>>There is nothing in the fossil record of anything coming close.<<
Oops, you lose..!
"In 1971, two fossil platypus teeth were discovered in the Tirari Desert in South Australia. They are about 25 million years old, and have been named Obdurodon insignis. The modern platypus has only vestigial teeth which are replaced by horny pads when it is still a juvenile. The fossil teeth are similar enough to these vestigial teeth to allow identification, and they show that ancient platypuses had teeth as adults."
"In 1984, an opalised jaw fragment with three teeth in place, belonging to either a platypus or a platypus-like monotreme, was discovered at Lightning Ridge in New South Wales. This fossil was 110 million years old, and is named Steropodon galmani (Archer, Flannery, Ritchie, & Molnar, 1985). It was the first known mammal from the Mesozoic (the Age of Dinosaurs) in Australia. It may have been the largest mammal from the Cretaceous period anywhere in the world, although it is less than twice the size of the modern platypus."
"In 1991 and 1992, Obdurodon-like teeth were discovered in Argentina in strata dated to 61-63 million years old. They have been named Monotrematum sudamericanum (Archer, 1995). South America, like Australia, was once part of the super-continent of Gondwana, and this find shows that platypuses existed in other parts of Gondwana besides Australia."
Kinda looks like you shoulda done some research, mate.
2006-08-18 03:29:33
·
answer #1
·
answered by Chug-a-Lug 7
·
3⤊
0⤋
As has already been correctly pointed out by others here, there is a fossil record for the platypus. Although it is true that the fossil record showing the progressive developement (evolution) of the platypus isn't impressive or complete, for other animals, such as horses and humans, the fossil record impressively and conclusively demonstrates common descent with modification. That there are gaps in the evolutionary record of the platypus is best and most reasonably explained by saying that the fossils which would fill in those gaps exist but simply haven't been found for whatever reason. Especially in light of the existance of a complete fossil record for other animals.
One of the fossils related to the platypus was found in Argentina and is dated to being about 61 million years old (I know that creationists don't like isotopic dating, but until they come up with a more reliable method that doesn't revolve around "the bible says so" they will just have to deal with it). The fossil evidence shows that monotremes (egg-laying mammals) existed in what is now Australia during the Mesozoic Era, when Australia was still part of the supercontinent Gondwana. Platypuses are not the only living monotremes, either. Echidnas (spiny hedgehogs) also lay eggs, and if you place both of their skulls side by side, you will find they are similar.
So, the fossil record for the platypus is admittedly poor, but it is not non-existant. The existance of other animals still living that are similar to the platypus argues for common ancestry, not against it.
To say that the gap exists because "God did it" is a God of the Gaps argument, and is a fallacy. It isn't evidence for anything. Especially when one considers that proposing that platypuses were created uniquely and instantly just because we haven't found any fossils that could be considered as precursors (which is false to begin with) doesn't explain the apparent common ancestry of other phyla with a more complete explanatory fossil record.
The Argument from Incredulity response ("I can't fathom it, so God did it") isn't just a fallacious argument; it is a lazy one. Mold growing on soup in a sealed jar was once celebrated as an example of God creating life from nothing until Luis Pasteur proved the existance of microbes. If we don't have an answer to a question now, it doesn't mean the answer can't or won't be found later.
The fact that platypuses have characteristics which are shared among several very different phyla makes them an excellent example of transitional species (You know, those pesky little critters that creationists say don't exist), and thus, evidence for evolution.
I don't know of any "book-of-the-week" fads that have survived over 150 years of intense scrutiny by scientists in all fields, of all persuations, and of all theological persuasions, from atheism to christian. (http://www.butler.edu/clergyproject/religion_science_collaboration.htm)
The DBP doesn't prove that God exists. Evolution doesn't prove that God doesn't exist.
The supernatural cannot be proven nor disproven. Attempts to do either are psuedoscience.
I am a christian, and I believe that God created us through evolution. God created you, too. He created you to be special and unique. You obviously weren't fully formed instantly out of nothing, but you came from your parents. God used your parents to create you. It isn't unreasonable to think of evolution in the same terms.
2006-08-18 10:28:34
·
answer #2
·
answered by elchistoso69 5
·
0⤊
0⤋
I won't bother with too lenghty an answer, as the ninja should get the 10 points. If you have read the Hitchhikers guide to the Galaxy, on the topic of Babelfish - you know that the existance of such a marvellously odd creature at once proves the existance of god and makes the old man go up in a puff of smoke. I'm cutting corners here, but it's true: the platypus is evidence that god exists. And with that, proof that he doesn't.
2006-08-18 02:39:59
·
answer #3
·
answered by McAtterie 6
·
0⤊
1⤋
I think Australian wildlife almost single handedly proves evolution beyond reasonable doubt.
Many animals in Australia evolved in isolation to other parts of the world (the sea kept them apart), and Australia is a harch environment with a lot of micro climates that place very different survivial demands on life.
Unlike any other place on Earth, fully 50% of species in Australia are venomous. So a very early evolutionary development that conferred advantage was copied into many diverse species.
At the time Australia separated from the rest of SE Asia animals on Earth consisted largely of monotremes and marsupials. Elsewhere evolution led to mammals with wombs, and this evolutionary advantage has led them to more or less take over. Australia's isolation meant that its montremes and marsupials did not face this competition and did not mount an evolutionary response.
2006-08-18 01:46:53
·
answer #4
·
answered by Anonymous
·
1⤊
1⤋
Itchy is a yahoo of the week fad...............
Dont even bother doing any research on this, he certainly didnt...no fossil record??? where did you dig that up? hahaha
Anyways he wont choose an intelligent answer, it'll be something about butterscotch the dancing marsupial or some lame thing like that.........
Its his loss not to consider evolution a fact of life, soem people just cant see outside the box!
2006-08-18 06:45:19
·
answer #5
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
The platypus, an mamal that evolved from reptiles. It is a early evolved mamal. The platypus lays eggs like a reptile. It did not evolve a womb.
2006-08-18 02:34:25
·
answer #6
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
The DBP (as I trendily like to call it) is of course the very epitome of evolution - a species well-adapted to its environment, and the proof of this is in its continued survival and its very existence.
God could not have come up with such a successful design. He tends to make big mistakes in his work. Take humans, who were apparently put on this earth to praise him but seem, by and large, singularly incapable of so doing. Major design fault that, giving them "free will".
2006-08-18 01:40:07
·
answer #7
·
answered by the last ninja 6
·
1⤊
0⤋
Seems well developed for its environment. Points straight towards evolution. Evolution as a book of the week fad? You must be joking
2006-08-18 01:46:37
·
answer #8
·
answered by andyoptic 4
·
1⤊
0⤋
i believe in God , i believe in evolution, i believe in the duck billed platypus..... thank you
2006-08-18 01:39:40
·
answer #9
·
answered by george 3
·
2⤊
0⤋