Are there any mammals that lay eggs?

Question

If so explain why
Are they evidence for creation or evolution

Answer 1

no

Answer 2

Yes, there is a mammal that lays eggs. The platypus. There is a lot of debate about how the platypus evolved exactly. The oldest platypus skeletons date to 10,000 years. The current theory is that they are survivors from an early branch of the mammal tree. This particular group kept the ability to lay eggs rather than let then develop internally.

Answer 3

Echidnas and Platypi are simply evidence that there are at least three types of egg laying mammals. They do not constitute evidence for creation or evolution any more than the bible is evidence for a middle-eastern god or the Havamal, Voluspa and Eddas are evidence for the Nordic gods. They are just proof that those writings exist.

~Morg~

Answer 4

Yes, the platypus. Two others in Australia too. The clownfish can change its gender in order to reproduce. The female komodo dragon can give birth to young without ever meeting a male dragon. Stuff like this happens all the time. It's all evidence of evolution.

Answer 5

Yes, monotremes. The only surviving ones are the platypus and two species of echidna. It isn't really evidence for either. Their existence could be interpreted as evidence that mammals evolved from reptiles, but of course creationists could just say 'god made three egg-laying mammals'.

Answer 6

I think the Platypus lays eggs but is a mammal

Answer 7

3 species in the group Monotremata.

the giant echidna, the spiny echidna and the platypus.

Only silly people reject evolution. Isn't this a zoology question?

Can't believe a few people put no. Oh well. They're still mammals because they produce milk for their young though as they don't have specially formed teats for the purpose they have to secrete it directly through their skin.

Answer 8

I don't think that anything can be evidence for either side :(

i see the evidence and i Know that evolution is true, but we will never get religious people to see it.

Answer 9

Yes, the monotremes, of which the Duck-billed platypus and the echidna are still-living members.

Answer 10

While it is true that Australia is most noted for its nearly 150 species of marsupials, it is also famous for two other non-placental mammals which are not marsupial. These, of course, would be the platypus and the echidna, which are classified as monotremes (egg-laying mammals). Australia is also home for 140 species of snakes, 370 species of lizards, and about 700 species of birds.


Australian creationist, Ken Ham, along with Jonathan Sarfati and Carl Wieland, in their 1990 work entitled, The Revised & Expanded Answers Book, edited by Don Batten and now in its 19th printing (Jan. 2000: Master Books), address some of the issues of which you ask. On pages 212-215, they state the following:

“There is a widespread, but mistaken, belief that marsupials are found only in Australia, thus supporting the idea that they must have evolved there. However, living marsupials, opossums, are found also in North and South America, and fossil marsupials have been found on every continent. Likewise, monotremes were once thought to be unique to Australia, but the discovery in 1991 of a fossil platypus tooth in [Patagonia, near the tip of] South America stunned the scientific community [see the Aug. 24, 1991 article in New Scientist]. Therefore, since evolutionists believe all organisms came from a common ancestor, migration between Australia and other areas must be conceded as possible by all scientists, whether evolutionist or creationist. . . .


Another issue is why certain animals (and plants) are uniquely found in only one place. Why is species x found only in Madagascar and species y only in the Seychelles? Many times, questions on this are phrased to indicate that the questioner believes that this means that species y headed only in that direction, and never migrated anywhere else. While that is possible, it is not necessarily the case at all. All that the present situation indicates is that these are now the only places where x or y still survive.


The ancestors of present-day kangaroos may have established daughter populations in several parts of the world, most of which subsequently became extinct. Perhaps those marsupials only survived in Australia because they migrated there ahead of the placental mammals (we are not suggesting anything other than “random” processes in choice of destination), and were subsequently isolated from the placentals and so protected from competition and predation. . . .

Incidentally, this concept of changing vegetation with changing climate should be kept in mind when considering post-flood animal migration-especially because of the objections (and caricatures) which may be presented. For instance, how could creatures that today need a rain forest environment trudge across thousands of miles of parched desert on the way to where they now live? The answer is that it wasn’t desert then!”

Answer 11

I'm not sure but what about the duck billed platypus.