The Flat-Footed, Beaver-Tailed, Duck-Billed Platypus
The Flat-Footed, Beaver-Tailed, Duck-Billed Platypus
by Nathaniel Nelson
The duck-billed platypus has been a mortal enemy of evolution since it was first discovered in 1797. When this marvelous animal was sent to England, scientists believed that it was a fraud concocted by Chinese taxidermists (see Ham, 2002, p. 126), because of their reputation for sewing various parts together to create an assortment of unusual animals. After the initial discovery of the platypus, it was introduced to the public as Platypus anatinus by George Shaw. This name would not last, though, because a scientist by the name of Johann Friedrich Blumenbach changed its name to the "paradoxical bird bill," or Ornithorhynchus paradoxus (see Wendt, 1959, pp. 253-254). After arguments between these two men over the name of the platypus, they finally came to an agreement: they would call it the "duck-like bird-bill," or Ornithorhynchus anatinus.
Why was there so much controversy over what this animal actually was? And why was its name so peculiar? The anatomy of this amazing creature reveals some of the answers. In a book titled The Variety of Life, Colin Tudge wrote:
The Prototheria contains just one living group, the order Monotremata, which nowadays is represented only by the duck-billed platypus and two species (in two genera) of echnida; creatures that lay eggs, and keep their new-hatched young in a pouch (2000, p. 437. emp. added).
Taxonomists have been forced to place the duck-billed platypus in its own order because it does not belong anywhere else. Robert W. Faid explained why this is so:
The bill of the platypus is like a duck"s bill. On each foot there are not only five toes, but webbing which makes it a cross between a duck and an animal which has to scratch and dig. Unlike most mammals, the limbs of the platypus are short and parallel to the ground. The external ear is only a hole without the ear lobe which mammals usually have. The eyes are small. The platypus is nocturnal. It catches its food under water and stores the worms, snails, grubs, etc, in cheek pouches like those of a squirrel (1990, p. 111).
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!
The physiological diversity of the platypus is just as intriguing. Spurs located on the hind legs of the platypus produce venom. This poison is nearly as deadly as most venomous snakes! This would make it the world"s only venomous animal with fur (see Faid, p. 112). Stuart Burgess, in his book Hallmarks of Design, pointed out: "The platypusgoes on to feed the young with milk like a normal mammal. However, the platypus, unlike any other mammal, does not have feeding nipples but milks seeps out of pores in its skin!" (2000, p. 111). Nipples are the means by which mammals feed. The platypus defies this rule with pores as a means of feeding its offspring. These functions of the platypus are paradoxical if you look at them from an evolutionary taxonomic point of view. From a creationist standpoint, though, it seems much easier to explain why God would create something so diverse.
The fossil record also testifies to the fact that the platypus is a genuine creature, not having evolved from a common predecessor. Scott M. Huse wrote:
There are several good reasons for rejecting the evolutionary interpretation of the origin of the platypus. A few of these reasons include: (1) Platypus fossils are exactly the same as modern forms. (2)The complex structures of the egg and milk glands are always fully developed and offer no solution as to the origin and development of the womb or the milk. (3) The more typical mammals are found in much lower strata that the egg-laying platypus. Thus, the duck-billed platypus appears to be a distinct kind of animal in and of itself that has been specifically designed to include a mixture of traits (1997, p.149, emp. added).
Evolutionists cannot explain the anatomy of the platypus; they cannot explain its physiology; and they cannot explain it by evolutionary processes. It is evident that the platypus holds evolutionary scientists in perplexity because of its diverse nature. This creature can be explained only by God"s guiding hand.
REFERENCES
Burgess, Stuart (2000), Hallmarks of Design (Epsom, Surrey: Day One Publications).
Faid, Robert W. (1990), A Scientific Approach to Christianity (Green Forest, AR: Leaf Press).
Ham, Ken (2002), Did Eve Really Have an Extra Rib? (Green Forest, AR: Master Books).
Huse, Scott H. (1997), The Collapse of Evolution (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books).
Tudge, Colin (2000), The Variety of Life (Great Clarendon St., Oxford: Oxford University Press).
Wendt, Herbert (1959), Out of Noah"s Ark, trans. Michael Bullock (Cambridge, MA: Riverside Press).
