I really don't know how better to explain it. We'll be beating a dead horse if we keep up discussion on this particular topic much more.
Let's remember also that because the more advance species are sexual, they require mates to reproduce so this requires that not one, but several (or perhapse the whole species) transform itself into a new more advanced species.
Major misconception here. Species do not suddenly grow extra limbs in one generation. They do not "spontaneously" morph into something else. Most evolution has to do with features that are common in the species to begin with. Say that due to a change in the enviornment, taller members of the species have an easier time surviving. Gradually the speicies will tend to get taller. These enviornmental changes may not happen often, so species have no reason to change wildly. There are built-in resistances to most mutations, making variation relatively uncommon, so unless there is a definite pressure, there is no reason for something to be constantly changing.
Frogs may not compete for food with alligators, but they may indeed become food for the alligator.
Just because there is a predator/prey struggle, this does not imply a struggle for resources. Predators depend on prey species for food. If they eat too many and the prey become scarce, they starve and become scarce themselves. If the predators become scarce, the prey can overmultiply and the whole cycle starts again. This interdependence is critical, so there is no reason why alligators MUST eat frogs to extinction simply because they are more "advanced". I've said it before and I'll say it again: Just because a species is more complex, doesn't make it superior. You might not LIKE this fact, but that doesn't make it not true.
I already gave you an example of just such a frog, with citation and link to the site.
Please re-post it then. The last link I could find that you posted was back in 393. Something about puffer-fish.
I really don't know how better to explain it. We'll be beating a dead horse if we keep up discussion on this particular topic much more.
I do not see how you cannot understand that there is a contradiction when evolutionists say at once at the same time that species change out of necessity but that nevertheless those who do not change do not die. Evolution is full of death to those who do not change, it is rife with such phrases as 'struggle for life', 'survival of the fittest' and has a strong bent to Malthusianism.
Let's remember also that because the more advance species are sexual, they require mates to reproduce so this requires that not one, but several (or perhapse the whole species) transform itself into a new more advanced species. -me-
Major misconception here. Species do not suddenly grow extra limbs in one generation. They do not "spontaneously" morph into something else.
It is you who does not understand. You do not understand that the statement above supports my position. It takes the whole species to accumulate the traits gradually and build the changed species (again the sexual problem, the group needs to change, not just an individual). Because the change is gradual at involves a lot of individuals, again there should be none that remain unchanged (the whole genetic pool has to gradually change to accomplish the gradual transformation).
Frogs may not compete for food with alligators, but they may indeed become food for the alligator. -me-
Just because there is a predator/prey struggle, this does not imply a struggle for resources.
Oh come now! Predation is perhaps the greatest threat to a species. Let's remember that the excuse evolutionists give for what they consider 'proto-mammals' in Australia is the lack of predators. Predation plays a large part in evolutionary theory and no double talk can change that.
I already gave you an example of just such a frog, with citation and link to the site.-me-
Please re-post it then.
In post#708 to Junior:
Native New Zealand frogs (genus Leiopelma) are among the rarest frogs in the world. They are the living representatives of the most ancient lineage of frogs, closely resembling frogs that lived 200 million years ago.
From: Behavior and Biology of Native Frogs.
That's been explained to him at least 100 times, or if not 100, it seems that many. Perhaps yours will be the repetition that finally sinks in. Good luck.