Another “Living Fossil,” the Platypus! God's Practical Joke, or, Evidence for Evolution? (Also, The Young-Earth Creationist's Long March Idea)

Platypus

The platypus “almost single-handedly (or, perhaps better, single-web-footedly) overturned the earlier creationist classification of animals that followed a Great-Chain-of-Being model. With its hodgepodge of physical traits and behaviors it offered ‘an unexpected bridge between the categories of mammal/quadruped and reptiles and birds.’ That bridge helped set evolutionary theory on a new course. See Moyalʼs, Platypus: The Extraordinary Story of How a Curious Creature Baffled the World. The platypus played an explicit role in Charles Darwinʼs ideas on isolation, species diversity, and natural selection, and he branded it a prime example of a ‘living fossil’ that had managed to find an unoccupied ecological niche and live, relatively undisturbed, while fellow creatures marched toward extinction.

The monotremes, the group to which the Platypus belongs, are among the earliest forms of mammals. When the first monotreme, a platypus, was sent back to England scientists did not believe it was real, they thought it was an elaborate hoax. After all how could a mammal have a duckʼs bill, webbed feet, spurs on its hind legs and lay eggs? These mammals retain many reptilian characteristics in that they lay eggs, have a single genital opening, the cloaca. Even their limbs are attached to their body more like those of a reptile than a mammal. Also the male platypus is the only known venomous mammal, another reptilian trait.

Of the known living monotremes, two species, the platypus and echidna, lives in Australia while another echidna species lives in New Guinea. So they are all found in Australasia. The reason these species have survived is that when they were isolated on the Australian continent with the marsupials they adapted to very specific habitats allowing them to compete successfully with the marsupials. This specific adaptation has made them vulnerable to changes in their habitat and for this reason attention needs to be given to preserving their habitats to prevent extinction.

Until human beings brought modern day mammals to Australia it didnʼt have any true mammals, it just had marsupials and less than a handful of monotreme species that included the Platypus.

The Difference Between Monotremes, Mammals and Marsupials (Monotremes are the earliest of the three)

Sharing a common ancestry, marsupials and mammals evolved for millions of years in two increasingly different directions having a lot to do with changes in their reproduction systems. Marsupial species lack a womb with a placenta where the young live prior to birth, nor do they have mammary glands, instead the young are born early on and then have to climb into a pouch where they lick sweat off of hairs inside the pouch in which they continue to grow, eventually emerging from the pouch. Both marsupials and mammals feed their young via modified sweat glands. But mammals evolved in the direction of keeping their young in a watery womb with a placenta until birth, and after birth feeding them rich quantities of milk via mammary glands. But even earlier than marsupials and mammals in the fossil record are monotremes (such as the platypus which still laid eggs like a reptile).

Modern mammals (with placentas and mammary glands) spread and diversified all over the world, nudging out marsupials nearly everywhere, except in Australia, because Australia broke off from the Asian continent long before mammals evolved. Australia was the first landmass to be isolated from the supercontinent Pangaea. So Australia became an entire continent cut off from the evolutionary development of mammals. Thatʼs why Australia came to be filled with nothing but marsupials along with the only three known monotreme species (some of the most primitive of mammals, before they evolved placentas) which includes the platypus.

After the separation of Australia from the mainland of Asia it was isolated for a while but later formed a land bridge with Antarctica and then marsupials from South America crossed that land bridge and then that bridge was broken after Antarctica move away from Australia, leaving the marsupials to diversify and fill all the niches on the new continent, i.e., rodent-like marsupials, dog-like marsupials, gliding marsupials, digging mole-like marsupials, and kangaroos (including even tree kangaroos!). Interestingly, marsupials never evolved either a “bat” form, nor a “seal” form, nor a “porpoise/whale” form as mammals did.

Far fewer species of marsupial were able to survive in the mammal-dominated world of the other continents. For instance the marsupial known as the opossum inhabits the United States and another 80 or so species thrive in South America, but some 220 species are found only in the Australasian region.

The Young-Earth Creationistsʼ Long March of the Marsupials (and Monotremes)

Creationists at “Answers in Genesis” believe a hoard of marsupials and some monotremes disembarked from Noahʼs ark in Turkey and then promptly began a long march to Australia, the only continent where such a hoard of marsupial species are found today.

