You wrote:
>I object to the use of higher classificatory levels to claim that evolution
>hasn't occurred. To place them in the same genus is not the same as saying
>that the life-form has remained totally unchanged.
I don't suggest no change, as you know.
>
>Consider this use of the genus Acer: Acer can be found in the Jurassic,
>therefore it is a living fossil and evolution is disproven.
>
>Compare this to a family: Bovidae are found in the Miocene and therefore a
>cow is a living fossil and evolution is disproven.
No comparison. The changes between Acer from Mesozoic to present are well
within the range of variation of extant forms. Not so for Bovids.
I think you have missed the point in trying to discredit "living fossils"
They do exist and the terminology was invented by evolutionists, not by
creationists.
The fact that they may have been a little different than their modern
counterparts does not detract from the significance of their remarkable
stasis. I don't know any creationists that think organisms haven't changed.
Even Linnaeus himself recognized that.
Art
http://chadwicka.swau.edu