*Ahem*
Sorry, just had to get that out of my system.
That is a good statement of why old species are still around, however it contradicts the basic postulate of evolution that species transform themselves into new species out of necessity, and that those who do not change, die. If necessity was the causal factor for evolution, then there should be no 'old' species around, they should have been long ago destroyed for failing to keep up.
Species do transform out of necessity. If there is no real necessity, they don't change. If they succesfully occupy an ecological niche, they multiply and prosper. Frogs as a class occupy certain specific places in the ecosystem. They do not compete with alligators or chimps, and in fact are depended on by other species as a food source. Plants were not "replaced" by animals. Animals in fact require plant life to survive. If a group of species like frogs is more succesful in their niche than a competing species of reptile, the frogs win. It doesn't matter if the reptiles are more "advanced" in some ways. As far as competing for food and reproductive capability, frogs do fine.
This does NOT contradict anything in evolutionary theory. In fact it is at the heart of the theoretical framework. And before you go claiming that this a departure from the "party line", here's an excerpt from your own post on Darwin:
These laws, taken in the largest sense, being Growth with Reproduction; Inheritance which is almost implied by reproduction; Variability from the indirect and direct action of the external conditions of life, and from use and disuse;. a Ratio of Increase so high as to lead to a Struggle for Life, and as a consequence to Natural Selection, entailing Divergence of Character and the Extinction of less-improved forms.
Less-improved forms, here, refers to organisms with inferior reproductive capabilities, NOT overall complexity. Bacteria, ants, and frogs by virtue of their survival and reproductive capabilities, are equally deserving of the "improved form" distinction. This sort of mis-interpretation of "improved" is one of the biggest sources of misunderstandings about evolution and the basis of all too many ill-aimed attacks.
Regardless, the example I gave has not changed in 200 million years. It has survived through numerous environmental changes throught that time - as well as it having stopped mutating (as have many other species such as the shark, the coelacanth, etc.).
I think you would be hard pressed to find a specific species of frog that has survived virtually unchanged since the emergence of the class millions of years ago. The overall "format" of the frog, if you will, hasn't changed because it hasn't had to. It is adept at living and reproducing in swamp-like conditions and is superior in its own way to other potential competitors. Hence it does not go the way of the Dodo. Frog mutations do continue and in some cases are quite drastic:
http://www.pca.state.mn.us/hot/frogs.html
This is a particularly extreme and possibly human-induced example, but it shows that frogs are still in a state of change. It is HIGHLY unlikely that any mutation like an extra set of legs would be at all adventageous or widespread enough to propagate for long, but less dramatic and more functional adaptations, like a resistance to the type of pollution they are theorizing could be causing these mutations, could be very beneficial to certain species in the long run.
Further, evolutionists constantly compare modern species with other modern species to support evolution. However, according to evolution itself all species are descendants of whatever the first life was (supposedly some 4 billion or so years ago) so therefore all present species are equally far apart in time to that first supposed species and it is a complete contradiction and doubletalk for evolutionists to deny that any species has stopped changing and mutating while others have continued to do so when making such comparisons.
When scientists say things like "Chimps and monkeys are descended from lemurs.", that is really short for "Chimps and monkeys are descended from a a common ancestor that was probably very lemur-like." Modern-day lemurs are similar, but not identical to our mutual early-primate forbears. Lemur skeletons have strong resmeblences to fossils of early primates. That means that we can look at modern lemurs for clues as to how these early primates lived. Direct conclusions are tenuous, but that doesn't mean we can learn nothing. It's also a LOT easier to teach people, particularly kids, about evolution if you can point to real animals in a zoo and not just fossilized bones. Comparisons of modern-day species are useful and provide some evidence for evolution, but are not by any means the whole story. It is perfectly rediculous, as you point out, to say that we are directly descended from the Alaotran Gentle Lemur (Hapalemur griseus alaotrensis) which currently lives (for the time being) in Madagascar. That isn't how evolution works. Never has been, never will be.
Species do transform out of necessity. If there is no real necessity, they don't change.
You are just repeating the contradiction. If they do change out of necessity then those that do not change should die and we would not have all these old species around. 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. There is also a great vacuity inherent in this argument from necessity. Need does not produce new genes, it is not a cause for new functions, just because one needs something does not mean it magically appears which is in essence what evolutionists are saying with this argument.
If they succesfully occupy an ecological niche, they multiply and prosper. Frogs as a class occupy certain specific places in the ecosystem. They do not compete with alligators or chimps, and in fact are depended on by other species as a food source. Plants were not "replaced" by animals. Animals in fact require plant life to survive. If a group of species like frogs is more succesful in their niche than a competing species of reptile, the frogs win. It doesn't matter if the reptiles are more "advanced" in some ways. As far as competing for food and reproductive capability, frogs do fine.
Frogs may not compete for food with alligators, but they may indeed become food for the alligator. This is one of the many kinds of competition which evolutionists postulate as the source of evolution, they call it the 'struggle for life' and it involves dog eat dog, dog eat mouse and dog eat the food of another species. In fact evolutionists call this all part of the environment which creates the necessity for evolution. And again one must say that no place on earth has not been to either environmental (weather, etc.) changes and the competition between species for 200 million years. Therefore it cannot be said that a frog or any kind of species that has remained unchanged for hundreds of millions of years does not disprove evolution.
I think you would be hard pressed to find a specific species of frog that has survived virtually unchanged since the emergence of the class millions of years ago.
I already gave you an example of just such a frog, with citation and link to the site. It is not just this frog though which has not changed for hundreds of millions of years. The reason we can identify these supposed 'evolutionary ancestors' of more developed species is that they are virtually unchanged since their first appearance!