More Living Fossils

Another coelacanth population has been discovered, and this is causing more trouble for evolutionists.
The discovery of another species of coalacanth caused no trouble whatsoever for "evolutionists". In fact, the discovery was welcomed by scientists.
To understand why, you need to understand how evolutionists interpret the rocks.
By "evolutionists" the author apparently means "scientists"
Rocks exist in layers which have been given names derived from the location where they were first studied.
No, they do not. The names ascribed to rocks come from a number of different sources. The lias, for example, is so-called because it is seen in layers. The term "chalk" is derived from the Germanic "kalk". As the author seems to be confusing geological periods with rock formations, it's worth pointing out that although some periods, such as the Cambrian, Silurian and Ordovician are named after the places in which rocks of that age were first studied others, such as the Eocene, Miocene, Palaeocene, Pliocene and Plestocene are not.
These layers are identified by certain key fossils, called "index fossils," which appear in these layers but no others.
Geological periods are not identified by index fossils. Index fossils are used to provide relative dates for zones, which are subdivisions of stages, which are subdivisions of epochs, which are subdivisions of periods.
Those are the facts.
Not a good start
Evolutionists speculate that rock layers are associated with periods of time.
Geologists (not "evolutionists") first estimated how long it took to lay down sedimentary rocks from observations of the same processes at work in nature today. Since the early part of the last century a number of other techniques have been available which allow for more accurate dating.
They have assigned ages to the rocks based on the assumed age of the fossils in them.
This is simply not true. The ages of the rocks were first determined by calculations of how long it would have taken them to form, and more recently by a variety of different radiometric methods and astronomical calibration.
The age of various fossils depends upon their assumption of how evolution proceeded, and the rate at which they suppose evolution proceeded.
Again, flatly false. The ages asigned to fossils is based on dating the rocks in which they are found.
For example, the Cambrian layer contains trilobite fossils, which the evolutionists believe lived during the Cambrian period from 544 to 510 million years ago.
The Cambrian is not a "layer". It's a geological period, and contains many different Formations from different parts of the world. This is basic geology.
Grossly ignorant
The Devonian layer contains certain fish fossils, which evolutionists believe lived during the Devonian period from 409 to 363 million years ago.
Similarly, the Devonian is geological period
Grossly ignorant
The Jurassic layer contains certain dinosaur fossils which the evolutionists believe existed during the Jurassic period 202 to 141 million years ago.
I can only suggest that the author reads a basic textbook in geology.
Grossly ignorant
Evolutionary paleontologists once believed that the coelacanth (or something very much like it) was the fish that evolved into the first amphibian, largely because it appeared at the right point in the geologic column.
It was hypothesised that coelacanths were ancestral to terrestrial vertebrates because of the morphology of their fins, which share some characters with tetrapod limbs. It is a simple matter of fact that many other fish are found in the same strata from which coelacanths are found which have not been hypothesised as ancestors of tetrapods
The biology textbook used at Cerro Coso Community College biology still contains a section that begins,
Perhaps the author needs to read a geology textbook, then read this textbook for comprehension.
Amphibians Evolved from Lobefin Fishes and Developed Lungs [para]
Quite so.
About 400 million years ago, a group of fishes called lobefins appeared, probably in fresh water.
Lobefins had two important pre-adaptations to land-life: stout, fleshy fins with which they crawled about on the bottoms of shallow, quiet waters and a outpoaching of the digestive tract that could be filled with air, like a primitive lung.
The coelacanth seen in Figure 24-33d is a lobefin that was believed to be long extinct before its discovery in 1939.1
Then, it goes on to tell the fable about how the lung of a lobefin adapted itself for breathing, and how the fins turned into legs.
There is good evidence of how the limbs of tetrapods evolved from the lobe-fins of their ancestors in the form of an excellent series of fossils. This is not a "fable". It is solid evidence.
They don't point out that the discovery of a living specimen proved that the coelacanth lung is only used for buoyancy and has nothing to do with breathing.
Without reading the textbook I donít know if this is true or false, but any higher level textbook on evolutionary biology will make this quite clear.
They don't point out that the coelacanth is a deep-water, salt-water fish, not a shallow-water, freshwater fish.
Without reading the textbook I donít know if this is true or false, but any higher level textbook on evolutionary biology will make this quite clear.
They don't point out that it doesn't use its fins for walking on the bottom.
So what? The modern coelacanth, Latimeria, is a very distant descendant of it's Paleozoic ancestors.
They don't point out that the coelacanth is no longer seriously considered to be the missing link between fish and amphibians.
Every reputable textbook on evolutionary biology does.
Although the biology text book doesn't explicitly say it, a typical college student would almost certainly get the impression from it that the discovery of the coelacanth has confirmed that the coelacanth is the fish that evolutionists believe evolved into the first amphibian.
Only if the student is very stupid.
Ridiculous assertion
(Some would say that if a student gets that incorrect impression, it is his fault for not asking the teacher the correct questions, and for not knowing what the definition of "is" is.
The discovery of a living coelacanth not only showed that they made incorrect inferences about how it used its lungs and fins, they also made incorrect inferences about when it lived.
No, it doesn't. It shows that modern coelacanths don't use their swim bladders and fins in the way the evidence shows that their remote ancestors did
The inaccuracy of the dates of the geologic column is the real problem for evolutionists.
Utter bunkum! The dating of the geological column is becoming more and more acurate as new and better techniques are developed
The discovery of a second coelacanth population near Indonesia 2, proves that at least one "extinct, prehistoric" species can exist in several locations for 80 million years without leaving a trace.
No palaeontologist would doubt that living organisms can exist for millions of years without leaving a fossil record. Few modern taxa are known from the fossil record at all.
If species can certainly exist for tens of millions of years without leaving a trace, then they can probably exist for hundreds of millions of years without leaving a trace, too.
Quite so. Does the author think that palaeontologists don't know this?
If this is true, then you can't tell when species go extinct from the geologic column.
On the other hand, if we don't find any fossils of a taxon in the geological column later than a particular date, it is reasonable to assume that the taxon became extinct.
Furthermore, it might have existed for hundreds of millions of years before leaving the first fossil, so you can't tell with any certainty when the species first evolved.
One of the great benefits of having a living representative of a taxon long assumed to have been exitinct is that we can use DNA analysis to date the time at which it diverged from its sister groups. In the case of the coelacanth, this is the lungfishes.
If the fossil record is so poor that you can't tell with any certainty when any species originated and when it went extinct, then how can you use it to construct an evolutionary progression?
There are ways in which the evidence can be tested which don't rely on the fossil record. DNA is one such example. Given that the fossil record is frustratingly incomplete, we can only work with the evidence we have. The evidence from the fossil record shows, in some case, clear evolutionary sequences and no creationist has attempted to address that evidence and provide and alternative, testable explanation. The fact that predictions made from our limited knowledge of the fossil record led to the discovery of Tiktaalik shows that the theoretical basis on which those predictions were made is pretty sound.