Duck Billed Platypus

OK well I heard the forum needed "new blood" so-to-speak and my husband (NOT ME) is a Creationist. He says "If they know everything, tell me how the Duck-Billed Platypus came to be."So there is the question. I have no idea where it would go, or if it can even be started as a topic. But the "fresh blood" wants to know. I am more than happy to type his responses, but he doesnt do the message board thing.

We ask that a new topic have some more to get it started than this.I'd suggest that you explain why your husband thinks that there is any problem. In the past we find that people asking this question have no clue about what the duck billed platypus actually is like.It is useful to know where someone is coming from before we answer a question that wasn't asked.Some description of why the thinks there is a problem would be part of that.Then an explanation of why not being able to discuss the detailed evolutionary history of a particular animal is some kind of refutation of evolutionary biology.If his point is actually that it is necessary to "know everything" then I think that should be brought out clearly. I'm sure he doesn't think it is necessary to know "everything" in order to claim to know something. If he disagrees with then his reasoning for that position would be useful.

Well he JUST fell asleep, so over the weekend I will ask him. I have no idea why he thinks a duck billed platypus would be any different evolutionary then any other animal.I think where he is coming from is that the duck bill is SO "out-there" compared with other animals that certainly it must have been made by God because why would something evole into it otherwise?As far as knowing everything goes, my husband certainly thinks he does (can you imagine me rolling my eyes?)My husband is looking for any way he can to challenge evolution vs creation. He agrees that things do evolve, but thats not how the planet and everything in it came to be. He doesnt go with the Young Earth Creation story, but rather something along the lines of "when the Bible said 6 days it was interprted incorrectly and 6 days could have been any length of time" and my argument to that is that "Why would the Bible say 6 days of that were wrong?"
IMO my husband changes what he sees fit in the Bible to make it work for him. If 6 days sounds too far fetched then certanily it must be a mistake, Creation still happened but the time frame was longer. In other words he fully believes in the Bible, just not exactly as we see it written.I don't buy any of it personally.

So the debate would actually be between evolutionists here at the site and your husband, with you acting as an intermediary. Can you ask your husband why he believes the platypus is evidence against evolution and post that to this thread. That would likely provide enough to get discussion started.Another way to approach this would be for your husband to join EvC Forum and participate in person. We already have a husband/wife team here with Zhimbo and Schrafinator.

---

--	Percy
	EvC Forum Director

I may get him to join sometimes soon, he is learning all about message boards and messenger as we speak. Right now he's clueless about message boards and has very little time.BUT it appears he was just being a smartass anyway. He says "The duck-billed platypus was just put there (By God) to confuse Darwin"I just don't even know what to say. Sorry I wasted your time with this one, I am going to smack him.

In microcosm the platypus represents some of the nature of the discussions here. I goolged for "duck billed platypus relationships" and the first two sites that came up exemplify the kind of thinking of the two sides.1) http://genome.wustl.edu/genome.cgi?GENOME=Ornithorhynchus...This points out the mix of reptilian and mammalian characteristics of the platypus ("transitional" anyone? ). And then discusses the sequencing of it's genome and research.2)What Did Saul’s Companions See and Hear on the Road to Damascus? - Apologetics Press

quote:

---

Evolutionists are astounded at the myriad of varying structures found on the duck-billed platypus. Its beak would imply a close relationship to ducks; its tail might place it with beavers; its hair is similar to that of a bear; its webbed feet imply that it would be an otter; and its claws are the likeness of a reptile’s. God’s hand must have been behind such diversity, because evolution certainly wasn’t!

---

They actually think that because it is named "duck bill" the bill is anything like a duck's. This is an example of basing one's views on wishful thinking and ignorance. BTW -- a platypus's bill is only superficial shaped like a ducks. It is nothing like one in actuality and in no way suggests a relationship to ducks (other than through it's reptilian ancestors).The difference between these two sites that happened to pop up first and second in google is illuminating.

I agree with Nosy that the platypus is an excellent example, especially for the irony of trying to use a living transitional fossil as evidence against evolution. Possibly your husband is amused that you're taking seriously the fallacies he's tossing off. You may be giving him insufficient credit for subtlety.Please be aware that EvC Forum does not offer couples counseling.

---

--	Percy
	EvC Forum Director

I assure he fully believes the crap he spouts off, drives me nuts.But you are right on one thing, he does love to do things to get a rise out of me.LOL about couples counseling, oh we are wayyyy beyond that. LOL

Well, you might enjoy your visits here. No matter what he spouts off there are those here who will enjoy arguing over it. Heck, we argue over almost anything.There are also some here who have significant expertise in many areas and/or a willingness to look it up and dig in. You have a team of allies that will enjoy helping you dissect almost anything put forward.Maybe it works already? He's been asked for more details on his platypus position and ..... nothing there. Just, as you say, a smart assed comment. There is nothing confusing there for evolutionary theory and only some interesting questions about the actual evolution of this particular beastie.You can search the web or the bookstore for the best of the anti-evolutionary arguments. There is little or nothing new and no real meat. It's fun to hold people's feet to the fire.

Thread moved here from the Proposed New Topics forum.

