Ah, your willful ignorance is astounding!
First proof:
As pointed out to you numerous times, insults only seve to show that your position is totally untenable.
Species never stop evolving; new mutations are constantly entering the gene pool. However, in a stable environment the surviving genes will cluster around the optimum for that environment. Once the environment changes (or a group of individuals is isolated from the rest of the species and their environment changes) the new mutations that increase survival in that environment will survive, moving the species or new group genetically away from their parents.
Second proof:
Frogs are supposedly amongst the first terrestrial animals. They can be found all over in many environements. Supposedly evolution is driven by mutations (which you state above occur all the time) and necessity (survival of the fittest), especially as regards the need to adapt to a changing environment. Now, there can be no doubt that in the hundreds of millions of years since the first frog arose the environment has changed numerous times. We have seen new continents created in such time, ice ages come and go, droughts and periods of tremendous rainfall. Now since supposedly the arising of new species from frogs was due to necessity one needs to ask why did not frogs dissappear? Remember, survival of the fittest. Supposedly according to evolution new species arose through mutation because frogs were no longer viable as a result of environmental changes. Supposedly the changes take over the species that become unviable and destroy those who fail to change. So how come there still are so many frogs, unchanged from their original state? What happened to all these mutations constantly going on? After all, not just when reptiles arose, but when mammals supposedly arose, the environment has been changing - especially since frogs and other species being part of nature, new species create a new environment when they arise and create a struggle for life which is different than before they arose. So basically we are speaking of continuous environmental change since the hundreds of millions of years since frogs first arose. Yet, not only do we still have frogs, but - even according to evolutionists - they are still essentially unchanged from then (after all they try to claim that you can tell the descent of species by the CURRENT genome of a species). Clearly there is a lot of doubletalk being done by evolutionists and yourself.
Of course, you already know this. For the past two years we've been telling you this exact same thing. You, of course, choose to ignore us and argue against some fallacious strawman version of evolution that exists only in your mind.
Third proof:
You yourself admit in your post to the points I made about the basis of evolutionary theory on necessity and mutation, I am not drawing up any strawman. I am showing quite clearly that evolution is a self-contradictory theory which even then cannot account for the observed facts of nature.
I read your post up until this astoundingly ignorant line, then decided it wasn't worth answering if the rest of your "facts" matched the statement above. You know that frogs weren't around when vertebrates transferred to land, just as you knew man had not descended from mice -- another ignorant statement you made earlier (we shan't mention your "chimps have tails" error of a few months back). Until you can show a modicum of understanding of the theory you rail against, you will be on my virtual ignore list.
No, they weren't. I originally wasn't going to pick on you about this point, but the more research I did I realized it was kind of important. Here's a quick little link about it.
http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/vertebrates/tetrapods/amphibfr.html
and a more detailed link about amphibian/reptile evolution.
http://www.myherp.com/articles/other/evolution.htm
Frogs as we know them were not around when the amphibian-reptile transition occured. They have survived, in one form or another, for millions of years since then.
Your position is characteristic of a VERY common misconception about the way evolution works. New species do not completely replace old species unless there is direct competition between them. Amphibians occupied a specific niche in the ancient ecosystem. They could move about on land and thus avoid competition from fish and other water-based organisms. Reptiles had traits that made them even less dependent on water and thus could occupy a NEW niche in the ecosystem. They DID NOT replace amphibians. They didn't have to. Reptiles could entirely avoid places where amphibians ruled. That's why the traits that define reptiles were such an advantage: scales, shelled eggs, better skeletons. Amphibians were perfectly capable of competing with speicies of fish and occupied a new enviornment from them. Reptiles occupied still another enviornment. The Nautulis(sp?) has existed relatively unchanged since it occupies a perfectly suitable little enviornmental niche all its own and nothing better has come along that directly competes with it enough to force into extinction. Reptiles did not "replace" amphibians.
Back to your point about frogs not changing. Individual speices of frogs, and there are oodles, are widely varied and have changed drastically since the first frog-like ancestor species evolved. The basic "frog format" however, is well-adapted to the conditions these species tend to occupy. Hence it is superior to other speices that might have tried to compete with it and has not died out.
There are no contradictions in the theory of evolution. What you are discussing here is a very common misconception about how evolution works. You're right! The position you're arguing against here doesn't make sense and is, in fact, not the way the system works.