recognize the insufficiency of this argument. Your statement presupposes that the evolutionary model is correct and then asserts that since no change in the species is observed then, by definition, no mutation providing reproductive advantage could have occurred. This argument is circular:

It still needs to be explained, in detail, what it is about a Ceolocanth that distinguishes it from all the other fish that coexisted with it but fell by the wayside over the last 400 million years.

" I can't parse this."

I agree. See the above.

"If you paid attention, it did not "remain unchanged". It's a different species, it just happens to be in the same order as its ancestral relatives."

Now this point has some meat in it. I am not a biologist. So I can't speak authoritatively about why those skilled in the art consider the fish taken in 1938 (and later) to be of the same order as the 400 million year old fossils. But the conventional wisdom appears to be that it is from the same order.

I am willing to grant that the fossils and the fish are not identical. But the fact remains that Ceolocanths (and other select species) would appear to have remained substantially more similar over the millenia than other species. I have not yet heard how the theory of evolution accounts for this.