Duck Billed Platypus

To me a the platypus actually helps to understand the evolutionary process. To me, it is random, so long as the mutations that will naturally occur do one of 2 things...help the animal in some way to survive, or thrive easier...or do nothing to HURT the animals success...under which I believe the platypus to be the later.This could also easily be viewed as a living "genetic shift" from one animal to another...or a living missing link. Surely any creationist would agree that the ostrich is not like any other bird besides emu's...but nothing about the ostrich makes it unable to survive..which is the key point.There ARE living examples of what I and others would feel to be "intermediate" animals that are between one species and another. Flounder come to mind...this is to me an obvious living organism in the process of a large biological change. Appearing to be a regular fish...but instead swims on its side...and the only biological differences it has taken on yet (that I see) are that the eyes have both moved to one side of the head...making sight easier for the fish laying on the ocean bottom. I doubt very much that creationists have a reasonable explanation for this occurance...and it isnt the only one. I feel the eyes of the flounder being on one side was a natural genetic mutation that caught on because of how useful it was. Surely a flounder didnt just show up with both eyes on one side...but a slow process (to me) of the eye slowly moving to the other side is easily believable...since ANY improvement would help the animal to see and avoid predators, and to survive, hence to breed and pass on the trait...in ever mutating versions...surely early on there were flounder with varying degrees of eye placement...the ones with the genes causing the eyes to be closer to the same side of the head surviving easier...breeding with other more successful flounder with the same trait, and we now see what we see today. And the traits of flounder will continue to make a more proficient animal...one day maybe looking much like a stingray or another more sleak, more useful form than the animal we see today.Edited by Franatic25, : typo that may have caused enough confusion to sway from my point

You should be careful when talking about evolutionary theory. For example, the quote above is an example of one of the most popular misconception of evolutionary theory. Just remember that every animal is "intermediate". Evolution isn't about one animal having a goal of evolving into another and somehow some got left behind in the middle. That's not evolution. That's a creationist strawman.

---

Owing to the deficiency of the English language, I have occasionally used the academic jargon generator to produce phrases that even I don't fully understand. The jargons are not meant to offend anyone or to insult anyone's intelligence!

Sorry to confuse you. That is not my feeling at all. The problem though (in my case) is not that I believe creatures of any kind to be the "final" of their particular form...but rather that the human lifespan...and therefore, our perception of the time and the slow change that occurs to every DNA carrier around us (or in this case me) is hard to truly grasp. I believe it, but hard to fully comprehend it. Saying any animal is the finished product of evolutionary change is NOT my belief at all...rather was just trying to say that the platypus and flounder are to me OBVIOUS visual examples of that theory. Sorry for the poor wording in the original post.

That's ok. I'm just saying that we really have to be careful with our wordings. The creationistos aren't good at science. But they are very good at nitpicking your wordings. That's all they can do really.

---

Owing to the deficiency of the English language, I have occasionally used the academic jargon generator to produce phrases that even I don't fully understand. The jargons are not meant to offend anyone or to insult anyone's intelligence!

Its a very valid point. I will attempt to flesh out some reasoning behind the misconception.We are slaves of our own timelines. I am NOT going to wake up tomarrow, turn on the news, and see a story about how since the night before...our horses have developed a foot long extension of the neck (along with the required negative genes for its purpose...because if evolution happened this fast, the next day...it might cease to be a horse AT ALL)...allowing it access to more vegetation off the ground. Nor, in my entire lifetime, will I see a stingray pop out of the ocean and fly away, or at least, it is nearly what would be called "lemniscate"...it is easy to believe the concept that animals are what they are because we dont SEE the change...it takes too long.We very well might see, however, mako sharks continue up the river systems of the Gulf of Mexico...becoming more accustomed to fresh water. Soon, larger populations may STAY there...and I AM talking in the stretch of our lifetimes. However small the idea of an animal being able to move from salt water to fresh may be...or rather, how small of a step it seems biologically, this is happening, and it WILL be an important factor soon. These sharks are not that anything unlike the ones that stay in the ocean...rather, they have developed a great tolerance for fresh water....another factor being that they are one of the rarer WARM blooded fish. There being 3 other sharks that share this trait.Behavioral change is just as important as biological...but I degress again from my point (I tend to do that).To accept the fact that evolution is going on around you everyday is easy to say...but hard to fully grasp. The woodpecker I see outside today will appear the same as the woodpecker I might see should I live to be 80....but this is not so, it HAS changed...in perhaps only a few...or very many, parts of the genome (thinking of it from a computational perspective...it is easy to see...DNA being basically computer language, a form of binary using 4 possible answers per spot...rather than 2. Being as how BIG these strands are...it is easy to think of it that way... seeing changes in a few over the course of my lifetime is not at all likely to change much about the animal...but given 100,000 years of slight change? How about a million? If we simply compared the DNA together, rather than the animal itself, we would see a STRIKING difference...that would by that time be very evident visually).It is easy to get caught up in science in this way...isnt science also responsible for animal classification? So my hog isle boa in the other room is "animalia, chordata, reptilia, squamata, serpentes, boidae, boa, constrictor, imperator" and that's just the species...but science now also says that this animal is only this animal...for now. The thing about science is that when something is discovered...it is studied...and if proven true enough, is law. Obviously growing intellects, or rather, by having the collections of the people who started the quests before us, we have a better understanding. In 5 years, my boa will be the same...but it is likely that science will further refine its current thoughts on the matter of evolution.I don't think it is such an easy process for a creationist to "change" their beliefs. Edited by Franatic25, : No reason given.

Hello all!
I actually think that, leaving those troublesome twins of science and logic aside for a moment, the platypus makes for an enjoyably flippant argument against intelligent design. After all; you're telling me God made that? What, on purpose? Was he stoned? Was he having a laugh?
Obviously none of this proves anything, but it is hard to picture any designer sitting down, with a blank slate and designing that. Another example of idiotic design perhaps (like my useless knees...).

perhaps you haven't been exposed to the other side of the design debate ...http://EvC Forum: Silly Design Institute: Let's discuss BOTH sides of the Design Controversy... -->EvC Forum: Silly Design Institute: Let's discuss BOTH sides of the Design Controversy...Welcome to the fray Granny Magdaenjoy.

---

Join the effort to unravel AIDS/HIV, unfold Proteomes, fight Cancer,
compare Fiocruz Genome and fight Muscular Dystrophy with Team EvC! (click)

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

Yup, silly design is everywhere.
This whole platypus thread reminds me of the excitement surrounding the recent "March of the Penguins" documentary. Believers looked at those penguins and thought "WOW! That's simply so AMAZING that there must be a god.". The same illogical principle is at work here;the platypus is weird and amazing, therefore god must have made it.
Well I'm afraid to report that anyone who finds penguins and platypuses shocking, really ought to read a little bit more about cosmology or quantum physics. At a subatomic level, cause does not even necessarily precede effect, and yet, people are amazed at a penguin? That's nothing! The universe is far more amazing and improbable than any little fluffy critter could possibly illustrate.Edited by Granny Magda, : No reason given.

On the other hand, you've have to admit they're pretty cute. Welcome to EvCForum, granny.