I'm fairly sure there are more than enough examples that prove that evolution works. You don't disprove evolution by listing 10 or 100 or 1000 species that didn't evolve, you disprove it by proving that all those species that we think evolved could, in fact, not have evolved. Also, most of those examples seemed to live underwater. Need more examples above water as well.

I also don't see why "no need to evolve" wouldn't be a good reason. Evolution is about adapting, and if you're fine and the environment doesn't change, there's no need to evolve.

"Living Fossil" does not mean there was absolutely no change. Every single one of your examples has changed, but they have changed relatively little. But to say that they have not changed at all and are indistinguishable is absolutely false...100% false. The premise of your post and your positions is completely, 100% not true.

1. the OPs examples are hardly hard evidence.  fossil records don't provide DNA (despite what Jurassic Park says).  therefore all we can compare is the most general physilogical elements of these animals: bone structure for instance.  without DNA evidence we can't really prove or disprove genetic disparity.  the true distinction of one species to another is the ability to reproduce. fossils can't provide that information.

2. the OP does not understand the fundemental concept of evolution.  for evolution to occur you need some sort of a stimulus.  there is not change without a need.  evolution is about having the best ability to surive in your environment.  if the environment doesn't change then neither will your species and change in a way that requires the species to adapt or die evolution need not apply.  therefore finding excepttions isn't exactly ground breaking or even unexpected. 

therefore to answer your question: science is not known to be wrong given the current set of data.  if actual evidence come to disprove the current scientific theories science will change to incorporate that expanded data set.

I haven't been to school for 15 years and even back then I completely sucked at biology. But I think I still remember a plausible explanation:

Bacteria reproduce asexually, their "children" are genetic clones. Thus they are completely missing one of the three pillars of evolution (mutation, selection and recombination), namely recombination. As far as I remember, evolution was very slow until the "invention" of genders/sexual reproduction anyway.

It's simple actually. You're assuming everything should show massive change. This is wrong. Sometimes changes are tiny and in some cases certain species have effectively "plateaued" - they have nowhere to go within their current environment and will only change if something changes around them.

As for speed, again you've got in wrong assuming 5 million years isn't enough. There are plenty of examples of species evolving faster than that with drastic change.

The pace, and extent, of evolution depends on rate of mutation of genetic material, rate of generational change, plus a whole host of environmental factors.

The bottom line is it is perfectly reasonable for certain species to show very little to no change depending on their environment and what they are.

Evolution only takes place where there is viable, more successful changes to evolve to combined with suitable environmental impetus.

You have to remember you're talking a minority of examples of out millions of clearly evolved and evolving species.

Punctuated Equilibrium:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Punctuated_equilibrium

Evolution isn't a slow, steady, CONSTANT event. It happens in spurts, and species change very slowly between said spurts. Darwin may have thought it was constant, but the theory has changed a lot since it's inception. That's the thing about science as opposed to religion - its not dogmatic and allows for thoughts to be refined and changed or even completly disregarded over time.

Living fossils are mostly niche species and are much more the exceptions then the rule. There are examples in the fossil record, however, of species surviving mostly unchanged (because even "living fossils" are not actually identical to their ancestors) for millions of years and then suddenly being replaced due to outside competition. Crocodilians, for example, took over a niche held for millions of years by large amphibians....some of these amphibians carried on in climates too cold for crocodiles for tens of millions of years after crocodiles settled into the niche of semi-aquatic ambush predators. This changed, however, when the areas that they lived in warmed up (such as Australia) and crocodiles moved in.

Finally, just because science does not currently have an answer to a problem does not mean that it won't have the answer in the future. I am NOT an athiest, but it bothers me when people use the "isn't is easier to believe in God then" arguments. It's way easier to beleive Zues is sitting on Olympus throwing down lighterning bolts then to even have to consider particles too small to see with the naked eye that carry electrical charges, after all.

i want to add one more thought.  from what i've seen most Christians view evolution as a challenge to Christian thought.  it really isn't.  if evolution implies that all life evolved from a common ancestor it still does nothing to suggest where that common ancestor came from.  evolution and creationism is NOT in direct compitition.  evolution by all means appears to be fact but it only applies to changes in life, not where it originally came from. 

evolution applies whether you believe in creationism or the big band or that aliens impregnated our world with life.  whatever, doesn't matter.

You're wrong.

One doesn't have to come up with an alternative theory to discredit a theory.

Actually, they haven't changed morphologically and anatomically. If I am wrong please specificy in what ways they have changed.

This.

I really stopped reading from there.