Well, I don't think anyone posits evolution to be the explanation for planetary formation (although some astronomical processes do superficially resemble evolution), and biological evolution is not the explanation for how "everything...came to be", only how [some] life changed from simple organisms to complex forms like us.As for the platypus...while I consider them strange critters, I don't think they invalidate evolution any more than they invalidate creation.I think some people do use the platypus as some sort of proof that evolution is wrong, but by doing so invalidate most of biology too. For example, take what Ken Ham (a fellow Aussie, so he should know better!) says in Watches and Wombats

quote:

---

But what about the most perplexing Australian animal of all, the Ornithorhynchus anatinus, or platypus? This is a real evolutionary enigma. This mammal has a duck-like bill, a beaver-like tail; webbed feet like an otter, hair like a bear, and claws like a reptile. It lays eggs like a turtle and feeds its young on milk like a mammal. It is able to detect electrical impulses, and builds a burrow, like a rabbit, for a lair. What a mixed-up animal! Evolutionists have a real problem with this little animal. It did not evolve from anything, and it is not evolving into anything, but it is a mixture of all sorts of things. I often wonder if God made the platypus especially to confuse those who believe in evolution.

---

There is also a podcast on this animal at ICR...perhaps it will lead to information about what creationists believe about it.Edited by Doddy, : No reason given.

---

Help inform the masses - contribute to the EvoWiki today! Contributors needed for the following articles: Pleiotropy, Metabolism, Promoter, Invertebrate, Meiosis, DNA, Transcription, Chromosome, Tetrapod, Fossil, Phenotype, Messenger RNA, Mammals, Appendix , Variation, Selection, Gene, Gametogenesis, Homo erectus and others.

​

Registration not needed, but if desired, register here!

I don't know everything, nor do I know everything about platypuses but I do know some things. There are three main categories of mammal: monotreme (platypus, Echidna (oft ignored by creationists)), placental (dogs, cats, whales) and marsupial (kangaroo, wombats).The fossil record shows us that the monotremes were the earliest type of mammal around. It seems that the monotremes diverged and out of them came placental mammals (like us) and the marsupials (like the kangaroos with their pouches).As such, we'd expect the primitive monotremes to have more features in common with other amniotes (egg layers) from which they descended than the more modern placental mammals. Fortunately for us, some monotremes still exist today, and though they have evolved over the last 70 million years or so they still have more features in common with 'reptiles' than other mammal types. For example, placentals give birth to live young and monotremes lay eggs. There are other features that are 'transitional' between us and the earlier amniotes that the monotremes possess.So how did they come about? They evolved from non mammalian amniotes. This is consistent with the fact that they appear earlier in the fossil record and the fact that they have transitional features between placental mammals and other land vertebrates such as the 'reptiles'.One thing to remember though - platypuses are not our ancestors. They represent the survivors of an earlier branching off the mammalian family tree than the comparably later placentals/marsupials. The end result is that they present another piece of evidence that supports the natural history of life on earth as described by generations of scientists.

There's plenty of evidence for ancestor/ancestor-relative species of the platypus, which would be odd (and completely unnecessary) for a created animal.Here's a list of some fossil monotremes from wiki, with links to articles about the individual species identified:Monotreme - Wikipedia

Next time you see your husband, look him in the eyes and say the following.The platypus presents absolutely no problem for evolution.All proto mammals lay eggs. The echidnas, for example, is another early mammal that lay eggs. Why? Because proto mammals evolved from reptiles. While other mammals evolved to live bearing, the platypus along with other proto mammals never stopped laying eggs. Why? Because Australia was geographically isolated from the rest of the world very early on in the evolution of mammals.Again, there is nothing puzzling about the platypus. It is a proto mammal evolved to live in a relatively small niche. The "duckbill" is absolutely NOT a duckbill. It is wide mouth with leathery skin that resembles a duckbill. This is a perfect example of convergent evolution (if you don't know what this is, I'll explain). This is primarily an aquatic mammal that hunts for prey in the muck in the bottom of streams. Other than that, this thing is all mammal.Just look at the marsupials in Australia. Again, the continent became isolated fairly early on in the evolution of mammals. With really no other competition, these early mammals radiated into much of the same niche role as found in other parts of the world. There are the herd grazers, the predators, the ground hog type rodent roles... basically just a perfect example of adaptive radiation.

---

Disclaimer:

​

Occasionally, owing to the deficiency of the English language, I have used he/him/his meaning he or she/him or her/his or her in order to avoid awkwardness of style.

​

He, him, and his are not intended as exclusively masculine pronouns. They may refer to either sex or to both sexes!

Some very weird creatures or similarities do not represent problem for many darwinists. We have discussed here similarities between skulls of marsupial and placental wolf. I quoted Dawkins that students at Cambridge have had problem tell them apart. Yet some darwinists here have obviously no problem to tell them apart whenever they like. So one have to wonder how is it possible that scientists misdeemed parts of skull of homo heidelbergis and bear in Germany if it is so simply to tell apart even very similar skulls. And why there are manuals (available on inet) how to distinguish bones of bears of that of humans.As to platypus - I have read that when first delivered (dead and padded) to England the most prominent zoologists of that time (I suppose of Royal academy) considered it to be faked. No such creature on their opinion could exist. So if some darwinists present view that everything is O.K. and there is nothing extraordinary and weird with platypus it is only partial view.