The marsupial population of Australia contains animals found nowhere else on earth—not even in fossil form. Are we to suppose that those marsupials managed to travel from the landing place of Noahʼs ark to… Australia? What a long perilous post-Flood journey. I guess God guided them. But you donʼt hear about that miracle in the Bible. Why not? Itʼs at least as good as the story about God herding the Israelites through the desert, only these marsupials were herded through a denuded post-Flood earth undergoing cataclysmic aftershocks. This menagerie of wombats and koalas, bandicoots and kangaroos (not to mention the flightless moa and kiwi birds of New Zealand) had to keep ahead of lions-ʼn-tigers-ʼn-bears all the way to Indonesia, and then—although the superior placental mammals could not manage it—reach the continent of Australia. As if this were not mind-boggling enough, it turns out that the types of marsupials that made it to Australia just happened to form an ensemble able to fill all the ecological niches available!

Thus, there were marsupial moles, marsupial ant-eaters, marsupial mice, marsupial grazers, marsupial carnivores, marsupial frugivores, etc.—not one of which can be found anywhere else in the world. If this highly diversified marsupial population evolved from one or a few primitive generalized marsupials that reached Australia millions of years before it separated from Indonesia (and before mammals had evolved on the mainland), then this peculiar situation is understandable. But if all these creatures had to journey from Turkey to Australia as an ensemble, it is incredible beyond computation. [Frank Zindler, “The Kiwi Question,” American Atheist, May 1988]

Molecular biology and anatomy both demonstrate that, of living marsupial groups, koalas are most closely related to wombats. And both the living species and fossilized remains of koalas and wombats are found only in Australia. In other words they evolved there from shared marsupial ancestors that had been living on that continent even before the land bridge that connected Australia with Antarctica had dissolved. Click here for a Video illustrating The Evolution Of Mammals And Their Dispersal as the continents shifted their positions over geologic time.

Such fragile creatures as the platypus and the blind marsupial mole raced across the land bridge to Australia quicker than the Malaysian tigers and other robust placentals? [Robert A. Moore, The Impossible Voyage of Noahʼs Ark]

A “Living Fossil”

Darwin was proven right concerning his suspicion that the platypus was a “living fossil.” Fossil evidence of a platypus-like jaw was discovered in Australia that dates back earlier than the fossils of any other known marsupial or modern mammalian fossil. And fossil evidence of a cousin of the platypus has even been found thatʼs dated earlier still, before Australia broke off from Antarctica.

More about Platypus genome sequencing, and evolution see Wikipedia.

12 comments:

  1. Hi Ed,

    I wish I had something interesting to say about the platypus. But this is about something else. (I'm using the comments-board 'cause I couldn't find an e-mail address.)

    I saw your question about Mark 16 to Dan Wallace; if you'd like a second opinion, you're welcome to check out the contents of my book "Authentic: The Case for Mark 16:9-20." I'd be glad to send a copy, or you can find a slightly earlier draft available to download free at the Textexcavation website.

    Yours in Christ,

    James Snapp, Jr.
    Minister, Curtisville Christian Church
    Indiana

    ReplyDelete
  2. Hi Ed,

    Following up again on the comments by Dr. Wallace about Mark 16:9-20.

    He wrote, "The church canonize the whole of Mark 16? Hardly. First, there has never been a universal counsel that spoke authoritatively as to what the books of the Bible were. Second, even Eusebius spoke of most MSS ending at 16.8, and a few MSS have in their margins at this place, “Eusebius canonized the text to here.”"

    By "counsel" he means "council."

    The Council of Trent decreed that the Vulgate's text is doctrinally canonical, and it includes Mark 16:9-20.

    Also, the Byzantine lectionary features Mark 16:9-20 prominently; it is a reading for Ascension-Day, and is the Third Heothina-reading.

    About Eusebius:

    (1) Eusebius stated that someone could say that Mark 16:9-20 is not in every copy, or that it is absent from the accurate ones, or that hardly any copies have them, as a way of resolving a harmonization-difficulty between Mt. 28:1 and Mk. 16:9. But he then proceeded to show how to achieve a harmonization by retaining and re-punctuating Mark 16:9, and it is this second option that he seems to recommend. And he refers to "some copies" of Mark which contain verses 9-20. Eusebius could be a bit of a waffler on some subjects.

    (2) In those few MSS that have notes that state "Eusebius canonized the text to here," some of them also say that the old copies include verses 9-20. Also, this is not a reference to textual canonization in the sense of recognizing a text as authoritative; the note refers to the Eusebian Canons, a cross-reference system for the Gospels developed by Eusebius.

    Yours in Christ,

    James Snapp, Jr.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Hi James, We exchanged some extensive emails in the past, so you should have my email address, and during that discussion you sent me your manuscript I believe as an attachment, and I've read your ideas online as well.

