An ad-nauseam fallacy is an argument that is repeated time and time and time again because the person arguing it thinks that if it is just repeated, then this lends weight to the argument. IT DOESN'T.
The evolutionists seem to think that we are UNAWARE of the CONJECTURE of the theory of evolution, that would state that stasis or fixity or normalized selection, was acceptable/expected in some cases.
Yes of course we know that technically speaking, an organism remaining stable in it's niche is not necessarily a problem as such for evolution theory on a technicality, but that is only the beginning of the issue.
Technically if a claim is made that superman exists, yes - technically I agree that if you only ever see the superman-claimant walking like a normal man and not performing like superman should, it is true that this does not technically disprove he is superman. I, "get" this. But it is a MOOT point, because if you only ever see him act like a normal man then what has that got to do with superman? Nothing!
For if we only ever saw the superman-claimant walking and acting within a range of the abilities of a normal man - sure, you could still argue this doesn't BREAK the superman-theory, but let's face it, you would be using desperately WEAK CONJECTURE as an excuse for not seeing the correct inference as to where the evidence is actually pointing, and it would be pointing away from this guy being superman.
Like superman-claims, molecules-to-man evolution is one MASSIVE and impressive claim, it claims that molecules can lead to grass, trees, fleas, peas and hairy-knees, evidence EQUIVALENT to that claim, would be to show all of the transitionals we would expect to see, just for STARTERS, just as we would expect a superman-claim to show us abilities superman has, we would expect evolution to show us it's abilities, by showing us how it created a bat, by showing is PRE-bat intermediates, or showing us how a starfish or seahorse came to exist, by showing us PRE-seahorses/starfish. We would logically expect to see this for most animals, (generally), and we would NEED to see this, to satisfy the size of the claim, which is a ludicrous claim, just as a superman-claim is ludicrous.
So it is to miss the point entirely to only comment that stasis "is not a problem for evolution", because that is only the BEGINNING of the matter. Such a tenuous comment could be claimed for any theory that could accommodate any and all of the evidence.
Futhermore, what would we expect to see if evolution had not happened? If we were digging up jellyfish today, how could we find out if it evolution had not happened? Well "Not evolution" would be, "not change", because evolution means "change". We could obviously only expect the jellyfish to be identical apart from superficial changes. So if it was not evolution we would expect there to not be any change in the fossils. And this is what we see across the board, in a whole range of organisms.
Like with the superman example, a whole lot of, "not superman" would be, "not superman abilities", so then is it logical to say that a whole lot of "not evolution" favours evolution? That is pretty unfalsifiable.
The list of organisms that appear and then remain unchanged or, "un-evolved" is extensive, here is only a few of them; as you can see, they are of all diverse types;
The Coelacanth Fish (340 million years old)
Gingko Trees (125 million years),
Crocodiles (140 million years),
Horseshoe Crabs (200 million years),
The Lingula lamp shell (450 million years),
Neopilina Molluscs (500 million years),
The Tuatara Lizard (200 million years).
Avocets (65 million years)
Wollemi Pine (150 million years)
Ferns (180 million years)
Nightcap Oak (20 million years, based on fossilized nut)
Maple Tree (30-50 million years/ Eocene)
Jellyfish (500 million years)
Alligators (75 million years)
Gracilidris Ant (15-20 million years preserved in amber)
Turtles (110 million years)
Gladiator Insect (45 million years)
Lace Bugs (15 -200 million years, amber)
Starfish (500 million years)
Bats (48-54 million years)
Golden Orb-Weaver Spider (165 million years)
Pelican Spider (44 million years)
Shrimp - (100-300 million years)
Rabbitfish - (150 million years)
Gall Mites - (amber - 230 million years)
Sponge, Nucha naucum - (220 million years)
Octopus - (90 million years)http://creation.com/fast-octopus-fossils
Dragonflies. (can't find a date, but they were a lot bigger but that's all, I guess the Carboniferous)
Laonastes Rodent (10 million years up, can't find exact date)
Millipedes. (3-400 million years, aprox)
Sharks: (450 million years)
Vascular plants, land plants. (400 million)
Proxylastodoris kuscheli Beetle. (40-50 million) --was believed extinct until recently--
non-marine ostracod. Eocene --was believed extinct until recently--
Sabalites Palm tree - Eocene (30-50 million years)http://www.fallsoftheohio.org/Angiosperms_Gymnosperms.html
Hydrangea? (23-33 million years/Oligocene) http://www.fallsoftheohio.org/Angiosperms_Gymnosperms.html
Alnus flower (23-33 million years/Oligocene) http://www.fallsoftheohio.org/Angiosperms_Gymnosperms.html
Swartzia is a tropical tree with some 200 species today (30-50 million years/ Eocene))
Alder tree (23-33 million years/Oligocene)http://www.fallsoftheohio.org/Angiosperms_Gymnosperms.html
Sycamore. "The leaf is not too different from those on the living tree" (30-50 million years/ Eocene)
Crinoid Anthedon (150 million years)
Tardigrada (micro-bears) - 520 million years. (they have many things that large animals have including a gut, eyes, osphagus, brain and mouth)
Herring fish (35-55 million years)
Garfish ( 30-55 million years)
Earliest spider (300 million years)
Grasshopper (100 million years)
Frog (280 million years)
Bees (100 million years - amber)
There is no evolution in any of these. Take on of them, a bee. It appears, a bee, as a fossil, appears as a bee today, and before the earliest bee, has no ancestors, meaning you are seeing 0% macro-evolution for a bee. The same can be said of any of these kinds of creatures. (disclaimer: of course there are TYPES of bees, but that is EQUIVOCATION. Evolutionists know that showing a variety of bees or frogs, does not count as transitionals, transitionals are supposed to be the species that evolved into frogs and bees, not the things that already are frogs and bees. )