RE: The Flat-Footed, Beaver-Tailed, Duck-Billed Platypus
Quote:
Evolutionists cannot explain the anatomy of the platypus; they cannot explain its physiology; and they cannot explain it by evolutionary processes. It is evident that the platypus holds evolutionary scientists in perplexity because of its diverse nature. This creature can be explained only by God"s guiding hand.
This statement is patently false. The fact that the bill of the platypus resembles that of a duck does not imply that they are closely related. It is a case of convergent evolution. Ducks and Platypuses are essentially acquatic animals that live in similar environments and have similar diets. It is therefore no surprise that they would independently evolve the most effective anatomy for feeding in that environment. The same is true for the webbed feet that resemble that of an otter, another acquatic mammal similar in size and habitat to the platypus, that would derive a survival advantage from webbed feet that would make it a more effective swimmer. The beaver like tail, the beaver being another acquatic mammal that lives in an environment similar to that of a platypus, strengthens rather than weakens the case for evolution.
I am frankly amazed that creationists would actually raise the issue of the duck-billed platypus as evidence against evolution. Creationists are always claiming there are no intermediary species, so to you the platypus should be an embarressment. It is a mammal that produces milk to feed its young but lays eggs like a reptile. It is a mammal that uses vemom, like numerous reptiles, for defense and capturing prey. Its ears are more reptilian than mammal, yet there is no question that it is a mammal.
It is a bizzare animal with few surviving close relatives but this is not unusual for Australian mammals which have been isolated from other mammals and many of the environomental forces faced by other mammals for the past 50-60 million years. This is a continent where marsupials are the dominant form of mammalian life and by Australian standards the duck-billed platypus is not as strange as it may seem to observers who are familiar only with non-Austrialian flora and fauna.
In sum, there is much more about the platypus that supports evolution than supports creationism.
RE: The Flat-Footed, Beaver-Tailed, Duck-Billed Platypus
The duck-billed platypus has always been a thorn in the side of evolutionists (see "The Flat-Footed, Beaver-Tailed, Duck-Billed Platypus" by Nathaniel Nelson). Many evolutionists would like to simply prune it off the evolutionary tree of life, having been forced to place it on a lone branch all to itself. But the thorn has just gotten much larger, and much harder to ignore. Aside from the fact that this mammal lays eggs and possesses features found only among birds and reptiles, researchers have now discovered that the platypus boasts not two sex chromosomes like most animals, but ten (see Grützner, et al., 2004)! Roxanne Khamsi, Nature staff writer, noted:
Everyone knows that the duck-billed platypus is pretty strange. But it seems this mammal"s eccentricities extend beyond its famous bill, and habit of laying eggs, to the way its genes determine sex. Not content with one pair of sex chromosomes, the platypus (Ornithorhynchus anatinus) has five. This is the largest number found in mammals so far" (2004).
Before you write this off as simply a "non-issue" anomaly, consider for just a moment the implications. Normally, one sex chromosome from a male species combines with one sex chromosome from a female species to make a full compliment of chromosomes. With the duck-billed platypus, this combination suddenly takes on an entirely different level of complexity. As Elizabeth Pennisi, Science staff writer, admitted:
Many organisms have two sex chromosomes. Women for example have two X chromosomes, and men have one X and one Y. But in the platypus, males have five X and five Y chromosomes, while females have 10 Xs. If the male platypus"s X and Y chromosomes randomly segregated into sperm this would greatly complicate sex determination.
This latest study helps scientists understand how the duck-billed platypus is able to keep its reproduction from going amiss. In documenting this amazing feat, Grützner and his colleagues watched the ten chromosomes link up into a chain. Pennisi observed:
The chain consisted of alternating X and Y chromosomes. During the key step in sperm formation"a division that results in two cells, each with half the number of the original number of chromosomes"the X and Y chromosomes peeled off from the chain one by one and headed into separate cells, all segregating faithfully with their own kind. This ensures that half of the sperm each have five X chromosomes; the other half have five Y chromosomes (2004).
Was it by accident that these chromosomes formed this chain in alternating order, and then precisely peeled off into separate X and Y groups? This extreme complexity veritably screams "design"! Yet researchers are hastily painting an evolutionary picture to try to explain this peculiarity.
