Please read the rest of my post. I answered specifically the questions you reiterate here. I'm trying to keep things civil, here, but you need to actually debate me and acknowledge the points that I make instead of ignoring them.
Actually I did, but it did not address my point. The rest of it can be summarized by the following sentence:
Reptiles could entirely avoid places where amphibians ruled.
True, but that does not mean that they did not exert pressure on amphibians which is the point. A new species does exert pressure on older species and evolutionists include this as a central part of the theory of evolution called 'the struggle for life'. Further, these new species have to come from somewhere. Since mutations occur in organisms, not species, for them to spread they need to take over a large amount of the species in which they occurred. In addition, the basic claim by evolutionists for the transformation of species is necessity. If there was necessity for some to transform themselves, why was there no necessity for others? This is a central contradiction in evolutionary theory and an example of if it happens it is evolution, if it does not it is evolution also. In a few cases, legitimate reasons might be found, but not in millions of cases where this has happened. However, my main point is how can there be such necessity to change and we still have species, such as frogs that remain unchanged after some 200 million years? Mutations happen all the time and environment changes all the time. Clearly if evolution were true such stasis would be impossible.