Evolution
Home Page

Introduction

The duck-billed platypus (Ornithorhynchus anatinus) is a unique creationary case, and one that requires a great deal of consideration and debate. Since we can not accurately define the Biblical "kinds" we should be careful about denying that animals are transitionals. It is almost certain that groups of animals exists, that are considered by creationists to be unique kinds, which are instead related. If it were not for the breeding history of the canine, it is likely none of us would realize that the fox, wolf, hyena, etc., all belong to the same kindship group. We could easily be guilty of denying a fox-looking wolf was a transitional, but indeed that would be the case. The significance of bear-looking raccoons or visa-versa may likewise be overlooked by not recognizing these transitionals as such.

Given our knowledge of evolution and the production of variability through genetic recombination, it would appear certain that no Biblical "kind" would exist today as only a single species. Although species extinctions are certain in a compromised post-flood environment, the Biblical kinds possessed the ability to survive through evolutionary adaptations, and have evolved in most cases following the great flood into a tremendous variety of species. In addition, God created a great many varieties within each major group of organisms. The creationary community generally accept the many mammalian Families are frequently analogous to the groups defined in the Bible as "kinds". Not only are there a great many types of mammals (i.e. carnivores, rodents, cloven-hoofed), but also many Biblical kinds within each of these major groups. If would therefore seem extremely unlikely, that following their preservation from the flood, every species but one from an entire group like the placental mammals would be extinct today. That may indeed be the case with the duck-billed platypus unless this animal has evolved from another animal.

Monotremes - Egg-laying Mammals

The duck-billed platypus is a monotreme which are a subfamily of mammals. They feed their young with milk, but instead of suckling from a teat, the milk simply oozes from glands under the skin, and is lapped up from a patch of fur. However, the most unique feature possessed by these mammals is their egg-laying reproduction (pictured at right) instead of live birth like all other mammals . Other than the duck-billed platypus, there is only one other monotreme living today; a small spiny anteater called an Echidna. Monotremes, like most of the marsupials on earth are found exclusively in Australia.

The platypus also possesses a number of other specializations many of which are unique to the platypi. They have a duck-like bill for dabbling through mud which is actually an elongated snout, and a paddle tale similar to a beavers that it uses for swimming. The male platypus is also equipped with a poisonous spur effective for defense against predators and mating competitors.

 

Similarities to Marsupials

Monotremes possess at least two similarities to Marsupials that suggest a possible link related to their origins. First and most importantly they are both mammals that have an alternative reproductive system to the majority on earth. Neither have a placenta, and both give birth much earlier than placental mammals. The young of the marsupial matures following birth inside a pouch. The second difference suggesting an associated origin, is the fact they are also the only other natural mammalian inhabitants of Australia. Prior to the modern introduction of placentals such as the dingo, the continent was inhabited exclusively by monotreme and marsupial mammals. Most of the 140 species of marsupials in Australia are found nowhere else in the world, and the naturally occurring marsupial in the United States is the possum, Didelphis marsupialis. This distribution pattern must be explained through natural affects upon these animals following their release from the ark.

A New Creationary Theory

Another fascinating fact about Marsupials is the number of species which are otherwise identical to placental animals. For example, the picture at right is of the marsupial dog which was hunted to extinction by the Australian government beginning in the late 1800s. The amazing similarities between the marsupials and placentals, in addition to the highly postflood concentration of marsupials in Australia has stimulated a new creation theory of marsupial origins.

The power of genetic recombination to alter an organism is still beyond our ability to predict, but it is certain they occur by design to change organisms. Rates of gestation, and the timing of birth are made highly variable through these reactions, and the placental system of reproduction is certainly modified as a result. It is therefore reasonable to propose that genetic recombination can alter a mammal from the placental mode of reproduction to marsupial, and the modern presence of these animals alternatively explained through regional selective pressures related to Australia.

Given the similarities between monotremes and marsupials, it may likewise be logical to propose animals such as the duck-billed platypus have evolved from another placental mammal. Evolution is not driven by random genetic changes as the atheistic scientific community would have us believe. Instead genetic recombination is responsible for the variations found in nature, and through a coordinated manipulation, the changes necessary to convert a placental into the monotreme mode of reproduction may also be theoretically possible.

Conclusion

This creation science theory may finally lay to rest a mystery that has caused a great many people to believe in the evolution of all animals from a common ancestor. The absence of plancentals or exclusive existence of multiple marsupials and the monotremes on Australia can not be explained by a natural postflood migration from Mt. Ararat in Turkey. This very fact has even caused a great many Christians to instead accept that these inhabitants must have evolved in Australia from a single ancestor.

Truly, the postflood fauna in Australia may be otherwise inexplicable, and the ability to change from placental reproduction to marsupial and monotreme has simply been overlooked by secular scientists who do not perceive that evolution occurs by design. God clearly designed DNA editing machinery within our cells, and given our level of understanding of these reactions, it is theoretically possible that intentional changes could alter the genes of organisms in the coordinated manner necessary to accomplish this change in several animals due to common selective pressures.

Given the tremendous similarity between the marsupial and placental twins, it would seem that the obvious explanation has been overlooked in this case. This is almost certainly due to the atheistic presupposition that mutations are responsible for the genetic diversity driving evolution. Such random variability could not possibly assemble the genetic code necessary to create the same reproductive system in multiple organism, but intelligently designed machinery is expected to generate the same certain outcome under similar circumstances. There are most certainly evolutionary accomplishments evident today that cannot be explained by random mutations, and instead creation science theory alone is able to solve such mysteries.