Evolutionists, however, face a daunting task. First they must explain the sudden appearance of (and reason for) double homologous sex chromosomes. How is it that at one point in time, "nature" was able to evolve a female member of a species that produces eggs and is internally equipped to nourish a growing embryo, while at the same time evolving a male member that produces motile sperm cells? And, further, how is it that these gametes (eggs and sperm) "conveniently" evolved so that they each contain half the normal chromosome number of standard somatic (body) cells? And why is this the case? Of the 46 human chromosomes, 44 are members of identical pairs, but two, the X and Y (generally referred to as the "sex chromosomes"), stand apart. Evolutionists thus are faced with the unenviable challenge of explaining not only the origin of sex chromosomes themselves, but also the evolution of two totally different sex chromosomes (X and Y). [For more on the origin of sexual reproduction and gender, the reader is encouraged to read "The Origin of Gender and Sexual Reproduction."]
Once evolutionists overcome that gargantuan hurdle, they then must answer why this creature possesses ten chromosomes, and how it evolved the ability to recombine them. Some of the researchers point out that maybe this is a link between birds and mammals. Commenting on their findings, Grützner and his coworkers lamented: "This suggests an evolutionary link between mammal and bird-sex chromosome systems, which were previously thought to have evolved independently" (2004, p. 1). Interestingly, Darwinians place mammals on the planet 100 million years before birds. Grützner"s suggestion requires evolutionists to explain how a mammal"the duck-billed platypus"evolved its sexual reproduction from birds"a change in the evolutionary tree that would require chainsaws, massive splicing, rolls and rolls of duct-tape, and a good dose of Miracle Grow®. Most evolutionary biologists are unwilling to even "go there." (And of course the obvious question then becomes why did this process not evolve in other mammals?)
Commenting on the new discovery, Steve Rozen, of the Whitehead Institute for Biomedical Research in Cambridge, Massachusetts, remarked: "Mammals are pretty boring when it comes to sex chromosomes. The platypus is a huge exception." Khamsi asks the obvious question: "What is the advantage of having so many sex chromosomes?" To which Rozen replied: "It"s hard to speculate on how that could have evolved" (see Khamsi, 2004). Hard to speculate indeed! What could this creature possibly gain by "evolving" such a complex and costly reproductive method? Sexual reproduction in animals with two sex chromosomes has a "selective disadvantage" of at least 50%"a disadvantage that will not budge! The duck-billed platypus has ten sex chromosomes, each of which would lose 50% of their genetic material.
Evolution cannot explain the origin of two sex chromosomes"much less ten! What is the "purpose" of so many chromosomes? And how can evolution via natural selection explain it? Would "Nature" (notice the capital "N") "select for" sexual reproduction? As it turns out, the common "survival of the fittest" mentality cannot begin to explain the high cost of first, evolving, and then maintaining, the sexual apparatus. Sexual reproduction requires organisms to first produce, and then maintain, gametes (reproductive cells"i.e., sperm and eggs). Yet the duck-billed platypus has five times the number of sex chromosomes, and still is able to link them in a chain and then faithfully segregate them in order to maintain the correct number! Surely, to an open and honest mind, this beautiful complexity points to a Great Designer.
REFERENCES
Grützner, Frank, Willem Rens, et al., (2004), "In the Platypus a Meiotic Chain of Ten Sex Chromosomes Shares Genes With the Bird Z and Mammal X Chromosomes," Nature, [On-line], URL: http://www.nature.com/cgi-taf/DynaPa...t_filetype=pdf.
RE: The Flat-Footed, Beaver-Tailed, Duck-Billed Platypus
Quote:
The duck-billed platypus has been a mortal enemy of evolution since it was first discovered in 1797
Most scientists would consider the platypus an excellent example of concurrent evolution.
Similar to Whales and Dolphins developing "fins" like seen in fishes - of the same environment.
Seems to me - the Platypus is more an poster child of species (monotreme) - that developed withoutDominant Carnivores Present (Austrailia/New Zealand).There are no Holds Barred in evolution.
The Flat-Footed, Beaver-Tailed, Duck-Billed Platypus
