Regarding my last question on fossils...the archaeopteryx proves evolution about as much as a platypus does?

Question

Some might say that a platypus is the missing link between ducks and beavers. But, of course it's not. And don't even say WHY NOT. A platypus is it's own species. And even if it was a link between a duck and a beaver, where are the examples between the duck and the platypus, or the platypus and the beaver? Same goes for the archaeoptryx.

Answer 1

Correct. Archeopteryx was a bird, plain and simple. A platypus is unusual, but no transitional species. There is not one, single, solitary example of a species in transition. This very fact disproves macro-evolution.

Answer 2

Well to start with a platypus is more closely related to an echidna than a beaver, they are examples of convergent evolution where animals in different area evolve similar traits to fill similar environmental niches. There are monotremes and you might find something similar to a missing link between them and the next closest group of mammals, the marsupials. And nothing do ducks - birds (archaeopteryx for example) diverged from dinosaurs, which are another branch away - not in the mammalian tree either. You have to go even more primitive to find any common ancestor there and it wouldn't look anything like a bird, or a platypus, or a beaver.

Answer 3

I would say the platypus is defiantly where God had a bunch of spare parts laying around so he put the bill of a duck and the body of a squirrel and the tail of a beaver all together with the reproduction organs of a chicken and made himself one of a kind to really give the evolutionist a pane in the butt. xx

Answer 4

What would it take for you to admit that we really found a "missing link" between 2 species? Every time we DO find one, (and we have), anti-evolutionists just act as if that doesn't answer the question. They now ask for 2 more missing links to account for the new species. Is this fair? You ask, "Show me a missing link." Then when one is shown, you say, "That doesn't count. You have to show me 2 more now." So if we did find 2 more, you'd say, "That doesn't count either. Those are just new separate species we didn't know about before. Now you have to show missing links between that new species and the previous one." And you'd just go on and on like this.

In other words, you are not willing to admit it when you've been given the very evidence you asked for. If this type of evidence does not prove anything to you, then why ask for it in the first place?

Seriously, think about it. WHAT would it take for you to admit that something was a "missing link"? If you will admit nothing as a missing link, then don't ask for it.

Answer 5

If you were serious about debating evolution, you'd have evidence and sources. And you'd have brought this up in the biology category.

You'd be shot down quickly, but at least you would have followed proper procedure. Take heart, for questioning and innate skepticism are at the heart of science. But be wary, for only evidence counts here.

I just thought I'd mention one more thing. If you did have real proof that evolution was false, you'd become extremely rich and famous. So please... if you think you're not just parroting some mindless argument that you don't even understand, submit it to a real scientific journal, and see what happens.

Answer 6

Actually, the monotremes -- the platypus and echidnas -- are the remnants of the transition from egg laying reptiles to live bearing mammals (marsupial and placentate). You can mock and remain ignorant, or learn.

Answer 7

Well, I'm neither a biologist nor a student of fossil records. But when almost every single credible scientist in any trade says evolution is proven beyond a reasonable doubt, I guess I don't assume they're liars.

Answer 8

The "old" (billions of years old) estimates of the earth's age are obtained by radiometric systems that measure age by the rate of disintegration of radioactive elements in the earth's rock layers. Objects, such as bones, are dated by testing the volcanic rocks under which they're buried. It's assumed that the volcanic eruptions that buried the objects occurred after the objects were deposited, so finding the age of the volcanic rock will give an approximate age of the object. The most commonly used radiometric tests include Potassium Argon, Uranium Lead and Carbon 14. Radiometric tests have been found to be inaccurate in many instances. For example, some volcanic rocks from an 1801 eruption in Hawaii were tested by Potassium Argon and found to be 160 million to 3 billion years old!

Scientists now know that rather than evolving over billions of years, complex life appeared in a "Big Bang" during a period of 0 to 10 million years.

Potassium Argon tests have been found to be inaccurate when heat was involved with the object being tested. Therefore, heat from a volcanic eruption could greatly alter the results of this test. How can scientists be confident about dating volcanic rock with Potassium Argon? Yet many famous discoveries were dated by using this test on volcanic rock. Potassium Argon was used to date Skull 1470, said to be 2.8 million years old and "Lucy", dated at 3 million years.

Answer 9

If the bible said that 1+2=4

simply because 3 did not exist you would have the same arguement against math.

i cant see it, and i have no proof. but the writings of men that thought that burning bushes were talking to them is good enough for me.

Answer 10

Thought you might find this interesting:

"Every entity is in a state of flux; moving, reacting, adjusting, and changing. The amount of change is, of course, dependent on its ambient environment, outside stimuli, and its basic (foundational) characteristics."

The Scientists call this "evolution".
The Creationists call it (by) "intelligent design".