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.
There are a lot of pressures on species NOT to evolve. If the species changes to readily, it loses its identity and does not propogate. If it does not change AT ALL, then it cannot adapt to new enviornmental conditions. When you have frogs that "closely resemble" primitive species, that means they have not had any significant enviornmental pressures in all that time. You are right that this is unlikely. That is why it happens so infrequently and why, out of all the thousands of species of frogs in the world, the guy you are quoting is specifically interested in that one. It is because this is such a rare, but not impossible, phenomena, that gingko trees are so interesting. (We actually had a female gingko tree on campus where I did my undergrad work. That thing stunk to high heaven every spring.) Species DON'T change unless there is a real necessity. Unless they are locked in a struggle for the survival of the species. Most species have to go through this and so change and evolve with some regularity. Some slip through the cracks. These few so-called "living fossils" are compelling evidence for evolution. Not a refutation of it.
You do not understand that the statement above[in the last post] 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).
No, it doesn't support you. You are not arguing against evolution here. IT DOESN'T WORK THE WAY YOU ARE SUGGESTING. No one is proposing that this is anywhere close to what is currently accepted in Biology these days. This is not a contradiciton in evolution, it is a contradiction in YOUR VERSION of evolution.
Oh come now! Predation is perhaps the greatest threat to a species.
Predation is a vital method for "prey" species to keep their numbers at a reasonable level. Otherwise they multiply to the point where they eat all food available to them and consequently starve. It is possible for overactive predation to force a species to extinction, but this is, to my knowledge, uncommon. Usually this is due to the sudden introduction of new predators to an enviornment, like when dogs and rats brought by sailors wiped out the Dodo bird. Lions are not likely to force gazelles to extinction, nor are wolves, which are making a comeback incidentally, likely to wipe out white-tailed deer. Deer that are more succesful at avoiding predators are more likely to pass on their traits, which is why predation is important to evolution. You are suggesting that frogs would have to evolve into reptiles or else be eaten to extinction by alligators. Predators are a significant pressure on prey species and vice-versa, but this is a reason for frogs to evolve poisonous skin, not for frogs to evolve into reptiles on their own, or go extinct.
In post#708 to Junior:
Thanks, I must have missed it. I think I talked about this sufficiently in the first section of this post.