Johnny, my point was that the cockroach has had very little evolutionary pressure to change (much). Hence, it has not.
The cockroach example was to answer creationist who think that because a species is in the fossil record for a long time (like cockroaches --- been around pre-dinosaurs), that their continued existence somehow conflicts with evolution.
That idea is wrong --- evolution does not happen unless there is some kind of pressure that reinforces some trait (such as a cave environment).
And, of course, the cave is but the first step in a marathon.
But, to answer your point regarding a fundamental change into "something else."
Would gross changes say from a lean, mean, meat eater to a big, lumbering, vegitarian, work for you?
If so, the dinosaur at issue in this article is a mid-point between two such species.
Indeed, these weird dinos are yet more proof of one species changing into something completely different.
Actually, what we should see is the cockroach being the common ancestor to a bunch of critters. Has anyone tried to construct a descent tree back to the living cockroach?