    Sending me a comment via Facebook is fine. I use my full name Edward T. Babinski in my facebook profile.

    I doubt you are ever going to surrender that portion of Mark, any more than Wallace is going to admit that changes took place in the story of Jesus that one can trace even by comparing the canonical Gospels.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Platypus was not on the ark. According to http://retrieverman.wordpress.com/2011/09/21/how-creationists-deal-with-the-fact-that-most-marsupials-are-in-australia/

    "The other big problem is that there are no marsupials in Mesopotamia. Most marsupials are in Australia, and many are in Central and South America. And there is one species that is found north of the Rio Grande in North America. If these animals were on the Ark, why didn’t they populate any place outside of Australia or the Americas?"

    Also, it is not a species found in mesopotamia. A local mesopotamian flood was real and doesn't imply the universal deluge myth. Take the worldwide flood myth away from Creationists, and... Atheists wouldn't have much to argue about.

    ReplyDelete
  5. i can not beleive the stupidity on both sides for religion & not religion here.

    if anything the platypus DISPROVES evolution..it didnt evolve...ever. also they would be on the ark since they arent a complete water animal. (only water species didnt need the ark like fish or whales...seals however would since they, like the platypus, need land sometimes..also most bugs wouldnt be on the ark as their eggs can survive in all those corpses floating about just fine & larvae often start in the water. oh & yes the flood was global..bible says so...so any christian claiming a half global flood is an idiot & dont know their bibles) furthermore..there is NO march of the species to australia after the ark since australia did not exist...pangea continet is in the bible & contrary to what some idiots say...the flood did NOT break up the planet in the bible...it was...just as evolutionists say...a humongus earth quake & the drifting away of the continents...or does everyone blink when they come to the little man named peleg...about..oh i dunno..200 years AFTER the ark? platypus & other creatures did not march anywhwere...they simply got stranded during the great divide...biblical or evolutionary.

    "sigh"

    ReplyDelete
  6. that being said...i LOVE the pictures! i want a platypus someday. did you know that the venom of he males are A) extremely painful & there is no cure yet? @ B) if a cure for the pain can be found..it could be used for some types of cancers! yes...platypodes (plural) may help us cure cancers some day!

    ReplyDelete
  7. oh one last thing..whats the problem with matt & mark you're having? cuz they both say the same thing....

    matt: 28 In the end of the sabbath, as it began to dawn toward the first day of the week, came Mary Magdalene and the other Mary to see the sepulchre.

    mark: 9 Now when Jesus was risen early the first day of the week, he appeared first to Mary Magdalene, out of whom he had cast seven devils.

    i dont get your problem? according to all 4 gospels..the women went TWICE to the tomb....first in the dead of night at the start of sunday (midnight btw) & second by the predawn...jesus was already gone...meaning jesus rose...possible at midnight which is both the end of his sabbath day & the start of sunday...& appaeared later on (aka a few hours later) to mary magdelen....simple.

    ReplyDelete
  8. @mystiquesword said..."oh & yes the flood was global..bible says so...so any christian claiming a half global flood is an idiot & dont know their bibles)".

    'zat so?

    "The Bible sez so." Now there's "proof" enough for an ..... what was it?

    THE WHOLE WORLD

    And the infallible holy book of Beowulf emphasizes the WHOLE WORLD conformed to his will, but the Bible fails to mention this Nordic warrior-legend.

    The whole world conforms to his will, he is kept from the worst until an element of overweening enters him and takes hold while the soul's guard, its sentry, drowses, grown too distracted. A killer stalks him, an archer who draws a deadly bow.(Norton 81)

    The WHOLE WORLD. No wiggle room. Why does the Bible omit contemporary events of "the whole world"? Why were the mythologies and idolatries of the Hebrews limited to the idolatry of Egypt, Babylon, Syria, Greece and the known world? Afterall, the "whole world". The Bible never discussed the American Indians, it failed to discuss the people of Northern Europe, or Russia for that matter. They failed to acknowledge the gods of China, or the South America like the Mayans and Aztecs, but they DO LIE and say "whole world" when in fact, it was not "the whole world".

    There remains zero geological evidence for a worldwide flood, ever, ever, ever. You have been terribly misinformed during sunday school.

    ReplyDelete
  9. @mystiquesword said..."oh & yes the flood was global..bible says so...so any christian claiming a half global flood is an idiot & dont know their bibles)".

