It is also known as "if land animals evolved from Coelocanths, why are there still Coelocanths"?
Evolution as understood by Darwinists does not mean every example of unevolved species as is must everywhere be extinct as ousted by more developed form. It means they were ousted by more developed form in one particular place. So even if every Coelocanth in one particular place - they have also been called Crossopterygians - was ousted by coelocanths with firmer fins or more lunglike gills, and that evolved form is ancestor of land animals, it does not mean coelocanths were ousted by them all through the seven seas - for obviously not every population of coelocanths had one strain that mutated on way to land animals. Even if more than one had, it does not mean for land animals to exist on evolutionary basis they had to oust the more classical coelocanths in every one of the populations. One population where they did suffices for Darwinism to be plausible on this account.
Likewise even if in one place every ramapithecus of original setup was ousted by a ramapithecus slightly closer to australopithecus, it does not mean there were not other places where they were not ousted by ramapithecuses closer to gorillas rather than to australopithecuses.
That part of mechanism of evolution is not the problem.
Nor is it a problem that Crossopterygians were thought extinct but found out as surviving in Coelocanths. Tarzan lives in a fictional place close to Opar were dinosaurs were never extinct, and he lives in as Darwinian a universe as Sherlock Holmes (not meaning Sherlock's method of deduction is Darwinian, but Arthur Conan Doyle actually made each crime an illustration of some aspect of Darwinism).
All this would have been quite acceptable, scientifically speaking, if we had not known about chromosomes. They are what makes evolution, specifically of mammals from one common ancestor into every different species, impossible. Here is what I previously wrote about it:
I had a dream one night
Even this is not the cardinal difficulty against our presumed descent from Ramapithecus - presumed by Darwinists. Other supposed descendants of Ramapithecus, Gorillas, Chimpanzees, Orang Utangs, all have 48 chromosomes, which might be the original count of mammals, if they had one common ancestor. And man has 46, and gowing down is not the major difficulty.
But for man to descend from Ramapithecus with Chimpanzees, either man's reason and language would have to be products of evolution, or Chimpanzees' lack of them - smartness but no reason, gestures of emotion but no words of discourse - as a deterioration of evolutionary origin.
Derek Bickerton in Adam's Language openly teaches that language is a product of evolution and reason a by-product of language. He is wrong - but the argument is not about extinct or non-extinct ancestor species, nor about chromosome numbers: between apes and us it is about reason not being reducible to an epiphenomenon of language.
Because, when Bickerton calls language and reason products of evolution, he starts out calling them illusory products of synapses. But our experience cannot be an illusion, it must be real, even if our experience of this or that exterior thing is an illusory experience as regards the real thing. Bickerton starts out presuming sun moving in the sky and earth resting below our feet are illusory experiences of earth turning with us and sun resting where it is. Even if he were right - I think he is very wrong even there - it does not prove mind is in an illusion about itself. If synapses were all that were real about our minds, before "what observer" or before "what observing entity in observer" would thought and language - and argument! - be an illusory version of them? Before synapses themselves? But presumably they do not set out to observe.
There are synapses that do not think.
If thought occurs, it is not because of synapses.
If consciousness occurs, it is not because of synapses.
If thought and consciousness are illusions - that illusion cannot be due to mere synapses, but only due to the supposedly illusory consciousness.
Ergo, consciousness is a primary reality, and it is not due to synapses.
That is the good argument against the evolutionary view of man.
As to whether frogs descend from coelocanths, it is less important. Obviously they do not, since each parent couple produces offspring after its kind, in its image, and frogs are not the image of coelocanths. But even if they could have been, that would not have left man with his consciousness and reason as evolved from beasts without reason and matter without consciousness. Nor would the mammals with more than 48 chromosomes - some of which are in the supposed line of our evolutionary descent, like lemurs - be explicably caused by sexual and gestational generation as known.
Nor is there any proof of there having been enough time for coelocanths to evolve into frogs and salamanders, and reptiles - preturtles, prebirds, premammals - to evolve from them, and later mammals from premammals, lemurs from early mammals, monkeys from lemurs, apes from monkeys, starting with Ramapithecus, Australopithecus with Lucy from Rampithecus, and so on:
It is even not probably in an atheistic universe, since it is not probable that earth is kept orbitation after orbitation in same orbit by a balance of two powers neither of which dominates into flying off at tangent or falling down into sun. Stone on string is a very clear non-parallel, since string is not a mere equal power in other direction to centrifugal force, but a superior solidity posing an outer limit to the orbitations*. Even Newton and Napoleon, though accepting mere gravitation and inertia as usual current causations of any planetary orbit, at least could not find it probable that this continued to work even the 6000 years - thus orbitations - of history they accorded earth without any setting right of out-orbit or in-orbit deviations of movement made by God or his angels. An atheist who accepts Newtonian Heliocentrism but denies superior powers to put orbits right and assumes orbit has been used for 400+ millions of orbitations does show a certain inferiority to their power of imagination and logical grasp of probabilities.
Arguing against evolution is good. Arguing against evolution with bad arguments is not good. It exposes arguer and all his side to ridicule from those who know the answers and on top of that accustoms arguer and his side to bad logic - or at best bad fact checking. And bad logic cannot be counted on as serving truth tomorrow, just because it serves truth - in a bad way - today. Bad logic ensues when following the logic of the ones arguing for falsehood to closely - to closely in answering it, not in apprehending it - and by being too opportunistic about finding an answer that respects as much as possible of the beliefs of an atheistic, mind-is-brain-synapses, heliocentric, Darwinian.
Step out of their philosophic rigmarole, use all of their facts, but none of their prejudices or bad guesses, when arguing. And of course not what you merely presume to be their method, even if it is not, like saying or arguing as if Darwinians meant that species from which another evolves must be extinct by the time the new one is there.
Georges Pompidou of
*Orbitation may be my coinage, I mean cycles around an orbit.