"Duck billed platypus" creationists STILL use this?

[SLP]

If you only look at low-resolution pictures of a platypus, sure, its "bill" somewhat resembles that of a duck:

But to use that as an argument against evolution?

Even by "professional" creation scientists?

The Platypus
Still More Questions Than Answers for Evolutionists
"Here is a creature that has a furry body like most mammals, webbed feet and a bill like a duck, and a reproductive system that involves young being hatched from eggs before suckling from their mothers."

"Its duck-like bill is actually a sensitive muzzle ..."


Saltwater platypus surprise!
"Yes, the creature certainly matched the well-known descriptions of it which had for so long intrigued skeptical biologists: fur like velvet, a beaver-like tail, a bill that looks like a duck’s..."


A bill:

that looks like a duck's:

I can hardly tell them apart! Maybe a closer look - like maybe what someone interested in accuracy and honesty might do - like, a scientist or something:

Golly, it is like IMPOSSIBLE to tell them apart!!!... the creationists will have you believe.....

Don't believe them. A duck's bill and a platypus' bill are superficially similar, like when a creationist wears a lab coat to look like an actual scientist, yet we don't confuse them with legitimate scientists..

I long for the day that creationists will stop using bogus, lame, nonsensical, worn-out, already-debunked, dishonest, irrelevant, and/or fabricated "arguments" against evolution.

 

[public hermit]

You're right, that is a lame argument.

 

[nonaeroterraqueous]

Don't believe them. A duck's bill and a platypus' bill are superficially similar, like when a creationist wears a lab coat to look like an actual scientist, yet we don't confuse them with legitimate scientists..

Speaking as a creationist who is also a scientist...(you flame me) I thought we all knew that the resemblance was only superficial. It is the evolutionist argument to look for similarities and assume material significance (indicating positive change. Contrary to popular thought, creationists do believe in negative evolution). The Aesop's Fable approach is yours, not ours.

 

[timewerx]

A certain platypus is fiercely disagreeing!

 

[anna ~ grace]

A certain platypus is fiercely disagreeing!

That's adorable.

 

[timewerx]

That's adorable.

Yep! You can only do that with the females. The males have venom!

 

[SLP]

Speaking as a creationist who is also a scientist...(you flame me)

What is your science background?
As a scientist, I am interested as to why you didn't follow the link.

I thought we all knew that the resemblance was only superficial.

We actual scientists did all along, but creationists, as I quoted and linked to in the OP, like to indicate otherwise.
Why is that?

It is the evolutionist argument to look for similarities and assume material significance (indicating positive change. Contrary to popular thought, creationists do believe in negative evolution). The Aesop's Fable approach is yours, not ours.

Besides proving you are not a scientist (you lie to me), you show how little you know about evolution, which is the norm among creationists.

Thanks, bro!

 

[SLP]

A certain platypus is fiercely disagreeing!

With what?

 

[46AND2]

It is the evolutionist argument to look for similarities and assume material significance

Wrong. We look for PATTERNS of similarities AND differences. Specifically, patterns consistent with those that would occur due to inheritance.

 

[SLP]

Wrong. We look for PATTERNS of similarities AND differences. Specifically, patterns consistent with those that would occur due to inheritance.

They seem to forget/ignore the fact that when one looks for similarities, one, by default, ALSO sees the differences.

 

[46AND2]

They seem to forget/ignore the fact that when one looks for similarities, one, by default, ALSO sees the differences.

Heck, usually the differences are the most important.

If I am not mistaken...even paternity tests look at differences with respect to the consensus of a particular human phenotype. Yes, they look at similarities between the two samples, but they will invariably include a pattern of mutations which differ from a typical joe blow from off the street. This is how we get such a high confidence level, even with a relatively small sample size with respect to the whole genome.

It has been a while since I have read about this, so if I am mistaken, somebody please correct me.

Regardless, there are many other instances in which I'm certain that differences make a more significant impact than similarities. This example was just to show how prominent that idea is.

 

[loveofourlord]

They seem to forget/ignore the fact that when one looks for similarities, one, by default, ALSO sees the differences.

Don't forget the differences that are missing in the physiology, but not the DNA. Dolphins that don't smell through their blowhole have a ton of their DNA thats devoted to broken smells and other such things.

I often liken it to ford making a new car based upon a model of a truck, but actually using all the parts of the truck, and the parts that can't be used, are welded to the frame of the car.

 

[loveofourlord]

a good example of differences is the platypus, the common argument is that it's part duck, part beaver, part snake, part bird and such.

yet what we can compare we can tell the simularities and the differences.

Like you mention with the bill of a platypus is different.

the beaver tail is also structually from that of a platypus.

the eggs, are simular to reptiles and not birds

the venom of the platypus is different from snake venom, the evolution of the platypus venom is from the immune system, different from snake venom.

 

[SLP]

a good example of differences is the platypus, the common argument is that it's part duck, part beaver, part snake, part bird and such.

yet what we can compare we can tell the simularities and the differences.

Like you mention with the bill of a platypus is different.

the beaver tail is also structually from that of a platypus.

the eggs, are simular to reptiles and not birds

the venom of the platypus is different from snake venom, the evolution of the platypus venom is from the immune system, different from snake venom.

Sure, but none of that matters to creationists thinking they have a great GOTCHA.

 

[SkyWriting]

If you only look at low-resolution pictures of a platypus, sure, its "bill" somewhat resembles that of a duck:

And in person:

ABOUT THE PLATYPUS

The platypus is among nature's most unlikely animals. In fact, the first scientists to examine a specimen believed they were the victims of a hoax. The animal is best described as a hodgepodge of more familiar species: the duck (bill and webbed feet), beaver (tail), and otter (body and fur). Males are also venomous. They have sharp stingers on the heels of their rear feet and can use them to deliver a strong toxic blow to any foe.

Platypus | National Geographic

 

[SLP]

And in person:

ABOUT THE PLATYPUS

The platypus is among nature's most unlikely animals. In fact, the first scientists to examine a specimen believed they were the victims of a hoax.

Possible, but I'd like to see actual documentation.
Regardless, the 'bill' is not at all like that of a duck.
Just read the rest of the OP.

 

[SkyWriting]

"Here is a creature that has a furry body like most mammals, webbed feet and a bill like a duck, and a reproductive system that involves young being hatched from eggs before suckling from their mothers."

They look like variations on the same idea.

 

[SLP]

They look like variations on the same idea.

Gosh, no way to tell them apart.

Or maybe creationists don't know what "chimeric" means?

Blatant chimeric organisms.

Like a Duck Billed Platypus?

 

[SkyWriting]

Possible, but I'd like to see actual documentation.
Regardless, the 'bill' is not at all like that of a duck.

It looks like a slight variation. Your point is lost.

 

[pitabread]

Delete