    Speaking of idiots... if you want to blame the "whole world" translation error on "God," as though the Lord was breathing global weather forecasts for Noah to jot down on his papyrus roll... "the whole world,"? Then why doesn't God spend more time breathing answered prayers? Why do Christians constantly need to do mental cartwheels to explain away why God never answers people's prayers?! Perhaps they don't really know God. Perhaps God is answering, but Christians are idiots who don't want to hear or see the truth that God is giving them!
    Oh! Not that I am in doubt about God myself, God answers my prayers all the time. But other Christians can't seem to capture and hold God's audience for some reason. Perhaps its a lack of faith on their part, or their bibliolatry of the bible that separates them from God.

    Who was this team of "inspired authors" who knew the flood events in Antarctica, the Arctic, South America, Australia and China, the Carribean and Hawaiian Islands?

    A book sez so? It sez lots and lots of things. I think, you're reading it wrong. The Bible t'was not written in English, but in Hebrew. And Hebrew crippled proper expression of thought due to its limited vocabulary.

    Bible Search
    http://biblez.com/search.php?q=%22known+world%22

    Your search - "known world" - did not match any documents.

    No pages were found containing ""known world"".

    Suggestions:

    Make sure all words are spelled correctly.
    Try different keywords.
    Try more general keywords.


    "Whole world?" No. But lost in translation, to mean, THE WHOLE OF THE KNOWN WORLD. The whole of the known world. And to make such a monumental error in biblical translation merits you no brownie points for your still apparently limited understanding of the whole Bible.

    So you're telling us, when Noah was beaching on Ararat, he confirmed this universal deluge (geology has long since established as complete nonsense and non-existent) a mythical flood in North and South America through Satellite and Doppler Radar streaming over the internet? Was Noah using an Android, IPad or Satellite phone for his international confirmation? Perhaps Noah was a HAM Radio operator for the non-existent worldwide flood. Imagine! Native American sitting in their teepees broadcasting for the Weather Channel throughout Europe, Canada and Mexico and covering it 24/7.

    There were silly xtians who said just that in my youth!!! My comments are not at all exaggerated. It was discussed in church how man may have achieved any and all technological innovations and limits before the flood, and the flood destroyed it all. But that is absurdly impossible, because pots, carvings, crom-magnon cave paintings exist, but no great technology has ever been unearthed beneath any flood deposits from ancient time. Proportional "Biblical Flood Deposits" are restricted to Mesopotamia.

    This imagery of Eskimos broadcasting to Weather Channel satellites might make for a nice SNL skit, but not for meaningful biblical exegesis or scholarship.

    ReplyDelete
  10. marueen...i never said if the bible is true or not. all i said that in the bible it says the flood is global so crhistains saying otherwise dont read their bibles.

    lets talk about harry potter....its the same thing. people who insist draco malfoy loves hermione are stupid & dont nkow their harry potter books...again..did i say harry potter was real or not?

    now who's the real idiot?

    anyway..back to platypodes :D

    ReplyDelete
  11. @mystiquesword "i said that in the bible it says the flood is global so crhistains saying otherwise dont read their bibles.

    Really? Funny. The bible says what? I think you have failed to read your Bible. It says no such thing.

    Strong's Concordance
    http://www.biblestudytools.com/search/?q=global&t=kjv&s=Bibles

    No results were found for 'global' under the Bibles category.


    Here's some information for you. Norman Geisler on the localized flood. I would think Geisler is in a better position than most to confirm "what" the Bible is or isn't saying.

    BAKER ENCYCLOPEDIA OF CHRISTIAN APOLOGETICS, Norman Geisler
    http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_dvbHH5KkRSU/Svzppi5FZrI/AAAAAAAAD4U/XkUHeGd4aS8/s1600/noahs_flood_02.jpg

    "A Localized Disaster? One possible explanation is that the flood was local in geographic scope... As evidence that the flood was not universal, it is noted that the same "universal" language of Genesis 6 and 9 is used elsewhere when something less than the whole world is meant.
    Also, the silt deposits a flood like Noah's would have left are found only in the Mesopotamian Valley, not over the entire world. There is not enough water in the world to cover the highest mountains (7:20) Some mountains are several miles high. Waters that high would have caused problems with the rotation of the earth."

    Geisler's talking, but you're not listening. I kind of doubt you'd even know who Norman Geisler is anyway, as it seems you're too busy reading science fiction like Harry Potter.

    ReplyDelete
  12. If comments can not be kept civil, do not post.

    ReplyDelete