The frog makes my case. Whats being dissected is a recently live creature and so its actual biological elements are still here. its not just a bunch of trivial bones.
Right here you have proven that your arguments are entirely arbitrary. The frog is dead. According to you, studying a dead animal is not biology . . . unless it hasn't been dead for an arbitrary amount of time that you make up on the spot. Fossils still retain biological elements, such as the muscle anchor points, brain features as seen in the cranium, etc.
Biology is about life. nOt a few bones without any life.
Therefore, dissecting a dead frog is not biology according to your definition. The frog has no life. All we have are some parts left over from when the animal was alive.
Evolution is not based on biological research but merely on very secondary results of biological processes.
I am tempted to make this into my signature to let everyone know just how low creationists will stoop.