Molecular biologist.
It’s mostly a matter of what we don’t know. Paleontological evidence certainly shows that horseshoe crabs didn’t change much in their appearance. However, we just don’t know to what extent other aspects of their biology are as conserved. Therefore, it is just unscientific to say that horseshoe crabs are ‘living fossils’ or that they didn’t evolve for millions of years. They may have, they may not have
Absence of paleontological evidence of change in appearance does not mean evolutionary stagnation
Doesn’t it? It doesn’t seem obvious either way. Are you an actual paleontologist, or just guessing?
Molecular biologist.
It’s mostly a matter of what we don’t know. Paleontological evidence certainly shows that horseshoe crabs didn’t change much in their appearance. However, we just don’t know to what extent other aspects of their biology are as conserved. Therefore, it is just unscientific to say that horseshoe crabs are ‘living fossils’ or that they didn’t evolve for millions of years. They may have, they may not have
I came to mention the same. Static phenotype ≠ static genotype.