Hylidae is a wide-ranging family of frogs commonly referred to as "tree frogs and their allies". However, the hylids include a diversity of frog species, many of which do not live in trees, but are terrestrial or semi-aquatic.
Most hylids show adaptations suitable for an arboreal lifestyle, including forward-facing eyes providing binocular vision, and adhesive pads on the fingers and toes. In the non-arboreal species, these features may be greatly reduced, or absent. The Cyclorana species are burrowing frogs, that spend much of their lives underground.
Hylids lay their eggs in a range of different locations, depending on species. Many use ponds, or puddles that collect in the holes of their trees, while others use bromeliads or other water-holding plants. Other species lay their eggs on the leaves of vegetation overhanging water, allowing the tadpoles to drop into the pond when they hatch.
A few species use fast-flowing streams, attaching the eggs firmly to the substrate. The tadpoles of these species have suckers enabling hem to hold onto rocks after they hatch. Another unusual adaptation is found in some South American hylids, which brood the eggs on the back of the female. The tadpoles of most hylid species have laterally placed eyes, and broad tails with a narrow, filamentous, tip.
Source: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hylidae - 26.06.2011
Creation vs. Evolution
Whether I see creation as a brilliant handiwork of an even more brilliant creator or as a product of chance without concept and destination is a decision, which I have to make for myself.
Firstly, history clearly shows, that many a widely accepted scientific finding later on turned out to be wrong.
Secondly, today there is not the one scientific position about creation respectively evolution.
There are only opinions of a majority of scientists which are diametrically opposed to those of other scientists active in the same field. Majority circumstances are not a proof of the correctness of an opinion or theory. This is not only apparent by logic, but also by the history of science and mankind.
The facts - fossils, geological formations, genes, to mention a few - are the same, the research methods are the same, but yet the scientists come to totally different results.
Instead of simply adopting trustfully / naively the current majority opinion, I can ask myself among others thing: Why do we have such diverging opinions?