coelacanths

Lungfish and coelacanths are a lot closely related to humans than to salmon.

This triggered memories of fishing for Coelacanths in the original Gamecube Animal Crossing.

Sarcopterygii, perhaps, but if we're not fish on that basis, then neither are coelacanths and lungfish.

Humans (and all tetrapods) are more closely related to lungfish and coelacanths than either of those two types of fish are to other living fish.

Sharks and coelacanths have evolved exactly as much as humans.

But what about our precious friends the coelacanths?

But actually I think coelacanths are quite a fun example.

> If we’re neural nets, shouldn’t 12,000 years of post paleolithic experience be enough to have more modern emotions does that mean you believe the Coelacanths should have evolved feet by now?

Without DNA tests of ancient coelacanths and modern ones, how much can we say that it’s the same exact species with little change, vs a related species that evolved to be more like its extinct cousin?

The real issue is that the tetrapods which evolved into most land animals (amphibians, reptiles, birds, mammals) are further down the phylogenetic tree of bony fishes than coelacanths and lungfish, which are further down the tree than cartilaginous fishes like sharks and rays, which are further down the tree than jawless fishes like lampreys and hagfish.

Unfortunately -- by your logic -- both of us are simply fancy Coelacanths which "evolved and are used-to" briny sea water as our "normal" environment, which is why it's so difficult to type this with my flippers while suffocating on dry land.

Coelacanths are better at keeping being than mountains and continents.

Coelacanths have backbone-functioning cartilige.